BATTLE OF THE BIBLES

Section Four

Chapters Twenty-Five to Twenty-Eight

The Ecumenical Trap

Chapter Twenty-Five

Unheeded Warnings

As Protestant publications increasingly contained articles by scholars and ministers who used modern Bible versions for reference and general purposes, so a number of the Evangelical churches began to express concerns.

In the year 1955, The Eye Opener Publishers of Junction City Oregon published a book by J.A. Ray, "God Wrote Only One Bible", which to the author's knowledge continues to be published. This book, which champions the Received Text, contains a valuable table of forty-four Bible Versions which are tested by 162 scriptures selected by Ray for comparative purposes.

Another strong scholarly defence of the Protestant Bible was made by Dr Edward F. Hills in his book, "The King James Version Defended", published in several editions between 1956 and 1984 by The Christian Research Press of Des Moines, Iowa.

Perhaps no other publisher has in recent times, more consistently warned Christians of Scriptural perversions than Grand Rapids International Publications" of Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1970 and through into the 'eighties it has published Dr D.O. Fuller's edited books, which include, "Which Bible?" "True or False" and "Counterfeit or Genuine".

Very nearly half of Fuller's popular book, "Which Bible?" consists of an abridged republication of B. G. Wilkinson's Our Authorised Bible Vindicated" (1930). This is the book which, we recall, was rejected by the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Because Wilkinson had to publish his book privately, it had received little exposure outside his own denominational fraternity. In fact, it is easy to believe that Seventh-day Adventist authors and publishers went out of their way to nullify Wilkinson's warnings.

We have seen how Wilkinson traced the history of the New Testament text and convincingly proved that the pedigree of the Received Text went right back to the apostolic era. Furthermore, he refuted the idea that the older manuscripts must necessarily be purer by providing documentary evidence that the most serious corruptions of Scripture took place in the second century AD.

Yet, in 1947, the Seventh-day Adventist's own "Review and Herald Publishing Association" published a book which entirely ignored Wilkinson's argument as well as the facts of history. Having acknowledged that the Westcott and Hort text "Leans towards the Vulgate" it claimed:

Such a statement would do credit to the most ardent Roman defender of the Vulgate and is supportive of the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has been the guardian of God's Word. It also ignores the fact that the Catholic Latin Version (Vulgate) has always been in conflict with the Waldensian Bibles (Traditional Text) whose pedigree dates back to the apostolic area of the Antioch church. The martyr Reformers would not be impressed!

Here indeed, is an intriguing mystery. Wilkinson's own "received him not". At first they denounced him and finally ignored him. Yet Dr Fuller, in his preamble to the section of his book featuring Wilkinson, was able to say that although Dr Wilkinson is practically unknown to scholars, a careful study of his book reveals his thorough knowledge of his subject which shows him to be: "A scholar of the first rank" ("Which Bible?", p 174).¹⁹

(19 The author has been told that when Wilkinson's work is occasionally mentioned by students in the Seventh-day Adventist Colleges and Seminaries, his efforts are curtly dismissed with the statement that the denomination has long since Proven his arguments to be worthless. The facts are quite different!)

In 1930 a General Conference committee, appointed to review Wilkinson's book, delivered a blistering attack on his "unauthorised" work. The author fortunately has a copy of Wilkinson's reply in which he methodically proceeds to dismantle the committee's feeble and puerile arguments. Never again did the General Conference risk another thrashing by attempting to gainsay his book - so it was just ignored.

Furthermore, even as Dr Fuller had decided to arrange his book around Wilkinson's masterful defence of the King James Version, the Seventh-day Adventist Church had decided to launch into a career, which can be described as, "Rome's Little Helper". Far from being content to mal-advise their own church members to "Use the version of their choice" ("Problems in Translation", 1954, p 75), they now launched a campaign of public education in which they indiscriminately promoted the modern versions.

Throughout their history, Seventh-day Adventists have placed great reliance on the printed word for the spreading of their concept of the gospel - a gospel which they prefer to describe as "The everlasting gospel", as found in Revelation 14. It is because they insist on following the Bible as their only guide and rule of faith that their pioneers arrived at some beliefs that are practically, if not totally, unique to Seventh-day Adventism.

In order to spread their beliefs they have built up a sizeable publishing business and a system of door-to-door distribution of books through a large network of supervised colporteurs.

One such project was a profusely-illustrated book published in 1959 by the denominationally owned Review and Herald Publishing Association in Washington D.C., titled, "Your Bible and You". It has become well known over the intervening a years, not only to Seventh-day Adventists, but to scores of thousands who recognised the author, Arthur S. Maxwell, as Uncle Arthur of "Bedtime Story" fame.

"Your Bible and You", as the name implies, sets out to give people confidence in the Bible as the true Word of God, and it then proceeds to present Adventist beliefs from the Bible and the Bible only. Inexplicably, as it must have seemed to those who knew Maxwell, he promoted all versions of the Bible as of equal value. Referring to the multiplicity of versions available to his readers, he said:

"Perhaps you too are wondering whether the book you hold in your hand is really the Bible. You need not worry. No matter what version it may be, it is still the Word of God" (p 43).

Such a sweeping statement is all the more puzzling when it is realised that only a few years earlier (1946), another of the Adventist presses was still reprinting one of Wilkinson's books, "Truth Triumphant". In this classic history of Christianity, Wilkinson showed that the churches which upheld the apostolic faith throughout the Dark Ages had two things in common. They all had the Traditional or Received Text and they all observed the Biblical seventh-day Sabbath. He convincingly demonstrated that historically there were two lines of Bibles, which have persisted down to this day. One was guarded and handed on to Protestants by the churches in the wilderness, and the other of which Rome was the author and custodian.

This historical fact was completely ignored by Maxwell. He briefly traced the origins of the Bible as emanating from the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus which, incredibly, he portrayed as the "original text" (p 35). In such a statement we have an example of an "official" trend which is in utter defiance of Adventism's respected author and commentator Ellen G White, who, on behalf of the denomination, specifically denies that Rome has been the custodian of truth:

Maxwell continued his platitudes:

"You need to entertain no doubt concerning the essential accuracy of the original text" meaning the aforementioned codices (p 35).

In answer to the question, "Which version is best?" Maxwell was able to lump both Roman and Protestant Bibles together, and impute to them equal authority:

While this is true, it is equally true that in many modern versions Satan also has spoken. Mixing a little deadly error with truth makes a dangerous potion. Maxwell then proceeded to present the messages of Seventh-day Adventism by selectively quoting from the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version. Admittedly, he did give precedence to the KJV by identifying the RSV each time he quoted from it. This man, whom we have every reason to believe was sincere, probably unwittingly demonstrated his confidence in the primacy of the KJV.

But did he realise that he was helping his church in what now appears to be a crusade for public acceptance of the modern versions in accordance with the plans laid down at the Council of Trent and modified at the Vatican II Council, and now being put into practice by the United Bible Society - the Bible Society wing of the ecumenical World Council of Churches?

We wonder if any Seventh-day Adventist noticed the danger in this eclectic approach to selecting doctrinal texts; for just as most modern translators adopt an eclectic approach to the text which best suits their purpose, so with the plethora of versions available it is now possible to search for a text that translates a particular verse of Scripture to suit a particular doctrinal belief.

Maxwell did just that - he could hardly do otherwise and successfully uphold the doctrines of his church! Just one example should show the utter inconsistency of such an approach.

We have noted how Seventh-day Adventists have some unique beliefs. One which their pioneers worked out from their study of the King James Version concerns the state of man in death. They believe that death is like a sleep from which the dead are resurrected bodily at Christ's second coming (1 Thessalonians 4:13-16). In accordance with Ecclesiastes 9:5: "The dead know not anything" and Job 14:21: "His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not", the dead of all ages still lie "sleeping" in the grave awaiting the resurrection day.

Is it not surprising then, that in the chapter, "Shall we Meet our Loved Ones Again?", Maxwell kept well clear of the Revised Standard Version and stuck entirely to the KJV. Had he quoted Job 19:25, 26 from the RSV it would have been very embarrassing for this text reflects the belief of H. E. Fosdick, a leading radio preacher of the National Council of Churches which sponsored the RSV. Fosdick is reported to have bluntly declared:

Just what does the Revised Standard Version say?

Whatever happened to the bodily resurrection? No, that text would never do. So Maxwell wisely stuck to the King James Version which is supportive of his belief, yet flatly contradicting the RSV. The KJV says:

Pastor Arthur Maxwell would have been wiser had he not played around with modern versions at all, let alone patronise the RSV and thus elevate it to a position of equality with the KJV.

It is not as though he and his Seventh-day Adventist publishers had not been warned, especially regarding the depraved nature of the Revised Standard Version; for no sooner had it arrived on the market than there was an outcry from Evangelical Fundamentalists. Articles protesting the RSV spontaneously appeared in such magazines as the "Sunday School Times", "Moody Monthly", "Christian Life", "Action" and "Eternity Magazine", while lecturers denouncing the new version sprang into action in numerous parts of the United States of America.

One theme was predominant among the protests - the pedigree of the RSV. It was sponsored by the National Council of Churches in America, which in its earlier form, the Federal Council of Churches, had been suspected by United States Naval Intelligence of being a subversive organisation with Socialist ideals (H.G. Ritchie, "Why We Reject the National Council Bible", p 9).

One of the Council-sponsored preachers, Dr E. S. Jones, showed a propensity to mix politics with the gospel - a trend which has characterised much of the Council's history:

Among the revisers of the RSV we find quite an assortment of what we might call critical liberal modernists. Their rejection of the Received Text is clearly revealed in the Preface to their "Revision":

Such an attitude reveals the "revisers" hopeless infatuation with the Roman Catholic line which has been debunked through documentation presented in the book you are now reading. It is quite unworthy of the Protestant heritage under which the majority of the revisers sheltered and gained their living. They failed to recognise that had there been no Received Text, such as used by Tyndale and the King James Version translators, there would be no Protestant denominations in which they could masquerade as believers.

It is not surprising then that we find others of their fraternity exposing their traitorous intentions:

That the revisers had indeed succeeded in producing an ecumenical Bible is verified by an article by priest Bernard Orchard in a popular Roman Catholic Weekly:

As if such warnings were not sufficient to alert the Seventh-day Adventist Church to the modernistic-cum-Roman nature of the RSV, there appeared in 1953 a particular warning aimed specifically at Adventists by none other than the son of B.G. Wilkinson, Dr Rowland F Wilkinson. Three editions of his pamphlet: "The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible" appeared in that year alone, all emanating from Takoma Park, Washington, where the Headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was located.

Wilkinson's pamphlet caused quite a stir among Adventists as, one by one, he singled out corrupted texts which generally impinge on the Protestant faith and Seventh-day Adventism in particular. (For further information see "The Comparison of Texts" in Chapter twenty-seven).

In June 1960, Dr Rowland Wilkinson brought out an amplified edition of his pamphlet. His writings revealed an insight into Rome's strategy and the background of the RSV which would have done his father proud:

And how right subsequent events have proved him to be! Dr Wilkinson went on to demonstrate the incompatibility of the ecumenical Bible with the King James Version by quoting Dr Luther Weigle, Chairman of the Revised Standard Version Revision Committee who while addressing a capacity audience of religious leaders on September 30, 1952 in Washington said in effect:

But far from heeding such warnings, it seems that the Seventh-day Adventist Church had enjoyed its little excursion into the realm of ecumenical modernism. Within three years, the services of Arthur Maxwell's son, A. Graham Maxwell, were enlisted by the editor of its public outreach journal, the prestigious "Signs of the Times". The May 1969 issue asked the title question: "Can We Trust Modern Bible Versions?" Maxwell told the public:

(20 One cannot help but wonder if Maxwell would now extend this advice to include the New International Version (NIV), which is now being vigorously promoted by his church. If so, he would have to change his belief in what his church calls the Investigative Judgment which, according to its teaching corresponds to the yearly atonement made by the High Priest in the Most Holy part of the earthly sanctuary. From their very inception, Adventists have claimed, according to their interpretation of the time prophecy of Daniel 8:14, that Christ commenced His priestly role of cleansing the Heavenly Sanctuary (atonement) by moving into the Most Holy Place in Heaven in 1844. Yet, according to the NIV and the New KJV, Christ went straight into the Most Holy Place at the time of His ascension:

It is probably no coincidence that the NIV is being acclaimed and vigorously promoted by Adventists, for a large section of their scholars no longer believe that 1844 has any relevance to Christ's Heavenly Ministry.)

By this time, the British and Foreign Bible Society and the United Bible Society had amended their constitutions to include the Apocrypha in some versions and were enjoying the fruits of Vatican II Council in the form of interconfessional cooperation.

What dangerous advice the Seventh-day Adventist Church was giving to the Societies potential customers! "Read as many as you can" (and get thoroughly confused!). Surely, the "People of the Bible" were now well on the way to forsaking the Bible of the Reformation from which they had worked out their own particular beliefs! Certainly they had disregarded previous warnings of their church against the uncompromising and consistent efforts of the papacy to make the United States a Roman Catholic Country.

During the years 1909 to 1912, Seventh-day Adventists had published: "The Protestant Magazine". In the issue dated Second Quarter, 1911 an article captioned: "A Remarkable Document" described as "the Roman Catholic Confession publicly prescribed and propounded to Protestants in Hungary and Germany on their reception into communion with Rome " (Circa 1673). Part of that Confession which defies God's warnings of eternal damnation for those who add and take away from His Word (Revelation 22:18, 19) reads thus:

The following year an editorial in The Protestant Magazine astutely observed:

Fortunately, by the 'seventies, Adventists were still taking such Protestant warnings seriously. Maxwell's advice was largely ignored as Seventh-day Adventist congregations clung tenaciously to their beloved King James Version.

 

Chapter Twenty-Six

Rome's Little Helper

It is historically demonstrable that denominational apostasy usually comes from the top. It is the result of organisational heresy which filters through its employees to the church congregations. Furthermore, it is a fact that such changes come slowly, for time and funerals are an integral part of the process.

It should never be forgotten that the term "apostasy" means a turning away from a position previously espoused. Therefore, when we speak of "Apostate Protestantism", we are referring to churches that have turned their back on the Reformation and have, or are going back to the "Mother Church" - Rome.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has used this term ever since its inception to describe the decline in Protestantism generally. Few realised that by the mid-twentieth century the process was well under way within their own denomination!

A few people had pondered the increasing efforts to replace the King James Bible with the National Council of Churches Revised Standard Version. Its failure to be accepted by Adventist congregations defused any serious attempt to probe the real purpose behind the introduction of those modern versions, which of course was an attempt to provide Biblical support for a developing conspiracy to lead "The Truly Protestant Church" back into the arms of Rome. ²¹

21 Said L.E. Froom, Secretary of the general Conference Ministerial Association, in the official SDA Church magazine, Review and Herald: "We see that the Seventh-day Adventists are truly Protestant, in taking the prophecies of the Bible from 'the Bible and the Bible only"' (Sept 23, 1948, p 10). Further evidence of Adventists genuine protest against Roman Catholicism is their refusal to worship on the day set apart by Rome - "the venerable day of the Sun".

Ever since their fledgling church had published its views on "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan", back in 1887, Seventh-day Adventism had gained the particular attention of the Papacy. The book itself was proscribed. (22 Proscribe - to denounce and condemn as dangerous, to prohibit.) No wonder! Its author, Ellen G. White, a convert to Adventism from the Methodist Church, made it quite plain that Protestantism in America was imperilled by Roman Catholic action.

In a chapter titled: "The Aims of the Papacy" she wrote: "Protestants have tampered with and patronised popery; they have made compromises and concessions which papists themselves are surprised to see, and fail to understand. Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism, and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy. The people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty" (P 566).

She continued:

The book, "Great Controversy" was an outstanding success. With numerous reprints and editions still coming off the press, it must have sent its message to millions and is credited with bringing more people into the Adventist faith than any other book.

Because of this book it is alleged by the reformed Jesuit priest Dr Alberto Rivera that the Papacy took the Seventh-day Adventist Church seriously as a truly Protestant organisation and therefore targeted it for infiltration and subversion. ("Alberto", p 28).

But a group of Protestant Christians who perceive that they have a Biblical injunction to take God's "judgment hour message" to a doomed world are not easily diverted from their goal. The rise of Protestantism amidst the ever present threat of persecution and annihilation had driven this fact home to Rome - and the lesson had been well and truly learned; hence the Council of Trent (1545 to 1563) at which the Jesuit schemes of infiltration and internal subversion were adopted.

Since then the Jesuits have shown themselves masters in the art of seduction and subversion, a technique which relies on the frailties of human nature.

A sober warning was issued to members of a General Conference Committee of Seventh-day Adventists in the year 1903, by a committee member, Dr P.T. Magan. At this time a committee was refraining the organisational procedures of the General Conference enabling it to govern in a hierarchal manner resembling that of the Roman Catholic Church ²³ Magan Said:

I have always felt that the hardest place that any man could be put in his life is to have to stand conscientiously opposed to what the majority of his brethren believe to be right. To me it has always appeared to be a much easier thing to stand in a position of opposition to the world, for your faith, than to have to face your brethren for your faith" (Cited in "Watchman, What of the Night", (XXVI - 2 (93) p 4).

23 In a letter of censure written by A.T. Jones to General Conference President, A.G. Daniels, dated January 26, 1906, dealing with the change in the Constitution in 1903, Jones summed up his feelings thus:

"The Seventh-day Adventist denomination is more like the Catholic Church than is any other Protestant church in the world" (Meyers, "With Cloak and Dagger", p 73).

(Jones had been editor of the SDA religious liberty magazine, the "American Sentinel" and was regarded as the Denomination's most prominent public advocate of religious liberty. SDA Commentary, Vol. 10, p 634).

This is a human frailty which has been exploited to the full by Rome and, as we shall now see has, according to the ex Jesuit Dr Alberto Rivera, met with outstanding success in the muting of Adventism's perceived role in preaching the "everlasting gospel" (See Revelation 14:6-11). In his book "Alberto", Rivera tells how he was one of many young seminarians trained by the Jesuits to infiltrate Protestant institutions. He claims:

Such claims help provide a rational explanation for the otherwise inexplicable conduct of certain leaders whose actions appear more in keeping with the role of 'false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves" of which Christ had warned His church (Matthew 7:15; Mark 13:22).

Dr Rivera has also written of the way in which Rome has carried out her plans (as formulated at the Council of Trent) to subvert Protestantism through what he calls the "Alexandrian cult":

It follows then, that if Rivera is correct in his claim that the Seventh-day Adventist Church had been substantially infiltrated by Rome, we should expect that much of the Adventist administration and the academics whom it employs would be avid promoters of the modern versions. Let us see!

As the decade of the sixties was drawing to a close, it became evident to the more discerning Seventh-day Adventist that there was much more to the fad for modern versions than the wish to be seen to be in line with "reverent scholarship". For instance, when the Ministerial Secretary of the Australasian Division of Seventh-day Adventists, Pastor L.C. Naden was appraised of the RSV, he immediately reacted by circularising the ministry, warning them of its pedigree and its pitfalls. But it was not long before a young man by the name of Desmond Ford was appointed head of theology at the Seventh-day Adventist's main ministerial training centre in Australia. He had spent quite some time training overseas and had picked up quite a bit of the "reverent scholarship", part of which was his predilection for the National Council of Church's Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

He wrote a thesis which was published under the title of "Daniel" but his interpretation of prophecy was at variance with historic Adventism. In fact, he went for the futuristic interpretation of prophecy invented by the Jesuit Ribera which lets the papacy off the beastly hook of Revelation. Throughout his book, Ford used the RSV to support his position and no more objections to the use of the RSV were heard from the ministerial staff!²⁴

(24 Although the Australian Division of SDA's later abjectly exonerated Ford, he was eventually fired at the insistence of the General Conference in Washington. Much of his heretical teaching dominates the ministry in Australia to this day.)

At that time, many Adventist academics and even some administrative leaders were vigorously pushing what was soon to be known as the "New Theology". In the interests of peace and unity, and acquiescent attitude to the new teachings began to develop among leaders who compromised their principles - a failing which was to characterise the church's rapid acceleration towards Protestant impotency.

But such enthusiasm for corrupted Scripture was not yet shared by the laity. Changes in the pews came slowly. As young Seventh-day Adventist pastors introduced the modern versions into their pulpits, many of the congregations resented the intrusion. In the October 1982 edition of "The Ministry" magazine, issued at the Seventh-day Adventist headquarters in Washington, there appeared an article by Elder Charles Case under the title: "Use the Bible Your People Use". In the same article appeared the findings of a "Ministry" survey which indicated that an overwhelming majority of church members in North America wished that their pastor would stick to the King James Version.

Probably, a similar situation existed in Australia and New Zealand, for a veritable barrage of poorly documented articles upholding certain modern versions as superior to the KJV were appearing in the official church paper, "The Australasian Record".

Simultaneously, and ever increasing number of church writers were using modern versions. The Sabbath School Lesson Quarterlies, published by the General Conference for its world Bible study program, decreasingly used the KJV as authority. Very significantly, its "Sabbath School Lessons" began to drop the traditional pattern of systematic study of doctrine in favour of a decidedly timorous approach to Scripture.

Implementing this radical change was the almost complete introduction of modern versions into the church's significantly large educational system - from its primary school to tertiary theological training. And, all this, in spite of the results of the survey published in its official church journal!

Such "meritorious" conduct did not escape the notice of Rome and her ecumenical lackeys. Was the Seventh-day Adventist Church now sufficiently within the ecumenical fold to have its co-operation in the translation of interconfessional Bibles? Apparently it was! The October 1985 "Quarterly Record" of the Trinitarian Bible Society documents Adventism's new found dimension in ecumenism:

25 A decade later the SDA Church in the South Pacific Division proudly announces its current ecumenical activities. Writing of the translation of the N.T. into the ChiLanji language in Zambia which began in 1990, we read in "The Record":

An indication of Rome's remarkable success with her interconfessional brainwashing of Adventistism is revealed in a most unlikely New Zealand publication, "New Zealand Truth and TV Extra". Featured on the front page were the headlines: "Kiwi Church Cranks in Pope Smear". (The "Cranks" turned out to be SDA lay people who had emulated the spirit of the original "Protestant Magazine" editors early this century).

According to "Truth" a paper called the "Protestant" had recently been circulated throughout New Zealand. Although the message, like that of its name sake was distinctly Adventist Protestant in nature, it failed to please the Adventist hierarchy in NZ. Pastor Larry Laredo from the Adventist Headquarters in Auckland publicly distanced his Church from the "underground" publication by allowing himself to be photographed in the act of tearing up the "Protestant". David Ross, a spokesman for Catholic Communications, clearly revealed his church's perception of its success in hoodwinking Adventist administrators through the ecumenical process when he was reported as saying:

"The Protestant paper is an example of bigotry by a few Adventists which will not upset the ecumenical relationship being developed between Catholics and Seventh-day Adventists" ("Truth", October 16, 1992).

The laity were still not impressed. Lagging behind and failing to celebrate the interconfessional exploits of their adventurous administrators, they would soon be made to see what was good for them.

The coup de grace came in 1985 in the form of "The Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal". This is the first time that the contents of any hymn book has received the imprimatur of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists by the incorporation of its name in the title.

After voting for this hymnal, mostly sight unseen, church members were in for a real shock. Aside from some hymns that were distinctly Roman Catholic in sentiment and even liturgy, it contained an extensive section of Scriptures for corporate reading as well as a smaller section for corporate prayers and canticles - a new and radical departure for an historically conservative Protestant church.

In view of the craven desire of the church leadership to promote modern versions, it should not be surprising to find that the Hymnal Committee and the hierarchy which supported them, took this opportunity to coerce Adventist congregations into mouthing Scriptures which they had hitherto rejected and ignored. Members were shocked to find that this hymnal slighted their beloved King James Bible by practically ignoring it! Out of some 224 Scripture Readings and prayers intended for corporate worship, taken from eight Bible versions, the KJV was relegated to a very poor seventh place in frequency of use. It was utilised fourteen times only!

The Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible came in second place being used thirty-eight times - nearly three times more than the KJV! The New International Version topped the list, being used sixty-eight times! One reading, No 852, purporting to be a rendition of Psalm 63:1-5 is nothing more than an anonymous paraphrase!

Indicative of the Roman influence behind the selection of these readings is the use of liturgical terminology which this hymnbook has introduced to Adventist worship. No 833, taken from Isaiah 6 carries the label: "The Sanctus "; No 835 from Luke 1, titled: "The Song of Mary" carries the notation, "Commonly called The Magnificat "; and No 836, also from Luke 1, is "Commonly called the Benedictus". All three are New King James Version renditions. No 837, a rendition of a portion of Luke 2 from the Jerusalem Bible, is "Commonly called The Nunc Dimittis ".

The few times the King James Version is used is when very well known and oft repeated texts are quoted. Presumably, the Selection Committee was afraid of offending reader's sensibilities by trying to rephrase ingrained memory verses. If so, the Committee failed the test of consistency by quoting John 3:16 from the Jerusalem Bible (No 782). And again, in No 730, they destroyed a beautiful message which announces God's comprehensive plan of salvation for all mankind by quoting Luke 2:14 from the NIV. This rendition promotes a selective type of gospel with which the Roman Church undoubtedly agrees - "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom His favour rests".

Another reading selected from the NIV ("Zondervan", 1978) which not only carries overtones of Catholicism, but is positively preposterous, is to be found in No 756. Here, David is made to say in Psalm 51:5: "Surely I have been a sinner from birth and sinful from the time my mother conceived me". It is on this assumption that all babies are born sinners that Rome hastens to baptise as soon as possible after birth. But this rendition goes further; all are sinners from the moment of conception! But, by the time the SDA Hymnal was published in 1985 the publishers of the New International Version had seen fit to delete this outrage: "and in sin did my mother conceive me" ("Zondervan", 1984).

The Biblical definition of sin is found in 1 John 3:4. "For sin is the transgression of the law". In No 790, Adventists are asked to repeat the RSV's definition of sin: "Sin is lawlessness". (And, so is exceeding the speed limit. Is that sin?)

What a mix up! Far from the ludicrous image of a sinful, lawless foetus, depicted in their hymnal, the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary prepared in the 'fifties gives a perfectly rational exposition of Psalm 51:5. On page 755 of Vol. 3 we read: "David recognises that children inherit natures with propensities to evil ". 4

This fully accords with David's declaration in the KJV:

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me".

It is on this obfuscation of God's plain definition of sin that the "new theology" of apostate Protestantism is predicated! The logical conclusion to this postulate will inevitably support Rome's dogma of the Immaculate Conception with its Mary Worship. How else could Christ be incarnated through humanity and, yet be born sinless! (according to Rome's definition of sin).

It would be difficult to imagine a more striking vindication of Dr Rivera's claim regarding Rome's infiltration of Seventh-day Adventism than the above recitation of behaviour which must surely merit the title of Rome's Little Helper!

Bible Battle TOC