BALLENGER REVIVED

THE FOLLY OF A UNIVERSAL LEGAL JUSTIFICATION

By Nyron Medina

1
Published by Thusia Seventh Day
Sabbath Adventist

2
 BALLENGER REVIVED
THE FOLLY OF A UNIVERSAL LEGAL JUSTIFICATION

INTRODUCTION
Way back in 1905 a dangerous teaching was laid to rest in the dust of the
grave by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, there it lay for almost 100
years all forgotten with the events that surrounded it; but now, in the
end of time, the early 21st century, the teaching has again been revived
and is now spreading all over the Seventh-day Adventist Church,
unknown and unchecked. This teaching is a type of salvation that is
objective, universal and unconditional, it is a teaching that down grades
the Law of God and changes the sanctuary doctrine in its wake.

In the late 1890s Albion Fox Ballenger was teaching this doctrine in
England, he was the first on record to propagate a two-phase
justification, the first nullifying the second, and the second doing the
same to the first likewise, his teaching was put to the test and failed,
now after being buried for many, many years in the grave of history we
are facing Ballenger revived in his teaching. While the present day false
gospel does not have all of Ballenger’s characteristic points, and while it
is not yet possible to trace lineal connective descent, the teaching is
called Ballengerism because its major points are exactly what Ballenger
taught, and what was characteristic to him.

The most dreadful thing about this revived teaching is that it is being
propagated under the guise of the long rejected 1888 message and
deceiving the Church to think that it has accepted that message at last.
This book is about an analysis of the teachings of Robert J. Wieland and
the 1888 Message Study Committee, and those of Jack Sequeira. While it
is not exhaustive, sufficient evidence is given herein to warn all of the
omega of deadly heresies presently destroying the Seventh-day
Adventist Church. May God bless all who read. Amen.

3
 BALLENGER REVIVED
The Folly of A Universal Legal Justification

1. The 1888 Message Study Committee believes it is bringing to the

Church the 1888 message of righteousness by faith. This they state
in their publications.

“But the 1888 Message Study Committee see our mission as

unique: to proclaim the much more abounding grace of
righteousness by faith as the Lord wanted us to understand it in
that “most precious message” of 1888.” Prepared by Robert J.
Wieland and the Editorial Committee of the 1888 Message Study
Committee, Is Beyond Belief Beyond Belief?, p. 87.

2. What do they see as the 1888 message in particular? They view the
1888 message of justification by faith as one justification with two
parts or aspects.

“The 1888 message taught two aspects of one justification: that

which was for all mankind; and the other, for those who believe.
The first was universal and corporate in scope; the other
conditional, and by faith.” Ibid, p. 48. (Emphasis supplied).

3. But it is this first universal justification that is the emphasis of Mr.

Wieland and the 1888 Message Study Committee.

“Jones and Waggoner were crystal clear in their presentations on

universal justification.” Ibid, p. 49. (Emphasis supplied).

“We observe that both these men held identical views at this time
concerning corporate justification for all mankind … Some will
accept messages closer to the well-known year “1888”. Was this
concept of justification presented before 1895? Yes.” Ibid, p. 53.
(Emphasis supplied).

4
4. In justifying Jack Sequiera’s book Beyond Belief, the 1888 Message
Study Committee calls this universal justification “legal
justification.”

“If Sequeira is teaching that a legal justification “in Christ” is

sufficient for eternal salvation the answer would be yes.” Is
Beyond Belief Beyond Belief?, p. 20.

“… the whole human race was incorporate in Christ so that “in

Christ” all humanity was redeemed—legally justified and
reconciled to God.” Ibid, p. 26. (Emphasis supplied).

“ … through the merits of Christ every soul was legally justified

before God.” Skip Dodson, Opposites Attract, in 1888 Glad
Tidings (Jan-Mar 2002, Volume 18-No. 1), p. 19. (Emphasis
supplied).

5. We will thus from now on call Wieland and the 1888 Message
Study Committee doctrine “universal legal justification.” This is
the point of our present study, we are investigating the concept of
a universal legal justification.

“There again Paul’s idea comes through of a universal atonement,

a universal legal justification, with God taking the initiative for
the salvation of ‘all men.’” Is Beyond Belief Beyond Belief?, p.
27. (Emphasis supplied).

6. Before we investigate what this concept means to Wieland and his

1888 Committee, we need to understand that the Gospel is made
up of provisions and application. This means that God provides
for salvation and applies the merits of salvation to all who believe.

a. The Scriptures here show the concept of provision of

salvation. Genesis 22:8; Numbers 8:11; Numbers 16:46;
John 4:29; Philippians 4:19; John 3:14,15,16; John 14:6.
(John 5:26; John 6:35). John 10:10,11,15. Romans 8:3.

5
 b. The Scriptures here show the concept of the application of
salvation. Romans 3:22; Romans 4:3,5; Romans 5:1; 2
Corinthians 4:6,7; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:13;
Colossians 2:11-13; Psalms 51:2,7,10,14.

c. The following chart helps explain.

SALVATION

PROVISION APPLICATION

7. What merits are provided for our salvation? They are:

a. The incarnation. Hebrews 2:14,15,16; Romans 1:3;

Philippians 2:5-8.
b. The holy life of Christ. Acts 10:38-39; 1 Peter 1:18,19; 1
Peter 2:22,23.
c. The death of Christ as His sufferage for our sins. Hebrews
2:9,10,18; 1 Peter 2:21,23; 1 Peter 4:1.
d. The death of Christ as His gift of Life to substitute all our
sins. John 10:10,11; 1 John 1:1,2; 1 John 5:11,12.
e. The resurrection of Christ. Romans 4:25; 1 Corinthians
15:12-20.
f. Christ’s assumption of His High Priestly ministry in the
heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 4:14-16.
g. The following chart explains this point more.

P R O V I S I O N
INCARNATION OF CHRIST HOLY LIFE OF CHRIST DEATH OF CHRIST

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST HIGH PRIESTLY HIS SUFFERAGE HIS

MINISTRATION OF GIFT
CHRIST IN THE OF
HEAVENLY LIFE
SANCTUARY

8. What constitutes the application of salvation to man? The following is:

6
 a. Conviction by the Holy Spirit. John 16:7-14; Acts 2:37.
b. Transformative or first Justification. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11;
Galatians 3:7-9,14. (Romans 8:6; Romans 5:1,5).
c. Sanctification or second Justification. John 17:17,19; Acts
26:18; 1 Peter 1:2.
d. The blotting out of all sins, forgiveness for historical past
sins, or third Justification. Acts 3:19; James 5:19,20;
Romans 2:13,16.
e. The following chart illustrates the above points.

A P P L I C A T I O N
CONVICTION JUSTIFICATION SANCTIFICATION BLOTTING OUT
OF OR
FORGIVENESS
FOR
HISTORICAL
PAST SINS

9. The merits of salvation are the benefits given to man in the death
of Christ. They are:

a. The sufferage of Christ to cause man to truly repent of

his sins. 1 Peter 4:1,2; 1 Peter 3:18.
b. The gift of Life to subjectively change man from
being sinful inside to holy and righteous in his heart.
(Romans 8:6; Romans 5:1,18). John 6:47,48,51,53-56,63;
Matthew 20:28.

10. It is the merits of Christ expressed in His life on earth that God
uses to convict man. John 16:7-14; John 14:26.

11. The Life of Christ given is called a knowledge (experience) of God

and Christ (love). John 17:3.

12. The subjective gift of this Life in place of the carnal mind is called
transformative justification. (Romans 8:6; Romans 5:1).

7
13. This Life is given to us as the Spirit in Justification. (Romans 8:6;
Romans 5:1; Romans 8:9,10).

14. It is the same as the gift of the Righteousness of God through

Faith. (Romans 8:6; Romans 5:1; Romans 8:9,10; Romans 3:22).

15. This Faith also motivates the performance of the good works of the
Law. Romans 3:28,30,31.

16. It is through God Himself, His Love, dwelling in us, (the real
merit), that our historical past sins are blotted out or forgiven. (1
Peter 4:8; 1 John 4:16,17; Matthew 12:36,37).

17. We need to also understand two important points before we seek

to understand the so-called universal legal justification. The
points are what we call “Divine initiative” and “human
response”.

a. Divine initiative means that God on His own voilition

decided to save man. 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:9,10.
b. No man persuaded God to love us, while we were yet
sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:6-8.
c. It is God who first Loved the world and gave Christ. John
3:14-17.
d. All the provisions of God are divine initiative. This chart
explains this point.

DIVINE
INITIATIVE

P R O V I S I O N
INCARNATION HOLY DEATH OF RESURRECTION HIGH PRIESTLY
OF CHRIST LIFE CHRIST OF CHRIST MINISTRATION
CHRIST OF CHRIST IN
THE HEAVENLY
HIS HIS CONVICTION SANCTUARY
SUFFERAGE GIFT OF LIFE

8
 e. Even Conviction by the Holy Spirit is the divine initiative of
God. (I John 5:6-9; John 14:26; John 15:26,27).
f. Under conviction, all the points expressed in this chart must
be done by God before any move or even response by man.

C O N V I C T I O N
TEMPORARY NIHILIATION TEMPORARY CONVICTION
REMOVAL OF PLACING OF
THE CARNAL THE DIVINE
MIND MIND OR SPIRIT
OF TRUTH

g. Human response is the proper reaction of man to the

conviction placed upon his heart. It comes only after God’s
initiative. (1 Corinthians 2:4,5,12,13; Acts 2:37-42).
h. The proper response to divine initiative is believing
repentance and confession. Mark 1:14,15; Romans 10:10,11.
i. A chart on proper human response is thus presented.

HUMAN RESPONSE
REPENTANCE BELIEVING CONFESSION

j. Of course human response can also be adverse like resisting

the Holy Spirit or like rejecting His convictions. Acts 7:51.
k. To the proper human response comes the first Justification.
(Mark 1:14,15; Acts 13:39).
l. Divine initiative and human response can be best
illustrated in the text that says we love Him (human
response) because He first loved us (divine initiative). 1
John 4:19.

18. Another important point about provision is the fact that the
sufferage and gift of Life of Christ was not first made available at
the cross, Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the
world. Revelation 13:8.

9
 Robert J. Wieland is one of the major propagators of the Omega of deadly
heresies. While he thinks his teachings are the 1888 message returned to the
S.D.A Church they are in fact the heretical teachings of A.F. Ballenger disguised
as the 1888 message.

19. This means that Christ, who is God, (John 20:28), suffered and
made Life available to man from the very moment man sinned.
This is the real meaning of the primitive form of the gospel.
Genesis 3:9-15.

20. What Christ did by His incarnation, His holy living, and death and
resurrection was to provide a new testimony of His sufferage and
gift of Life, in place of the ceremonial laws. (John 1:23; Hebrews
10:1-9,19,20; Hebrews 12:24).

21. Now in addressing Wieland and the 1888 Message Study

Committee explanation of the so-called objective, universal legal

10
justification, we find that their writings are deceptive in the
following ways.

a. They use the term as “provision” of salvation, in the way

they express themselves and in some of the terms they use,
and then turn around and say the offerings are not merely
provisional but actual. This creates a fainting in the human
reasoning in connecting the two thoughts (provision yet not
merely provisional but actual), because there are no rational
bridges. Thus the mind gravitates to accepting their denials
concerning what they are not teaching.
b. In answering some of their critics of this so-called objective
universal legal justification, Wieland and the Committee
are sometimes vague, and uses Scriptures and quotations
that could be read either their way (actual justification), or
the other way (provision of justification). This is deception
by silence from not saying and explaining their concept
clearly when the need for it is most evident.
c. They deviously and deliberately call justification done by
God when a man repents and believe “meritorious” and as
man’s “own initiative.” This completely overlooks the fact
that “repentance and believing” are not human merits or
human initiatives, but mere responses to conviction. It is
deceitful to call transformative Justification “meritorious”
and “human initiative” just because it is not believed to be
preceded by this objective universal legal justification. This
is creating problems to justify their doctrines where
problems with the opposing doctrines do not really exist.
Consistent honesty in reasoning will score more points than
dishonest and crooked reasoning.
d. Confusion of thought is created in the minds of the readers
of their objective, universal, legal justification theory by the
way their claims are worded. One wording gives the
impression that all men are actually saved by this universal
justification BEFORE they believe, yet a follow up wording
states implicatively that this is not really the case, that
believing is followed by another, but subjective justification

11
 gives the man an experience of the justification he really has
already, yet this is NOT his assurance of salvation, the legal
justification is. This type of forked tongue reasoning is
certainly not a revival of truth, but can best be described as
Satan’s fine art of reasoning and deception.
e. It is Satan’s fine art of deception because it creates polarized
thoughts disfunctioning the reasoning of man, he is thus led
to focus on the denials of Wieland and the Committee of
what they are not teaching, and so falls into the deception of
this objective, universal, legal justification.

22. Here is an example of the polarized thoughts created in the minds

of the readers of Wieland and the Committee’s objective,
universal, legal justification, with the weight of influence being
carried to their position.

a. Observe this quotation.

“According to the 1888 message concepts, Christ gave the

benefits of that sacrifice to every human being, not merely
offered them provisionally. Our salvation is due entirely to
God’s initiative.” Robert J. Wieland, Your Questions? in,
1888 Glad Tidings, Jan-Mar, 2002, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 18. (All
italics original).

b. Of the word “give” or “gave” we are told.

“Give … to bestow; to deliver; impart; … to send forth … to

pledge … to make gifts …” New Webster’s Dictionary, p.
96.

c. Of the word “offered” or “offer” we are told.

“Offer, … To present for acceptance or rejection; to tender; to

bid, as a price or wages … to declare a willingness; to make
an attempt …” Ibid, p. 155.

12
 e. By saying God gave the benefits of His sacrifice as against
merely offering them as a provision, Mr. Wieland is
intending to show that objective legal justification is a gift
we all have already, and not an offering of provision,
something we can accept or reject. Obviously this would
mean that acceptance or rejection of this legal justification
does not matter since it is not an offering, but a gift. It also
means that if even we reject this gift, we still have it, thus in
rejecting it we are still legally justified. And to strengthen
his position Wieland states “our salvation is due entirely to
God’s initiative.” All this means that we CANNOT lose it,
yet we are told we can lose it and be lost. Is this not double
tongue? Read Wieland.

“In the final judgment, the lost will realize that Christ had
died their second death, had given them the gift of eternal
life, that their place in heaven had been made sure, but they
“despised” and “sold” what they had been given.” Robert J.
Wieland, Your Questions? in 1888 Glad Tidings, Jan-Mar,
2002, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 16.

f. If legal justification is indeed a gift as against a mere offering

of provision then our rejection of it does not ever cause us
not to have it, it is still our own no matter what. God will
have to take it back first, if we are not to have it.

23. However “gift”, “give” and “gave” in the Bible is used in the sense
of offering a provision, and not in the sense as Wieland and the
1888 Message Study Committee presents it. Salvation is a gift in
the Bible as an offering because men can reject it, and not have it.

a. Observe that God “gave” His Son but having His eternal life
is on condition of believing. John 3:16.
b. Even though God sent His Son to save the world, it is only
those who believe in Him that is not condemned, the rest of
unbelievers are condemned already. This means that Christ
was a provisionary offering for the world, but those only

13
 who believe benefits. There is no concept of an objective,
universal, legal justification here. John 3:17,18.
c. Here we see that Christ gave Himself for us with the
purpose of redeeming us from all iniquity, and of
purifying us. This is no objective, universal, legal
justification; this is subjectively removing all iniquity from
us, this has to mean what is also IN us, this is why we are
purified. So the giving of Christ here in this Scripture is for
subjective justification and sanctification with the
performance of “good works.” The giving in this text is thus
provisionary, because not all are purified.” Titus 2:14.
d. We are told that the gift of God, the real gift is eternal life.
Romans 6:23.
e. How do we get it? Do all have an objective, universal, legal
“life”? No, because, no murderer has this life in him neither
do we have it without. 1 John 3:15.
f. One must come unto Christ to have this life, this is through
repentance and believing. John 5:39,40; John 6:33,35,40.
g. The Holy Spirit is this Life. Romans 8:10.
h. The Holy Spirit is given in subjective Justification.
(Galatians 3:7-9,14; Galatians 4:6).

24. Another deceptive way the people of the 1888 Message Committee
seek to deceive people by justifying their erroneous, objective,
universal legal justification, is by silly unsound reasoning that is
self evidently foolish. Here we are told that Christ is called the
“Savior of all men,” and the “Savior of the world” because all men
and the world are actually saved. Observe the flawed logic.

“God could not be called “the Savor of all men” unless He really
did save all men! … to call Christ the Savior of the world (as He is
called in several Scriptures) on the basis of mere possibility would
be lying. It is because He actually did save the world that He is
called the “Savior of the world.”” Skip Dodson, Opposites Attract,
in 1888 Glad Tidings, Jan-Mar, 2002, Vol. 18, No. 1., p. 19.

14
25. How are we to digest these illogical statements? There are so much
things wrong with them.

a. If “Savior of the world” meant that all are legally justified on

the cross, or saved by Christ, then those who were lost like
Judas and Ciaphas, etc., rejecting their so-called legal
justification, still some how had to have had this legal
justification. Isn’t this folly? How can all men have it when
many have already rejected it and died lost. “All men”
cannot only mean those alive, but all men who ever lived.
How then are we to fathom Christ actually saving “all men”
with an objective, universal, legal justification when some
men, being dead, are beyond the benefit of this so-called gift.
This is the only logical position we can adopt in the light of
the foolish reasoning of Mr. Dodson. John 17:12; Matthew
26:63-66.
b. If Christ is the “Savior of the world” according to the 1888
Message Study Committee, BECAUSE He certainly DID
ACTUALLY SAVE the whole world, we are afraid that this
renders Christ as NOT really the Savior of the world,
because the world is NOT really saved and will NEVER be
saved. Of the populations of the world from the time of
Adam to the last man that is to be born, most of those
teeming billions are lost. Philosophically speaking,
according to Mr. Dodson’s choice of method in justifying
this false teaching, if only one is lost, Christ cannot be
termed as the savior of the world, all must be actually saved
if Christ is to be justifiably called by the philosophical
maxim “Savior of the world.” That Dodson philosophical
maxim is wrong is seen in the fact that the lost wicked is as
the “sand of the sea.” Revelation 20:7-9.
c. Of course Mr. Dobson will not claim that God is the creator
of the world BECAUSE He created the world, but because
God is CREATOR, He created the world. God is Savior in
nature thus it is He that saves the world. But this salvation
is conditional. As all men have not availed themselves of
this salvation and are therefore lost, does not change the

15
 nature of God from being the Savior of the world. God
being “Savior of the world” gave all in the world the
possibility of being saved, if they repent and believe, this
title of God did not give to men the actuality of salvation.
(Isaiah 43:11; Isaiah 45:21; Hosea 13:4; John 8:24; Luke
13:1-5).
d. We must emphatically refute the 1888 Message Study
Committee by stating that just as even before God created an
atom He was still Creator, so before He ever had the need to
save anyone He was still Savior. Thus Savior of the world
does not mean He actually did save the world. When Christ
said, if the Son of Man shall make you free, you are free
indeed, this gift of freedom did not actually free all men.
Unless we wish to foolishly think that all men are not slaves
of sin, thus all are free from sin, following Mr. Dodson’s
philosophical logic of presentation, we must accept the free
indeed to be conditional, so that all men are not free except
subjectively made so by God when the conditions are met.
(Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:1,13;
John 8:32,34,36).

26. We are now in place to find out exactly what this so-called
objective, legal, universal justification really means. When
properly understood, it will be seen to be the most damning
teaching any group can ever get themselves into. But before we
deal specifically with that false doctrine, we need to understand a
few important points.

a. While the teaching of an objective, legal, universal

justification is presented in Jack Sequeira’s book Beyond
Belief, it is not the central teaching of his so-called gospel.
His central teaching is a form of Christian pantheistic “in
Christ” motif. However the central teaching of the 1888
Message Study Committee is the objective, legal, universal
justification; as Colin Standish says:

16
 “It is argued that all humanity, past, present, and future,
were justified on Calvary. This belief is a strong pillar of the
1888 Study Committee … it is not uncommon for those who
support the 1888 Study Committee to say that there are two
phases of justification: forensic (legal, universal, corporate,
temporary, judicial) justification, which is a justification
which came upon all men through the death of Jesus Christ;
and justification by faith.” Jeff Pippenger, Adventism’s
New View, pp. 70-71.

b. It was the same Wieland that is the leading spirit in the 1888
Message Study Committee, that, together with D.K. Short,
that produced a manuscript entitled 1888 Re-Examined way
back in the early 1950s. This manuscript was presented to
the then General Conference that was in fraternal,
compromising relationships with apostate Protestants. The
manuscript was a call for the S.D.A. Church to go back to the
1888 message as brought by Jones and Waggoner which was
rejected by the 1888 General Conference Session, and the
leadership of the church in the 1890s. Wieland and Short’s
manuscript was rejected as untrue by the leadership of the
church even unto this very day.
c. However, with the formation of the 1888 Message Study
Committee, and its sanction by the General Conference,
Wieland and Short have moved from a mere formal and rote
presentation of the 1888 message to a deadly error based
upon Wieland’s misreading of certain statements by
Waggoner. Here is Wieland’s own words:

“About this time someone at Loma Linda kindly xeroxed for

me Waggoner’s 1895-96 Signs articles on Romans. I had
never before read them. His comments on Romans 5
impressed me deeply. I re-read The glad Tidings and began
to understand that the legal justification took place at the
cross, long before the sinner repents and believes. And if it
took place at the cross, it must objectively apply to “all
men.” It follows therefore that justification by faith must be

17
 experiential, and must be a change of heart that makes the
believer obedient to all the commandments of God. It
dawned on me that this was the reason why Ellen White so
enthusiastically supported the 1888 message when she first
heard it …” Robert J. Wieland and the Editorial Committee
of the 1888 Message Study Committee, Is Beyond Belief
Beyond Belief?, pp. 60-61.

d. What to Wieland was a most troubling concept, that of a

legal justification on the cross, as presented by some
influential groups within Adventism, had now seem to fit
into the 1888 subjective justification theology, but as we will
see later, only through his misreading of Waggoner’s
statements; thus Wieland published for the first time a new
concept of the 1888 message incorporating this so-called
objective, legal, universal justification. Here again are his
own words.

“Wanting to help my congregation at Chula Vista to realize

what the issues were, I wrote a little tract giving biblical
evidence that the legal justification or “declaration” took
place at the cross and therefore applied objectively to “all
men,” and that justification by faith had to be the subjective
experience of change of heart and reconciliation with God
that produces complete obedience.” Ibid, p. 61.

e. Thus we see, that instead of seeing the objective, forensic

justification as occurring in the Investigative Judgment only
upon the righteous, and totally discarding the false concepts
of other influential groups within the sphere of Adventism,
Wieland’s new view seemed to him to solve the errors of the
other groups, and he got support for his error by other
deceived Adventists in influential positions, thus the death
knell of Adventism was sounded from that day.

“My xeroxed tract some how found its way to the General
Conference and attracted the attention of Dr. Arnold

18
 Wallenkampf of the Biblical Research Committee. He wrote
me a letter of appreciation, noting that this truth is the
effective refutation of the Reformationist doctrine.” Ibid, p.
61.

f. Thus we see that an objective, forensic justification that

happens at repentance and believing as taught by liberal
Adventists and traditionalists against a subjective
justification, was taken by Wieland and placed as happening
before repentance and believing, and as happening to all
men at the cross of Christ, and the subjective justification of
the 1888 message was given a subjunctive role to the legal,
objective, forensic, universal justification, this is the true
origin of the so-called “good news” of the 1888 Message
Study Committee. The following charts illustrates these
points.

1. LIBERAL AND TRADITIONAL ADVENTIST 2. WIELAND AND 1888

OBJECTIVE FORENSIC VIEW MESSAGE STUDY
JUSTIFICATION COMMITTEE VIEW

WHEN
THE MAN REPENTS THIS HAPPENS OBJECTIVE FORENSIC
AND BELIEVES ON THE CROSS LEGAL UNIVERSAL
JUSTIFICATION

THIS HAPPENS UPON BEFORE

THE MAN NOT IN HIM THE MAN REPENTS
AND BELIEVES

3. SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION HAPPENS AFTER THE MAN REPENTS AND

BELIEVES.

27. We can now embark upon fully explaining what Wieland and the
1888 Message Study Committee explains this objective, legal,
forensic, universal justification to mean. We are told that it means
we are given the gift of eternal life and our place in heaven had
been made secure. The “given” of the gift of eternal life means

19
 that we actually have eternal life before repentance and believing
and conversion, not as a provision but as an actual possession.

“… Christ had died their second death, had given them the gift of
eternal life, that their place in heaven had been made sure …”
Robert J. Wieland, Your Questions?, in 1888 Glad Tidings Vol. 18-
No. 1. Jan-Mar, 2002, p. 16.

28. Again the universal justification is called “objective legal”

redemption. How can a person be redeemed outwardly in any
sense is a mystery, and this is compounded when we consider that
this happens to all men even before repentance, believing and
conversion.

“… we must confess that “all men” are “redeemed in Christ” in an

objective or legal sense.” Ibid, p. 16.

29. This universal legal justification is called justified to life even

before repentance, believing and conversion. This means that all
men actually have eternal life before they are even converted.

“… through the merits of Christ every soul was legally justified

before God.” Skip Dodson, Opposites Attract, in Ibid, p. 19.

“This text clearly refutes any limitation on the effectiveness of

Christ’s atonement. All who were condemned when Adam
sinned were justified to life by the work of Christ!” Ibid, p. 19.

30. We are told that Christ reversed the condemnation that Adam’s
sinning brought on the whole human race. Since no man apart
from Adam brought this condemnation upon all men, it follows,
that if that statement is true, then all men are actually and really
saved from that condemnation. This makes man be partially
saved actually, or it makes man be saves-lost!?

20
 “Christ reversed the “condemnation” that Adam by his sin
brought on the human race.” Morsels from Dial Daily Bread, in
Ibid, p. 20.

31. We are told that the universal legal justification is salvation from
the guilt and punishment of sin. This means that the whole world
is actually saved already from guilt and punishment. What can
we make this to mean but that the whole world is already guiltless
and freed from punishment? This means that since Christ made all
that way on the cross, without any works on man’s part, nothing
we do can make us lose it because this is already an accomplished
act.

“… salvation from the guilt and punishment of sin (legal

justification).” Robert J. Wieland and the Editorial Committee of
the 1888 Message Study Committee, Is Beyond Belief Beyond
Belief? p. 20.

32. We are told that the legal universal justification is “imputed

righteousness.” This means that all the world of wicked men had
righteousness imputed to them before they even repented,
believed and was converted. Isn’t this a gross heresy?

“… legal justification (imputed righteousness) …” Ibid, p. 22.

33. We are further told that this universal justification is one

justification that is effective before conversion and is manifested
in the experience of justification by faith. This makes the universal
justification into the over riding power, with subjective
justification (here called justification by faith) as an under rated
subsidiary. This destroys the real potency of subjective
justification.

“We must remember that Sequeira sees there is one justification,

legally effective at the cross for “all men,” and manifested in the
experience of justification by faith which only the obedient believer
knows.” Ibid, p. 41.

21
34. The following quotation shows that legal universal justification is
freedom or deliverance from the condemnation of death, and that
all men have actually received and benefited from it. Thus all men
in sin before they are even convicted, let alone repented and
believed, have actually reaped salvific benefit from Christ on the
cross. Again, we ask, isn’t this gross heresy?

“Justification is a term that no one can honestly deny has a legal

meaning. The sinner has transgressed the law of God and must
suffer the consequent condemnation of death. Therefore for him
to be “covered” so he can live even for a moment requires a legal
justification.” Ibid, p. 75.

35. Again Wieland and his company make it clear that this legal
universal justification is NOT a provision in any sense of the
word. The world, evil and unconverted as it is, is already
reconciled to God on the cross of Christ. Thus we are to think of
the world in the sense of being evil yet reconciled or righteous.
This is immoral dualism.

“The “word” is not a promise of a provisional “maybe” or

“perhaps” contingent on the sinner’s success in doing something
right first. It is the Good News of a reconciliation already
accomplished. Christ “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for
our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world“… John is
positive. He does not say that Provisionally, possibly, maybe,
Christ can be “the propitiation for the sins of the whole world”
“if”, and not until, the sinner does something first. Christ already
is that “propitiation.”” Ibid, p. 76.

“Arminianism objects. You can’t wash Paul’s “all Men” down

the drain so easily, it says. True, many will be lost; therefore this
“justification” must be only provisional, a possibility, not effective
or sure, but only available to “all man.” But what is “available”
never becomes real for the sinner until he does something first.”
Ibid, p. 76.

22
36. Here again we see that the whole world is actually free from the
guilt and condemnation of death and has “life” not merely
provisionally but actually, in fact and reality. Thus we have
people who can be categorized as saved—lost.

“Thus the whole world is in His debt, not merely potentially or

provisionally. He already tasted the second “death for every
man” … and suffered the imputation of all our trespasses. He
bore the burden of the guilt that should have killed us all, and He
has purchased for “all men” the otherwise forfeited gift of life
itself. This is the “justification of life” that Paul speaks of. All of
us live because of the legal imputation of our sin upon Christ.
Furthermore, He delivered this grace to us. He placed it in our
hands, not merely offering it to us as something “available” if we
will do some thing first.” Ibid, p. 77.

37. If nothing we do can bring this legal universal justification to us

because we had it from Christ at the cross who actually justified,
pardoned or freed us, then it MUST follow that NOTHING we do
can cause us to lose it since Christ had already done it for us. By
theory all the world should be actually saved without being able
to be lost.

“Our personal faith does not force Christ to die for us again; He
already did that “once for all.” (It was not necessary for each slave
to apply individually to President Lincoln for freedom, at which
time the President would again sign a legal document for him.)
The “condition” she speaks of is faith, a heart-response to what
Christ has already done for us.” Ibid, p. 79.

38. We are told that the legal universal justification is a free gift of
justification and life for all men. This means that all men are
justified and all men have life actually. That being the case, then
subjective justification (called justification by faith) is not really
determinative, thus not really needed.

23
Donald K. Short, a life time partner of R.J. Wieland, and now partner with him in
spreading the omega of deadly heresies. Both men are the founders of the 1888
Message Study Committee.

“By His righteousness“ the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life “… It is “acquittal, and life for all men” … Thus
it is a legal justification for “all men” … ” Ibid, p. 82.

39. In his very own book Mr. Sequeira presents this so-called legal
justification as an “unconditional salvation” for all men. This
obviously would mean that all men are saved actually without
repentance and believing. No further tempered statement from
any one after can change the absoluteness of this teaching or
weaken the force of its alleged truthfulness.

“I believe that neither camp presents the full truth about salvation.
I believe the Bible teaches that God actually and unconditionally
saved all humanity at the cross so that we are justified and
reconciled to God by that act …” Jack Sequeira, Beyond Belief, p.
8.

24
40. Here again is Sequeira explaining his legal, universal justification
even further to mean Christ actually changing mankind’s past,
paying the penalty for man’s sins. This obviously would mean
that NO MAN should die the second death because Christ
justified all men without any act on their part.

“According to this view, Christ’s life and death actually changed

mankind’s past. Because each of us was corporately identified
with Christ’s humanity, His life and death became our life and
death. In Him, we lived a perfect life; in Him we died the penalty
for sin. When Christ died on the cross, all humanity was legally
justified because all humanity died with Him there.” Ibid, p. 43.

“The legal justification effected at the cross is not something we

experience; it is something we receive as a free gift.” Ibid, p. 101.

41. Now it is in place for us to sum up what this so-called legal

universal justification really means as expressed by its teachers.
This is what happened in the death of Christ on the cross, all men
were actually saved.

a. All men were actually saved.

b. All men were actually freed.
c. All men were delivered from condemnation.
d. All men were delivered from the second death.
e. All men were actually justified
f. All men were actually given life.
g. All men were actually reconciled to God.
h. All men were actually acquitted.
i. All men were actually delivered from guilt.
j. All men actually received imputed righteousness
k. All men’s salvation were actually secured.
l. All men’s entrance into heaven were actually secured.
m. All men were actually legally justified.

42. The following chart illustrates this legal universal justification that
is unconditional.

25
ALL MEN GIVEN APPLICATION DEATH OF CHRIST
NOT OFERED NOT PROVISION ON THE CROSS
JUSTIFIED
RECONCILED
SAVED FREED ACQUITTED
DELIVERED FROM THE SECOND DEATH
DELIVERED FROM CONDEMNATION
PLACE IN HEAVEN SECURED HAVE IMPUTED 2000 YRS. AGO
RIGHTEOUSNESS DELIVERED FROM GUILT
AND GIVEN LIFE

43. There are so much implications that are naturally derived from
this so-called legal, universal justification, and they all show the
gross falsehood of that teaching.

a. If all the world were legally justified, reconciled, acquitted,

freed from guilt, condemnation, and the second death, and
were given life, imputed righteousness, and saved 2000 years
ago on the cross of Christ without any act on man’s part, it
follows, that no rejection of these alleged facts on man’s part
can nullify them or make them ineffective since they were
already accomplished apart from any works of man. This
would mean that all men have salvation in fact before they
repent and believe, unconditionally, irregardless of their works
of acceptance or rejection.
b. Since these benefits were not offerings that man may accept or
reject, but were gifts WITHOUT man’s acceptance or rejection
this would mean that all the world are actually saved, and no
rejection of this as “good news” can make them none-effective
or cause man to lose them although Wieland and his company
says otherwise.
c. This universal legal justification has all the world in a state of
both being lost and saved at the same time. This is however,
impossible, yet it is what that concept is actually saying.
d. This universal legal justification has all men objectively saved
and yet subjectively lost at the same time. This is folly to the
highest.

26
e. If Christ’s unconditional gift saved all men actually, then all
dead men, from the Flood to the death of Christ, although most
of them rejected God and salvation, must have been actually
saved even after they were dead. This again shows the folly of
the teaching.
f. The real evil of this legal universal justification is that it makes
men both righteous and unrighteous at the same time. This
state is so approved by God that it is God Himself that
institutes it by the death of Christ. This is thus a God-
approved combination of good and evil, bringing evil into a
divine status in God’s acceptance at least before the man
repents and believes. Since evil is of Lucifer, he is elevated
with Christ on the same level, which will imply that he is God
with God. Thus Lucifer’s rebellion is justified subtly by that
teaching.
g. Since this legal universal justification causes men to be
righteous and unrighteousness in God’s sight at the same time,
and since good or righteousness is of God and unrighteousness
originated from Lucifer, then God and Lucifer is placed on the
same level, this make Lucifer God together with God and thus
justifies his pantheism which he used to justify his claims.
h. The combination of righteousness and unrighteousness into
one implied by this legal universal justification weakens the
firmness of the authority of the Law of God since it makes God
accept unrighteous transgressors of His Law as righteous
(objectively) before they repent, believe and are converted,
thus the teaching is a subtle form of antinomianism.
i. To claim that this legal universal justification fills men’s hearts
with deep gratitude for such love from God so that they are
disposed to accept Christ more easily because of this so-called
“good news,” is misleading. Rather, when people learn that
they are saved already and actually have life and is free from
guilt, condemnation and the second death before they even
repent, believe and are converted, and can only lose it if they
persistently reject God’s offer consequentially, this causes the
mind to delay in accepting Christ without actually rejecting

27
 Him, in the hope of accepting Him later. Thus the teaching
causes negligence of one’s salvation and lukewarmness.
j. Finally God is made to stain His absolute purity and holiness
by saving men in part while they are yet in sin by this so-called
legal, universal justification.

44. The Bible however teaches that all non-believers are yet
condemned rather than delivered from condemnation. John 3:18.

45. We are told in the Bible that it is only those who are in Christ Jesus
are freed from condemnation, this means Christ must be in them
(mutual inness), thus they MUST first be converted. (Romans 8:1;
1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:13; Romans 8:9,10).

46. Man must repent and believe before he has eternal life. John 3:14-
16.

47. The eternal life we have are not possessed objectively before
conversion, it is possessed within the man only at subjective
justification, and to have it is to have the spiritual mind. (Romans
8:6-8; Romans 5:1; 1 John 3:15).

48. It is only he that endured to the end being converted in Christ that
shall be actually saved. (Matthew 24:13; 1 Corinthians 13:4,7; 1
John 4:7; 1 John 3:17).

49. We are not freed by any objective justification, Christ frees us

indeed not on the cross, but by making us no longer slaves of sin.
(1 John 8:32,34,36; Romans 6:17,18).

50. To make us no longer slaves to sin thus free, our old man must be
crucified, the body of sins (perverted emotions) must be
inactivated, and this comes by subjective justification or
conversion. Romans 6:6,7,22.

28
Arthur G. Daniells, President of the General Conference for more than twenty years,
was the man responsible for starting the omega of deadly heresies, which many
years later blossomed into the heresies of Wieland and Sequeira.

29
51. Righteousness is only imputed to those who repents and believe,
none is given to all men on the cross. Romans 4:3,5,9.

52. Guilt is subjective. It is the mental and moral responsibility man

has in his heart for the wrong he did, as seen in Aaron and the
golden calf. Exodus 32:20-25; Galatians 2:11-16.

53. Therefore guilt can only be first forgiven by a justification that

changes the knowledge in the mind. (Romans 8:6-8; Romans 5:1).
Romans 12:2.

54. Scripture teaches that man is guilty thus condemned for two
things.

a. Man is condemned for the carnal mind or idol-values of his

heart. John 3:20,21.
b. Man is condemned for all his historical past sins that he has
ever committed. John 3:19,20.

55. Thus the first condemnation that man is delivered from is that for
which is IN him, this is why he must be in Christ Jesus thus
having Christ in him. (Romans 8:1-4; John 6:36).

56. The first Justification, which is subjective justification, when it

thus gives man subjectively the Spirit of Christ within, this, is thus
freedom from the first condemnation of sin within. (Galatians 3:7-
9,14; John 5:24).

57. Acquittal from condemnation for past sins comes only in the
judgment when the sins are hidden or blotted out. Acts 3:19;
James 5:19,20.

58. Conversion and obedience to the Law of God must first be fulfilled
to gain this final justification in the Investigative Judgment.
(Romans 3:28,30,31; Roman 2:13,16).

30
59. If God or love dwells within the person thus evidencing
conversion or subjective justification, then the past sins will be
forgiven in the judgment. (1 Peter 4:8; 1 John 4:15-17).

60. The Justification that takes place in the judgment is objective

because it does not affect the heart of the person; the person’s
heart must be converted and be filled with the Love of God before
this justification, thus it is called objective justification. (1 John
4:15,16; Matthew 12:35-37).

61. This last justification also called forensic because the word forum
means court, and this justification takes place in the Judgment in
court. Daniel 7:9,10,22,26.

a. Here is an explanation of the word forum.

“The term forensic is from forum, “a court.” A forensic

proceeding belongs to the judicial department of government,
whose business it is to ascertain the facts and declare the
sentence of the Law.” Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, p.
319.

b. Forensic justification is based on obedience to the Law.

“The ground of a judicial or forensic justification invariably is,

and must be, universal obedience to law … That only is or can
be a legal or forensic justification, that proceeds upon the
ground of its appearing that the justified person is guiltless, or,
in other words, that he has not violated the law, that he has
done only what he had a legal right do … But to be justified
judicially or forensically, is to be pronounced just in the
judgment of law.” Ibid, p. 319.

c. Thus proof that forensic legal justification is that which takes

place in the judgment is seen by the fact that we will be judged
by the law and be pronounced just by God based upon doing
the law, in the judgment. (James 2:8-12; Romans 2:13,16).

31
62. We have also seen how Wieland persistently calls his universal
justification “legal.” Why legal? What does the word legal
mean? It means “according to law.”

“Legal, … According to, pertaining to, or permitted by law; lawful;

judicial.” New Webster’s Dictionary, p. 131.

63. Here is Wieland’s so-called legal justification. We ask ourselves,

what about this justification is according to law? Nothing! In fact
while the person is in transgression of the law of God, while “all
men” are in the practice of sin, Wieland puts God as justifying
them even before conviction, repentance and believing, they are
all justified in sin, transgression of God’s Law. There is nothing
“legal” about that, it is not a justification based upon obedience to
the Law, it is one that is against obedience to God’s Law, it is
illegal justification, not legal justification.

“I re-read The Glad Tidings and began to understand that the legal
justification took place at the cross, long before the sinner repents
and believes. And if it took place at the cross, it must objectively
apply to “all men.”” Robert J. Wieland and the Editorial
Committee of the 1888 Message Study Committee, Is Beyond
Belief Beyond Belief?, p. 60-61.

64. But we are told what legal justification really is, it is to be declared
just in the judgment of law, and this is the justification that occurs
in the Investigative Judgment. (James 2:8-12; Romans 2:13,16).

“That only is or can be a legal or forensic justification, that

proceeds upon the ground of its appearing that the justified
person is guiltless, or, in other words, that he has not violated the
law, that he has done only what he had a legal right to do.”
Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, p. 319. (Emphasis
supplied).

32
65. Now here is a chart explaining the proper sequence of both
subjective transformative justification and forensic legal
justification according to the Bible and true Adventism.

CONVICTION INVESTIGATIVE
REPENTANCE JUDGEMENT
BELIEVING D A I L Y L I V I N G
SANCTIFICATION
SUBJECTIVE OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S LAW OBJECTIVE
JUSTIFICATION FORENSIC
LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION
1. FREEDOM FROM 1. PAST SINS
CONDEMNATION BLOTTED OUT
OF THE CARNAL OR FORGIVEN
MIND 2. CONDEMNATION
2. GIFT OF THE SPIRIT FOR PAST SINS
OF CHRIST WITHIN ABSOLVED

66. Another important point to note about the so-called legal universal
justification that supposedly occurred on the cross of Christ is that
while Wieland and the 1888 Message Study Committee explain
this as happening on the cross 2000 years ago, apostate Protestants
and Evangelicals teach the same thing, with the exception that
they do not teach the whole world or all men were justified at the
cross, they claim that it is only those who believe that are justified
with this forensic, legal justification. Observe:

“Justification is a legal sentence or declaration issued by God in

which He pronounces the person in question free from any fault or
guilt and acceptable in His sight … It is thus a forensic term,
denoting a judicial act of administering the law—in this case, by
declaring a verdict of acquittal, and so excluding all possibility of
condemnation.” David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, Romans
An Interpretive Outline, p. 24.

“The believer’s sins were imputed to Christ—this is why He

suffered and died on the cross … Christ became legally
responsible for the believer’s sins and underwent the believer’s

33
 just punishment. By dying as the believer’s substitute, He
satisfied the demands of justice and forever freed the believer
from any possibility of condemnation or punishment.” Ibid, p. 30.

“The central idea of the passage is that men are saved in precisely
the same manner in which they were lost—through the act of
another. As Adam, by his one transgression, brought
condemnation to all connected with him, so Christ, by His act of
righteousness (His sinless life and substitutionary death) brought
justification to all connected with Him.” Ibid, p. 37.

“But unlike the first Adam, Jesus rendered perfect obedience to

the Father and worked out a perfect righteousness which is
imputed to all who believe in Him.” Ibid, p. 42.

67. The crucial difference between the two bodies is that with one
group all men were justified before they were convicted, repented
and believed; with the other group this legal forensic justification
on the cross is only imputed to those who believe but did not
happen on all men. This chart illustrates the difference.

WIELAND PROTESTANTS
1. FORENSIC LEGAL 2. FORENSIC LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION JUSTIFICATION
AT THE CROSS AT THE CROSS

FOR ALL MEN BEFORE FOR ONLY THOSE

CONVICTION REPENTANCE WHO REPENT
AND BELIEVING, HENCE AND BELIEVE
IT IS UNIVERSAL HENCE IT IS
LIMITED

68. Of the two positions, Wieland and the 1888 Message Study
Committee’s position is the most logical and sensible concerning
the teaching. Here is why.

a. If it is true that Christ died in the actual place of every man,

taking the actual penalty each sinner was to suffer, and doing

34
 this in the real place of all men, so that He died the actual
second death in place of all men, then Wieland is RIGHT. All
men were indeed justified objectively at the cross, thus all are
indeed saved by this universal justification.
b. The implications Wieland has drawn from this teaching is
logical and true. For if Christ actually delivered all men from
condemnation 2000 years ago on the cross, why do men need
to repent and believe to gain its benefit according to the
apostate Protestants and Evangelicals. It follows, that
Wieland’s conclusions drawn from this teaching is sensible and
in full harmony with it.

“Opponents say that the sacrifice of the cross did not effect a
legal justification for “all men.” They insist that it only extends
grace to “all men,” and is a call to the sinner to “come.””
Robert J. Wieland and the Editorial Committee of the 1888
Message Study Committee, Is Beyond Belief Beyond Belief?,
p. 65.

“Thus the whole world is in His debt, not merely potentially or

provisionally. He already tasted the second “death for every
man” …, and suffered the imputation of all our trespasses. He
bore the burden of the guilt that should have killed us all, and
He has purchased for “all men” the otherwise forfeited gift of
life itself. This is the “justification of life” that Paul speaks of.
All of us live because of the legal imputation of our sin upon
Christ.” Ibid, p. 77.

69. If Christ actually substituted all men in the reception of their

penalty for sin, then all men are actually freed from the second
death whether they believe or not. This is universal justification.
But the falsehood of this teaching is only now becoming evident to
some, as the bird has returned to roost. This objective
substitutionary death of Christ concept is as false as the
implications drawn naturally from it. Men do not need to repent
and believe it to have it if it was actually done in the place of all,
as the Evangelicals teach, all men are already universally justified.

35
 But Wieland must carry the teaching further to its logical
conclusion to see its real Satanic character. 1 Timothy 4:1.

a. If the penalty Christ paid on the cross was the actual penalty of
all men, if He suffered in the actual place of all men, then all
men are not ONLY justified as Wieland and his Committee
teaches, but all men CANNOT be lost by any action on their
part since Christ saved all before repentance and believing on
the part of anyone, before any works of man.
b. This teaching about an objective substitutionary death of
Christ, when taken to its logical conclusions will mean that
there is not a lost man in the whole universe of God whether
past, present or future. All are saved, all are justified and
therefore do not even need Wieland’s concept of “subjective
justification by faith” to internalize the salvation already
possessed.

“We must remember that Sequeira sees there is one

justification, legally effective at the cross for “all men,” and
manifested in the experience of justification by faith which only
the obedient believer knows.” Ibid, p. 41.

70. It is now in place for us to show the error of an objective

substitutionary death of Christ. We must observe that Jack
Sequeira makes a difference between what he terms “vicarious
substitution” and “actual substitution.” This is mere semantics,
for there is no real difference between the two. “Vicarious” really
means “in place of “ and so also does the word “substitution,” so
to say “vicarious substitution” is the same as saying “in place of
substitution” or “in place of—in place of.” To also say “actual
substitution” is the same as saying “actually in place of.” We ask;
what’s the difference between the two? “Make believe in place of “
and “really and truly in place of”? The facts are, “vicarious
substitution” or, if you prefer to call it “make believe substitution”
is STILL actually in place of us, or “actual substitution.” There is
no real difference. Let us look at Sequeira’s semantics.

36
 “… the vicarious view of substitution is in complete contrast to
the “in-Christ” view of substitution by which Christ actually
redeemed humanity from the twofold problem of sin …” Jack
Sequeira, Saviour of the World, p. 73.

“The vicarious view of substitution is in complete contrast to the

“in Christ” view of substitution, by which Christ actually assumed
our corporate, sinful humanity in order to redeem it from the
twofold problem of sin.” Ibid, p. 79.

“Second, they present the post—Fall view of Christ’s humanity (as

does the pre—Fall view) in the context of a vicarious substitution.
This undermines the truth of Christ’s actual substitution as
expounded by Paul in his teaching of the in Christ motif and the
truth of the two Adams …” Ibid, p. 113.

“According to this view, Christ did not simply live a perfect life in
our place, He did not simply die instead of us. Rather, His doing
and dying, His perfect life and sacrificial death, actually changed
mankind’s history. All humanity was legally justified at the cross
because all humanity was in Christ. When He lived a perfect life,
all humanity lived a perfect life in Him. When He died, all
humanity died in Him. This is very different than defining the
gospel as only a provisional salvation, as do those who teach the
vicarious view of substitution.” Ibid, p. 134.

71. If Christ died as us and as Sequeira says this is the actual

substitutionary view of salvation, then as we were sinful and
guilty, so would Christ have to be sinful and guilty. If Christ was
not sinful and guilty as us (and He certainly was not), then He did
not die as us as Sequeira claims, but rather died in place of us.
Sequeira’s “actual substitution” is nothing but saying “actually in
place of us.” This is the same as “vicarious substitution.” Thus
Sequeira’s “actual substitution” is nothing else than a misleading
affirmation for the purpose of claiming that Christ’s death for us
was not provisional but application to all men so that all men are

37
 justified. Such structure of reasoning and such a view absolutely
ridiculous. Here is Sequeira.

“Christ did not die so that in exchange we might live; rather He

died and rose as us in order that we might by faith share in His
death and resurrection … As the second Adam (mankind) Christ
took our place and died our death in order that we might be
identified with Him, both in His death and resurrection … This is
where vicarious substitution and actual substitution part company.
The former teaches an exchanged experience; while the latter
teaches a shared experience.” Ibid, p. 135.

“Our corporate, sinful nature that Christ assumed at the

incarnation, was put off at the cross and replaced by the righteous
life of Christ in the resurrection. This certainly could not have
been done vicariously … However, those holding the ”vicarious”
view make a serious charge against this idea that Christ saved
mankind in actuality.” Ibid, p. 136.

“Christ saved mankind in actuality. Those who give this answer

argue that Christ had to assume the same fallen, sinful humanity
that needed redeeming. According to this view, Christ did not
simply live a perfect life in our place; He did not simply die instead
of us. Rather, all humanity was legally justified at the cross
because all humanity was in Christ. When He lived a perfect life,
all humanity lived a perfect in Him. When He died, all humanity
died in Him.” Ibid, pp. 139-140.

72. The difference between Sequeira and Wieland with his 1888
Message Study Committee is just a matter of different emphases.
Whereas Sequeira emphasizes his conditional, universal, legal
justification from the point of the two Adams and his so-called
“actual substitution,” so that most discussion is given to these
two topics to legitimize the universal salvation or reconciliation,
Wieland and his 1888 Message Study Committee has been forced
to defend their teaching through emphasizing an unconditional
universal, legal justification in Christ 2000 years ago at the cross.

38
 However both teach the same thing, or should we rightly say: both
teach the same damnable heresy. Here is Wieland’s own words.

“About this time, unknown to me, Elder Jack Sequeira had been
diligently xeroxing Jones and Waggoner material in the Heritage
Room at Andrews University. Taking these documents back to
Uganda, he found an opportunity to study them when Idi Amin
expelled him and he was forced to wait in the Middle East four
months for a visa to enter Ethiopia. He spent the time in deep
study of Romans and Galatians, following up through biblical
exegesis the new convictions that Jones and Waggoner’s writings
had impressed upon him. Thus the two of us through our
separate paths had come to virtually the same conclusions quite
independently.” Robert J. Wieland, What Did Christ Accomplish
By His Sacrifice?, in, Is Beyond Belief Beyond Belief?, pp. 61-62.

73. Now the very idea of Christ dying on our place, in a

substitutionary sense is wrong for various reasons. Here are
some.

a. Whether it is called vicarious substitution or actual

substitution they are the same error. Because if Christ must die
as our substitute, He must be really our substitute; this means,
He must fulfill the appropriate conditions to be our substitute.
He must not only be human since it is man that sinned, but He
must also be sinful since it is only sinful man that must die.
However, if that were the case, He would have to die for His
own sins. The idea of Christ dying in our actual place
CANNOT work in any sense. (Ezekiel 18:4; 1 Peter 2:21,22).
b. If Christ was made a “make believe sinner” or a psudo-sinner,
this also could not work, for the Law does not call for the death
of a pseudo sinner, but an actual sinner. It is the fantasy and
mythology of playing religion that hinges an important and real
thing as man’s salvation on non-reality or assumed
appearances. Romans 3:10-19; Romans 7:7-11.
c. Christ’s death as our actual substitution or vicarious
substitution can never be legal or according to the Law, because

39
 the Law does not demand the death of an innocent man nor a
substitute. The Law only calls for the death of the truly guilty,
and a substitute, even an innocent one cannot be accepted by
the Law except the justice or rectitude of the law itself change
making the Law now call for the death of the innocent. The
concept is a perverted madness that assumes that the Law of
God has changed. Proverbs 17:15,26; Psalms 111:7,8.
d. The Law, further more, does not call for the death of only one,
human being in place of all men. All men have sinned, thus the
demands of the Law for justice is only met if all men die, not
just one. So one man can NEVER be a substitute for billions.
Romans 3:23.
e. We must always remember, that the call for the death of the
sinner is not by the Law independent of God, it is rather God’s
sense of justice that the Law embodies and reflects, thus it is
God that calls for the death of sinners. With this in mind, one
may now ask, why does God demand the retributory death of
some one to satisfy His justice in order that He can forgive
sinners? Is He so wrathful that He is willing to accept the death
even of the innocent that He may be disposed to save the guilty,
and yet still have the same wrath He satisfied on the innocent
hanging over the heads of the guilty? Such a horrible teaching
is a grave and great dishonor to God’s Nature of justice and
thus can NEVER be true. John 3:16.
f. Why must God satisfy His wrath on the innocent (Christ) and
then claim to forgive man out of Love or His mercy? If He had
to satisfy His wrath BEFORE He could forgive the guilty, then
this is not forgiveness out of mercy. He did already gratify His
wrath of penalty on Christ, thus as He is appeased or satiated,
or whatever, any forgiveness that follows is not really
forgiveness, but, should we say, gratigiveness? This shows how
this so-called actual substitutionary or vicarious substitutionary
death of Christ attacks God’s Nature of Love. Ezekiel 18:23.
g. Since God is represented by Sequeira’s views of the death of
Christ and by other so-called views (all are really the same), as
gratifying or satisfying His urge to punish sinners on the
innocent Jesus, and then claiming to reform those who repent

40
 and believe, the question is; why can’t He do better or at least
exactly as the common sinner handles sin in their children?
Simply withhold His urge to punish sinners, give them a
chance to reform, and give them the help also, and if they do
follow on accordingly and are finally reformed, simply deny
and forget His urge to punish, which is in fact real and genuine
forgiveness. This is what parents do to their rebellious children
(at least some of them), and also some penal systems. If the
persons refuse the period of probation and the help given to
them to reform, then God can punish them. This is sensible and
reasonable, but no sensible reason can be found for God
gratifying His urge to punish so much that He is satisfied with
the fully innocent dying in place of the guilty billions. Ezekiel
18:27-32.
h. If as Sequeira and Wieland and his 1888 Message Study
Committee says, that when Christ actually died in the actual
place of all mankind, all mankind were actually,
unconditionally justified, saved and reconciled, this would
mean that no following conditions is needed nor can ever be
justifiably imposed upon all men to gain or lose these benefits.
It cannot be done because they actually have the benefits of
salvation without conditions since the cross. Mark 1:14,15.
i. If all men were actually saved 2000 years ago before they
repented and believed, which are conditions, it is senseless to
claim that this does not mean that all men are saved
“experientially” except they repent and believe. The issue is
not experience; to say so is to knock up a straw man and then
knock it down to gain credibility in one’s teaching. Because,
any salvation that is unconditional does not need experience to
be really salvation for all. With or without experience through
repenting and believing all men are still saved, and NOTHING
can ever eternally change that since conditions don’t apply to
something that was done unconditionally. All this means, that,
despite their denials, Wieland, his 1888 Message Study
Committee, and Sequeira all teach universal salvation. Perhaps
we should venture to say that they do not see how Satan and
his host has inexorably blinded them, and tied them up in their

41
 salvation philosophy. Satan has tricked them and defeated
them rationally in their philosophy, thus they are trumpeting
his falsehood ignorantly while actually thinking they are
preaching truth.
j. If as these deluded men claim, that all men were
unconditionally legally justified at the cross, then even in their
sinful state, the Law cannot condemn all men. Legal means
“according to Law” (as we have seen before); therefore, if in the
estimation of the Law all men are justified unconditionally
while they are in sin (since it is before they repent), then
somehow the Law has excused sinners. This means the Law no
longer have any condemnatory jurisdiction over “all men”
notwithstanding all were in sin. Such is the technical
philosophical dilemma Wieland and Sequeira has gotten
themselves into. Satan has indeed brought all to shame who
teach those evil concepts, and exaults over them, because he has
truly philosophically tricked and defeated them against the
honor and glory of God. Furthermore, according to that
nonsensical legal justification, the fierceness and justice of the
Law against sin has changed since all men in sin are now
unconditionally, before repentance and believing, justified.
Satan has at least gotten these deceived men to claim the Law
has changed in its abhorrence for sin, when the logical
philosophical contexts of their teachings are considered. But
this is only half of the horrors. Remember that it is God’s
Nature and expression against sin that the Law embodies, thus
it is God’s purity and justice that Wieland and Sequeira’s
concept attack and disparage even while they are delusively
parroting His “agape” Love. Oh, wonders of the accumulated
ability to deceive for more than 6000 years, the darkness of
demons has overthrown the S.D.A. Church. Habakkuk 1:13.
k. If all men were indeed unconditionally, before repentance and
believing, legally justified, then all men are saved in sin or
saved with sin in them. God Himself, being now reconciled to
all men though they are in sin, is made to accept good and evil,
righteousness and unrighteousness together. This obviously
will contextually mean that good and evil is given the same

42
 status or level. And since good is of God and evil is of Lucifer,
then God and Lucifer are in context placed on the same ethical
level. What does this mean? It further means that Lucifer’s
original rebellious claim to be God with God is philosophically
achieved, his foundational root of all sin—to be God with
God—is thus implied as true, and by God Himself, since it is
God that unconditionally justified and reconciled and saved
all men on the cross of Christ. This is a horrible thing, this is
hyper-blasphemous. Because what Satan has been fighting for
for more than 6000 years, and what is the natural high point of
the polytheism, idolatry, pantheism and spiritualism he has
established to claim, he finally has caused God Himself to
claim in that concept of a universal, legal, unconditional
justification, reconciliation and salvation on the cross. The
claim is that he is God on the level with God; and Sequeira,
Wieland and his so-called 1888 Message Study Committee, in
one swoop, in a misconceived theology, has placed themselves
and all that believe their concepts on Satan’s side of the great
controversy, thus they are in fact preaching Satan’s “gospel.”
The teaching is darkness from the mind of Satan himself, it is
the “omega of deadly heresies” prophesied of by Mrs. White,
but this shall be dealt with from that perspective in another
study. (Isaiah 14:12-14; Revelation 2:24).
l. Gerald Finneman, one of the think-tanks for the 1888 Message
Committee has told us that righteousness has been legally
imputed to all men or the whole human race. This is horrible.
We are to believe that the “unconditional good news” is that all
men, while in sin, unconditionally, before repentance and
believing, has been saved, reconciled, have righteousness
imputed to them, have been forgiven, have been freed from
condemnation in Christ, on the cross 2000 years ago. This is
nothing else but saying lost men are saved in sin, yet they are
lost. Here is Finneman in a document that was prepared for
“the meeting of the Primacy of the Gospel Committee
assembled at the General Conference, October 16, 1996.”

43
 “He was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness.” This was not for
Himself, but for the fallen race. This obedience was a legal
righteousness. He represented us. This fulfillment of
righteousness was legally imputed to the fallen race.” Gerald
L. Finneman, The Corporate Solidarity of the Human Race
and Christ as the Second Adam, p. 2.

m. The teachings of Sequeira, Wieland and the 1888 Message

Study Committee are teachings in transition and will get
worse. Here is an example of the teaching getting worse. We
are not only being told that all men were justified, saved and
reconciled in the death of Christ, now all men have been
given a measure of faith. So all men are saved and justified,
now all men have some small portion of faith. What else is
that but universal salvation despite the subjunctive placing of
their so-called “justification by faith.” Here is Finneman
again. 2 Thessalonians 3:2.

“That grace “was given to us in Christ Jesus before time

began.” Christ’s death was given to us “in due time.” And “a
measure of faith” is given to every person in the world …
Christ has been given to every person on earth … Embodied
in that Gift are the judicial gifts of grace and justification.
Christ was judicially condemned and punished. In that very
act, judicially, the human race was justified or acquitted.
Neither condemnation nor justification can be separated from
His person. At the same time He received our condemnation,
the fallen race was acquitted and we were given legal
justification.” Ibid (Section 3 ), p. 2.

n. The teaching that all men died and lived righteous in Christ
2000 years ago, or that when Christ died or lived righteous we
died and lived righteous in Him because He was our actual
substitute is fraught with horrible implications. Despite their
denials, again, and looking beyond and underneath their
Embellishment Doctrines to their Definitive Doctrines we
can see the implications. This would mean that we saved

44
 ourselves by our death, which was actually in Christ 2000
years ago as our actual substitute. Not only that, but we
made ourselves actually righteous by our living righteous in
Christ, so all men have thus become their own saviors. All
died for their sins in Christ, all lived righteous in Christ 2000
years ago, thus God made all men their own saviors in Christ
2000 years ago. Thus man is deified in the corporate
justification of Wieland, the 1888 Message Study Committee
and Sequeira. May God help them not to be blinded by their
own denials of not teaching this and that, but to see the logical
philosophical connections and implications of their teachings.

74. We need to address some denials by Sequeira and Wieland.

Although we have touched this point before, at this time, it is
necessary to refer to it again and answer this point to show the
folly of a universal unconditional, legal justification at the cross. It
is folly to claim that one is unconditionally saved, and then turn
around and yet still say repentance and believing is necessary for
salvation. Here is Sequeira’s teaching.

“It is true that objectively all men and women died in Christ, but if
you reject that death as your death, if you refuse to identify
yourself with the cross of Christ by your faith obedience, the blood
of Christ cannot lawfully forgive you.” Ibid, p. 88.

“But this actual substitution does not mean that all humanity is
automatically saved experientially. This is the heresy of
universalism. This legal justification is God’s supreme gift to
mankind … In addition, God created human beings with a free
will … His supreme gift demands a human response in order for it
to be made effective … That necessary response is faith.
Justification by faith is making effective in the life of the believer
the legal justification Christ achieved for all mankind by His actual
substitution.” Ibid, p. 135.

“Rather, all humanity was legally justified at the cross because all
humanity was in Christ. When He lived a perfect life, all humanity

45
 lived a perfect life in Him. When He died, all humanity died in
Him. This does not mean all humanity is automatically saved.
God’s supreme gift demands a human response of faith in order to
be effective. And this faith is more than a mere mental assent to
the truth of the gospel; it is a heartfelt appreciation that demands a
total obedience and surrender to the truth as it is in Christ.” Ibid,
p. 140.

75. Here is the 1888 Message Study Committee teaching the very same
concept that all men were legally and unconditionally justified,
reconciled or saved at the cross of Christ, yet they afterwards
philosophically contradict this claim by stating that one must
repent and believe in order to have this gift experientially. Here is
Finneman of the 1888 Committee.

“Christ took the condemnation which we merited, then was raised

from the dead because of the accomplished fact of our justification
in Himself … Out of the faith that receives the objective, legal
justification … Faith never creates anything. It accepts that which
already exists. Justification is a fact of history, having been
accomplished in the death of Christ. As to being personally
justified, faith reaches backward in time to the person Christ Jesus
and His justifying act and receives the proffered gift (placed in
man’s hand for acceptance or rejection).” Gerald L. Finneman,
The Corporate Solidarity of the Human Race and Christ as the
Second Adam Section 2, p. 3.

“… justification and reconciliation are historical facts rooted in the

cross of Christ. When He died and while we were enemies we
were reconciled and justified in that act. This had to be legal or
forensic, and not an experiential, reconciliation and justification.
As a person repents of his/her sins and believes in what Christ
has done for His enemies, he is reconciled or justified by a
heartfelt faith, experientially.” Ibid, Section 3, p. 1.

“Reconciliation is a legacy from the past. Faith appropriates that

reconciliation that took place at Calvary.” Ibid, p. 1.

46
76. It is now in place to answer this glaring contradiction in the
universal, unconditional justification, reconciliation and salvation
concept.

a. If we are all justified, reconciled and saved unconditionally,

this means that we have this salvation before and without
repentance, believing and confession. No conditions
afterwards can nullify our possession of this salvation, since we
had it before any conditions were met. This means that claims
of the need to repent and believe are invalid and are
themselves philosophically nullified because we have this
unconditional salvation. Thus it is universalism that is really
being taught despite such denials.
b. Again, as we have said before, if we really do have salvation
objectively and not experientially or subjectively, then we are
presently saved without and lost within at the same time
before we repent and believe. This means that we are saved-
lost at one time. This is surely an absurdity.
c. But why is it in Lucifer’s interest to have people believe that
they are saved and lost at the same time? This idea that will
certainly logically and philosophically operate in the
subconscious mind, puts good and evil together, thus exalting
God and Lucifer together on the same plane (since God is the
source of good, and Lucifer, the source of evil), this Lucifer will
achieve an ethical exaltation on the level with God, thus
confirming his original rebellious claim to be God with God.
Those who teach an unconditional universal justification,
reconciliation and salvation are voicing the claims of the dragon
and are on his side.
d. When we show that the first justification comes only through
the faith of Jesus Christ when we believe (Galatians 2:16),
Sequeira and the 1888 Message Study Committee usually
charge us of righteousness by works; they say we hinge the
gospel on the basis of human response making salvation
dependent on good works. But to this we answer, that it is they
who switch to salvation by human works, even though the
works may be mental. This means that their so-called

47
 experiential justification which they call “justification by faith,”
and which comes after their universal, unconditional
justification, is in fact justification by “heart-felt appreciation”
which they call faith. Heart-felt appreciation is a human mental
work or human mental attitude. Thus their so-called
“justification by faith” is still to be reckoned, as they call it,
righteousness by good works of human response. This exposes
the vanity of their claims against us.
e. Furthermore, the Biblical attack on justified by works or
salvation by works is used in contrast to “justification by faith”
as we present it, not against universal, unconditional
justification as they present it. Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9;
Romans 4:1-13.
f. The following chart illustrates the Biblical presentation of the
contrast.

JUSTIFICATION NOT JUSTIFICATION

BY FAITH BY WORKS

g. The following chart illustrates how Wieland, Sequeira and the

1888 Message Study Committee misrepresents the Scripture
presentation.

UNCONDITIONAL UNIVERSAL NOT JUSTIFICATION

JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS

h. The works the Bible attacks are human works that are
produced BEFORE justification by faith, works that are unaided
by God, not repentance and believing to be justified. Romans
3:27,28; Romans 9:31,33; Romans 10:1-3.
i. The facts are, that the Bible does teach a repentance and
believing for the purpose of being justified, and these
conditions must be met before any type of justification at all
takes place. (Mark 1:14,15; Acts 13:39).
j. And the Bible also teaches a justification that causes good works
afterwards. Romans 3:28,30,31.

48
77. Now, the idea of actual substitution concerning the death of
Christ is not a Bible teaching. The idea is not in the Bible. This
type of substitution is objective substitution, and nothing in the
Bible teaches it. In fact, the Bible soundly condemns any
condemnation of the innocent in place of the wicked. Proverbs
17:15,26; Deuteronomy 24:16.

78. The Greek word that expresses substitution or “in place of” is
anti, and it is not used even once as a preposition with regards to
the death of Christ, to therefore build a doctrine on an important
thing like the death of Christ on a word that was meticulously
avoided by Bible writers concerning the death of Christ is certainly
wrong and misleading. Let us look at the meaning of the Greek
word anti.

“By far the commonest meaning of anti is the simple ‘instead of.’”
James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the
Greek Testament, p. 46.

“Anti; prep. with the general meaning of over against, in the

presence of, in lieu of. Spoken metaphorically either in a hostile
sense, meaning against, or by way of comparison, where it implies
something of equivalent value, and denotes substitution,
exchange, requital … By way of substitution, in place of, instead of
…” Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary
New Testament, p. 190.

“The idea of “in place of” or “instead” comes where two

substantives placed opposite to each other are equivalent and so
may be exchanged … there is exact equivalence like “tit for tat.””
A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research, p. 573.

“Anti signifies one thing over against another, one thing in place of
another, or something given in exchange for something else. In a
popular sense the word “instead” illustrates its meaning … the

49
 “anti” implying vicarious substitution.” F.E. Marsh, Why Did
Christ Die?, pp. 117,118.

79. The only place in the Bible that anti is used in a type of reference
to the death of Christ is Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45.

80. The point of the text is Christ giving His life “in place of” (anti)
death. This means that the life of Christ is given in place of
spiritual death. Whereas we had spiritual death in trespasses and
sins, when we are justified we now have life. Here then the Life of
Christ is given in exchange for spiritual death or to substitute
spiritual death. Thus the Bible does teach subjective substitution
or exchange. (Ephesians 2:1,5; Romans 6:23; Romans 8:6;
Romans 5:1,18).

81. And in commenting on Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, Mr.

Robertson admits that substitution (in the objective sense) is not
even the real meaning of those Scriptures. He tells us:

“These important doctrinal passages teach the substitutionary

conception of Christ’s death, not because anti of itself means
“instead,” which is not true, but because the context renders any
other resultant idea out of the question.” A.T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research, p. 573.

82. Thus it is mere doctrinal considerations and speculations that

determines the theological ideas of some being attached to
Scripture. But by far the most common word used in the Bible to
explain the death of Jesus Christ is huper. Almost all references to
Christ dying for us is huper with no use of the word anti. The
word “huper” in the Greek means “over” and implies “provision.”
Let us now look at that Greek word.

“Huper. From its original locative meaning “over” …” James

Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the
Greek Testament, p. 651.

50
 “Huper. With the genitive, huper means one object bending over
another for its protection, hence to favor, care, benefit, and act for
the sake of another. A mother bird bending over her young, in
protecting them from danger, illustrates the meaning of the word
… As applied to Christ’s death the main thought is, the provision
which is made on behalf of fallen humanity, in His atoning
sacrifice, so that men may be saved from the consequence of sin.
Huper occurs over thirty times in this provisional sense …” F.E.
Marsh, Why Did Christ Die?, p. 114.

“Huper, prep. governing the gen. and acc. with the primary
meaning of over … Meaning for, in behalf of, for the sake of, in the
sense of protection, care, favor, benefit.” Dr. Spiros Zodiates, The
Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 1411.

“It is therefore clear enough. It is the very English word ‘over’ or

‘upper.’ … The literal meaning of huper [is] ‘over’ … The idea of
‘defence,’ ‘in behalf,’ ‘bending over to protect,’ occurs …” A.T.
Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light
of Historical Research, p. 629.

“We must not, however, make the mistake of thinking that huper
of itself literally means ‘in behalf of.’ It means ‘over.’” Ibid, p.
630.

“Christ bought us “out from under” the curse … of the law by

becoming a curse “over” us … In a word, we were under the curse;
Christ took the curse on himself and thus over us (between the
suspended cure and us) and thus rescued us out from under the
curse.” Ibid, p. 631.

83. However, despite the fact that huper means over and implies
provision, some scholars allow their doctrinal slant to
misrepresent the Greek words about certain concepts. For
example, some of them think that the word huper also means
“instead of” or “in place of” thus they give it the meaning of anti.
This is a big and terrible mistake. Here is an example.

51
 “But there is no inherent objection in huper itself to its conveying
the notion of ‘instead’ as a resultant idea. In fact it is per se as
natural as with anti.” Ibid, p. 632.

“… and underneath there is the underlying thought of substitution

…” F.E. Marsh, Why Did Christ Die?, p. 114.

84. Moulton and Milligan even identifies huper with the meaning of
“in the place of,” but one can see why such a terrible mistake is
made by scholars despite the clear and evident facts. Moulton and
Milligan shows us how they make their mistake also. What is
done “in behalf of” someone by another is not necessarily done “in
place of” the person. One can write a letter “in behalf of” a
person, but one is not doing it as a substitute to the person. It is a
mistake to think so.

“From this it is an easy transition to huper in a substitutionary

sense, as when one man writes a letter for another, seeing that he
is unable to write it for himself …” James Hope Moulton and
George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 651.

85. Thus the idea of ever using huper to mean anti is nullified by the
fact that no one ever chose anti to explain the death of Christ as an
objective substitution in the Bible. The use of this type of
substitution to explain the death of Christ can be traced to Roman
Catholicism with the teaching of Christ rendering honor to God in
place of man failing to do so. This is a false teaching.

“God did not punish mankind because that would have meant the
damnation of the whole human race; instead he found for man a
way of rendering satisfaction so that the violated divine honor
might be repaired. Man himself was unable to render satisfaction
to God; therefore God in his mercy sent his Son who assumed
manhood, and who, as man, rendered ample satisfaction in his
innocent death. That is why God became man—so that man could
thus render satisfaction for his disloyalty in the Person of Christ.
The debt of honor was paid for man by God incarnate in man; and

52
 thus God’s violated honor was repaired, and God was able freely
to forgive without the punishment of the guilty. The “Satisfaction
Theory” of Anselm’s is obviously a great improvement upon the
crude Ransom Theory.” Alan Richardson, Creeds the Making, p.
102.

86. Apart from the fact that honor from innocent Christ cannot
substitute the lack of honor in sinful man, many things are wrong
with this concept formulated by the Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Canterbury, Anslem. Not the least problem with this concept is
the sensible question as to why does God have to satisfy His
offended honor by wrath unto death upon an innocent man who
fully honored Him, in order that He might be able to love sinful
offenders, and yet turn around and tell us that it was love that
spurred His action. Despite this, later theologians built upon this
concept and formulated the “Penal Substitution” theory, and it is
from this concept came the dangerous teachings of Wieland,
Sequeira and the 1888 Message Study Committee.

“The attractiveness of Anselm’s theory for the medieval mind is

shown by the fact that, although it was strikingly new, it won
rapid and universal acceptance. It became the current view of the
later Middle Ages, and the theologians of the Reformation built
upon it, though it is doubtful whether they improved upon it.”
Ibid, p. 103.

87. The teaching of Sequeira, Wieland and the 1888 Message Study
Committee is not new in the history of Adventism. Their teaching
of a universal, unconditional, justification, reconciliation or
salvation was taught by a man named Abion Fox Ballenger in the
1890s to the early 1900s. This teaching led him to attempt to
restructure the sanctuary doctrine as taught traditionally in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. That Ballenger’s teaching of a
universal, justification before repentance and believing was
responsible for his destruction and restructuring of the Sanctuary
doctrine as taught by Adventism is seen in these series of
quotations.

53
 “A third work by Ballenger while not directly dealing with the
doctrine of the sanctuary is nevertheless of considerable
importance in any effort to understand the primary motivation for
his sanctuary theology. The Proclamation of Liberty and the
Unpardonable Sin was published in 1915, six years before its
author’s death. It probably presents the final flowering of
Ballenger’s sanctuary theology, for in it the two basic concerns of
that theology (righteousness by faith and Christian assurance)
came to maturity. The work provides a ringing apologetic for
complete emancipation of the entire human race through a
finished atonement at the cross.” Roy Adams, The Sanctuary
Doctrine, pp. 1-2-103.

“In what follows, an attempt is made to show that the

fundamental issues which lay at the root of his departure from
traditional Adventism on this question [of the sanctuary doctrine]
were those of righteousness by faith and of Christian assurance
…” Ibid, p. 106.

“The foregoing leads to the conclusion that in his radical

reinterpretation of the traditional Adventist position, Ballenger
was attempting to restore the doctrine of righteousness by faith as
the basis of salvation in both dispensations.” Ibid, p. 117.

“We may, therefore, conclude that Ballenger eventually discarded

his belief in an investigative judgment because he found it
logically incompatible with the two foundational concerns of his
theology—righteousness by faith and Christian assurance.” Ibid,
p. 140.

88. What was Ballenger’s concept of righteousness by faith? Mr.

Adams refers to the universal salvation concept, the same teaching
of Wieland, the 1888 Message Study Committee, and Sequeira.
“It can be seen that the central emphasis was that which Ballenger
considered the basis of righteousness by faith and Christian
assurance – - the finished, universal work of Christ.” Ibid, p. 119.
(Emphasis original).

54
“The same evangelistic outlook urged him to emphasize the
universality of the atonement, believing that salvation by grace,
which is the central theme of the gospel, had its foundation in free
and universal atonement. Therefore, he urged the view that the
entire human race has been reconciled by the death of Christ,
without their consent or knowledge, a universal reconciliation
corresponding to the spectre of universal death in Adam. In
speaking of a universal atonement, he seemed to envision more
than a provisional or potential benefit. Rather, he had in mind
something tangible and automatic -- available to the whole human
race without condition.” Ibid, pp. 123-124.

“Apparently, Ballenger had not completely thought through the

implications of his concept of universal, conditional atonement.”
Ibid, p. 123.

“Like that son, mankind, without its choice, has been pushed off
the pier by father Adam. Through His death, Christ rescued,
redeemed, all men, placing them back upon the pier … The pier,
Ballenger explained, is simply the platform of life and innocency
before the law. In placing mankind back upon it, Christ placed
them where Adam stood and where they stood in Adam before
… [he] pushed them off into sin and death. By being placed in
this pre-fall state, man can now choose whether he will go higher
into eternal life or lower into the second death. Thus in
Ballenger’s thinking, the death of Christ was in a very real sense,
the death of the world. It justified all men, placing the entire
human race under grace. Calvary, he confidently asserted, cannot
be revoked; the death of Christ was not conditional … It is,
therefore, clear that Ballenger’s purpose in reformulating the
doctrine of the atonement (for iniquity) was that of accentuating
its finality and universality. In his thinking, enormous sense of
assurance generated by this twin emphasis was indispensable for
the effective preaching of the gospel.” Ibid, pp. 124-125,126.
(Emphasis original).

55
89. Surely, as we have seen, that all the points explained above by Mr.
Adams, is the exact teaching of Wieland, the 1888 Message Study
Committee and Sequeira. This was the teaching of Ballenger
which was identified as the darkness of Lucifer by Mrs. White and
the S.D.A. Church in the early 1900s, yet it has now returned as the
“unconditional good new” of Sequeira and as the 1888 message of
Jones and Waggoner” by Wieland and his Committee. Again we
are told.

“The other major aspect of the atonement emphasized by

Ballenger was its universality. In calling attention to this fact of
the doctrine, he seemed to go far beyond the general Protestant
understanding of it. His was a radical universality, bordering on
universalism.” Ibid, p. 152.

“Ballenger indicated that the entire human race has been “saved,”
“redeemed,” “reconciled,” “placed under grace,” without its
knowledge or consent … The difference lies in Ballenger’s
accentuation of an automatic saving benefit experienced by all
men by virtue of Christ’s provisions at the cross.” Ibid, pp. 152-
153.

90. A reading out of Ballenger’s book The Proclamation of Liberty

and the Unpardonable Sin is like a reading straight out of the
writings of Wieland and the 1888 Message Study Committee, and
also out of Jack Sequeira’s books, Beyond Belief and Saviour of
the World. It now follows for us to extensively show that even the
various arguments, logic, points and Scriptures used by Wieland
and Sequeira to teach a universal, unconditional, reconciliation,
justification or salvation are exactly the same used in Ballenger’s
book; one would even get the idea that Wieland and Sequeira
copied from Ballenger on a large scale. Readers can compare the
statements we will quote from Ballenger’s book with those already
quoted in this study from Wieland and Sequeira, or refer to their
writings. We start of by showing Ballenger’s claim that all the
world is free made so by the death of Christ on the cross, this is

56
 universalism, because the freedom is not subjective, all men have
it.

“The power of Pentecost was given to men to enable them to

proclaim the gospel,—the good news that God has set free a world
of slaves. Mark the tense,—that God has set them free … The
power of Pentecost is given to proclaim the good news that men
are free; “to proclaim liberty to the captives”; to proclaim an open
door to their prison—not a door to be opened. The cross of Calvary
is this open door.” Albion F. Ballenger, The Proclamation of
Liberty and the Unpardonable Sin, p. 15.

91. Here is Sequeira’s teaching that when Christ died all the world
died in reality, but Ballenger carries it even further.

“And now since God imputed the sins of the whole world to His
Son, and His Son bore the sins of the whole world in His own
body on the tree; and since He died as a substitute for the whole
sinning world, it follows that when Christ died, the whole sinning
world died. And this is what made the Apostle Paul so enthusiastic
in preaching the Gospel, and this is what he meant when he said:
“The love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that
one died for all, therefore all died.” 1 Corinthians 5:21, R.V. Now
appears the cause for the great rejoicing. Since all the world has
died, all the world is freed from sin.” Ibid, pp. 17-18.

“The whole world is dead; One died for all, there all died.” Ibid,
p. 19.

92. Even the emancipation motif used over and over by Wieland and
Sequeira is used over and over in Ballenger’s book.

“In Jesus Christ the whole world died for its sins, and then in Jesus
Christ the whole world arose from the dead with a life that is freed
from sin. This is the good news which the herald of the cross
bears to the world. With this emancipation proclamation, he goes
forth proclaiming liberty to all the world. And just as every herald

57
 of the president’s proclamation of liberty utterly refused to
recognize any man as a slave, so the herald of the Gospel must
utterly refuse to recognize any man as a slave of sin. He must
proclaim liberty to all men tell all men that they are free
notwithstanding their heredity or previous condition of
servitude.” Ibid, p. 20.

93. The Adam motif as used by both Wieland and Sequeira is so used
by Ballenger also. All the teachings are one and the same.

“The burden of this book is to reveal to the sinner his standing

before God and the law as it really is from God’s standpoint, for
God looks upon the sinner not through the sinning and
enslavement of the “first man”—Adam—but through the
righteousness and emancipation of the “last Adam”—Christ.”
Ibid, p. 30.

94. The erroneous interpretation of Sequeira of knowing no man after

the flesh to mean that all are reconciled to God is even found in
Ballenger’s book.

“The Apostle Paul refused to recognize any man as a slave of sin.

This is what he meant when he wrote: “Henceforth know we no
man after the flesh.” 2 Corinthians 5:16. And this he wrote as the
conclusion of his argument proving that Christ died for the whole
world, and arose from the dead for the whole world.” Ibid, p. 31.

“To know a man after the flesh is to know him born a slave of sin
and death, in Adam. But to know a man as God knows him in
Christ, is to know him as belonging to a new creation—saved,
ransomed, reconciled to God by the death of His Son.” Ibid, p. 32.

95. Here is Wieland and Sequeira’s teaching that a person’s believing

after does not change God’s acceptance of the person because he is
saved in Christ even while he is an unbelieving sinner.

58
 “The fact that the unbelieving sinner does not feel saved, or act
saved, does not change the fact that the Lord “hath saved” him
according to His own purpose and grace [not according to his
works] which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began
… when the sinner shall believe all this, his faith does not change
God’s gracious attitude towards him, but it does change his
attitude toward God.” Ibid, pp. 34-35.

96. Even Wieland and Sequeira’s so-called “heart-felt belief” that is

caused by this universal unconditional salvation is represented in
Ballenger’s teaching. Thus shows that the position adopted by all
are logical, and that all the teachings of the different individuals
are one and the same.

“All that is now necessary in order for him to look and feel and act
like a free man is to believe he is free, and believe the promise of the
government to keep him free. No new proclamation is needed
when he believes he is free. His belief that he is free does not
change the government ‘s feelings and actions towards the
government … And the sad fact that the sinner still feels and
looked and acts like one cursed by the law, does not change the
fact that he is redeemed from the curse of the law.” Ibid, p. 36.

97. The idea of Adam’s “sin nature” (whatever that means) causing all
men to sin, thus Christ’s gift equivalently freeing all men, which is
taught in Sequeira’s books, is also taught by Ballenger.

“A carnal nature, which cannot but sin, was given to the whole
human race through Adam, the slave of sin. Having become a
sinner, Adam passed on to his posterity a sinning nature whose
doom is death. Consequently, when God, who loved the world
even while they were sinners, undertook “to save the world,” it
become necessary for him to make the gift or righteousness and
life as free to the human race as Adam’s gift of carnality and death
had been.” Ibid, p. 38.

59
98. Just as both Wieland and Sequeira teach a universal atonement so
also does Ballenger.

“The Apostle Paul lays the foundation for universal atonement

through Christ, in the fact of universal alienation through Adam
… Thus repeatedly is it stated that one man made all men sinners
and brought death upon all. Therefore, no child of Adam is
responsible for being made a sinner, nor for his death. “In Adam
all die.” This fact lays the foundation for universal atonement.”
Ibid, pp. 61-62.

99. Even this following phase about “consultation” was used by

Sequeira. Here is Ballenger using it also.

“Adam did not consult us before he ruined us, and so God need
not consult us before He redeemed us.” Ibid, p. 62.

100. The idea that our reconciliation was unconditional so that we are
saved unconditionally taught by both Wieland and Sequeira is
also taught by Ballenger.

“And this is the reason the promise which God made to Abraham,
“In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Genesis
22:18), was an unconditional promise. In Jesus Christ they were
all blessed without conditions.” Ibid, p. 63.

101. The concept of two reconciliations or justifications, one before

repentance and believing and the other after, a new concept taught
by both Wieland and Sequeira, was also surprisingly taught by
Ballenger. It is almost as if Wieland and Sequeira lifted this
teaching straight out of Ballenger’s book.

“Thus far has the God of all grace gone in the plan of redemption
without the will or co-operation, and therefore all men could be
redeemed without their will or co-operation. What! Save a man
without his will? Yes, “He is the Saviour of all men, especially of
those that believe.” … The … Scripture tells us that He is Saviour

60
 of men who do not believe, but He is especially the Saviour of
those who do believe. There are two phases of salvation clearly
brought to view in the Scriptures. First, that salvation which God
wrought for man on the cross before he believed, and second, that
which He works in man when he believes. The first salvation will
profit us nothing without the second.” Ibid, p. 64.

“Notice how we were reconciled. It was not through our good

works,—not through our faith that we are reconciled to God; for
this reconciliation was accomplished without our faith; yes, even
while we were enemies. This reconciliation was accomplished, not
by our faith, but “by the death of His Son.” And this
reconciliation that has reconciled man before he believes, is what he
believes before he is reconciled. These two phases of reconciliation
are clearly presented in 2 Corinthians 5 … This reconciliation
which was made be charging the world’s sin to Christ, and not
charging them to the world, is a reconciliation that has already
been accomplished for all the world, and is the same reconciliation
referred to in Romans 5:10 … But there is another reconciliation
spoken of in that same text … a reconciliation that depends on the
sinner’s willingness to be reconciled.” Ibid, pp. 65-66.

“Here are two reconciliations. One accomplished for man without

his faith or knowledge, the other accomplished in man when he
shall hear and believe the reconciliation by which he was
reconciled before he believed, and while he was yet an enemy.”
Ibid, p. 66.

102. Even the idea that we have salvation before we accept it, and yet
do not have it unless we accept it, which is a gross contradiction,
spoken in the same way by both Wieland and Sequeira, is found in
Ballenger’s book.

“But while salvation is of faith, and no part of the gift of grace will
profit the sinner unless he accepts it by faith, yet it must be borne
in mind that faith does not earn salvation, nor does it add a

61
 particle to the grace already given—to the work already
finished,—to the liberty proclaimed.” Ibid, p. 91.

“And just as the faith of the colored freedman appreciated the

freedom which was already his by the proclamation of the cross.
And just as the colored man who did not believe that he was
proclaimed free, lived the rest of his days a freed man in bondage,
so sinner who refuses to believe the proclamation of liberty
making him free through the cross of Calvary, will live the rest of
his days a redeemed man in bondage.” Ibid, pp. 92-93.

103. Even the idea that we are not lost because of our sins but because
we refuse to accept the free gift of salvation that is taught by
Wieland and Sequeira can be found taught in Ballenger’s so-called
gospel.

“The sin of refusing to take freedom so freely given is the sin for which
lost man will suffer. He will not suffer because in Adam he was
born a sinner, nor because as a slave of Adam’s nature he sinned.
He will suffer because he neglected to be saved; because he
refused to receive a salvation which was given him at the cost of
the life of the only begotten Son of God.” Ibid, pp. 93-94.

104. Here again is a point taught by Wieland and Sequeira that is taken
straight out of Ballenger’s book; is this not strangely coincidental?

“The Arminian is right when he insists that Christ died for all men,
and that whosoever will may come; and those who refuse to come
are lost. But he is wrong when he teaches that the sinner is as
guilty after Christ has died for his sins as if Christ had not died.
For how can it be that we are as guilty as if Christ had not died?
Why did He die? What caused His death? He did not die for His
own sins, and it would be impossible for him to die if He did not
bear sin. From whom, then, came the guilt under which He died?
Did it not come from us? Since then the guilt which He bore was
taken from us and laid on Him, how can it be that the same guilt
remains on us, making us a guilty as if He had not borne our

62
 guilt? Surely, it is an error to teach that we are as guilty after
Christ has taken our guilt upon Him an paid its penalty in His
death, as we would have been if He had not died for our sins.”
Ibid, p. 126.

“But it is an error to teach that we are as guilty after Christ has

taken our guilt, as if He had not suffered for us. The Arminian is
right in opposing the doctrine that Christ died for the few only,
and he is right in opposing the teaching that because Christ died
for all therefore all must be saved. But he is wrong when he
allows a fear of these errors to drive him to a denial of the
scriptural truth that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law, being made a curse for us. He should gladly admit that
Christ died for all men, and that the sins which were laid on him
will not be again laid on the sinner. But he should emphasize the
gospel truth that the sinner in order to realize the benefits of this
great salvation must accept it by faith.” Ibid, p. 127.

105. Here is Wieland and Sequeira’s unconditional salvation expressed

by Ballenger in another way.

“In order to escape the errors of Universalism, there is no need to

teach that the sins of the world were placed on the Lamb of God
conditionally,—that He died conditionally. That is, in case man does
not accept the sacrifice, God will revoke, or take back, what He has
done for the sinner.” Ibid, pp. 127-128.

106. Here again is the claim that the sins of the whole world were
already remitted by Christ’s offering as taught by Wieland and
Sequeira.

“The new covenant is here quoted to prove that the promise of

God to remit sins and to remember them no more, has been fulfilled.
For just as surely as there is no more offering for sin, just so surely
has the whole world obtained remission of sins in that one
offering. It is by this one offering that all the sinning sons of sinful
Adam have been pardoned and saved from the iniquities which

63
 they committed through the sinful eating of their sinful father
Adam.” Ibid, p. 165.

107. The idea that circumcision was the death of Christ for all because
all were circumcised so that the sins of all men converted and
unconverted were not imputed to them, is taught by Ballenger,
apart from him, the only persons this erroneous teaching has
surfaced in are Wieland and the 1888 Message Committee and
Sequeira. Isn’t this surprising?

“When Christ, who was made sin for us, and who bore our sins in
His own body on the tree, was “circumcised” on Calvary’s
cross,—that is, when He was cut off in death, “we were
circumcised,” that is, cut off in Him; when He who bore our sins
in His own body, was cut off, we were reckoned cut off in Him.
When He paid the penalty for our sins in His death on Calvary,
we were counted as having paid the penalty for our sins in His
death. Thus circumcision, which was a cutting off of a part of the
body of the flesh, was a type of the crucifixion of Christ; or the
circumcising, or the “putting off of the body of the sins of the
flesh.” O yes! It is done! He hath forgiven our iniquities; He hath
imputed them to His Son, and hath not imputed them to us.”
Ibid, pp. 171-172.

108. Even the idea of all of humanity sinning in Adam because we were
in his loins, so trumpeted by Wieland and especially Sequeira,
even that was taught by Ballenger.

“Reader, you were not present in person when that covenant with
death was made, but you were present in your representative, you
were there in the loins of Adam when the adversary met him.
When Adam sinned, you sinned in him. This sinning was made
manifest in you when you were born. By your birth you inherited
the curses of that covenant just as the branch inherits the nature of
the vine. Satan did not need to make that covenant with any of
the children of Adam; it, was already made with them in Adam.”
Ibid, p. 174.

64
109. All of these quotations clearly show that the teachings of Ballenger
is exactly that of Wieland, the 1888 Message Study Committee,
and Jack Sequeira. The uncanny similarity is shocking. The
teachings of Ballenger was rejected by the Seventh-day Adventist
Church when Ellen G. White pointed him out as teaching error.
She said this about Ballenger.

“You are the one whom the Lord presented before me in

Salamanca … And now again our Brother Ballenger is presenting
theories that cannot be substantiated by the Word of God … I
declare in the name of the Lord that the most dangerous heresies
are seeking to find entrance among us as a people, and Elder
Ballenger is making spoil of his own soul …Your theories, which
have multitudes of fine threads, and need so many explanations,
are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God … God
forbids your course of action—making the blessed Scriptures, by
grouping them in your way , to testify to build up a falsehood. Let
us all cling to the established truth of the sanctuary.” Ellen G.
White, Manuscripts 59, 1905.

“In clear, plain language I am to say to those in attendance at this

conference that Brother Ballenger has been allowing his mind to
receive and believe specious error … This message, if accepted,
would undermine the pillars of our faith.” Ellen G. White
Manuscripts 62, 1905.

“Our Instructor spoke words to Elder Ballenger: ‘You are bringing

in confusion and perplexity by your interpretation of the
Scriptures. You think that you have been given new light but your
light will become darkness to those who receive it … Stop right
where you are; for God has not given you this message to bear to
the people.” Ibid.

65
Albion F. Ballenger brought to the S.D.A. Church in the 1890s a deadly heresy for
which he was dismissed from the ministry. This teaching is today present in the
S.D.A Church disguised as the 1888 message revived.

66
110. We have seen before that it was Ballenger’s concept of
righteousness by faith that determined his reinterpretation of the
sanctuary doctrine. It is the typological flaws of his righteousness
by faith concept that logically led step by step to his erroneous
sanctuary doctrine, thus both are seriously flawed. Let’s look at
this again.

“In what follows, an attempt is made to show that the

fundamental issues which lay at the root of his departure from
traditional Adventism on this question [the sanctuary] were those
of righteousness by faith and of Christian assurance, undergirded
by a strong evangelistic outlook which characterized his entire life.
This concern for righteousness by faith is far from conspicuous in
most of Ballenger’s writings on the sanctuary itself. It is, rather,
from a careful consideration of the spirit and thrust of his works
apparently unrelated to the sanctuary that one suddenly becomes
alert to significant hints in regard to righteousness by faith and
Christian assurance, present all the while in his explication of the
sanctuary theme. Thus it can be seen that his reinterpretation of
the doctrine was motivated by what he regarded as fundamental,
built-in flaws in the Adventist exposition, flaws which, in his
view, inevitably led the church into legalism … The basis of his
indictment was, rather, Adventism’s understanding of the
doctrine of the sanctuary which, he believed, entailed a legalistic
method of salvation before the cross. This is what led him to
reinterpret and develop certain important aspects of that doctrine,
in order to render them consistent with the principles of
righteousness by faith and Christian assurance.” Roy Adams, The
Sanctuary Doctrine, pp. 106-107.

111. Sequeira too, much more than Wieland, has already changed the
traditional Adventist understanding of the Sanctuary doctrine
somewhat like Ballenger before him, and it is because of his
unconditional, universal, forensic justification doctrine like
Ballenger before him. Without going much into this topic, here is
a brief example of the sanctuary heresies of Sequeira. He is telling

67
 us that the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment does
not match his idea of justification by faith. Of course we know
that this is because of his idea of justification is false.

“We have been accused and unfortunately the accusation to some

degree is valid. That is why we need to look at the investigative
judgment seriously. The accusation is that our doctrine on the
investigative judgment contradicts the doctrine of justification by
faith … the impression that we have given from some of our books
is that ultimately it is our works that decide whether we are
qualified for heaven or not. That in fact is a contradiction of
justification by faith.” Jack Sequeira, Sanctuary, pp. 106-107.

112. We know however, that our works will be the deciding factor in
the judgment, because if our works are transgression of God’s
Law, we are in sin and has not been justified. Romans 2:13,16;
James 2:8-12; Matthew 12:36,37.

113. The error made by Sequeira is in harmony with his salvific

doctrine. If his doctrine of justification is wrong like Wieland, so
will be his sanctuary doctrine, although we may not yet know
where Wieland and his 1888 Message Study Committee stands on
this topic. Here is Sequeira:

“God did not send Him [Jesus] to help us to be good, but He sent
Him to save us, and He has done it.” Jack Sequeira, “Issues: The
Heavenly Sanctuary, a sermon reproduced in, Those Who Do Not
Remember the Past, p. 87.

114. Sequeira does not believe that there is a literal sanctuary in heaven
with two apartments as traditional Adventism does. He says:

“In other words, God dwells in heaven. So heaven is His

sanctuary. God dwells where? In the believer, so we are the
temple of God. That’s why we need to keep our bodies holy. By
the way, Hebrews chapter 9, I believe, describes the heavenly
sanctuary that Christ went to, as heaven itself. Do you know that?

68
 He went to heaven itself … So to us, heaven itself is the
sanctuary.” Ibid, p. 99.

115. This idea denies the many Scriptures in which the temple (or
sanctuary) is seen in heaven. Now if the sanctuary is heaven,
then, according to Sequeira, these Scriptures should mean “the
heaven of God was seen in heaven.” How silly of him. Revelation
11:19; Revelation 14:15,17; Revelation 15:5,6,8.

116. However, Albion Ballenger was teaching this universal,

unconditional, forensic justification like Sequeira and Wieland,
long before he met the General Conference disciplinary committee
in 1905. We are even told that his book which espouses this
teaching the most, and which we have quoted from extensively, in
manuscript form was presented to the committee in the S.D.A.
Church and was rejected, yet this teaching has now, by 2002,
become accepted in the Adventist world church at large.

“Though Proclamation of Liberty was published in 1915, it is said

to have been written while Ballenger was still in Europe, that is,
prior to 1905. Allegedly, the manuscript for the book “was
submitted to a chosen committee and [was] rejected,” a
development which led Ballenger to arrange to publish it himself.”
Roy Adams, The Sanctuary Doctrine, p. 103.

117. One wonders, why hadn’t Wieland and Sequeira checked out the
records of Ballenger’s trial before the Conference, perhaps they
might have learned the lessons of history, that this unconditional,
universal justification was wrong; but, alas, we are told all these
records were lost. Isn’t this a mystery?

“The amount of accessible unpublished material has been

extremely meager, and much of the information gleaned could
already be found, substantially, in Ballenger’s published works.
Unfortunately, the entire proceedings of the 1905 Ballenger trial
has been lost. These records should have provided more

69
 authentic, objective evidence of the specific charge against
Ballenger and the details of his defense.” Ibid, pp. 103-104.

118. How were they lost? Was it that Satan was trying to cover up
something to bring in this horrible Ballengic doctrine unnoticed
and not remembered into the S.D.A. Church for its final
destruction? Observe the even mysterious answer that was given
to Roy Adams to account for the missing material; doesn’t some
thing sound suspicious here?

“While still in its custody, these documents were classified by the

G.C. Archives as Record Group 11, Out going Letters Book, no. 37.
They included pertinent letters and other documents for the
crucial period May 16, 1905 to January 1906. The explanation
given by Bert A. Haloviak, an official at the Adventist Archives,
for the loss of these documents was that hey had been borrowed
by a prominent Adventist historian (whom he would not name)
and had never returned.” Footnote. Ibid, pp. 103-104.

119. Wieland, the 1888 Message Committee and Sequeira all claim that
this so-called universal, unconditional justification was the real
message of Jones and Waggoner, they claim that this was the heart
of the 1888 message. Some quotations from Waggoner are
sometimes used to imply he taught this same Ballenger heresy.
Jeff Pippenger has given us an example. Here is Waggoner.

“There is no exception here. As the condemnation came upon all,

so the justification comes upon all … the free gift comes upon all.”
E.J. Waggoner, Signs of the Times, March 12, 1896. Quoted in,
Jeff Pippenger, Adventism’s New View, p. 43.

120. The following statement by Waggoner really seems to teach a

universal salvation, but Waggoner, while referring to the term,
does not say that this is what his teaching, as Wieland and
Sequeira in a sense does. Observe the phrase “should be saved”
used by Waggoner as against saying that “all men are saved.”
Waggoner is here saying that salvation is “given” to every man in

70
 the sense of being provided for or made available to all men, but
he NOT teaching a universal, unconditional justification, far from
it.

“All this deliverance is ‘according to the will of our God and

Father.’ The will of God is our sanctification. 1 Thessalonians 4:3.
He wills that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of
the truth. 1 Timothy 2:4. And He ‘accomplishes all things
according to the counsel of His will.’ Ephesians 1:11, ‘Do you
mean to teach universal salvation?’ someone may ask. We mean
to teach just what the Word of God teaches that ‘the grace of God
hath appeared, bringing salvation for every man,’ and has given it
to him; but the majority spurn it and throw it away. The
judgement will reveal the fact that full salvation was given to
every man and that the lost have deliberately thrown away their
birthright possession.” E.J. Waggoner, Glad Tidings, p. 8.

121. Waggoner’s statements are to be understood in the context of

provision and application; provision in the sense of the fact that
God provided salvation for man, or made the merits of Christ
available as a gift for man, and application in the sense that
whosoever willeth to be saved by fulfilling the conditions of
genuine repentance and believing, the same shall actually
experience salvation or justification. Mark 1:14,15.

a. Illustrative chart of what Waggoner did not teach, and what he

taught.

WAGGONER TAUGHT …

PROVISION FOR ALL APPLICATION/CONDITIONAL

SALVATION JUSTIFICATION
JUSTIFICATION SALVATION
EVERY OTHER GOOD GIFT EXPERIENCE

WAGGONER DID NOT TEACH …

71
 APPLICATION/CONDITIONAL APPLICATION/CONDITIONAL
SALVATION GIVEN TO ALL SOME JUSTIFIED
JUSTIIFCATION GIVEN TO ALL SOME EXPERIENCE SALVATION

b. The second part of the second chart “application/conditional”

is what Waggoner taught; however, he did not teach an
unconditional application of justification or salvation. In fact,
here is a statement from Waggoner denying that all men are
justified saved in any way at all.

“There is no exception here. As the condemnation came upon all,

so the justification comes upon all … the free gift comes upon all
… Why Not All? The text says that ’by obedience of One shall
many be made righteous.’ Someone may ask, ‘Why are not all
made righteous by the obedience of One?’ The reason is that they
do not wish to be. If men were counted righteous simply because
One was righteous eighteen hundred years ago, then all would
have to be righteous by the same obedience. There would be no
justice in counting righteousness to one and not all, if it were in
that way. But we have seen that it is not so.” E.J. Waggoner,
Signs of the Times, March 12, 1896. Quoted in, Jeff Pippenger,
Adventism’s New View, p. 43.

122. The statement we have just read from Waggoner tells us all men
were not counted righteous eighteen hundred years ago (today,
two thousand years ago) or at any time because of the obedience
of Christ so long ago, because with this concept all would have to
be righteous or saved. This shows that Waggoner taught a
conditional justification or salvation. Even in his commentary on
the verses most used by Wieland and Sequeira to teach their
Ballengerite unconditional, universal justification or salvation,
(Romans 5:10-21), Waggoner can clearly be seen to be against this
unconditional universal concept, and a two-phase justification. In
this extract Waggoner tells us that the justification or salvation of
Romans 5:15-21 is subjective, and even though it came to all men,
all men were not justified (as the Ballengerites teach) because all

72
 men do not want the gift nor get it even though it comes within
their reach.

“’As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; …
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all
men unto justification of life.’ What is the free gift? It is the free
gift by grace, and it appertaineth unto many. The work of Adam
plunged man into sin; the work of Christ brings men out of sin.
One man’s single offense plunged many into offenses; but the one
man’s obedience gathers the many offenses of many men, and
brings them out from beneath the condemnation of those offenses.
Then the free gift is the righteousness of Christ. How do we get
the righteousness of Christ? We cannot separate the
righteousness of Christ from Christ Himself. Therefore in order
for men to get the righteousness of Christ, they must have the
life of Christ. So the free gift comes upon all men who are
justified by the life of Christ. Justification is life. It is the life of
Christ. ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made
sinners, even so by the obedience of one many shall be make
righteous.’ These are simple and positive statements. No good
can come to man by questioning them. He only reaps barrenness
to his soul. Let us accept them and believe them. ‘The free gift
came upon all men to justification of life.’ Are all men going to be
justified? All men might if they would; but says Christ ‘Ye will
not come to Me that ye might have life.’ All are dead in trespasses
and sins. It comes within the reach of all men, and those who do
not get it are those who do not want it.” E. J. Waggoner, Bible
Studies on the Book of Romans, p. 32. (Emphasis supplied).

123. Observe that Waggoner shows that many made righteous does not
mean all men are legally justified in Christ, rather this is obedience
to the law; and how does this occur? By partaking of Christ to
have His life within.

“By the obedience of Christ are many made righteous or obedient.

Righteousness is obedience to the law. Did you ever read or hear
of any human being who kept the law perfectly? Or did you ever

73
 hear of anyone, however high his standard was set, who did not
find something beyond, that he had not attained to? Even worldly
men often have an ideal of their own; but the nearer they can come
to that ideal, the greater lack they see in themselves. Anyone who
is sincere in trying to reach a high standard, when he gets there,
will see something beyond it. There is one spotless life. There is
one man, the man Christ Jesus, who resisted successful all the
powers of sin, when he was here upon the earth. He was the
Word made flesh. God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself.
He would stand before the world, and challenge any to convict
Him of sin. No guile was found in His mouth. He was ‘holy,
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than
the heavens,’ and by His obedience shall many be made righteous.
Then comes the question, how can this be? It is the same question
that the Jews propounded to Christ, when He said; ‘Except ye eat
My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you.” Ibid, pp.
32-33.

124. Here, in this quotation, we see that there is no justification, no

righteousness in any sense, no imputation without change, or
without the evidence of obedience. This means that there is no
objective, legal justification for all men before they repent and
believe.

“If we will eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood, we will
have the life of Christ. If we have His life, we have a righteous
life; His obedience works in us, and that makes us righteous. This
does not leave any room for the statement that Christ obeyed for
us, and that therefore we can do as we please, and His
righteousness will be accounted unto us just the same. His
obedience must be manifested in us day by day. It is not our
obedience, but the obedience of Christ working in us. By those
‘exceeding great and precious promises,’ we take the divine life
into us. The life we live is the life of the Son of God. He died for
us and loved us with a love that we cannot fathom. The
righteousness that we have is His. Thanks be to God for the
unspeakable gift. He lets us get all the benefits of that obedience,

74
 because we have shown our intense desire for obedience. That is
why He gives it to us.” Ibid, p. 33.

125. In this quotation the many being made righteous is used to mean
those who obtain divine life through Christ dwelling within them
by faith, no objective, universal, unconditional justification as
taught by Wieland and Sequeira is presented here by Waggoner.

“When you go to God, take these Scriptures on your lips: ‘We shall
be saved by His life.’ By the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous.’ Take them to God in prayer. They are true, for
the Lord Himself has said so. How can these blessings be
obtained? By faith! Take it by faith, and it is yours, and no one
can take if from you. Then you will have it, although you do not
understand how it can be done. When you have it, you have life.
What life? The divine life. Then when you come up to the time of
temptation, the time when you have usually fallen, you can tell
Satan that he has no power to make you fall beneath that
temptation, for it is not you, but Christ that dwelleth in you.”
Ibid, p. 33. (Emphasis supplied).

“Repeat the glorious words over and over again, ‘His life is mine,
I cannot be touched by sin. His strength in my strength; His
obedience is my obedience, and His life is my life. That was a
sinless life, and by faith I have it. I hold to it because it is mine,
and sin cannot touch it.’ That is the only way to resist them, and
that will be successful everytime.” Ibid, p. 34. (Emphasis
supplied).

126. Neither did we die with Christ or lived holy with Him 2000 years
ago; this happens now, according to Waggoner, when we repent,
believe and are changed by Christ Himself. Only when we have
given ourselves to Christ is our lives hid with Christ in God, not
2000 years ago. All this speaks against this Ballengerite, universal,
unconditional salvation that has been revived or resurrected in
Wieland and Sequeira.

75
 “Therefore if we die with Him, and in our death are united with
Him, we shall also live with Him. The great thought around which
the whole Bible clusters, is death and resurrection with Christ. If
we die with Him, we shall live again. We die with Him,—when?
Now! When we acknowledge our life forfeited, and give up all
claims to that life, and everything that is connected with it, that
every moment we die with Christ. Ibid, p. 39.

“When we come to that place where we see that we have those

things, and are ready to give them up, and pay the forfeit, them it
is that we can die with Christ, and take His sinless life in their
stead. In yielding up that life of ours, we give up all these things,
and when they are all given up, then we are dead with Christ, just
so surely must we be raised again, for Christ is risen, and we then
walk in newness of life. That new life,—that newness of life which
we have, is the life of Christ, and it is a sinless life.” Ibid, p. 39.

“Our lives are hid with Christ in God, so that we fear not the
power of wicked men, or of the devil himself. When we have
given ourselves to Christ, and our life is hid with Him, what
matters is whether this life be cut off soon or not? We walk with
Christ, and He controls our lives.” Ibid, p. 40. (Emphasis
supplied).

“What difference if men bring reproaches on us,—we are dead,

and our life is hid with Christ in God; and the life we live, we live
in Him, and through faith in Him. This is the power of the
gospel, and the hope that makes the Christian triumph even in
death. Ibid, p. 41. (Emphasis supplied).

127. In A.T. Jones there is somewhat of a problem. While his

extravagant statements on Romans 5:15-21 can hastily be used to
support Wieland and Sequeira’s Ballengerite “gospel,” with a
careful reading of his ideas, they reveal no unconditional,
universal, objective justification or salvation teaching, neither do
they reveal a two-phase justification, one being universal or upon
all men, and another transforming only those who believe. These

76
 ideas are completely Ballengerite and are developed by Wieland
and Sequeira. Observe Jones’ open use of the “in Christ motif.

“ That all that were in the world were included in Adam; and all
that are in the world are include in Christ. In other words. Adam
in his sin reached all the world; Jesus Christ, the second Adam, in
his righteousness touches all humanity.” A.T. Jones, The Third
Angels Message, p. 73.

“The question is, Does the second Adam’s righteousness embrace

as many as does the first Adam’s sin? Look closely. Without our
consent at all, without our having anything to do with it, we were
all included in the first Adam; we were there. All the human race
were in the first Adam. What that first Adam, what the first man,
did, meant us; it involved us. That which the first Adam did
brought us into sin, and the end of sin is death; and that touches
everyone of us, it involves everyone of us. Jesus Christ, the second
man, took our sinful nature. He touched us “in all points.” He
became we and died the death. And so in Him, and by that, every
man that has ever lived upon the earth, and was involved in the
first Adam, is involved in this, and will live again. There will be a
resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. Every
soul shall live again by the second Adam, from the death that
came by the first Adam.” Ibid, p. 74.

128. From the extract we have just read we do not see that everyone has
some type of objective salvation or spiritual life, but rather, Jones
uses the all humanity being in Christ the second Adam to show
that all will be resurrected, and that is all, some to be saved, and
some to eternal damnation, but no example of Wieland and
Sequeira’s ideas. In this next extract, Jones uses the two Adams
concept to show that since the first Adam should have literally
died with all his descendents, the reason why he lived to have a
second chance to choose righteousness and why all his
descendents have this second chance, is because in Christ the
second Adam all humanity has been given physical life to choose
again. This is Jones’ complicated way of saying that all humanity

77
 physically live to get a second chance at salvation because of
Christ, but he is not teaching a universal, unconditional salvation
or justification; to Jones we are all condemned till we choose
Christ.

“Therefore, Just as far as the first Adam reaches man, so far the
second Adam reaches man. The first Adam brought man under
the condemnation of sin, even unto death; the second Adam’s
righteousness undoes that, and makes every man live again. As
soon as Adam sinned, God gave him a second chance, and set him
free to choose which master he would have. Since that time every
time is free to choose which way he will go; therefore he is
responsible for his individual sins. And when Jesus Christ has set
us all free from the sin and the death which came upon us from
the first Adam, that freedom is for every man; and every man can
have it for the choosing.” Ibid, p. 74.

129. Here is one of the most ambiguous of Jones’ statements about man
being in Christ the second Adam, but yet none of the defined
Ballengerite teachings as seen in Wieland and Sequeira. The issue
for Jones is that we MUST BELIEVE or put trust in Christ, but
there is no universal justification here.

“It was a fearful risk; but, glory to God, he won, the thing was
accomplished; and in him we are saved. When he stood where we
are, he said, ‘I will put my trust in Him;’ and that trust was never
disappointed. In response to that trust, the Father dwelt in him
and with him, and kept him from sinning. Who was he?—We.
And thus the Lord Jesus has brought to every man in the world
divine faith. That is the faith of the Lord Jesus,—that is saving
faith. Faith is not something that comes ourselves, with which we
believe upon him; but it is that something which he believed,—the
faith which he exercised, which he brings to us, and which
becomes ours, and works in us,—the gift of God … He being we,
brought to us that divine faith which we can say with him,saves
the soul,—that divine faith by which we can say with him, ‘I will
put our trust in him.’ And in so putting our trust in him, that trust

78
 today will never be disappointed any more than it was then …
God dwelt with him, and he was ourselves. Therefore his name is
Emmanuel, God with us—not God with him; God was with him
before the world was.” Ibid, p. 75.

130. By this time one recognizes that it is futile to look for any
universal, legal, objective, forensic and unconditional justification
in Jones’ teachings, but what we do find, is that to be “in Christ”
the second Adam, we must first choose Christ; the context of
Jones’ “in Christ” motif is choosing.

“In Jesus Christ there is furnished in completeness all that man

needs or can have in righteousness; and all there is for any man to
do is to choose Christ, and then it is his. So then, as the first Adam
was We, the second Adam is We.” Ibid, p. 74.

131. Though the statement just quoted above could be forced to teach
Wieland and Sequeira’s Ballengerite theology, its context, when
carefully studied does not yield a legitimate use. In the same
sermon of Jones we have been quoting from, he uses “the many”
to mean “as many as believe,” thus his theology was nothing of an
unconditional salvation as taught by Ballenger, Wieland and
Sequeira.

“The first Adam touched all of us, what he did included all of us.
If he had remained true to God, that would have included all of
us. And he fell away form God, that included us, and took us also.
Whatever he should have done embraced us; and what he did
made us what we are. Now, here is another Adam. Does he touch
as many as the first Adam did? That is the question. That is what
we are studying now. Does the second Adam touch as many as
did the first Adam?—and the answer is that it is certainly true that
what the second Adam did, embraces all that were embraced in
what the first Adam did. What he should have done, would
embrace all. Suppose Christ had yielded to temptation and had
sinned. Would that have meant anything to us?—it would have
meant everything to us. The first Adam would have meant all this

79
 to us; sin on the part of the second Adam would have meant all
this to us. The first Adam’s righteousness would have meant all to
us, and the second Adam’s righteousness means all to as many as
believe.” Ibid, pp. 73-74. (Emphasis supplied).

132. The brief concepts like the following statements from Jones should
forever put to rest that his teachings contain any Ballengerite
concepts.

“God has made complete provision for this. That provision is all
ready for our acceptance.” Ibid, p. 50.

“In Christ, out of himself, no man can see God and not live. In
Christ, to see God is to live; for in him is life, and the life is the
light of men.” Ibid, p. 60.

“I would say to such, you will never get it in that way. That is not
the way it is done. It is in him that is it is done; not outside of him.
In him only can it be known, not outside of him at all. Surrender
to him, yield to him, sink self in him; then it will be all plain
enough.” Ibid, p. 60.

“No; we are to go to him for it, there is where is it is; and when we
go to him [Christ], we are to enter into him by the faith and the
Spirit of God, and there remain and ever ‘be found in him.’
Philippians 3:9.” Ibid, p. 61.

133. Thus we do not see in any sense A.T. Jones teaching a universal,
unconditional salvation. This concept that is being taught by
Wieland and Sequeira, and that is presently sweeping the whole
Seventh-day Adventist Church is Ballenger’s peculiar theology
revived in the twenty first century. It is not the 1888 message;
Waggoner never taught it, and of Jones we can say like Mr.
Pippenger.

“At this point we suggest that when the New View teaches that
the message of A.T. Jones was that all men are legally “in Christ”

80
 by virtue of being born into humanity, before being born of the
Spirit; they are absolutely wresting out of context not only the
words of Jones, but also his very themes. To try to avoid this
conclusion by stating that at this point Jones was not specifically
addressing the first-phrase, legal, forensic justification only raises
the question as to why he would not at this very point address
that very subject if he believed in it.” Jeft Pippenger, Adventism’s
New View, p. 39.

“A.T. Jones did not believe that to be “in Christ” was a legal
forensic justification that proclaimed an unconditional salvation to
all men. Jones’ “in Christ” motif taught that the second Adam
provided a way for man—by faith—to claim all the victories that
Christ accomplished in His life, through the power of the
indwelling Holy Spirit.” Ibid, pp. 41-42.

Conclusion

134. The teaching of Wieland and Sequeira represents the theology of

the S.D.A. Church in transition, but one that has reached a critical
juncture as to permanently alter the image and mission of the
S.D.A. Church transforming it into a religion resembling the
apostate Protestant Churches. The S.D.A. Church has always had
a theology in transition. It was the theology of A.G. Daniells that
began to drift the Church away from the influence the 1888
theological concepts and character, Daniells concepts hardened
into the ideas of men like Wilcox to the ideas of men like Froom in
the 1950s, Heppenstal in the 1970s and the large array of objective
justification concepts in full bloom in the 1980s. Men like Dr.
Ford, Brinsmead, Knight, Folkenberg, Larondelle, Moore, and
others, all contributed in their times to the development of the
Ballengerite concepts of Wieland and Sequeira now reeking havoc
in all the S.D.A. Church. The teachings of Wieland and Sequeira
represents the long—prophesied omega of deadly heresies in full
bloom today. But the deceitful contrivance of the devil in all this
is that Wieland’s teachings represent his lies concerning the
theology of the 1888 message, to bring into the fold of destruction,

81
 all those who would wish for the Church to go back to the 1888
message, while Sequeira’s teaching represents a theology more
structured to reconcile the liberal minded Adventist into a mold of
being traditional Adventist yet remaining liberal. Normally,
Wieland’s stress on obedience to the commandments of God and
Sequeira’s lip-service claim of obedience, yet semi-antinomain,
should have put these two men into opposition and warning
camps in the S.D.A. Church, yet we now have a unity that
artificially draws together the so-called conservatives of Wieland
and the liberals of Sequeira. Truly Satan has an all out war in
progress to finally destroy the S.D.A. Church. The concepts so
beautifully adorned by the false theology of Wieland and Sequeira
are extremely dangerous, they are the spiritualism of Satan in the
Garden of Eden covertly presented as Christian theology, but it is
more like Christian spiritualism. Here is a brief summation of
these teachings though not in full chronological order.

Inheritance of Adam’s sin.

Actual substitutionary suffering and obedience
Sinful nature is sin
Christ kept the Law in place of man
Salvation without any works
Law-keeping not important for salvation
Salvation in sin not from sin
Substitutionary salvation
All are saved until they choose to be lost
Salvation by righteousness located in heaven and not on earth
Salvation by holy human nature or holy flesh
Objective inheritance of Christ’ righteousness
Objective non-transformative justification
All law-keeping is “legalism.”
Universal salvation
Unconditional salvation
Pan-christism; all men, even wicked ones are in Christ.

These are just some of the deadly concepts embodied deeply and
deceitful in the theology of Wieland and Sequeira. But this theology is

82
not original. The idea of a two-phrase justification where all are justified
in Christ, but yet have to gain it experientially by repentance and
believing and another justification, can first be identified in the
teachings of Albion Fox Ballenger in the late 1890s and early 1900s. His
teachings caused him to change the sanctuary doctrine in Adventism,
but he was put in the grave of history by the S.D.A. General Conference
way back in 1905. Wieland and Sequeira’s teachings represent Ballenger
revived or resurrected, at a time when his teaching had been lost sight
of or largely forgotten. Sequeira, too, like Ballenger has changed the
traditional understanding of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine, it is just
that his teachings are not so broadcast and prominent to the average
Adventist. And Wieland’s sanctuary teaching appear more like
traditional Adventism, but this is in fact a small rehash of Brinsmead’s
sanctuary teachings in the early 1960s, which themselves were heretical.
It is impossible for Adventism to remain as it presently is, the next step
before Adventism gives up the Seventh-day Sabbath as a heavy dose of
rationalized anti-nomianism which we can see is now blossoming in
Sequeira’s theology. Observe these quotations.

“God did not sent Him [Jesus] to help us to be good, but He sent Him to
save us, and He has done it.” Jack Sequeira in a sermon transcript
presented on October 13, 1990, at the Seventh-day Adventist City
Church in Walla Walla, Washington, Quoted in, Those Who Do Not
Remember The Past, p. 87.

“In other words we are both concerned about Christian living. I have no
problem there. But, I’ll tell you folks. To me Christian living is the
fruits of justification by faith. I cannot produce Christian living by
hammering you on the head with do’s and don’ts. The church has tried
it for a hundred years. All we have produced is hypocrites. You ask
our young people. They’ll be honest with you.” Ibid, p. 101.

“Works of faith originate from the indwelling life of Christ; works of

law always originate from the flesh, the natural life. In works of faith,
the believer is living by faith alone; in works of law, the sinner attempts
to keep the law through a concern for self.” Jack Sequeira, Beyond
Belief, p. 97.

83
“On the other hand, works of law always originate from a concern with
self; they are always polluted by self no matter how good they may
appear to ourselves or to others. Performing works of law is a subtle
form of rebellion against God because all, such works are actually
independent of Him. In the judgement, God will condemn all such
work as iniquity, works motivated from self-interest.” Ibid, p. 97.

Though ministers in the S.D.A. Church give lip service to the need to
keep the Law of God, this is underrated and nullified by the anti-
nomian theology current in the Church and the general trend is towards
antinomiansim. Men like Heppenstal, Knight, Ott, Moore, Folkenberg,
and others have all added to the general down rating of the Law of God
in the S.D.A. Church. Of such people Mrs. White said:

“There are men among us in responsible positions who hold that the
opinions of a few conceited philosophers so called, are more to be
trusted than the truth of the Bible, or the testimonies of the Holy Spirit.
Such a faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John is considered old fashioned
and insufferable at the present day. It is pronounced absurd, mystical,
and unworthy of an intelligent mind. God has shown me that these
men are Hazaels to prove a scourge to our people … Thousands who
profess to be Christians give heed to lying spirits. Everywhere to spirit
of darkness in the garb of religion will confront you.” Ellen G. White,
Testimonies For the Church Vol. 5, p. 79.

Where is all this leading to? It is leading to the S.D.A. Church giving up
the Sabbath and substituting it with Sunday holiness. In symbol the
Law of God was placed in the ark, thus to bear the ark no longer is to
obviously give up the Law of God or to become antinomian. Observe
what Mrs. White says:

“When God shall work His strange work on the earth, when holy hands
bear the ark no longer, woe will be upon the people.” Ibid, p. 77. (See,
Exodus 31:18; Exodus 25:21; Deuteronomy 10:5).

That the S.D.A. Church will give up the Sabbath is clearly seen in the
following extract.

84
“I was told that men will employ every policy to make less prominent
the difference between the faith of Seventh-day Adventists and those
who observe the first day of the week. In this controversy the whole
world will be engaged, and the time is short. This is no time to haul
down our colors. A company was presented before me under the name
of Seventh-day Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign
which makes us a distinctive people should not be held out so
strikingly; for they claimed it was not the best policy in securing success
to our institutions. This distinctive banner is to be borne through the
world to the close of probation … But the Sabbath of the Lord thy God is
to be a sign to show the difference between the obedient and the
disobedient. I saw some reaching out their hands to remove the banner,
and to obscure its significance … when people accept and exalt a
spurious Sabbath, and turn souls away from obedience and loyalty to
God, they will reach the point that was reached by the people in the
days of Christ …” Ellen G. White, Selected Messages Book Two, p.
385.

Finally, let those of the S.D.A. Church who read this book take warning.
The teachings of Sequeira and Wieland are wrong, they are NOT the
1888 message, they are the characteristic teachings of Albion Fox
Ballenger revived now posing as the 1888 message. Needed is the real
truth of the 1888 message, the basic foundational pillars of this message
are as follows:

1. Christ came in sinful human flesh yet without sin.

2. Justification is a transformative subjective change
3. Sinless perfection is absolutely possible now in this life before
Christ comes.

We are to plant these truths and develop them wherever we go. Years
ago Mrs. White warned about ministers that would rob the Church from
these truths and destroy it distinction, all this has been fulfilling at a
rapid pace.

“Shall the ark of the covenant be removed from this people? Shall idols
be smuggled in? Shall false principles and false precepts be brought into

85
the sanctuary? Shall antichrist be respected? Shall the true doctrines and
principles given us by God which have made us what we are, ignored?
… This is directly where the enemy, through blinded, unconsecrated
men, is leading us.” Ellen G. White, Manuscript 29, 1890.

Thus the S.D.A. Church is infatuated with a false Christ that is Satan
himself, and is in need of redemption.

“And if men and women who have the knowledge of the truth are so far
separated from their great Leader that they will take the great leader of
apostasy and name him Christ our Righteousness it is because they have
not sunk deep into the mines of the truth.” Ellen G. White, Selected
Messages Book Two, p, 393.

May God help all who read this book to be enlightened and blessed, for
their own salvation before it is too late; may pride, self-conceit and hard
heartedness flee before humility repentance and genuine conversion
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Fin.

Jack Sequeira, his theology, which is a development of all the apostate

righteousness by faith doctrines over the years in the S.D.A. Church, is
now the leading influence in the omega of deadly heresies in
Adventism.

86