VATICAN COUNCIL II - PART 02

So Much In Common Because of the Ecumenical influence at Vatican Council II the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church has become involved with the World Council of Churches, and later the Roman Catholic Church. If there was no other evidence to present than the documented narrative below, the contemporary SDA Church would stand convicted in the courts of heaven. However, sadly, there are many, many more documents of record. Beach Gives Revealing Eyewitness Report Although he was not an editor of a paper or magazine, according to Maxwell, Bert Beverly Beach attended Vatican Council II as an “observer.” “Brother Beach was there from northern Europe,” (ibid.) At that time Beach was the President of the Northern Europe Division of Seventh-day Adventists. In 1980 B. B. Beach was appointed Secretary of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (PARL), and the newly formed State Department of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. In 1973 Bert Beach coauthored a book with Lukas Vischer, Secretary of the World Council of Churches. The title of the book was, So Much In Common, the subtitle, “Between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” The book was published by the World Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland, in 1973. (Note:- A copy of So Much In Common may be obtained from: Adventist Laymen’s Foundation, P. O. Box 69, Ozone, AR 72854). The title of the book alone tells the story, “So Much In Common, Between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the World Council of Churches.” What do Seventh-day Adventists have in Chapter 15 Vatican Council II, “So Much In Common” -295- common with the World Council of Churches? How did Adventists ever come to the place where they thought they had something in common with the great assembly of the churches of Babylon, the harlot daughters of Rome? In his book Beach disclosed that the cooperation between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the World Council of Churches really began at Vatican Council II. “In view of the fact that informal conversations between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventist Church have been taking place on a regular basis for over four years,” Bert B. Beach wrote in 1973, “it is not inappropriate to consider the significance of these contacts and take stock of what has been accomplished so far.” (Bert B. Beach, So Much In Common, page 98). Strange as it may seem, these yearly Consultations are an indirect by-product of Vatican II. In fact, while in Rome in connection with the Vatican Council a WCC staff member and an Adventist representative came to the conclusion that an informal meeting of a small group of Seventh-day Adventists with an equal number of representatives from the World Council of Churches would fulfill a useful purpose – Adventists being insufficiently informed regarding the World Council of Churches, and the WCC staff and church leaders being equally in need of additional and more comprehensive knowledge regarding the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Bert B. Beach, So Much In Common, page 98. (emphasis supplied). Let us take note of the three most important points of this revealing statement by Bert B. Beach. (1) Beach’s admission that the event was strange. “Strange as it may seem,” he writes. It was strange that four Seventh-day Adventist “representative” were attending the great Ecumenical Vatican Council II of the Roman Catholic Church. (2) The two men, the Seventh-day Adventist official representative, and the World Council of Churches staff member, decided that it “would fulfill a useful purpose” for the Seventh-day Adventists and the World Council of Churches to meet. (3) “These yearly Consultations [between the SDA Church and the WCC] are an indirect byproduct of Vatican II. The consultations were brought about by the spirit of the great Vatican Council II of the Roman Catholic Church! The first meeting was held in 1965, the participants being selected by the two organizers. Thus, the Conversations got underway on a completely informal basis and were held under the sole responsibility of the participants. Subsequent meetings have become somewhat more formal, in the sense that the employing bodies of the SDA participants have authorized and financed their presence and the executive committees of the three Adventist Divisions involved have given their blessing by facilitating the selection of the DA representatives; the World Council of Churches has defrayed the expenses of its group. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has been kept informed regarding the meetings, though it has taken no direct, active part in the Consultations, except through its three European Divisional branch offices. The November 24-26, 1969, Consultation was the fifth in the series. Bert B. Beach, So Much In Common, page 98. (emphasis supplied). There are seven most important points revealed in this statement by Bert Beach. Let us examine each one carefully. (1) The participants were “selected by the two organizers.” The official Seventh-day Adventist representative, and the World Council of Churches staff member “selected” the men who would participate in the first Consultations Who was the first Adventist representative “selected” by the two organizers? No one knows. (2) “Subsequent meetings have become somewhat more formal.” This could only mean that the Chapter 15 Vatican Council II, “So Much In Common” -296- leadership of the SDA Church was becoming more involved in the “consultations.” (3) “The employing bodies of the SDA participants have authorized and financed their presence.” The Seventh-day Adventist Church “authorized and financed their presence.” Did the SDA leadership use tithe or free-will offering funds to finance meetings with the churches of Babylon? To use any of the funds that were contributed to the finishing of the third angel’s message to consult with the fallen churches of Babylon is indeed a grave betrayal of trust. (4) “And the executive committees of the three Adventist Divisions involved have given their blessing by facilitating the selection of the SDA representatives.” After the consultations between the SDA and WCC “become somewhat more formal,” the leading man chosen as the representative for the Seventh-day Adventist Church was Dr. Earle Hilgert, Professor of Theology at Andrews University. Since Dr. Hilgert left the SDA Church to become a Presbyterian, and took a position at a Presbyterian College in Chicago, Illinois, Dr. Raoul Dederen, Professor of Theology at Andrews University was chosen to succeed Dr. Hilgert as the SDA representative. (5) “The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has been kept informed regarding the meetings.” The General Conference knew about the meetings and accepted them without protest. By not protesting the Consultations with the World Council of Churches, the General Conference was and is placing its approval upon the Consultations. (6) “The General Conference. . .has taken no direct, active part in the Consultations, except through its three European Divisional branch offices.” One of the European Division branch “officers” was none other then Bert B. Beach himself. Why so much involvement of the European Division Conferences in consultations between SDA and the WCC? Because, from his own admission, Bert B. Beach as President of the Northern Europe Division attended Vatican Council II as an “observer/ representative.” To verify this accusation, Beach would later coauthor, with the Secretary of the WCC, the book So Much In Common, “Between the Seventhday Adventist Church, and the World Council of Churches.” Beach would also later serve as the Secretary of the World Confessional Families, the theological branch of the World Council of Churches. While serving as Secretary of the WCF, Beach would present the SDA Church in symbol on a gold medallion to Pope Paul VI. (See, W. D. Eva, Adventist Review, “Book, Medallion Presented to Pope”, August 11, 1977, (847), page 23). (7) “The November 24-26, 1969, Consultation was the fifth in the series.” How many “consultations” there have been between the SDA and WCC since 1969 is an interesting question? The New Face Of Ecumenism “It would appear that the organized ecumenical movement reached a pinnacle of enthusiasm and influence in the late sixties, in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II,” the SDA Encyclopedia states. “Since then the WCC has gone into a period of ecumenical doldrums and even decline.” (Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Second Revised Edition, Art. “Ecumenism,” emphasis supplied). “Much ecumenical activity now takes place outside of the WCC on the local level in the form of unstructured interdenominational youth and lay Bible study and prayer groups, fellowships, and community service endeavors.” (ibid., Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Second Revised Edition Chapter 15 Vatican Council II, “So Much In Common” -297- Art. “Ecumenism.” (emphasis supplied). We see this new face of the ecumenical movement prevalent in contemporary Adventism in every one of these phases of compromise. We see it in the more vibrant “Celebration” worship services, directed toward the youth. We see it in the watered-down outreach literature and evangelism of the contemporary denomination. We see ecumenism in “community service endeavors.” This was the reason given for merging the Adventist hospitals in Colorado with the Roman Catholic “Provenant” system. (See, Judith Graham, staff Business Writer, “Provenant- Adventist, May Become Partners,” The Denver Post, January 13, 1995, We see the new face of ecumenism in interchurch “fellowships.” Some churches have even held “interchurch” Super Bowl parties. We see ecumenism in “lay Bible study and prayer groups.” Again we quote James White: “On a vital point connected with the teaching of the word of God, we are at issue; and the union that would otherwise exist between us, is of course destroyed. . . ,” James White wrote in regard to our relationship with other denominations. “Where there is not agreement in theory, there can be, in the Christian sense, no real communion of heart and fellowship of feeling.” (James White, “Fifty Unanswerable Arguments,” Review and Herald, January 14, 1861, emphasis supplied). (See above for complete statement in context). The Ecumenical Homes Of Hope Garrie Williams, at the time Oregon Conference Ministerial Secretary, developed a system of home Bible studies entitled Homes of Hope. The “ecumenical” Serendipity New Testament for Work Groups (NIV) was the textbook for the lessons. One only has to examine the marginal helps of this publication to see that it is one of the most subtle heretical tools of the “new” theology so prevalent throughout contemporary Adventism. The leadership of the Oregon Conference considered the lessons a great success. The North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church invited Garrie Williams to teach this method of “Homes of Hope” Bible study throughout the North American Division. (See “People in Transition,” North Pacific Union Gleaner, March 4, 1991, page 21). Betrayal Of the Second Angel’s Message Can we conclude in our study of the history of Ecumenism in the Seventh-day Adventist Church that the Church is still teaching the second angel’s message? No, we cannot. Is the Church faithful to its commission to call people out of Babylon, out of the Sunday-keeping churches? Once again we must sadly answer, no. The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church now recognizes the churches of modern Babylon as Christian brethren and as such, “We recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before man as a part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ.” (General Conference Executive Committee, 1926, emphasis supplied)..(See above, Contemporary Adventist leadership has now accepted the erroneous Bible translation of the National Council of Churches and endorsed by the Papacy. (“New” Revised Standard Version). They have accepted the false Christ of modern Babylon – the false teaching that Christ possessed the human nature that Adam possessed in the Garden of Eden before the fall. SDA leadership has rejected the “final atonement” in heaven and replaced it with the completed and final Chapter 15 Vatican Council II, “So Much In Common” -298- atonement on the cross. Yes, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is now teaching most of the false doctrines of modern Babylon. With a false Bible in hand, inspired by the Jesuits of Rome, the “new” theology of a false Christ and a false atonement is enforced as a Creed in the form of an official Church Manual. “There can be no unity between truth and error,” Ellen White warned. “We can unite with those who have been led into deception only when they are converted.” (The Upward Look, page 88, emphasis supplied). Converted To the Truth The time has come when things must be called by their right names. The truth is to triumph gloriously, and those who have long been halting between two opinions must take their stand decidedly for or against the law of God. Some will take up with theories that misinterpret the Word of God, and undermine the foundation of the truth that has been firmly established, point by point, and sealed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The old truths are to be revived, in order that the false theories that have been brought in by the enemy may be intelligently met. There can be no unity between truth and error. We can unite with those who have been led into deception only when they are converted. ibid., Ellen G. White, The Upward Look, page 88. (emphasis supplied). If Ellen White were alive today, what would she have to say about four “Adventist Representatives” attending the Ecumenical Vatican Council II in Rome, headed by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI? What would she say about the fact that Adventist leadership was influenced “as a direct result of Vatican Council II” to establish consultations with the World Council of Churches? “Now and ever we are to stand as a distinct and peculiar people,” Ellen White replies, “free from all worldly policy, unembarrassed by confederating with those who have not wisdom to discern the claims of God, so plainly set forth in His law.” (Battle Creek Letters, page 52, emphasis supplied).