By the Doctrines of Justification, the Roman Catholic Church, through the Council of Trent, sought to treat justification in a way to take in as much Protestant ground as possible without yielding an inch of Papal authority and to emerge appearing to be the only rightful defender of Scripture.

A couple of its 33 decrees are verbally Protestant -- indistinguishable from the Melanchthon’s (or Adventist’s) doctrine of justification. Others appear Protestant but only a little probing exposes a very different reality. Meanwhile, those who make the Papal accusations themselves openly defend key Papal principles. All Trent statements rest upon the Roman Catholic Church's sole sacramental authority to administer the grace offered by Christ's Sacrifice.

The entire Trent edifice is built on the Eucharist and transubstantiation -- transformation of the communion bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ. Thus, however Protestant appearing, every decree must be interpreted in light of the Catholic Church as the exclusive administrator of divine grace--a point which the document concludes by making imperative.

The sole purpose of the last few decrees is to enforce Papal authority to determine truth. Two main characteristics control the entire theology of Trent:

a) Papal authority is supreme--not only to distribute Christ's grace, but to control the beliefs and thus consciences of the people.

b) Mystical rather than spiritual principles govern Papal doctrine. While it is obvious that mysticism underlies the Eucharist, their doctrine of justification just as surely, though more subtly, rests upon the same. Indeed the entire document and the Papacy itself depend upon and would disintegrate without Papal authority, as it operates by means of mystical doctrines that so destroy cause and effect principles as to prevent believers a choice.

As a tightly packed packet, the 33 decrees forcefully repudiate all three Protestant principles to which all Reformers agreed: (1) sola Scriptura; (2) sola gratia/sola fide; and (3) the priesthood of all believers.

Protestant Creeds Make Them Vulnerable to Papal Counter Reformation Strategy
Sadly, to protect their own creedal doctrines and out of fear of radical elements, the Reformers were vulnerable to Trent’s counter-attack because they were themselves violating their own principles. Instead of completing the Reformation, they persecuted those who sought to do so. Not only did they brand all reforms that went beyond their own as heretical; but instead of prayerfully studying the issues together, they declared war upon advocates of greater truth, such as denying infant baptism and the immortality of the soul. These and those who sought to restore the true Sabbath, were pursued even unto death.

This violation of the third principle, the priesthood of believers, also violated the first principle, sola Scriptura. For the church functioned as the supreme authority. Moreover it indirectly emasculated the second principle, sola gratia-sola fide, by denying members the privilege of personal responsibility in deciding truth for themselves and exercising their own will in acting out their own convictions by the gift of faith offered to them individually by the Holy Spirit.

Because creeds took the place of Scriptural authority and imposed mysticism, Luther was never able to fully break from the mysticism by which the Papacy bound its people. Mysticism not only controlled the concept of Christ's literal flesh and blood being on the communion table with the emblems; but the same mysticism caused Luther's ultra followers to war upon Zwingli’s and Melanchthon's non-mystical doctrine of an active will, which they branded, "synergism." By this they implied that it was a compromise with Romanism. Spiritual, cause and effect principles are designed by the Creator to govern divine-human relationships. Those relations were broken by man's choice and can only be restored by man's freely exercised, rational choice. This means that God must somehow break through the confused, emotional hostility regarding His character, by appealing to the understanding.

For this purpose, Christ's life and death on the cross reveal God's righteous, holy, and loving character to sinful men and offers Himself as our substitute Righteousness. Through God's Word the Holy Spirit places Christ's life, Sacrifice, and heavenly ministry in sharp focus and offers to enable us to freely exercise our naturally captive will in receiving that gift and, with it, all His divine promises and provisions.

Development of those relationships is fully provided by divine revelation and empowerment. But His gifts of grace are in no way mystically delivered by a predetermined decision and/or divine action in either manipulating man's (passive) will or independently of man's will. God has designed that His grace should remain subject to our own choice. Thus, justification requires a dynamic faith based upon an active—not merely passive--will. Predestination is always "in Christ," by personal relations, determined by our own decision to exercise our will under the direction and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Mystical principles are based on and breed superstitious impulses that ignore the Creator's laws of divine-human relations, involving the whole being, body, mind, and soul. The active exercise of our will in response to the Holy Spirit Who reveals Christ-crucified—basis of both justification and the communion supper, is denied or confused.

Determinists, whose theology is mystical, do not usually entirely deny the function of an active will. They usually insist that the will is involved, but repudiate an active will in justification. An entirely passive will spells divine manipulation--and thus repudiates the very purpose and basis of the cross--to free and stimulate into action our will to love and serve our Creator.

Mysticism is virtually demanded by the doctrine of divine election. Man is seen as the passive object of God's elective decrees. Thus while speaking of justification as by faith, any subjective element must be denied. Yet this denies the very meaning of faith itself, whereby justified relations with God are restored.

Faith is indeed a gift of the Spirit. But what kind of gift? Is it a substance or essence that He mysteriously inseminates within us? Or is it the freeing action of the Holy Spirit in permitting us to act in faith upon God’s Word? How do we get that gift?

Faith was, first of all, a faculty given in creation, just as were all our other faculties, such as reason, judgment, memory, imagination, and will. Adam and Eve had that gift and exercised it. It was instinctive for them to trust God until Eve surrendered her reason and will to the deception of a spiritual being who, by her own choice, took control over her emotions. Through these he irrationally controlled her reason and will. In choosing to believe the tempter Eve placed herself under the control of a being who would ever control her thinking, substituting for faith mystical presumptions that would disrupt cause and effect thinking, as directed by the Spirit.

Thus, through the cross and its release of God's loving grace, the Spirit must restore that faith by freeing reason and will to act in harmony with God's Word, which is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path, permitting us to truly grasp and internalize His principles of life-giving truth. And it is in responding to His grace by which He releases our will from bondage that we are re-united with God by a transaction called justification!

Indeed we receive that gift by personal response to Christ Himself in receiving Him and His meritorious righteousness--or justification. Thus the merit all belongs to Christ. But its reception requires an active, positive response of will. This was the doctrine of Melanchthon which, upon Luther’s death, Gnesios, or self-styled, genuine Lutherans, labeled synergism and charged with Papal error. And this is the Adventist view which is now branded Papal heresy!

When faith is viewed as strictly legal and stripped of its divine-human relational meaning, it becomes mystical rather than spiritual. Faith is thus no longer a response to God's initiative by active decision and commitment, but merely the divine manipulation of man's passive will-- a will disconnected from the laws of cause and effect that govern all spiritual relations.

The warfare of Gnesios against Philippists, who followed Melanchthon’s commitment to a free and active will and denied any human merit, was so intense that Gnesios denied Philippists the right to be covered by the treaty they formed with Roman Catholics to protect themselves against the Catholic sword in Schmalkald treaty formed after defeat in war. This produced a rift between the various German states, some being included and some not, with those who were not subject to continued Papal armed attack.

The German princes finally demanded that the religious leaders work out some agreement. As a result moderate Gnesio leaders united with two former, Melanchthon disciples and worked out a the compromise agreement stated in “The Articles of Concord” or the “Formula of Concord.”

So compromised was the Formula of Concord that, while defending Luther's all-important, mystical doctrine of consubstantiation (Christ’s literal body and blood on communion table along with the emblems) that, while the active will in salvation was repudiated, thanks to Selneck and Chemnitz, the former Melanchthon disciples, the Book of Concord repeatedly supports its principles.

With this general review we will first examine the history of Brinsmead as it relates to his doctrine of the 1960s and consider his charges relative to Trent and Concord in the 1970s, that have impacted Adventism over the past few decades. We will then examine Dr. Desmond Ford’s theology and his Papal charges against Adventist theology.

Robert Brinsmead’s 1960s Impact Upon Adventism
Robert Brinsmead’s history can be marked off in decades. During the late ‘50s and the ‘60s he focused upon the sanctuary and drew his theological evidence largely from the spirit of prophecy, much of which was excellent, but which was based upon a heretical root that few ever did recognized and which his opponents never did touch – indeed, could not touch or even recognize because their theology was attached to the same root, though in a different direction.

Bob’s next decade, the ‘70s, was spent repudiating much of his theology of the ‘60s and with it again Adventist theology, only an opposite aspect of Adventism. Having been disfellowshipped during the ‘60s, in the ‘70s he was no longer a significant voice, but still had some influence and was then joined in his theology by Ford. During this time Des claimed to represent Ellen White’s theology and Bob made a heroic effort to defend her gift, though both denied her and theological authority and their theology was more contrary to her clear teaching.

At that time both insisted that we should return to the clear teaching of Luther and Calvin on the doctrine of salvation, giving no evidence that the theology of these two men were quite different. Moreover, they claimed the Articles or Formula of Concord to be the basis of their theology. I knew and provided clear evidence in my 1979 doctoral thesis (published in January, 1980) that they did not represent Luther correctly, but assumed they were representing the Formula of Concord, as they repeatedly claimed. When I was finally able to take time to examine the doctrines of Trent and of Concord, I was shocked to discover first of all that, though Concord compromised the issues between Luther and Calvin, it provided no basis for the Plymouth Brethren theology which Ford and Brinsmead adopted through the 70s and which Ford still represents. Indeed, what they represent is the extreme Gnesios doctrine, which the Plymouth Brethren adopted.

During the 1980s Bob repudiated by Adventism and Ellen White’s prophetic gift, declaring her a false prophet. Des’s ministerial credentials were removed in 1980 after he openly repudiated the Adventist pillar of faith, the sanctuary-judgment doctrine on October 27, 1979. For nearly a quarter of a century he retained his Adventist membership, however, before asking to have it removed. Meanwhile, in the ‘90s Bob repudiated all authority to Scripture and has long been an avowed atheist, claiming to believe nothing but has as his religion the golden rule.

To be finished