The sequence is very clearly spelled out in the counsels of God. Satan began by cleverly introducing borderline compromises among the saints, which easily attracted those who were not studying for themselves. As these camouflaged deviations became established among the membership, the gap slowly widened to accommodate more collaboration with the world.

Said the prophet:

“The change in her spiritual state has come gradually and almost imperceptibly. As she began to seek the praise and friendship with the world, her faith diminished, her zeal grew languid, her fervent devotion gave place to dead formality. Every advance step toward the world was a step away from God.” Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 240.

Because the changes were always marginal, ministers were reluctant to make issues over them for fear of being labeled as legalistic and judgmental. In order to assure the silence of watchmen on the walls, Satan carefully programmed a preparatory campaign to make any protesting preacher appear as an enemy of righteousness by faith.

With great shrewdness, Satan gradually introduced among Sabbathkeepers the subtle concept that any concern about careful obedience was tied to legalism. Many faithful pastors began to feel guilty about preaching sanctification, and a strange shift of emphasis began to alter the kind of Sabbath sermons being preached in Adventist churches.

Fewer and fewer messages dealt with the responsibility of the Christian in living a life of obedience to God’s law. Before long the very law which is a transcript of the character of Jesus was coming across as an enemy of righteousness by faith. Some leading theologians began to deny the Bible definition of sin as “the transgression of the law,” and declared that sin was not breaking the law, but “breaking a relationship.” Such clever play on words, containing partial truth and partial error, led many actually to look with contempt upon that which was “holy, just and good.” (Romans 7:12.) Christians who still believed that obedience was both necessary and possible were chided as being “worksoriented,” a nice sounding euphemism for “salvation by works.”

With all the froth skimmed away, the substance of the sermons preached under this liberated theology gave recognition only to justification and the cross-never to the corresponding activity of obedience equally demanded by the gospel. Christ did everything for us, including obedience, and our part was only to believe and love. The very condition described by Sister White settled over the Laodicean church.

“A religious life once presented difficulties and demanded self-denial. All is made very easy now. And why is this? The professed people of God have compromised with the powers of darkness. There must be a revival of the straight testimony. The path to heaven is no smoother now than in the days of our Saviour. All our sins must be put away. Every darling indulgence that hinders our religious life must be cut off.” Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 222.

Such counsel was not compatible with the emphasis on this new “righteousness by faith.” Adventist young people were warned not to think too much about their sins, and especially not to “try” to overcome them. They were made to believe that the more they looked at their shortcomings, the more they might be tempted to rely on the “works” of trying to obey the law. It came through very clearly that such a program would be a legalistic denial of the true gospel. Is it any wonder that, under this popular, easy-grace intoxication, many pastors were reluctant to preach against the stealthy encroachment of worldly elements into the church?

Do you see how the groundwork was laid for the introduction of questionable practices into the church? Who wanted to disrupt the influence of what appeared to be a genuine tool for revival? Many were bearing testimony that they had been truly converted for the first time, having escaped from the bonds of legalism. But strangely enough, many of those who rode the emotional high of this new freedom turned more and more critical of those who were concerned about the breakdown of standards. They became the most vocal protesters against any program that involved any change of conduct or reformation. To them it smacked too much of “works” to be concerned over the cut of clothes or the beat of music. And since everyone quite agreed that righteousness by faith had been generally neglected in the past, it was easy for the new, exciting emphasis to gain rapid acceptance. Anyone who raised a question about the increasing worldliness in the church was instantly silenced by cries of “Legalism!” A new, tolerant attitude developed toward the small changes that were cropping up in the Adventist lifestyle.

As the minds of God’s people slowly adjusted to the appearance of more and more “controlled” television, the wedding ring, “moderate” makeup, “good” movies, three percent caffeine, “modest” bathing suits and shorts, “special” divorce cases and unisex dress codes, the predicted doctrinal confusion began to develop.

Satan had created the appropriate climate for introducing doubts and questions about the great, supporting pillars of the remnant church. Utilizing the intellectualism of a few theologians with worldly educations, a massive assault was launched against the faith of every loyal Seventh-day Adventist. The attack took many by surprise, because few had anticipated that the major detractor of the faith would be one of our own. Long before his perfidy was recognized, Desmond Ford’s concepts were being assimilated by hundreds of admiring young students who were captivated by his personality and powerful command of words.