Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






The U-turn in Doctrine and Practice

 

Colin D. Standish

 

 

The words of Paul to the Galatian believers could well apply to the Seventh-day Adventist believers of the latter part of the twentieth century:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6–8)

Time alone can determine the magnitude of an historical event. Fifty years have provided sufficient time to permit historians and Bible scholars to evaluate the enormity of the impact of the publication of Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (QOD)1 upon the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The availability of QOD in Australia in 1957 was met by me with enthusiastic anticipation. 2 Yet I was dismayed and confused as I took precious time from my full-time teaching load and full-time university studies, to read this book.3

My perplexity began with the early pages of the book. I believed the authors were guilty of understating the God-given role of Ellen White.4 Yet subsequently I found few who expressed concerns in regard to the QOD authors’ treatment of the role of Ellen White’s ministry.

Further reading was encouraging until I read the section addressing the atonement.5 I could hardly believe my eyes when I read what I believed was the wholly unbiblical position expounded by the authors—that the atonement of Christ was completed at the cross. I was greatly shaken by the fact that this position was published in an authoritative Seventh-day Adventist publication. This was the main concern of M.L. Andreasen,6 though he also challenged the book’s claim that Christ took unfallen human nature.

My final concern arose when I was confronted with Appendix B and the bold heading, “Took Sinless Human Nature. 7 This was Herbert Douglass’ main concern with QOD,8 though he also acknowledged the validity of Andreasen’s protest concerning QOD’s treatment of the atonement.9

General Conference President Reuben Figuhr seems to have dismissed these vital differences from long-held Seventh-day Adventist beliefs as simple semantics—a defense frequently employed later by the “new theology” proponents of the 1970s and early 1980s.10

I searched my mind but could not recall ever hearing or reading at home, at church, at school, or at college the concept that Christ “took sinless human nature.” So unanimous had been the presentations that Christ took upon Himself our fallen human nature that I had accepted it without personal study. That was to change, but not until 1974, when I dialogued with Elder Kenneth Wood and Dr. Herbert Douglass at the Review and Herald office.

It was during this dialogue that Elder Wood introduced a new concept to me and my then academic dean, Dr. Jack Blanco. He had asked whether I would come to his office to dialogue concerning the many letters the Review office was receiving from Australians, mainly pastors, hostile to the special righteousness by faith issue of the Review and Herald. His assertion during this dialogue was that the basis of the opposition to the message of character perfection was rooted in their belief that Christ took unfallen human nature. Until that day, I had not linked the two issues together, even though I had not wavered in my belief in the fallen human nature of Christ on the one hand and the power of Christ to enable fallen humans to gain victory over every temptation of Satan on the other hand.



The Role of Sister Ellen White in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

 

I was already aware that the prophetic role of Sister White was not fully accepted among Seventh-day Adventists. I heard that many in Western Europe were weak or skeptical regarding the divine origin of Sister White’s writings.11 I had heard of “California Adventists” 12 who likewise were skeptical of the validity of Sister White’s writings. However, early in the pages of QOD I was aroused by what appeared to be a casual comment; its inclusion, however, made no little impact upon me. The sentence, which introduced a quotation by Sister White, simply stated, “Ellen G. White, one of our leading writers, wrote in 1892. . . .” 13 Then followed a Spirit of Prophecy quotation.

I wondered, “What were the authors attempting to convey to the readers?” This was a major concern to me. It seemed that the authors portrayed Sister White as occupying no special role in our midst. It was hardly better when the QOD authors wrote, “This has been well expressed by one of our most prominent writers, Ellen G. White.” 14

Of the questions posed by the evangelicals to the representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, question 9 set forth in QOD directly addressed the role of Sister White:

Do Seventh-day Adventists regard the writings of Ellen G. White as on an equal plane with the writings of the Bible? Do you place her in the prophetic class with such men as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel? Are her interpretations of Bible prophecy regarded as final authority, and is belief in these writings made a test of fellowship in the Seventh-day Adventist Church? 15

Some of the initial answers to these questions by the authors of QOD appeared to be evasive. Below are their short answers:

 

“1. That we do not regard the writings of Ellen G. White as an addition to the sacred canon of Scripture.

“2. That we do not think of them as of universal application, as is the Bible, but particularly for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

“3. That we do no regard them in the same sense as the Holy Scriptures, which stand alone and unique as the standard by which all other writings must be judged.” 16

 

Let us evaluate the answers of the authors of QOD.

 

1. In their 3-point summary answer, the writers of QOD avoided the part of the first question of the evangelicals by not addressing whether Sister White’s writings were regarded as on an “equal plane” with the writings of the Bible. From their fuller answers, here is a portion of their reply:

We have never considered Ellen G. White to be in the same category as the writers of the canon of Scripture. (QOD, p. 90)

While Adventists hold the writings of Ellen G. White in highest esteem, yet these are not the source of our expositions. . . . We as a denomination accept them as inspired counsels from the Lord. But we have never equated them with Scripture as some falsely charge. (Ibid., p. 93)

2. I was amazed at the second answer provided to the evangelicals. How could the authors of QOD assert that Sister White’s writings are not of universal application? Certainly much of the writings of Ellen White have universal application? 17 Certainly some of the Bible writings are not of general universal application.18 The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy each set forth both individualized counsel with limited application and also transcendent universal truths. Also, this second point in the response of the authors of QOD clearly implied that Sister White’s books have little if any application to those not of our faith. Yes, many books provide special counsel specifically to Seventh-day Adventists leaders and members, yet Sister White wrote many books especially prepared for those not of our faith.19

3. Seventh-day Adventists certainly believe that the canon of Scripture is closed with the New Testament and the Bible is our foundation of all faith and practice. However, we believe that Sister White was inspired by the same Holy Spirit which inspired the prophets and writers of the Holy Bible, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. This question was ignored in the initial summary response. However, here is their later response:

We have never considered Ellen G. White to be in the same category as the writers of the canon of Scripture. However, apart from the chosen writers of the canonical books of Scripture, God used a line of prophets or messengers who lived contemporaneously with the writers of the two Testaments, but whose utterances were never a part of Scripture canon. These prophets or messengers were called of God to give encouragement, counsel, and admonition to the Lord’s ancient people. Among these were such figures as Nathan, Gad, Heman, Asaph, Shemaiah, Azariah, Eliezer, Ahijah, Iddo, and Obed in the Old Testament, and Simeon, John the Baptist, Agabus, and Silas in the New. The line also included women, such as Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah, who were called prophetesses, in ancient times, as well as Anna in the time of Christ, and Philip’s four daughters, “which did prophesy” (Acts 21:9). The messages that came through these prophets, it should be recognized, came from the same God who spoke through those prophets whose writings were included in the Sacred Canon. . . .

It is in this latter category of messengers that we consider Ellen G. White to be. . . .

While Seventh-day Adventists recognize that the Scripture canon closed nearly two thousand years ago and that there have been no additions to this compilation of sacred books, yet we believe that the Spirit of God, who inspired the Divine Word known to us as the Bible, has pledged to reveal Himself to the church through the different gifts of the Spirit.

Adventists believe that the closing of the Scripture canon did not terminate Heaven’s communication with men through the gifts of the Spirit, but rather that Christ by the ministry of His Spirit guides His people, edifying and strengthening them, and especially so in these last challenging days of human history. (QOD, pp. 90-95)

There is no doubt that the authors of QOD improved upon their earlier statements concerning the role of Sister White. However, she is presented in a category inferior to the major prophets of the Bible. Even John the Baptist’s prophetic role seems marginalized, no doubt because he did not contribute to the canon of Scripture. I believe wisdom dictates that we dare not seek to categorize the greatness of prophets. Let us simply confirm that the undoubted prophetic utterances of Ellen White are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are a great blessing to the church and to the world.

The authors of QOD correctly pointed out that all the pillars of our faith are riveted in Holy Scripture. Yet we believe Sister White was given inspired truths which are of universal application for our time. For example, that germs cause cancer,20 that tobacco is a malignant poison,21 that masturbation can cause mental illness,22 that progressive dietary reform should be made toward veganism.23 In each of these health warnings Sister White was far ahead by many decades of scientific medical research, and this counsel has proven to be applicable to all humans worldwide.

In other areas she presented broad principles for Seventh-day Adventists, such as the counsel that we should not vote for political parties 24 and that competitive sports are not fit activities for Christians.25 It appears the authors tried to minimize the role of Sister White.

 

4. The QOD authors also leave much ambiguity in their answer to the third question of the evangelicals. Have we ever made belief in the Spirit of Prophecy a test of fellowship? I have not found any authoritative statement which declares that the acceptance of the Spirit of Prophecy is a test of continued fellowship in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. However, we have made belief in the Spirit of Prophecy a part of our baptismal vows which we affirm before baptism and are accepted into church membership. Indeed, in the 1951 baptismal vows this was so. These were the current vows when QOD was written, and this vow did not change until 1985 when it was ultimately modified at the General Conference session of that year and was presented in the revised Church Manual of 1986 and has remained there to the time of this presentation.26 The 1951 baptismal vow number 8 stated,

Do you accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts and do you believe that the Spirit of Prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?

There is a great difference between the terms “the gift of prophecy” and “the Spirit of prophecy,” for we can ignore Ellen White or have no knowledge of her inspired counsels and yet affirm the gift of prophecy.

Nowhere in Scripture is God’s remnant identified by the term “the gift of prophecy.” We must never forget that God’s end-time remnant saints are identified as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” which is “the Spirit of Prophecy.” (Revelation 12:17; 19:10.) Neither must we ever forget that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not just another church among the multitude of churches in Christendom. It is God’s remnant church which He has raised up and commissioned to take the everlasting gospel of the three angels’ messages to every creature (Mark 16:15) on the planet prior to the return of our blessed Lord and Savior.

The Completed Atonement

 

In his introduction to Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: Annotated Edition (QODAE), Dr. George Knight offered a surprising evaluation of the QOD authors’ conclusion concerning the completed atonement. He had correctly evaluated that the QOD authors’ stated position concerning the humanity of Jesus represented “a substantial shift in understanding” from that of the preponderance of Seventh-day Adventists from the church’s beginning,27 who believed that Christ took upon Himself our fallen, sinful human flesh (nature).

However I cannot support Knight’s assertion that “. . . the supposed shift of position on the atonement [by the QOD authors as claimed by M.L. Andreasen] was incorrect.” 28 Indeed Andreasen’s assertion was fully consistent with the evidence.

Andreasen’s doctrinal position was that which had been taught by Seventh-day Adventists from early times. This position was that the sacrificial phase of the atonement was completed on Calvary by the death and spilt blood of Jesus, but the atonement of Christ would not be completed until after Jesus, as our ministering heavenly High Priest, sprinkled His blood on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies. The Bible was the foundation for this conclusion 29 and was uniformly supported by the Spirit of Prophecy.30

I can attest that from my earliest understanding—and without any recalled exceptions—that I was consistently taught by teachers, pastors, and evangelists that the atonement of Christ was not completed on the cross. Beyond this, I had found the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy to be rock solid on this teaching.

Knight appears not to have noticed that the authors of QOD had been careless, selective, or maybe not wholly transparent in their response to question 30 proposed by the evangelicals:

“Seventh-day Adventists are frequently charged with minimizing the atoning sacrifice completed at the cross, reducing it to an incomplete or partial atonement that must be supplemented by Christ’s priestly ministry; perhaps it might be called a dual atonement. Is this charge true? Does not Mrs. White state that Christ is now making atonement for us in the heavenly sanctuary? Please explain your position, and state wherein you differ from others on the atonement.” 31

In response, Froom et al. referred to a statement from Early Writings:

The great Sacrifice had been offered and had been accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus had entered by His own blood, to shed upon His disciples the benefits of His atonement. 32

When taken in isolation, this statement appears to support, at least partially, the claim of the QOD authors, that

When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature—even in the writings of Ellen G. White—that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests. Mrs. White herself, as far back as 1857, clearly explained what she means when she writes of Christ’s making atonement for us in His ministry: [Then Early Writings, p. 260, was quoted as shown above.] 33

Yet it defies credibility to believe that the authors of QOD had overlooked the plain statements a few pages earlier in Early Writings in which Sister White taught that the atonement was completed not on the cross but in the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary:

As the priest entered the most holy once a year to cleanse the earthly sanctuary, so Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a FINAL ATONEMENT for all who could be benefited by His mediation, and thus to cleanse the sanctuary. 34

The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making HIS FINAL INTERCESSIONfor all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This ATONEMENT IS MADE for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. It includes all who died trusting in Christ, but who, not having received the light upon God’s commandments, had sinned ignorantly in transgressing its precepts.35

Knight argues that Froom’s statement in his February 1957 Ministry article (“That is the tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the cross—a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man’s sin.”) really meant “. . . the sacrifice on the cross was a full and complete sacrifice (in terms of the sacrificial aspect of the atonement) for sin.” 36

In the light of Ellen White’s statements in Early Writings, pp. 253, 254, I find this explanation overgenerous. If Froom overlooked the wrong impression many would draw from his statement, surely a copyeditor would flag the statement. Is there evidence that Froom made a correction in a future Ministry issue? I am not aware of such a correction or clarification. Surely Andreasen’s words were “prophetic”:

If the book [QOD] is published, there will be repercussions to the end of the earth that the foundations [of Adventist theology] are being removed.” 37

Some suggested, uncharitably, that Andreasen’s opposition was motivated by the fact that he had been ignored in the dialogues and in the review of the QOD manuscript. Elder Figuhr certainly ignored or rejected Andreasen’s plea to reconsider the statement that the atonement was completed by Christ’s sacrifice. Some critics of Andreasen make much of Andreasen’s change to a statement Froom made in the February issue of the Ministry magazine.38 This change, I believe, was inconsequential to Froom’s meaning.

Neither does it seem possible that the QOD authors had overlooked the clear exposition of some of the most notable writers in the ranks of the Seventh-day Adventist Church such as James White, Uriah Smith, and Stephen Haskell.39 The explanation that seems most credible to me is that the authors and their main advisors, including the then General Conference President, Elder Reuben Figuhr, were so consumed in their desire to save the Seventh-day Adventist Church from the stigma of the label “cult” that they were ready to reshape pillar beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to gain favor with these prominent evangelicals.

While I do not overlook the splendid answers to many questions including the state of the dead, the seventh-day Sabbath, the law of the ten commandments, the second coming, and prophetic interpretations, it is of the utmost importance to understand that Barnhouse and Martin had narrowed down their “tests” as to whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church was a cult to just four areas—(1) that the atonement of Christ was not completed upon the cross; (2) that salvation is the result of grace plus the works of the law; (3) that the Lord Jesus was a created being, not existing from eternity; and (4) that He partook of man’s sinful fallen nature at the incarnation.40 We can only continue to wonder why Barnhouse and Martin limited their test to these four questions. No doubt, long before QOD was published, Barnhouse and Martin understood that questions two and three did not pose any significant difference between their beliefs and those of Seventh-day Adventists.41

The second “test” imposed by Barnhouse and Martin was easily demonstrated to be false by valid evidence. While we cannot deny that there have been Seventh-day Adventists who have placed merit in law-keeping in their explanation of salvation, those who are thoroughly Bible-based Seventh-day Adventists have stood unwaveringly upon the plain words of Scripture 42 and the Spirit of Prophecy.43 Keeping the law or good works are neither the basis of salvation nor do they provide merit toward salvation. However, they are the inevitable result of God’s saving grace and power in the heart of the converted man. The presentation of Dr. Elliot Waggoner at the 1888 General Conference session in Minneapolis, fervently supported by Ellen White, was to slowly but surely redress any earlier presentations by some Seventh-day Adventists which inferred that there was merit toward salvation in law keeping or good works.

Further, the third “test” was just as easily answered. Once again we have had in our ranks those who deny the eternal deity of Christ even to this day, and certainly included were some of our prominent pioneers including James White, J.H. Waggoner, Uriah Smith, Joseph Bates, J.N. Loughborough, and D.M. Canright.44 However, especially after the publishing of the Desire of Ages in 1898, we have had overwhelming support for the eternal existence of Christ in the Spirit of Prophecy.45 These statements fully support the Bible.46

The first and fourth “tests” posed valid challenges to long-held Seventh-day Adventist doctrines. Overwhelmingly, Seventh-day Adventists prior to 1957 believed that, while the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was fully sufficient to pay the penalty for our sins, Christ’s work of atonement is to be completed in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. It appears that the authors of QOD wilted under the withering pressure of the evangelicals, and they failed the test on each of these two issues. As I have presented above, the completed atonement in the heavenly sanctuary is based upon sound Biblical evidence. If the atonement was completed on the cross, Paul’s statement to the Corinthians would be erroneous (1 Corinthians 15:17, 18) 47 for it certifies that those who die “in Christ” would perish [eternally] if Christ was not raised from the dead. Christ had to be raised to complete the atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. The fourth test, regarding the fallen, sinful human nature of Christ, is also riveted in sound Biblical evidence, as I will address later in this paper.

To argue that Froom and others did not tamper with cardinal beliefs of our church is impossible to defend validly. Certainly Barnhouse was not deceived. Here are his words:

The position of the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination. 48

Other Evangelicals also perceived these changes.49

In the same (September 1956) issue of Eternity magazine, those who remained steadfast in the faith established from the Bible in our church’s earlier history were defamed by the vitriolic language of Dr. Barnhouse. He stated that these loyal Seventh-day Adventists were those “. . . among their numbers [who were] of their ‘lunatic fringe.’ ” 50 Both Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin were men of caustic tongues. Knight referred to Barnhouse’s vitriolic response to those who disagreed with him.51 The experience of Dr. and Mrs. Kern Pihl, when Dr. Barnhouse was questioned during his speaking tour of Peru in late 1959, was indicative of his hatred of the Sabbath. “In the name of Jesus Christ, I curse the Seventh-day Sabbath.” 52

The aggressive challenge to Dr. William Johnsson by Walter Martin on the Ankerberg programs in 1985 over the role of Sister White as the “Adventist guru” was evidence of Martin’s aggressiveness. Yet the loyalty by Froom et al. to these evangelicals was amazing. In what proved to be my last conversation with Elder Roy Allan Anderson in the San Bernardino mall in the early 1980s, Elder Anderson vigorously defended Walter Martin as a “great friend” of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Yet it was Elder Anderson who made it plain that the real purpose of Questions on Doctrine was a planned attempt to reshape the beliefs of our church. This was revealed in a letter to Pastor Robert Greive, (president of the North New Zealand Conference in the 1950s) who left the faith. He was dismissed from his position and disfellowshipped from the church for preaching evangelical beliefs. It was Elder Anderson, a friend of Greive, who tried “to save him.” Here is what Anderson wrote to Pastor Greive. This letter is evidence that Elder Anderson recognized that the authors of QOD were seeking to reposition certain long-held beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

If you would suffer me this little word of counsel as a friend, I would suggest that you hold those thoughts in your heart and not make an issue of them until we, as a people, come to the place where we understand the doctrine as clearly as we should, and as we do other points of our faith. . . . I am confident that the time is near when the great mystery of godliness will be understood better by us as a people. But until then it would seem wise if we could confine ourselves to a prayerful discussion of it between us as workers.53

The Humanity of Christ

 

The uniquely divine-human nature of the incarnate Christ was not in question in the issues raised in QOD. The issue was, What human nature did Christ take upon Himself? 54 Dr. Ralph Larson’s monumental book, The Word Was Made Flesh 55provides the definitive research revealing how Seventh-day Adventist authors and writers in the English-speaking world were unified upon the belief that Christ took upon Himself man’s fallen human nature.

Dr. Ralph Larson was one of the most perceptive scholars from the 1970s, prominent in his courageous stand against QOD and its authors. Larson’s articulate pen was exercised with forceful impact, even late in his life. These extracts from an article published in 2004 reflected three decades of deep concern over the misrepresentations of the Seventh-day Adventist faith in QOD.56

Larson presented about 1,200 quotes from periodicals and other sources in North America, Great Britain, South Africa and Australasia. About 400 of these quotes were from Ellen White. This tome offers unchallengeable evidence which supports George Knight’s assessment that QOD’s heading “Took Sinless Human Nature” “implies that that was Ellen White’s idea when in fact she was quite emphatic in repeatedly stating that Christ took ‘our sinful nature’ and that ‘He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin.’ ” 57 Larson uncovered not one Seventh-day Adventist writer before 1952 who wrote other than that Christ took upon Himself our fallen, sinful nature. 58 He also demonstrated that, over a period of almost sixty years, Sister White did not waver in her position that Christ took upon Himself our fallen, sinful nature. 59

That bold QOD heading, “[Christ] Took Sinless Human Nature” certainly removes any credibility from General Conference President Reuben Figuhr’s assertion that, while QOD presented the Seventh-day Adventist beliefs in language understood by evangelicals, “there has been no attempt to gloss over our teachings or to compromise.” 60 This heading was a denial of the plain truths taught in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy—that Christ took fallen, sinful human nature.

One of the most significant findings in Larson’s book is that one of the primary authors of QOD had, just a few years before the publication of QOD, affirmed that Christ took fallen human flesh. This is what Elder W.E. Read approvingly quoted from Sister White at the 1950 General Conference, “Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh even as we are.” 61

When I was president of Columbia Union College, I was a colleague of Elder Fenton Froom, the son of Elder Leroy Froom. It is of some significance that Elder Fenton Froom also had in print proclaimed Christ’s fallen human nature.62

One of the most disturbing revelations is Dr. Herbert Douglass’ declaration that “Froom took a poll of Adventist leaders and discovered that ‘nearly all of them’ felt that Christ had our sinful nature.” 63 Yet George Knight reports that the authors told Martin that “ ‘the majority of the denomination had always held’ the human nature of Christ ‘to be sinless, holy, and perfect despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the church at large.’ ” 64 These writers “who occasionally” got into print confirming the fallen human nature of Christ, were categorized as part of the “lunatic fringe” by the authors of QOD.65 Many happened to be General Conference presidents, church leaders, editors of the Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, major authors and well-known college teachers. Larson has fully documented many scores of these writers. My personal limited research has failed to discover any exceptions to Larson’s research.

However the reason that the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists then believed that Christ took upon Himself fallen human nature was because they found that this was affirmed in holy Scripture.66 The most definitive text to explain why Christ took fallen human nature is found in Hebrews 2:9, 14:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. . . . Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.

Paul’s reasoning under inspiration is impeccable. Christ had to accept human fallen flesh and blood “that through death” He might defeat the enemy of souls both by living a life of sinless obedience to His heavenly Father and so that He might break the bands of the grave. No being with an unfallen nature has ever died. Adam and Eve had forfeited their sinless nature because of sin; therefore, they were subject to death as is every child of our first parents.

The concept which QOD authors borrowed from the fallen churches of Christendom is totally destructive of the atonement, for Christ could not have died for our sins without taking fallen human nature.67 Christ could not have qualified as our High Priest.68 Nor could He have strengthened us when we are tempted.69 Nor could He have been tempted as we are.70 Nor could He have served as our Example.71 The entire plan of salvation, the atonement for our sins, mandated that Christ took upon Himself our fallen human nature.

Whereas the debate among Seventh-day Adventists from the late 1950s to the early 1980s was focused upon the straightforward issue of whether Christ took fallen or unfallen human nature, sensing the Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy evidence overwhelmingly supported the fallen nature of our Savior’s human nature, a movement in our post-secondary institutions began to argue that Christ took fallen physical and mental human nature but took unfallen spiritual human nature.

The proponents of this view appear to be confused between the perfect sinless character of Christ and His inherited nature. However there is a dangerous flaw in this dichotomy. The physical, mental, and spiritual aspect of the human nature are interdependent, and in the human life of a Christian there is every goal to bring these powers into perfect harmony. The introductory section of the book Education focuses upon this harmony. The opening paragraph introduces this.72 Four other times this three-fold development is addressed.73

From Greek pagan religious philosophy much of Christianity has accepted the concept that the soul is good and the body evil. This is the basis for the belief in the destructible body and the immortal soul so common in Christianity today, but it has no foundation in Biblical instruction.

The reason that Barnhouse and Martin and other evangelicals fiercely opposed the concept that Christ took upon himself fallen human nature results from their acceptance of the false Augustinian-Calvinistic concept of original sin, which leads to the conclusion that sin is a state of being rather than “the transgression of the law.” 74 Thus the evangelicals believe that to affirm that Christ took upon Himself fallen human nature is tantamount to the blasphemy of saying that He was a sinner. Yet Paul is so plain that Christ’s human nature was identical with fallen man, yet that He was wholly free from sin.75

 

What Was Gained by Conceding to the Evangelicals’ Unbiblical Errors?

 

This can be determined by Barnhouse’s forward to Martin’s book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism (Zondervan, 1960):

Let it be understood that we made only one claim; i.e., that those Seventh-day Adventists who follow the Lord in the same way as their leaders who have interpreted for us the doctrinal position of their church, are to be considered true members of the body of Christ.76

An analysis of this limited endorsement really equates “following the Lord” with “following church leaders.” Seventh-day Adventists have long accepted that the Bible only is our rule of faith and practice.77 The true Seventh-day Adventist follows the Lord by following the words of Holy Scripture. To follow men would place God’s people in rejection of the warning of the Lord.78

Today, half a century later, many evangelicals still regard the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a cult. Those who see Seventh-day Adventists as part of the body of Christ do so not because our church has held steadfast to the faith delivered to us, but rather because we have increasingly been wooed toward the embrace of the ecumenical movement. Many Seventh-day Adventists no longer see the Seventh-day Adventist church as God’s chosen end-time church, unique and distinctive from all other churches. (See 1 Peter 2:9.)

Some may believe that our conferees in the 1950s were a witness to the Evangelicals; however, the evidence is all in the other direction. There is no evidence that Barnhouse nor Martin embraced any of the distinctive Biblical truths of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. However, Seventh-day Adventist leaders were willing to confuse the role of the Spirit of Prophecy in the end-time church and to shift from the important truth of the completion of Christ’s atonement for His saints in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary and from the belief that Christ took upon Himself sinful, fallen human nature.

While we believe that many of God’s saints are members of the fallen churches of Christendom, we believe it is our focused mission to call these people from these fallen churches into the glorious light of the everlasting gospel of the three angels’ messages. I have found no other church which understands the final messages to the world as expounded in the three angels’ messages. We can review the Scriptures from Genesis chapter 1 to Revelation chapter 22, and we find no other messages to be proclaimed at the end of this sin-blighted planet’s history to all the inhabitants of the world other than those three messages. This biblical mandate is what sets the Seventh-day Adventist Church apart from all other churches of Christendom, and it is this calling which precludes us from embracing the compromises necessary to be participants in the ecumenical union. Our calling is to invite God’s faithful ones out of this ecumenical movement.79 This is our work of love for those sincere brethren and sisters in these churches of other faiths. In this way we can show our love for all other earnest souls who are seeking the way of salvation.

The Consequences of Questions on Doctrine

 

Many believe that two or three errors in QOD are of little consequence to the powerful overall body of truth contained in the book. But such a conclusion is uninsightful. One error is sufficient to despoil the whole body of truth. With great discernment Sister White has observed:

Men think they are representing the justice of God, but they do not represent His tenderness and the great love wherewith He has loved us. Their human invention, originating with the specious devices of Satan, appears fair enough to the blinded eyes of men, because it is inherent in their nature. A lie, believed, practiced, becomes a truth to them. Thus the purpose of the satanic agencies is accomplished, that men should reach these conclusions through the working of their own inventive minds.

But how do men fall into such error? By starting with false premises, and then bringing everything to bear to prove the error true. In some cases the first principles have a measure of truth interwoven with the error, but it does not lead to any just action, and this is why men are misled. In order to reign and become a power, they employ Satan’s methods to justify their own principles. They exalt themselves as men of superior judgment, and they have stood as representatives of God.80

It takes but one small error to change truth to falsehood. Once error is insinuated into the body of truth it becomes a cancerous growth which continues to metastasize, destroying other pillars of truth. This brings bitter division among God’s people, and it engenders vilification of those who hold fast to the pillars of the faith. If leaders accept errors, history attests that they make inappropriate efforts to force upon members a false unity based upon “loyalty” to leaders and “the church” rather than upon Bible truth and sanctification in loyalty to Christ. Christ provided the perfect key to unity in His prayer for unity:

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. . . . And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.81

Sister White stated, “There is no sanctification aside from truth.” 82 “We must now, by diligent, self-sacrificing effort, endeavor to walk in the love of Christ, in the unity of the Spirit, through sanctification of the truth.” 83 Without truth there is no sanctification, and without sanctification there is no unity, and without unity there is no salvation. Sister White emphasized the crucial result of accepting pure truth alone: “Unity is the sure result of Christian perfection.” 84

Until perfect truth is established within the ranks of Seventh-day Adventists, there can be no character perfection of the body of Christ; therefore, God’s saints cannot be sealed by the seal of the living God, and, therefore, they are unprepared to receive the latter rain, and the gospel commission cannot be completed.85

Paul fully confirmed the necessity of the unity of the faith that accompanies character perfection.86 He then presented the tragic consequence of disunity which results in a life alienated from the character of our perfect Pattern.87

I do not believe that the architects of the changes in Seventh-day Adventist doctrine in QOD fully foresaw the terrible consequences of their compromises by which they thought to please the evangelicals and to “protect” the Seventh-day Adventist Church from the slander of being “lumped” with so-called cults. That these experienced leaders surely must have had their doubts seems to be confirmed by Dr. Herbert Douglass’ anecdotal report, that frequently Roy Allan Anderson would ask him questions such as, “Herb, what is happening to our church?” 88

The mega public relations blitz presented by the General Conference through the Ministry magazine—the official organ of the Ministerial Association of the General Conference where Elders Froom and Anderson served—assured the readers that this book (QOD) assumed center stage as the most authentic publication concerning crucial Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. These books were circulated free to Bible departments of our colleges and distributed to professors and students. Overnight, the errors in QOD were being taught to the next generation of ministers, some of whom were destined to become the leaders of our church. The ministers preached these errors in the pulpits, and then these errors were imbibed by the church members en masse. This problem has continued to this day. That there are those scattered world-wide who, by their own study or the presentation of faithful men and women, have embraced the correct teachings upon these doctrines is a witness to the promise that God’s Word will not return unto Him void.89

Was Andreasen divisive when he went public with his concerns? Decidedly not! He was following in the same pathway as did Enoch, Noah, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, all the “minor” prophets, John the Baptist, Stephen, Peter, John, James, Jude, Paul, and many others. To have been silent in the time of crisis in the 1950s would have been sin against God. His was the only valid response when the souls of humanity are in the balance.90

Elder Andreasen made it clear that he understood that he would face consequences for his noble, lonely stand. Here are his words, “I have counted the cost it will be to me to continue my opposition, but I am trying to save my beloved denomination from committing suicide. I must be true to my God, as I see it, and I must be true to the men that trust me.” 91

Over all, beginning in 1957, Andreasen published nine papers entitled “The Atonement” and six entitled “Letters to the Churches.” 92 The book Letters to the Churches is still available today. It is evident that Andreasen was branded as a radical critic of leaders when he should have been embraced as a faithful watchman on the walls of Zion.

The history of God’s church through the ages is replete with leaders who have endorsed and embraced false teachings and who have vilified those faithful ones who stood against the heresy and condemned it. Elder Figuhr had the prestige and power of the General Conference Presidency against which Andreasen could not prevail. Andreasen may have perceived the wholesale apostasy which QOD would foment, but he did not live to see the maturity of this apostasy.

The Impact of These Three Errors in QOD

 

I acknowledge that both Barnhouse and Martin had significant fallout from other evangelicals by declaring Seventh-day Adventists to be sincere Christians while in the same article maligning Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists.93 However, the consequences of the U-turn away from pillar truths by the supporters and followers of QOD have had tragic mega-consequences, greatly impeding the completion of the planet-wide proclamation of the everlasting gospel, and this has delayed the return of Christ. The damage to the reputations of Barnhouse and Martin was of minor consequences in contrast with the tragedy of the delaying of the return of our blessed Lord by the adoption within the ranks of our Seventh-day Adventist Church of long-held unbiblical concepts of the fallen churches of Christendom.

Now I will address in capsule form the impact of these three errors in QOD. They have eroded many areas of our faith, making our church weak and very vulnerable to the evangelical errors and the dangerous web of ecumenism whereby we do not make issues of those things which divide but “unite” on those concepts only which we hold in common.94 Such an accommodation, if not arrested, would destroy the integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist church and derail its destiny. Which faithful Seventh-day Adventist would be willing to compromise the three angels’ messages, all doctrines of which are not part of the beliefs of the ecumenical churches? Which faithful Seventh-day Adventist would be willing to silence his or her voice from sharing these transcendent truths with those not of our faith? Could we avoid culpability before God if we silenced our settled Bible-founded beliefs on the doctrines of the seventh-day Sabbath? the sleep-like state in death? adult believers baptism by emersion? the pre-millennial return of Jesus to take His saints to heaven to live for 1,000 years? the power of Christ to provide victory over every temptation and deception of Satan? that Christ is now our heavenly High Priest conducting the judgment of the human race, blotting out the sins of the repentant and completing His atonement for the salvation of His saints? The answers are in the questions. Yet that is what QOD does.

Knight assigns the blame for the division QOD engendered in our church to both sides in the controversy and the strong personalities of Froom and Andreasen.95 No doubt Froom and Andreasen were passionate concerning their positions. Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that it is the infiltration of error into God’s perfect truth which, without exception, has engendered division into God’s church. Personalities may at times exacerbate the division, but no division can be assigned to those who uphold truth. Yet the upholders of truth are routinely labeled the “troublers of Israel.” The Sanhedrin accused Christ of dividing the church.96

One thing which I do know is that Andreasen became a model for many of us younger men, demonstrating the integrity and the earnestness by which we should speak up, address, and seek to reverse the intrusion of heresy into God’s chosen church. We cannot be silent in a time of spiritual crisis.97

It was the results of QOD which led to the protest of the concerned brethren in Australia.98

Froom explained to Elder Figuhr, “If you know the backgrounds, the attitudes, the setting of it all, you would understand why we stated these things as we have.” 99 Tragically, Froom’s explanation does not stand well in the light of history which has revealed the chaos which these changes have brought into the authentic belief system of the biblically-based doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.


Date: 2016-01-14; view: 689


<== previous page | next page ==>
WIERSZE RÓŻNE | C. Some of the Consequences of Rejecting the Fact that Christ Took Our Fallen Human Nature
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.021 sec.)