C. Some of the Consequences of Rejecting the Fact that Christ Took Our Fallen Human Nature

1. Many reject Christ’s provision to give humans victory over all sin and worldliness. ¹¹⁹

2. Many claim that Christ has a different nature from us and therefore cannot be fully our Example. ¹²⁰

3. Many fail to acknowledge the maturing of our perfection of character by increasing knowledge and understanding, under the promptings of the Holy Spirit. ¹²¹

4. Many have accepted relational theology. All we need for salvation, they say, is to have a “relationship” with Jesus when the Bible teaches that we must abide in Christ, have the mind of Christ, that Christ must be in us, and we must be in Christ.¹²²

5. Many have accepted an impotent gospel.¹²³ One of our denomination’s most influential scholars, Englishman Edward Heppenstall, taught many students the new theology. He expressed anti-biblical concepts against the power of Christ to enable sinners to live victorious lives.¹²⁴ He influenced a generation of pastors at Andrews University to accept these errors. Other professors in our tertiary institutions have followed suit.

6. Many believe that unforsaken sin will not deprive them of their entrance into the kingdom of heaven.¹²⁵

What a carnage of lost souls is in our church today, largely as a result of these three major errors in QOD! Many contemporary Seventh-day Adventists, no doubt, have no knowledge of QOD. Large numbers will have imbibed the theological errors which can be traced to QOD. Many Seventh-day Adventist scholars have no personal knowledge of the pre-QOD era of Adventism. Some of us have. What lessons can be learned?

1. The Bible must be re-established as the basis of all faith and practice.

2. Do not marginalize the God-given Spirit of Prophecy to help His people navigate through the treacherous minefield of doctrinal error and worldly practices which Satan seeks to infiltrate into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

3. Do not minimize the consequence of even one deviation from divine truth. Truth is only truth if it is free from all error.

4. There are times when leaders make serious mistakes which must be corrected.

5. Do not seek to silence the voices of warning.

6. Do not seek to discredit the one who raises his or her voice of warning against the intrusion of false views into the Seventh-day Adventist church. Such warnings are just as necessary as enlightening messages and are essential in this end time of earth’s history.¹²⁶

The Influence of QOD upon Seventh-day Adventists Believe

A meeting of no small significance took place at the General Conference on January 27, 1988. The meeting was initiated by the General Conference President, Elder Neal Wilson, after consultation with the former General Conference President, Elder Robert H. Pierson. The meeting was between twenty-three General Conference leaders and former leaders and eight leaders of self-supporting ministries. The meeting was chaired by Elder Wilson.

At this time I can remember seven of the eight self-supporting leaders: Elder Joe Crews (Amazing Facts); Dr. Herbert Douglass (Weimar Institute); Pastor John Osborne (Prophecy Countdown); Elder Ron Spear (Hope International); Dr. Colin Standish (Hartland Institute); Elder Laverne Tucker (The Quiet Hour); and Elder Robert Wieland (The 1888 Message Study Committee).

The twenty-three General Conference leaders included Elder Neal Wilson (General Conference President); all but one of the Vice-Presidents; Elder Charles Bradford (North American Division President); Elder Robert Pierson (retired General Conference President); and Dr. Leo Van Dolson (senior Sabbath School quarterly editor).

During the meetings a dialogue ensued concerning the upcoming book Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . : A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, which was about to be released to the Adventist Book Centers.

There was great apprehension expressed at this meeting about the contents of this book. As I recall, those who led out in expressing concerns were Dr. Herbert Douglass, Dr. Leo Van Dolson, and I. The expressed concerns centered about the divisions caused by QOD. The thought was expressed that, if Seventh-day Adventists Believe was no better than QOD, it would be wise not to publish it. Concern was also expressed that the original contributor to the book, Dr. Normal Gulley, was not theologically sound concerning the human nature of Christ.

We were assured that Seventh-day Adventists Believe was much different from QOD. This was reinforced by the emphasis that the original manuscript had been thoroughly revised by Dr. P. G. Damsteegt, a teacher in the church history department of Andrews University. That statement tended to calm our concerns, for, I believe, those who expressed concerns had confidence in the Biblical integrity of Dr. Damsteegt. However, when the book became available, I was greatly alarmed when the acknowledgements (ibid, p. v), which presented a long list of those “who gave special attention” to the book, represented a spectrum which included many known revisionists of the Seventh-day Adventist faith.

When Floyd Greenleaf revised and updated Richard W. Schwarz’s Light Bearers to the Remnant, 1979, in Light Bearers, A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, he addressed the issue of Seventh-day Adventists Believe. This is what is stated: “Although at the time [1957] Questions on Doctrine was the most definitive book-length statement on Adventist beliefs, within two decades it fell into disuse. In some circles Adventists consciously opposed it. In 1988 a new volume, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, became the favored and most widely consulted declaration of Adventist doctrine.” ¹²⁷

Greenleaf was accurate in reporting that QOD was little referenced after the 1970s. It was during the seventies and early eighties that many informal and planned public meetings were held in which the teachings of QOD—especially on the human nature of Christ and the final atonement—were exposed as error.

These meetings were expanded at the end of the 1970s to encompass a broader range of topics under what was now termed “the new theology,” which could be equated with the other errors which were the logical consequences of QOD. Thus errors were corrected by the presentation of these truths:

1. The power of the gospel enables a victorious Christian life in those who surrender their will to the will of their Savior. (2 Cor. 7:1; Jude 24) ¹²⁸

2. The gospel of salvation embraces justification by faith and sanctification by faith in Christ’s blood. (Rom. 5:1, 9; Acts 26:18; Heb. 10:10; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2) ¹²⁹

3. The man of Romans 7 was a convicted man but not a converted man. Compare Romans 7:17 ¹³⁰ to Galatians 2:20.¹³¹ This man is not converted until Romans 7:25 ¹³² after he surrenders his life to Jesus.

4. The new birth encompasses justification and sanctification. (John 3:5) ¹³³

5. The nature of sin is transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4) ¹³⁴

6. Humans are born with innate tendencies to sin, not original sin. (Ps. 51:5) ¹³⁵

7. Salvation is conditional. (Ezek. 18:20-24) ¹³⁶

8. Sin is not accounted to the unwillfully ignorant. (John 9:41; 15:22; James 4:17; Acts 17:30) ¹³⁷

9. Sister White’s writings are a fulfillment of the promise of the Spirit of prophecy’s guidance of God’s end-time people. (Rev. 12:17; 19:10) ¹³⁸

To my knowledge, the first major challenge in book form took place when Dr. John Clifford and my brother Russell wrote the book Conflicting Concepts of Righteousness by Faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Australasian Division, published by the Burnside Press in 1976, which received encouraging reviews from Elders Robert Pierson and Kenneth Wood.

The first direct addressing of the new theology in public meetings took place at Vision Valley, a camp near Sydney, Australia in 1979. The main speakers were Dr. Ralph Larson (pastor of the Campus Hill Church, Loma Linda, California), two New Zealanders—Pastor George Burnside (retired South Pacific Division evangelist and former division ministerial secretary) and Pastor Austin Cooke (retired South Pacific Division evangelist)—and I (Dean of Weimar College). Of course, the righteousness by faith issue of the Review and Herald in 1974 was also seeking to redress the concepts of the new theology.

Soon, camp meetings on every inhabited continent were convened. These camp meetings upheld precious Seventh-day Adventist truths which had been seriously compromised by the QOD authors. Literally thousands of such meetings have been held since then, and scores of books have been written against the new theology.

I now address the question, “Did the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe redress the errors presented in QOD?” I think not. In the Adventist Review of November 5, 1992, an undated sixteen-page insert appeared entitled The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Organizations. In this issue, a quote was included from an article I had written and which was published in the Our Firm Foundation magazine of June 1989. My statement quoted was, “The official Seventh-day Adventist statement of beliefs is couched in such a way that pivotal doctrines such as victorious Christian living, the nature of Christ, and the atonement are left sufficiently general that all but the most rabid New Theology teachers can give confident assent to them. Thus it is hard to take strong action against them.” ¹³⁹

These undisclosed authors of this insert responded to this statement of mine with these astonishing words: “But that is exactly the point. The united church in session has deliberately chosen to leave some points open because general agreement on specifics does not exist.” ¹⁴⁰

Is it true that “the united church in session has deliberately chosen to leave some points open . . .”? My twin brother was a delegate representing the South-East Asian Union when these 27 beliefs were voted at the 1980 General Conference Session in Dallas, Texas. He assures me that no such debate or decision was made to keep some areas open. I also attended this Dallas Session and heard the whole debate. Indeed, that issue was not discussed, and no such decision was voted.

Indeed, we had no idea until 2004 that the Twenty-Seven Fundamental Beliefs were not those which had been prepared by the committee which had been appointed after the 1975 General Conference Session in Vienna, Austria.

The members of the ad hoc committee, entrusted with the task of preparing the new Statement of Fundamental Beliefs were all men known to us:

Dr. Charles Bradford, Associate Secretary of the General Conference

Elder Reginald Dower, Secretary of the General Conference Ministerial Association

Pastor Duncan Eva, General Conference Vice-President (Chairman)

Elder Clyde Franz, Secretary of the General Conference

Elder Willis Hackett, Vice-President of the General Conference

Dr. Richard Hammill, Vice-President of the General Conference

Dr. Gordon Hyde, General Field Secretary of the General Conference

Pastor Alf Lohne, Vice-President of the General Conference

Dr. Bernard Seton, Associate Secretary of the General Conference (Secretary)

Elder Arthur White, Secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate.¹⁴¹

This list included some men who were very faithful to the Seventh-day Adventist message.

In 1980, however, the work of the ad hoc drafting committee was virtually superseded, although this was far from the intention of the General Conference. That the General Conference permitted the work of its sub-committee to be effectively hijacked by the theologians of Andrews University is a matter of the deepest concern.

This unseemly activity must be born in mind as we evaluate the Twenty-Seven Fundamentals. God never works through such means. . . .

In preparation for the 1980 General Conference Session, the General Conference ad hoc committee which was delegated to redraft our fundamental beliefs, had completed its work by August, 1979. This provided a mere eight months for further consultations and evaluations. It was in this period that the consequences of the selection of the faulty members to the ad hoc committee became evident.

We have been unable to obtain a copy of the ad hoc committee’s draft fundamental beliefs. Until this is made available we cannot know whether or not it more strongly upheld our Bible and Spirit of Prophecy-based faith than the final submission. We feel convicted that men such as Elders Dower, Franz, Hackett, Hyde, Lohne and White would not have been of a mind to leave loopholes in the fundamentals which would have opened the doors to the serious dilution of the faith. Yet the final Twenty-seven Fundamentals were full of such loopholes.

If, as we suspect, the ad hoc committee’s recommendations were firmer than those of the final Twenty-seven Fundamentals adopted, then the recommendations of Pastor Eva (chairman) and Seton (secretary) may be evaluated by some as a none-too-subtle attempt to subvert the wishes of the full committee. The liberal agenda not infrequently achieves its aims against the will of the majority. . . .

Pastors Eva’s and Seton’s recommendation ensured that any hope that a straightforward statement of the principles of our faith would be produced, irrespective of the draft suggestions of the 1980 General Conference ad hoc committee, would not be fulfilled. Their recommendations are documented:

Pastor Eva

said that before the new statement would be submitted to the full Church Manual Committee, it would be presented to “certain professors at the Seminary with whom we will meet in September.” After the Church Manual committee gave its approval, the statement would proceed to the [General Conference] officers, the union [conference] presidents, the Annual Council, and finally to the General Conference session in Dallas [the following April]. (Dr. Lawrence Geraty, President, La Sierra University, “A New Statement of Fundamental Beliefs,” Spectrum, Vol. 11, Issue No. 1, Summer, 1980, p. 3).

Further, Pastor Seton recalled:

When that further limited revision was completed, I ventured to suggest that it would be wise to submit the document to our professional theologians on the basis that it would be better to have their reactions before the document went further rather than await their strictures on the session floor. There was some hesitation, but eventually the suggestion was accepted, and the document went to Andrews University with the request that it be studied, that comments and recommendations be referred back to the ad hoc committee. Those terms of reference did not register, for the University prepared its own set of Fundamentals. (Dr. Lawrence Geraty transcription of a presentation to the San Diego Forum, presented April 18, 2000 in which he presented his recollections from a conversation with Pastor Bernard Seton as recorded in Dr. Fritz Guy, Spectrum, Vol. 32, Issue 3, Summer 2004, p. 23).

The recommendations of Pastors Eva and Seton were to alter Seventh-day Adventist history. Despite the wise reservations of some of the members of this 1980 ad hoc committee, the recommendations of Pastors Eva and Seton were adopted. As a result Australian, Pastor Walter Scragg, then Northern European Division President—1975-1983 (and later President of the South Pacific Division—1983-1990) reported that:

W. Duncan Eva has described to me his surprise when he received back from [the Andrews scholars] not a reworking of the material submitted but a completely rewritten document. (Walter R. L. Scragg, “Doctrinal Statements and the Life and Witness of the Church,” unpublished paper presented at a workers’ meeting in Vasterang, Sweden and Manchester, England between August 24 and September 4, 1981).

As a result the Andrews theologians effectively routed the General Conference 1980 ad hoc committee in a doctrinal coup, possibly unprecedented in our church history, for the Andrews University version of fundamental beliefs completely overshadowed [replaced] the 1980 General Conference ad hoc committee’s recommendations.¹⁴²

I can only wonder what would have been the response of the delegates to these twenty-seven fundamental beliefs if it had been known that the recommendations of the officially appointed committee had been hijacked by an unauthorized group of Andrews University professors. With this knowledge not revealed to the delegates at the Dallas General Conference Session, the statement of the authors of The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Organizations, that “the united church in session has deliberately chosen to leave some points open . . .” proves quite false.

A review of the large quarto-size 467-page book, Issues: the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries also shocked many readers by what they could hardly believe could be in a book authorized by the North American Division officers and the union presidents. It condemned Hope International and Our Firm Foundation for holding “certain views on the human nature of Christ, the nature of sin, and sanctification. These issues have never been settled among Christians, much less among Seventh-day Adventists. They are not issues so essential to salvation that souls will be lost unless they are resolved. The problem that Hope International / Our Firm Foundation has created is that this independent ministry feels driven to charge the SDA church with being in a state of apostasy because it does not accept their views on these moot theological issues.” ¹⁴³

Surely, most Seventh-day Adventists are shocked that such a statement would be immortalized in print form. The human nature of Christ not essential to salvation!! (Romans 8:3, 4; Hebrews 2:16, 17; Selected Messages, book 1, p. 244) ¹⁴⁴ The nature of sin not important to man’s salvation!! Seventh-day Adventists do not know what sin is?? (1 John 3:4) ¹⁴⁵

If we do not know what sin is, we do not know God’s perfect law of liberty. (Romans 7:7; James 1:25; 2:12) ¹⁴⁶ If we do not know what sin is, we will be separated from God (Isa. 59:2) ¹⁴⁷; we cannot discern righteousness or sanctification; and finally we do not know what sanctification is!! We are saved by grace through sanctification (together with justification) (2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2).¹⁴⁸ All these are moot theological issues! May our precious Saviour spare us from such shocking declarations!

Have the twenty-seven (now twenty-eight) fundamental beliefs redressed the dangerous errors of QOD? Sadly, I must answer, “No.” Indeed, they demonstrate how far we have parted from the blessed truths of salvation.

Did the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe redress the errors of QOD on the issue of the Spirit of Prophecy, the completed atonement of Christ, or the human nature of Christ? Tragically, it now reflected these errors.

1. The Spirit of Prophecy – the gift of prophecy is not the Spirit of prophecy; yet there is an attempt to equate the two. When an attempt is made to explain the Spirit of Prophecy (Ibid. p. 221), there is no reference to the works of Ellen White.

These definitions of the Spirit of prophecy are proposed:

So the expression the Spirit of prophecy can refer to (1) the Holy Spirit inspiring the prophet with a revelation from God, (2) the operation of the gift of prophecy, and (3) the medium of the prophecy itself.¹⁴⁹

Sister White is introduced by the subheading “The Spirit of Prophecy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” When addressing the role of Ellen White under this heading, it says, “The gift of prophecy was active in the ministry of Ellen G. White.” ¹⁵⁰ Are the authors of Seventh-day Adventists Believe equating the term “Spirit of prophecy” with the “gift of prophecy”? It is appropriate to associate both designations, but it is the Spirit of prophecy which identifies Sister White as an end-time prophet.

2. The Final Atonement – Consistent with the error of QOD, Seventh-day Adventists Believe says, “The atonement, or reconciliation, was completed on the cross…” ¹⁵¹

3. The Human Nature of Christ – Seventh-day Adventists Believe gets closest to redress the issues on the nature of Christ but it seems to stop short of a clear and decisive statement that Christ took upon Himself fallen, sinful human nature. Here is an example: “He clothed His divinity with humanity, He was made in the ‘likeness of sinful flesh,’ or ‘sinful human nature,’ or ‘fallen human nature,’ (cf. Rom. 8:3).” ¹⁵² However, just two paragraphs later, in the authors’ efforts to further clarify our position, they stopped short of inspiration.

When He took on human nature the race had already deteriorated through 4,000 years of sin on a sin-cursed planet. So that He could save those in the utter depths of degradation, Christ took a human nature that, compared with Adam’s unfallen nature, had decreased in physical and mental strength—though He did so without sinning.¹⁵³

The following endnote is added to the end of the above paragraph:

Christ took upon Him “the same susceptibilities, mental and physical” as His contemporaries (White, “Notes of Travel,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Feb. 10, 1885, p. 81)—a human nature that had decreased in “physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth”—though not morally depraved, but totally sinless (White, “ ‘In All Points Tempted Like As We Are,’ ” Signs, Dec. 3, 1902, p. 2; White, Desire of Ages, p. 49).¹⁵⁴

This is the confusion that Seventh-day Adventists Believe presents, for the authors do quote the italicized portion of the following plain statement on Christ’s humanity:

For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.¹⁵⁵

Unfortunately, in their own words, however, the authors state in the endnote above that Christ took “a human nature . . . totally sinless.” Note how the authors fell short of Ellen White’s inspired revelation.

Laying aside His royal crown, He condescended to step down, step by step, to the level of fallen humanity. ¹⁵⁶

The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity! He would place His feet in Adam’s steps. He would take man’s fallen nature, and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam. ¹⁵⁷

Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those he wished to save. In him was no guile or sinfulness; he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature. ¹⁵⁸

There is another concern regarding the section in Seventh-day Adventists Believe on the humanity of Christ. I noticed the heading on page 49: “6. The sinlessness of Jesus Christ’s human nature.” To me, the heading and the following discussion creates an unfortunate confusion of nature and character. It is true that the word “nature” does sometimes refer to a person’s character, but I do not believe that “human nature,” in this context, is referring to “character.” This confusion would make it very difficult for someone to grasp the fact that Jesus took our sinful nature while maintaining a sinless character.

In the end, the author(s) straddled the issue, choosing the dichotomy more consistent with the concept of the evil body but the good soul (spirit), couching it in such language as to confuse nature with Christ’s perfect character and sinless life.

Thus “Christ’s humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin.” ¹⁵⁹

Thus QOD’s ambivalence sadly still reigns within our “official” presentation of fundamental beliefs. Let us remember, confusion and error is frequently more dangerous than outright error.

The Origin of Present-Day Errors in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

The test of Christian integrity is the same today as it has always been—implicit loyalty to God and His Word. Since the garden of Eden, Satan has insinuated his admixture of truth and error, and with amazing success he has ultimately prevailed against every reform movement which God has raised up in the history of the world.¹⁶⁰

Augustine (354–430), Bishop of Hippo (396–430) in North Africa, has been the architect of the theological turmoil in the early Christian church, the medieval church, the Reformation churches, and now his theology is infecting the Seventh-day Adventist Church today. Like so many Western theologians, beginning in the second century, Augustine viewed Christianity through the prism of pagan concepts.¹⁶¹

Like almost all pagans, Augustine had learned as a youth, probably, from his father to believe that the gods were in complete control. Yet he believed in limited free-will. Toward the end of his life, however, he became strong in following the Greek pagan false concept of predestination.¹⁶² He thus accepted that by God’s predetermined edict, some humans would be saved and others would be punished eternally.¹⁶³ He rejected the truth that one’s personal acceptance of Christ’s free grace through faith with its offer of salvation determines his eternal destiny.¹⁶⁴ Augustine’s belief that some were predestined by God to eternal burning hell, and others were predestined to eternal salvation fearfully defames the character of our God of love.

Augustine seemed unable to comprehend or failed to accept the clearest statements of Scripture on the choice which God gives to man. He did not give due weight to these texts.¹⁶⁵

The concept of predestination led many ultimately to the conclusion that once we are saved, we are always saved, for God is constant. Once He has saved us, He cannot change—no matter what our subsequent life history is, whether we possess holy or unholy characters. This false teaching, termed by some as the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, set forth a train of false doctrines which included that once we are saved by Christ who changes not, we are always saved, irrespective of our conduct, whether virtuous or evil. Both the Old and New Testaments attest to the falsity of this concept.¹⁶⁶ Thus was laid the foundation of the “sin-and-live” theology, whose adherents are quick to point out that we are not saved according to our works. While this is true, the sin-and-live theology fails to emphasize that no one will be saved without the good works of the Spirit.¹⁶⁷ Salvation does not encompass forgiveness only; it also frees us from the slavery of the practice of sin.

These teachings of Augustine opened the doors to the pagan concept of original sin, which taught that the original sin of Adam required the punishment of all the human race. In other words, we are guilty for Adam’s sin. This teaching proclaimed that we sin because we are sinners, not that we are sinners because we have sinned. This teaching is a major error and is contrary to the Bible. While we inherit from Adam sinful flesh and his tendency to sin, the act of sin itself is a volitional act.¹⁶⁸

Every human being is born unconverted, with a predisposition to sin. An unconverted person will fall into sin as all have done. Nevertheless, no sin is accounted against us unless it has resulted from our choice or, at the least, deliberate negligence. Until God provides us knowledge of sin He does not count us guilty.¹⁶⁹

Augustinian theology created a great dilemma. It had been understood that Christ took upon Himself our fallen nature and that, in the power of His Father, He resisted Satan. However, the logical implication of Augustine’s theory of original sin was that Christ, too, was a sinner if He possessed the same fallen genetic nature of human beings. Therefore, the view was proposed that Christ had a different inherited nature from fallen human beings—that He had inherited the unfallen nature which Adam had before the Fall. In this sense, He could not be fully our example; yet the Bible is plain on this point.¹⁷⁰

Here we see the development of a body of doctrines which defies pure Scripture, but is both logical and consistent with the false premise upon which Augustine based his theology.

The New Testament is emphatic that Christ did inherit the fallen nature of mankind. There is no excuse for us to err on this matter.¹⁷¹

Christ could not have provided an example to us who are born with fallen natures unless He possessed the same nature as us and was tempted as we are. He could not have demonstrated that we, filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, have no excuse for sin. Thus, one error, the doctrine of original sin, has led to another error and many more.

For example, Christians of that era began to ask how the curse and the penalty of original sin was taken away. The answer eventually provided was that the curse of original sin is abrogated by baptism. Other questions naturally followed, such as, “What happens if someone dies unbaptized?” It was then declared that they would suffer eternal burning torment. We can only begin to imagine the chilling terror and anguish which filled the hearts of parents who had lost their little ones and now were informed that their deceased babies were consigned to eternal burning fire because their little ones had died unbaptized. Even the most heartless priests were surely troubled by this declaration. Thus, step by step, the wholly unbiblical concept of infant “baptism,” entered fully into the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

Centuries later, indeed not until the thirteenth century, a totally unbiblical word—“limbo”—was introduced into the ecclesiastical language of the Church. Limbo was said to be some intermediate place where the souls of unbaptized infants and “innocents” went at death.

When men commence with one false premise as Augustine did, and then others attempt to bring every concept incompatible to it into unity with this false premise, wholesale destruction of the faith inevitably ensues. This deviation was the certain result of Augustine’s promotion of predestination. Now, two clear distinct strands of Christianity were developed throughout Christendom. One was built upon the purity of God’s Word, the other was established upon false premises which proved to be null and void when examined in the light of Holy Scripture. To support the false concepts, church tradition assumed equal status with the Bible and in many instances superseded the authority of the Bible.

Some also trace the concept of the immaculate conception of Mary back to Augustine’s concept that Christ had an unfallen nature. Even though this doctrine was not finally adopted by the Roman Church until 1854, during the reign of Pius IX (Pope 1846–1878), nevertheless it was a logical extension of Augustine’s error.

Augustine was also the architect of persecution of other Christians who stood against his beliefs. The most to suffer were his fellow Africans, the Donatists. They opposed the church-state union and state enforcement of the edicts of the church. Augustine threatened dire consequences to the Donatists, and indeed they were persecuted out of existence.¹⁷² Perhaps the annihilation of the Donatists was the major event which permitted the Muslims to wipe out Christianity in North Africa two to three centuries later.

Augustine’s beliefs, such as predestination, were imbibed by the Augustinian monk Martin Luther, who taught Calvin, who then taught these Augustinian concepts to Beza, Knox, and many others.¹⁷³ In turn, they have flooded into the ranks of the Baptists and are now invading the Seventh-day Adventist Church. These Augustinian concepts also influenced the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Blaise Pascal.¹⁷⁴

We must look to see how some of these false doctrines have become embedded to a significant extent into the Seventh-day Adventist faith of today, partially through the training of our Bible professors in the universities and seminaries of the fallen churches of Christendom. Augustine, who died in the first half of the fifth century, is casting his shadow across the Seventh-day Adventist Church today, thus causing spiritual turmoil and doctrinal uncertainty in the ranks of God’s people. Thus today, some of these Augustinian heresies are preached from the Seventh-day Adventist pulpits and are accepted increasingly by many of our lay people.

When chairman of the Education Department of Avondale College in the latter part of the 1960s, I was so exercised by the intrusion of evangelical beliefs into the Bible classes taught by Dr. Desmond Ford that I was constrained to utter this warning, “What is taught in our college today, will be preached in our pulpits tomorrow and will be believed by our members the day after tomorrow.” While I am not a prophet, that statement has been tragically fulfilled with dire consequences.

Commonly presented in one form or another is the “sin-and-live” theology. Many are increasingly proclaiming the concept of original sin. Others are urging the doctrine that Christ came in the nature of unfallen Adam. QOD opened the floodgate to these false teachings. It would be logical to believe that some of the other teachings of Augustine will eventually surface within our ranks unless we take conscientious stands and definitive actions now.

Let us be reminded that when QOD was released in 1957, the membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was a little more than 1,000,000. Very few of us who were members then are still alive today. Almost all the leaders and pastors of that era have ceased their labors for the Lord, and most are resting in the grave. As we approach 16,000,000 members, we face the likelihood that only a tiny fraction of our members have heard the unvarnished truths of the everlasting gospel. Further, it will be true that the great majority of our pastors are in the same predicament and therefore are incapable of teaching these precious truths.

To preserve and proclaim the everlasting gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15) demands a mighty, diligent effort to teach the professors in our colleges, universities, and seminaries, to train pastors and teachers at all our schools, and by extension all our members these sacred truths so that all can know them, believe them, live them, and proclaim them to the world. I pray that our leaders will take up this monumental challenge necessary for the hastening of Christ’s return.

Conclusion

The Seventh-day Adventist Church, with the weightiest commission in church history, must not fail. Attendees at this conference have a solemn responsibility to do all, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to make sure that the tragic failures of the last fifty years be redressed. I do not hark back to the past history of our church. Our generation should not have been born, for our forefathers failed to be ready for the sealing, and God had to delay the return of our Savior.¹⁷⁵ If in the last 50 years we had moved courageously forward, we might well now have reached the heavenly home, but we are far, far from home. Let us solemnly vow together to lead a reformation led by the Holy Spirit, which will guide our people back to “the old paths, where is the good way.” ¹⁷⁶ Unlike the Jews of Jeremiah’s day, let us unite our voices to respond, “We will walk therein.” Let us heed the counsel of Paul to the Colossian believers.¹⁷⁷

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.¹⁷⁸

While this gathering has not been officially assembled for the purpose of making recommendations to the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist body of believers, and while there has been no official mandate from the General Conference leadership to do so, nevertheless, I believe that we, the delegates gathered at the Fiftieth Anniversary QOD Conference, convened at Andrews University, October 24-27, 2007, will be greatly remiss if we do not make our voices heard to leadership, pastors, evangelists, teachers, and laity, seeking to redress the tragic errors inserted into QOD. These errors have led to the great theological division and confusion now in the Seventh-day Adventist ranks. Not only have our church’s doctrines been compromised on the role of the Spirit of Prophecy, the completed atonement in the heavenly sanctuary, and the fallen human nature of Christ, these alterations have opened the floodgate to allow many of the beliefs of Augustinian Catholic doctrines to infiltrate into our church. God’s church is too special to permit this situation to continue. Dr. Douglass’ enlightening booklet was entitled The Opportunity of the Century. Today, we must grasp the opportunity of this moment, for to permit it to pass without a decided, united thrust to rectify the failings of our spiritual forebears would lead to our own complicit culpability.

Notes

1 Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1957), (hereafter referred to as QOD) was written to answer 40 questions provided by Evangelical Pastor Walter Martin. After many consultations, mainly with Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, pastor of the Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, editor of Eternity magazine and popular radio Bible expositor, and Walter Martin, founder and director of Christian Research Institute in California, QOD was prepared for publication.

2 I eagerly drove to the Greater Sydney Conference A.B.C. to purchase my copy of QOD. I was then a 24-year-old undergraduate full-time student at the University of Sydney. At the same time I was holding a full-time time job as a primary (elementary) school teacher. The pre-publicity for the book was the most extensive from a Seventh-day Adventist press that I can remember in my lifetime.

“At last,” I thought, “there is a definitive book which will provide the Bible bases by which to substantiate the pillar truths of our faith. What a tool to help me witness to fellow university students!” No such tool had previously been available.

With a confidence born of naпvety, I believed this book would “fill in” all the blanks in my Biblical knowledge. I made the most of any spare time I had, especially during Sabbath hours.

Yet, early in my reading I was confronted with my first perplexity, and later I discovered two others which were of critical concern to me. At that time, I had no knowledge that any other church members was perplexed. My first perplexity was in reference to Ellen White. Some statements did not seem right. I had already read much of the Spirit of Prophecy from my mid-teens. Some of the answers in QOD seemed carefully crafted to placate rather than enlighten those Christians not of our faith. While I realized that we need to introduce the role of Sister White with wisdom, her divinely appointed role can clearly be explained within the spotlight of Biblical prophecy. What I had been taught by my father and mother and instruction I received at the Hamilton Church in Newcastle, Australia, the Newcastle Seventh-day Adventist high school, and at Avondale College were consistent and soundly supported by Scripture, the foundation of all Seventh-day Adventist beliefs and practices. Fifty years of constant study of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy has served to reinforce the convictions of my early life regarding the blessed role of Ellen White in the Seventh-day Adventist church and the world.

Later in my reading of QOD, I was startled by the positions proposed concerning Christ’s atonement for the human race and the human nature of Christ. Surely these were foreign to the learning of my childhood, youth, and early manhood. I was greatly shaken by the discovery that the book appeared to have the endorsement of the General Conference and a large section of leaders and scholars in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I was troubled. In despair, I sought to counsel with the pastor of the Woollahra Church (Sydney), Pastor George Best. He seemed taken aback by my comment, “Pastor Best, I don’t believe that book Questions on Doctrine should ever have been published.” However, he revealed that he had not read the book and so was unable to help me.

I knew nothing about the Barnhouse-Martin dialog held with some of our leaders. It was not until a few years later that the puzzle of the book become clear to me as I witnessed the monumental changes it was effecting within God’s chosen church.

Time has only deepened my concerns. It has led to the tragic fractionation of our beloved church and has led multitudes to accept a gospel foreign to the everlasting gospel of the three angels. It is surely evident that many who have been influenced by this “other gospel” have been led astray from their eternal salvation directly or indirectly by the influence of this book.

3 The book Questions on Doctrine was a response largely prepared by Leroy Froom (1890-1974), an American and a former ministerial secretary of the General Conference; Roy Allan Anderson (1895-1988), an Australian who was then ministerial secretary of the General Conference; and W. E. Read (1883-1976), an Englishman who served as a field secretary of the General Conference. It provided answers in response to forty questions presented by prominent Evangelical leaders led by Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of Eternity magazine, a popular radio speaker and pastor of the Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia; and Walter Martin, a Baptist minister, author and founder of the Christian Research Institute.

The book caused what has proven to be the greatest and most enduring split in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with great repercussions fifty years later. Elder Froom, the senior author, declared that the book “completed the long process of clarification, rectifications of misconceptions, and declaration of truth before the Church [of Christendom] and the world.” Froom’s contemporary, Milian Lauritz Andreasen, a former college and conference president, field secretary of the General Conference, and author, declared the book to be “the most subtle and dangerous error” and “most dangerous heresy.” These evaluations are the foundation of the polarized Church which new members now inherit.

4 QOD, pp. 29, 51, 89.

5 Ibid., pp. 353–355.

6 George Knight, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: Annotated Edition (Berrien Springs, MI: University Press, 2003), p. xviii (Hereafter referred to as QODAE)

7 QOD, p. 650

8 Herbert Douglass, Opportunity of the Century (Highland, CA: greatcontroversy.org, 2006), pp. 17-23.

Froom admitted [to the Evangelicals] that some Adventists had made it into print emphasizing these “atrocious ideas” [that Christ took fallen, sinful human nature], but offered that such were from those in the Adventist “lunatic fringe”! Remember, Froom and Anderson were trying to find some common ground with their Calvinistic friends! They used language such as “exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendents of Adam.” [QOD, p. 383] And “all that Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature—all was taken and borne vicariously.” [QOD, pp. 61, 62] Pure Catholic and Calvinistic notions! (Douglass, op. cit., p. 18)

9 Ibid., p. 17.

10 The point of special interest is [DeHaan’s] testimony to the fact that the book does not represent any change in Adventist doctrine. . . . What has apparently confused some is the avoidance of certain Adventist phraseology and the employment of “terminology currently used in theological circles.” Adventists through the years have developed a vocabulary of their own that to them means much but does not always rightly convey to non-Adventists the ideas intended. The book endeavors to set forth as clearly as possible a reason for the hope that is ours so that sincere non-Adventist inquirers may understand. (R.R. Figuhr, G.C. President, Review and Herald, April 24, 1958; as quoted in QODAE, p. v)

11 “One scoffer, Louis R. Conradi, did much to build up Adventism in Germany, only eventually to turn openly against it in the 1930s. His doctrinal deviations began in 1888 [by rejecting the message of Christ our Righteousness at the Minneapolis General Conference in 1888. By extension he rejected the role of Ellen White in the Seventh-day Adventist Church].” Richard W. Schwarz, Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2000), p. 186

12 Having lived in California for five years, I have discovered that California does have many faithful Seventh-day Adventists.

13 Ibid., p. 29

14 Ibid., p. 51

15 Ibid., p. 89

16 Ibid.

17 Here are two of many diverse examples of statements by Mrs. White which have universal application:

When the Spirit of God, with its marvelous awakening power, touches the soul, it abases human pride. Worldly pleasure and position and power are seen to be worthless. (The Desire of Ages, p. 135)

The worship of images and relics, the invocation of saints, and the exaltation of the pope are devices of Satan to attract the minds of the people from God and from His Son. (The Great Controversy, p. 568)

18 Below are a few examples of commands in the Bible which do not have universal application:

Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. (Joshua 10:12)

And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning. Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank: and Moses was wroth with them. And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted. And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. (Exodus 16:19–24)

And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day’s journey on this side, and as it were a day’s journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth. (Numbers 11:31)

And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. (Numbers 21:6–9)

19 Books written by Sister White applicable to those not of our faith include Patriarchs and Prophets; Prophets and Kings; The Desire of Ages; Acts of the Apostles; The Great Controversy; Steps to Christ; Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing; Christ’s Object Lessons; The Ministry of Healing; and Education.

20 Those who use flesh foods little know what they are eating. Often if they could see the animals when living and know the quality of the meat they eat, they would turn from it with loathing. People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated. (The Ministry of Healing, p. 313)

21 Tobacco is a poison of the most deceitful and malignant kind. (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4, p. 128)

Tobacco is a slow, insidious, but most malignant poison. (The Ministry of Healing, p. 127)

22 . . . both mind and body were enfeebled through the habit of self-abuse. (Testimonies for the Church, Volume 5, p. 91)

The effect of zinc deficiency has particularly profound effects on the male, because extraordinary amounts of zinc are found in the testicles and the prostate gland. . . . The amount of zinc in semen is such that one ejaculation may get rid of all the zinc that can be absorbed from the intestines in one day. . . . In humans, among the most consistent effects of zinc deficiency are changes in mood an behavior. There is depression, extreme irritability, apathy and even in some circumstances, behavior which looks like schizophrenia. . . . It is even possible, given the importance of zinc for the brain, that 19th-century moralists were correct when they said that repeated masturbation could make one mad! Similarly, the high livers were also correct when they said that a diet rich in oysters was necessary to compensate for excessive sexual indulgence. [Oysters supply a high level of zinc]. (David Horrobin, M.D., Ph.D. [Oxford University], Zinc (St. Albans, Vt.: Vitabooks, Inc., 1981), p. 8).

We hate to say it but in a zinc-deficient adolescent, sexual excitement and excessive masturbation might precipitate insanity. (Carl Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D. [Harvard University], Zinc and other Micro-Nutrients, (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1978), p. 45).

23 Human beings are suffering the results of their own course of action in departing from the commandments of God. The beasts also suffer under the curse. Disease in cattle is making meat-eating a dangerous matter. The Lord’s curse is upon the earth, upon man, upon beasts, upon the fish, and as transgression becomes almost universal, the curse will be permitted to become as broad and as deep as the transgression. Disease is contracted by the use of meat. The diseased flesh of these dead carcasses is sold in the market-places, and disease among men is the sure result. The Lord would bring His people into a position where they will not touch or taste the flesh of dead animals. There is no safety in eating of the flesh of dead animals, and in a short time the milk of the cows will also be excluded from the diet of God’s commandment-keeping people. In a short time it will not be safe to use anything that comes from the animal creation. (Pacific Union Recorder, November 7, 1901)

24 The Lord would have His people bury political questions. On these themes silence is eloquence. Christ calls upon His followers to come into unity on the pure gospel principles which are plainly revealed in the word of God. We cannot with safety vote for political parties; for we do not know whom we are voting for. We cannot with safety take part in any political scheme. (Gospel Workers, p. 391)

25 Some of the most popular amusements, such as football and boxing, have become schools of brutality. They are developing the same characteristics as did the games of ancient Rome. The love of domination, the pride in mere brute force, the reckless disregard of life, are exerting upon the youth a power to demoralize that is appalling. (Education, p. 210)

A view of things was presented before me in which the students were playing games of tennis and cricket. Then I was given instruction regarding the character of these amusements. They were presented to me as a species of idolatry, like the idols of the nations. (Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 350)

26 The 1986 manual changed the wording from the “Spirit of Prophecy” to the “gift of prophecy” as voted at the 1985 General Conference Session held at New Orleans, Louisiana. This is how the vow now appears:

Do you accept the Bible teachings of spiritual gifts and do you believe that the gift of prophecy in the remnant church is one of the identifying marks of that church? Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 1986 ed., p. 44.

27 QODAE, p. xxix

28 Ibid.

29 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. (Leviticus 16:17)

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. . . . But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Hebrews 8:1–3, 6)

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. . . . It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:11–15, 23–26)

30 Thus those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming. (The Great Controversy, p. 422)

It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of the atonement who receive the benefits of His mediation in their behalf, while those who reject the light which brings to view this work of ministration are not benefited thereby. (Ibid. p, 430)

31 QOD, p. 349

32 Early Writings, p. 260; emphasis by the QOD authors.

33 QOD, pp. 354, 355; emphasis in the original.

34 Early Writings, p. 253 (emphasis added)

35 Ibid. p. 254 (emphasis added)

36 Knight, QODAE, op. cit., p. xviii

37 M.L. Andreasen letter to Bro. R.R. Figuhr; quoted in QODAE, p. xxi

38 Here is what Froom wrote, “That is that tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the cross—a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man’s sin.” (Leroy Froom, Ministry, February 1957) Unfortunately Andreasen changed the dash after the word “cross” to the word “(is)”. The opponents of Andreasen quickly made capital of this modification. Yet it is difficult for me to discern that this alteration changed the intent of what Froom had written to any significant extent. Indeed it appears to me that Froom’s original presentation is more impactful with the dash rather than (is). Either way there is no ambiguity in this statement. Froom asserted that the atonement was completed and finalized at the death of Christ. By extension the conclusion is that the high priestly ministry in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary has no relevance to the atonement for the sins of humanity. This was not the position of the early Seventh-day Adventist leaders and far more importantly, it was not the position of Holy Scripture nor the position found in the Spirit of Prophecy.

39 The word “atonement” means at-one-ment; and when Christ pronounces the decree which determines the eternal destiny of every soul, He and the subjects of His kingdom are at-one-ment. Sin will never again separate Christ from His people.

But the territory of His kingdom is still cursed by sin so the at-one-ment of Christ and His kingdom will not be complete in every sense of the term until the fires of the last day there comes forth a new earth with every mark of the curse removed. Then not only the subjects of Christ’s kingdom, but the entire earth, will be at-one-ment with Christ and the Father. (S.N. Haskell, The Cross and its Shadow, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1914, pp. 217-218)

Reconciliation the church has all along received through Christ; but we receive the atonement only when it is made as the closing service of our Lord in the sanctuary above. (Uriah Smith and James White, The Biblical Institute, Pacific S.D.A. Publishing House, 1878, p. 81.)

40 QODAE, p. xiv.

Why did the evangelicals confine themselves to just four “tests” of whether Seventh-day Adventists are genuine Christians? Unarguably all four of these tests are crucial to salvation. Why did they not include the infallibility of Scripture, why not the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura (the Bible only)? Why not the ordinance of baptism? The secret rapture? I can only speculate that the evangelicals chose the four issues and ignored the others because the evangelicals themselves are split on these other crucial doctrines. Then there are the very distinctive Seventh-day Adventist beliefs such as the three angels’ messages, the full sanctuary message, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the millennium, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the investigative judgment? There is no doubt that both Barnhouse and Martin had no love for many of these Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. While a number of these issues were superbly answered in QOD, Barnhouse and Martin did not make these tests of Seventh-day Adventists’ Christian authenticity. Maybe they recognized that they could not adequately argue effectively against these Scriptural doctrines?

41 We can only speculate why Barnhouse and Martin made no testing challenge to the Seventh-day Sabbath, death as sleep, the sanctuary ministry of Christ (beyond the atonement), or the three angels’ messages. Were they convinced of these truths or did they feel inadequate to answer them?

Why did not they address our belief and practice of baptism or our understanding of the anti-Christ, or the millennium, or the rapture? Possibly they avoided making these beliefs a test because the evangelicals are greatly divided on these issues.

I am mystified by Knight’s interpretation of the statement of Froom’s which is too plain to require added explanation. Here is Knight’s interpretation: “…the sacrifice on the cross was a full and complete sacrifice (in terms of the sacrificial aspect of the atonement) for sin.” (Knight, QODAE, p. xviii) Froom was too gifted as an author to write what he did while really meaning what Knight suggests.

However, in fairness to Knight, we cannot ignore other statements of Froom concerning the atonement in the same article which are in accord with the long-held Seventh-day Adventist belief on the atonement. Here are Froom’s words: “The term ‘atonement,’ which we are considering, obviously has a much broader meaning than has been commonly conceived. Despite the belief of multitudes in the churches about us, it is not, on the one hand, limited just to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. On the other hand, neither is it confined to the ministry of our heavenly High Priest in the sanctuary above, on the antitypical day of atonement—or hour of God’s judgment—as some of our forefathers first erroneously thought and wrote. Instead, as attested by the Spirit of prophecy, it clearly embraces both—one aspect being incomplete without the other, and each being the indispensable complement of the other.” (Froom, ibid)

I can only wonder why Froom did not explain that “atonement” has both of these meanings in this Ministry article and in his answer to the evangelicals. There is no doubt that Froom understood the Biblical foundation for the belief that both the sacrifice of Christ and the heavenly ministry of Christ in the Most Holy Place were essential elements of the atonement for the salvation of fallen humanity. This atonement was not completed at Calvary. This explanation would not have pleased the evangelicals. It may have led to their designating the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a cult, but it would have presented the truth of the words of Scripture plainly.

Froom was certainly giving mixed signals, maybe one message for the members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and one more palatable for the Evangelicals. Surely Froom could have redressed the situation when Andreasen drew the attention of leadership to the duplicity and inaccuracy of what was being placed in QOD. Again I can conclude only that the goal to accommodate the evangelicals was of such a priority that the writers of QOD felt compelled to satisfy the expectations of these evangelicals to court favor with them.

If Elder Figuh

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 783