Significance of Questions on Doctrine - Herbert E. Douglass

Significance of Questions on Doctrine, 1957

“The most divisive book in the Adventist Church over the last fifty

years.”-- George Knight


Why is QOD called the “most divisive book in the Adventist world over the last 50 years (2007)?” Some have called it, “a fork in the road.”1) Something happened that changed the

course of Adventist thinking of more than a century.

2) The rise of “independent ministries” would never have happened without this publication.


• 3) A new way of talking about some major Bible doctrines, such as:–a. The nature of sin–b. The humanity of Jesus–c. Righteousness by faith–d. The delay in Christ’s return–e. The Holy Spirit’s part in our growth

in grace


• What exactly happened in 1957?• Two prominent Calvinist Evangelicals met

with three prominent Adventists. And the Adventists did their best to prove that Adventists were not a “cult” but genuine Christians like they were.

• Caution: while we point out the key problems with QOD, we emphasize that, otherwise, much to be commended in this book.

Does any of this matter? Thundering, Yes! Ask yourself, if these questions matter?

Is there somewhere, someone, who is asking, does anyone understand my predicament, struggles, fading hopes?

Does it matter if Jesus came as Adam before Adam sinned?

Or, does it matter if Jesus came as every child is born, 4000 years later, with no special advantages?


• 1957--Colliding of two tectonic plates similar to what causes our earthquakes, esp in the Pacific rim.


• Colliding of two different theological systems—caused the 1957 theological earthquake!

• Imagine trying to merge Presbyterians and Methodists—but QOD was much more.


The two tectonic plates that guaranteed a theological earthquake, or the Fork in the Roadcollided on these questions:1. Was the Atonement completed on the Cross?2. Are we born sinners?3. How human was Jesus?4. Does God expect his followers to be really overcomers?5. What is the meaning of NT “faith”—esp. in relation to justification/sanctification.


• How it all started!• 1. Appreciation note from T. E. Unruh,

president of the East PA Conference to Donald Barnhouse regarding ahis radio broadcast in 1949 on RBF.

• 2. Barnhouse, astonished that an Adventist would commend him when he believed that Adventists believed in RBW. Especially, since he believed that they had a “satanic and dangerous Christology.”


• 3. Unruh, not willing to give up, sent Steps to Christ.

• 4. Barnhouse wrote an editorial in Eternity, “How to Read Religious Books.” Steps to Christ “was false in all its parts.” that it promoted “universalism. . . half-truths” (too much emphasis on God’s love for unregenerate men, etc.)”

• 5. 1950, Unruh gave up, until . . .


• 6. Schuyler English, Our Hope mag, Jan 1955 editorial that Adventists deny “Christ’s Deity” and that we disparage the Person and work of Christ.” (Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature”).

• 7. L. E. Froom fired back, “Not so” and said that phrase in Bible Readings for Home Circle had been “expunged.”

• 8. English wrote an apology in next issue of Our Hope, after Froom insisted that it had been a “typical misuse” of EGW.


• 9. Enters Walter Martin, young, energetic researcher, one of Barnhouse’s consulting editors, finishing a book, The Rise of the Cults (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists).


• Before Martin finished his book, he felt the urge to check his facts. Barnhouse turned over his Unruh correspondence and that put Martin in touch with Unruh and then Leroy Froom, with whom he knew because of Froom’s monumental 4 vols on THE PROPHETICAL FAITH OF OUR FATHERS.


• Martin asked for a meeting in DC where he could interview Froom and other leaders. Froom invited in Walter Read, a biblical linguist, and a short time later, invited in Roy Allan Anderson, editor of Ministry.

• Conferences began March 1955, ended May 1956’


Walter Ralston Martin (Sept. 10, 1928 – June 26, 1989),

prolific author, and Christian apologist; founded the Christian Research Instituteiin 1960; in 1985, NEWSTART session at Weimar Institute-- a most pleasant man to know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Research_Institute


• Donald Grey Barnhouse• (Mar 28, 1895 –Nov 5, 1960), n

Preacher, pastor, radio pioneer, and writer; pastor of the Tenth Presbyterian Church, 1927-1960; founded Eternity magazine in 1931 and was editor-in-chief of the monthly publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity


• September 1956, Eternity magazine published his article, "Are the Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" He answered affirmatively, whereas in the past he had excluded them for some of their teachings.

• The article was described as a "blockbuster" by his wife in her biography, That Man Barnhouse (1983). She wrote: “the “reaction was


• “immediate: outraged canceling of subscriptions or grateful commendation because [he] had the courage to ... admit he had been wrong in the past about the Adventists."[1] Along with Walter Martin, Barnhouse argued that the "Adventists hold all the basic doctrines of Christianity", albeit with some heterodox teachings!4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Barnhouse%23cite_note-MBarnhouse-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Barnhouse%23cite_note-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Barnhouse%23cite_note-4


Personal insights on the Adventist trio:1. W.E. Read, oldest of the three, knew his

biblical languages but not a systematic theologian, loved his goatee and the whistle when he softly spoke.

2. R.A. Anderson, revered homiletician and public evangelist, editor of Ministry.

3. Leroy Froom, well-known for his massive contribution, the four-volumes—The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers. Towering personality


• Freda: Froom-Reed-Anderson


• Loved these men, especially Anderson and Froom (Read retired).

• I held Froom’s hand in the nursing home while he was dying at the age of 84.

• Anderson would call me about once a month until he died in 1986 at 90—always asking, “What is happening to our church?”


• Interesting sideline: In this meeting over many months, the Calvinists and Adventists merged their agreement on key theological issues—however, the Adventists told their friends that only a few “lunatic fringe” believed otherwise!! (Thus, condemning a long list of Adventist leaders for the previous 100 years!) They avoided an earthquake in 1957---but not for long!


Why should we revisit QOD?1. We owe it to all the pastors and

administrators who have been schooled since 1957 into thinking that QOD represents our core Adventist beliefs;


2. We owe it to millions of Adventists who have very little clue as to why their church has been so divided for 60 years. And why there are so many independent ministries!


3. Time must come to undo the theological malfeasance done to Ellen White by QOD’S maltreatment of her quotations and the unwarranted subheads used to group them.


4. Time must come to remove the myth that the QOD manuscript had been reviewed by more than 250 church leaders!! Far from reality!


5. Time must come to highlight those who did speak out against the thinking and method of the three Adventist spokesmen.


Sampling of those who were aroused:• M. L. Andreasen, Adventist senior

theologian• Merlin Neff, Richard Lewis, PPPA book editors• Ted Carcich, pres of Central Union

Conference• Ray Cottrell, associate editor, SDA Bible

Commentary


Milton Andreasen Raymond Cottrell

• “Under a guise of sweet-honeyed words oozing with so-called Christian fellowship, Mr. Martin proceeds to serve up the same theological hash . . . that our spiritual forefather's had to refute years ago.” –Ted Carcich to his local conference presidents, 1960. To GC pres, he called QOD “a clever and subtle attempt to undermine the foundational doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists.”


• Ray Cottrell, associate editor of SDA Bible Commentary, even more prophetic: “Let us be certain that nothing gets into the book that will take us the next 50 years to live down.” (1957-2007!, Andrews U. QOD Bible Conference)


Question: Why were the editors of the Bible Commentary relatively quiet?1. Never thought the book would go

anywhere—who would buy it?


• 2. A larger picture serves as a backdrop—Commentary editors did not want “to take sides” publicly because the Review and Herald Publishing Association had gone deep, financially, into the preparation of the SDABC (1952-1957): we didn’t want to jeopardize the appeal of the Commentary--hard to fight “city hall!”


• 3. We knew that the Commentary would make a bigger contribution on the very issues being discussed in QOD. (But we never dreamed how divisive QOD would become or how overwhelming the marketing blitz would be!


• 4. Our Bible Commentary avoids the errors of QOD by emphasizing classic Adventist theology based on the Bible (with the Great Controversy viewpoint), recognizing that the purpose of the gospel is to prepare the willing to live forever.


• 5. However, Francis D. Nichol, editor of the Review and Herald and editor-in-chief of the Bible Commentary wrote a private letter to the GC President that some QOD statements “on mature consideration, we are unable to support.” (See fuller statement in A Fork in the Road, 37.)


• Francis D. Nichol 1897–1966)

Seventh-day Adventist editor, of the church's main newsmagazine, and supervising editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, author, and also chairman of the Ellen G. White Estate board of trustees. In 1965, Walter Martin described him as "the most able Adventist apologist.”


6. Remember the day as if it were yesterday: QOD trio finally told the RHPA that no more editing would be permitted; ms would be published on a “text basis,” that the publishing house would be only its printer and distributor—and not held responsible for its content.


• In 1957, ceremonial • washing of our• hands—• editors of the• SDA Bible • Commentary


Fatal attempt: joining a limited understanding of Adventism’s Big Picture (the Great Controversy Theme) with the Augustinian/Calvinism’s Sovereignty of God Big Picture. Central question for both parties: What does God plan to accomplish with His Gospel?


• The GCT on God’s side: God’s purpose is to prove Satan wrong in his charges against God’s character and His government. All creation is planted in God’s fertile soil of Freedom—even the Freedom to say No! to God (and suffer the consequences). Thus, this world became a Living Laboratory as to who was right!


The GCT on Satan’s side: Lucifer’s/Satan’s aim was to misrepresent God who had made him His director of communication. He had seen all other angels created!! But he 1) grew envious of Jesus who became Archangel; 2) resented the “laws” that restricted his own powers to do as he pleased.

• Thus, Satan, with his highly intelligent mind, began to sow seeds of mistrust that led to rebellion with l/3 of the angels joining him!!

• His subtle mind led the angels to view God as severe, harsh and unfair in His outline of what is best for the universe.

• In other words, God did not really give anyone freedom and that was “unfair.”


• How does all this affect QOD?• Calvinists get around the main issue of

fairness by declaring 1) that God “made” some to be “saved” and others to be forever “lost”—and in hell-fire forever!


• 1) Thus, men and women really don’t have any choice regarding their “salvation.” And 2) whatever was done on the Cross, did not do anything to change man’s spiritual condition because their “justification” did not include the beginning of a transformed life.


• Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP):1. Total depravity: we are born sinners2. Unconditional election3. Limited Atonement: Jesus died for elect4. Irresistible grace: those who are elected

to be “saved” are given the gift of “faith”5. Perseverance of the elect: “once saved,

always saved.”


• The awful persecution of the Armenians by the Calvinists in the 16th+ centuries is too sad to contemplate: For A, predestination was unbiblical; Jesus died for all who were willing; discipleship was the response of thoughtful people; infant baptism was meaningless, etc. The key word missing in QOD -- the emphasis on responsibility.

For 400 years Protestants have been divided over what happened on the Cross: Forensic justification

①God’s wrath is appeased ②Sinner is forgiven by a “faith” that is

denuded from any character change.③This kind of thinking has confused the

“works of grace” and the meaning of “righteousness by faith.”


• Adventist’s fatal flaws in QOD:1. Adventists did not fit the Calvinist OR

Arminian framework: but QOD trio was unprepared to portray classic Adventism.

a. nature of man: no immortal soulb. Christ as our High Priest completed the

purpose of His death on the Cross but not the full Atonement.


c. Jesus was born a real human being (Heb. 2:17; 4:15.

d. All this affects SDA eschatology:1) What kind of people become

sheep or goats?2) What kind of people are

identified in Rev. 14:12 and

2 Pet 3:10-14, etc.


• Fifty Years of Muddle – 1957-2007:• QOD, one of two attempts to REWRITE

Adventist history (1888, 1957) (1957) Doctrinally—Among the most significant: (1) why Jesus came the way He did;• (2) And core importance of His High Priestly

Ministry.


• 3. Historically (1888)—another REWRITE: the astonishing claim that the key contribution of the 1888 General Conference and later years “was the recovery of the Protestant Reformation” regarding “righteousness by faith”: Pure, misguided thinking!


• 4. Damage: Both REWRITES have poisoned current studies of these core Adventist truths and locked the door on what EGW called “the most precious message” that would prepare a people for translation.

• 5. That door is now being unlocked. Read the only responsible historical review in print: Ron Duffield’s The Return of the Latter Rain.


• 6. Amazing spirit of retaliation against those who differed from QOD. Such as heavy advertising oF books that taught the impossibility of “perfection” while still in “sinful flesh.” New definitions for “perfection,” thus, muting human cooperation with divine power in overcoming sin now.


• New vocabulary and “strawmen” emerged such as “living without a Mediator”

• Sin was built into human nature and not a choice

• Emphasizing behavior is legalism• Perfect people think they can meet Satan on

their own• Focusing on personal perfection over-rides a

focus on Jesus, etc.


• Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart: former students at Andrews U, now well-known scholars at Oxford and in English journalism, wrote a timely book (two editions) SEEKING A

SANCTUARY (2007) wherein they focused especially on the influence of QOD, especially on how it dramatically affected key Seminary teachers for a whole generation. Or more! To this day!!


• B and L saw the impasse, for example, when one is confused about the nature of sin: they recognized Australian Bob Brinsmead’s quandary between man’s sinfulness and the need for perfection—Solution: miraculous infusion of perfection through the “garden experience.”


• B and L spotlighted Ted Heppenstall’s response to Brinsmead and to Andreasen:

• 1. Ted argued that “perfection” was neither necessary nor possible and can not be realized in this life.

• 2. Ted opposed notion of Christ’s “sinful” nature because His sacrifice lies in His absolute sinlessness.


Milton Andreasen Ted Heppenstall


• B and L saw that Heppenstall’s “new theology” directly affected many other aspects of Adventist theology-- Amazing change of emphasis on:

• 1. “justification” (only partly right)–but believers are now made “right” immediately rather than waiting for “glorification” at Christ’s return: “Perfection” here and now!!


• 2. From the early 60s, Heppenstall rarely mentioned the prospect of translation and never discussed the character of the last generation: thus breaking the connection between Adventist theology of how we are saved and Adventist study of last-day events.


• 3. Graeme Bradford, More Than a Prophet, 193: “The church had changed from its ideas on the nature of Christ, sin-less perfectionism and the atonement due largely to the teachings of Heppenstall.


• Stark contrast between M. L. Andreasen , the senior Adventist theologian, and Ted Heppenstall: MLA, known for the logic and coherence of his “last generation” theology: he saw ln the biblical picture a straight line (1) from the nature of sin to the humanity of Jesus (2) through the atonement in all its phases (3) proved Satan to be a liar (4) and God fair and just;


• (5) that others living as Jesus lived with no advantages more than other human beings have, empowered by the Holy Spirit, can also overpower all temptations from without or within and (6) also prove Satan a liar and defeated.

• (7) A biblical theology completely contrary to Heppenstall and all those who have done their best to ridicule Andreasen and others since 1957.

•


• Another reaction to QOD: rise of theological liberalism (some prefer the label— “progressive.”

• (1) Pre-1957 SDAs were called legalists, esp with their emphasis that God expects His people to be overcomers –Rev. 2:21 (false charge of perfectionism).


• (2) Post-1957• new desire to explain away the delay in the

Advent; • eclipse of EGW, • rise of social gospel as the Adventist

impulse, etc.• outreach for the emotional, eclipsing the

doctrinal girders that identify Adventists— “spiritual formation” in all its disguises.


• rise of QOD Magisterium• 1. In many ways, the official word had gone

out that pastors, teachers and writers should not speak out on subjects such as the final atonement in the heavenly sanctuary and the humanity of Christ because such topics are “divisive.” BUT WHEN DID THE DIVISIVENESS BEGIN?


• 2. The astounding, concerted attempt in the magisteriun to ridicule Andreasen and others, revealing the personal theological bias of those who ride the wind of mockery. A time when good men make angels weep.


• WHAT IF’S—THE OPPORTUNITIES OF A CENTURY:

• 1. What if our QOD trio had not muted the second angel’s message—Rev 14?

• 2. What if our Evangelical friends had been given a picture of what is really going on in the closing events of the Great Controversy?


• “Though all winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.” John Milton, Areopagitica


• Socrates advice to Charmides: But what matter,” said Charmides, “from whom I heard this?” “No matter at all,” [Socrates replied] “for the point is not who said the words, but whether they are true or not.”

• The Dialogues of Plato, Jowett, vol. 1, 11 (161),


• Let’s look at the Big Picture flying 38,000 feet above QOD—

• 3. Missed opportunity/fatal attempt to merge successfully the Augustinian/Calvinist/Evangelical Sovereignty of God theme with the Great Controversy theme: What does God want to accomplish with His salvation plan!


• On God’s side: to restore in willing men and women the image of Christ, their Maker. To do so, the Holy Spirit would work out of a person’s life all that sin had worked in. All, everywhere can be forgiven and transformed into overcomers, if willing—a promise throughout Revelation.


Therefore, the following principles on God’s side:

• 1. Highest motivation: to honor God, rather then to impress Him (legalism).

• 2. Character determines destiny, not merely one’s profession of faith.


• 3. Perfection is a matter of continual growth and not a concern for arbitrary goal posts.

• 4. Growth—linkage of human will and divine grace—the grace of pardon and the grace of power.


• Adventist trio were first-class preachers/writers who wanted their Evangelical friends to see them as Christian brothers and not a “cult.” (The title of the book Martin was writing: The Christian and the Cults (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1956) Our trio, with the best of intentions, fell into the trap!


Thus—began fifty-plus years of focus on some kind of objective atonement (Cross and justification—major focus) w/o equal focus on the subjective aspect that highlighted Christ/Holy Spirit’s work as High Priest and Empowerer of the willing.

First to react:A. M. L. Andreasen (who was never invited

into the conversations!) 1. Only in quiet letters to Anderson

and Froom, then to Figuhr, GC pres. 2. A--Only those who acknowledged

the binding claim of moral law could understand the nature and purpose of the atonement!



• 3. A-- When Jesus died for sinners, He did not give him license to continue to sin but to live responsibly in the Spirit.

• 4. A-- started with the principle of God’s freedom and man’s responsibility--not God’s sovereignty and man’s predestination; the veteran theologian saw immediately that the Adventist tectonic plate would always be an immovable theological mass.

• 5. A-- He saw the Big Picture, including the last generation of those who represent the truth about how people are made ready for Christ’s return.

He simply linked the purpose of the gospel with all that Jesus said about the end of the world: sheep, goats, according to their works (Matt. 16:27).•

• .

6. Summation: Andreasen saw the fullness of the Atonement wherein Jesus shutdown Satan’s lies as He (1) forgave and (2) transformed sinners into loyalists.

Satan had said this could not be done—(1) that God was a harsh judge and (2) that man would not choose to deny the appeal of self-gratification


• Fernando Canale, Ph. D

• Head: Systematic Theology, SDA Theological Seminary, since 1985

• CURRENT ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FACING THE CHURCH

• HUMBLE AND HIGHLY RESPECTED AMONG STAFF

• CALLED TO SERVE THE BRIGHTEST OF ACADEMIC MINDS; writings are most helpful

• especially on• Great Controversy issues.

• Fernando Canale: “Biblical theology requires a center from which to gather the vast variety of issues, histories, and teachings present in biblical texts. . . .Thus, the proper expressions of the Sanctuary doctrine as hermeneutical vision of a complete and harmonious system of truth requires the contributions of new approaches to biblical and systematic theologies. . . .

• “From this foundational level, the Sanctuary doctrine becomes the hermeneutical light guiding in the interpretation of these far-reaching ideas (hermeneutical conditions of theological methods and in the understanding of the complete and harmonious system of Christian theology.” “From Vision to System,” Journal of the Advenist Theological Society 16/1-2 (2005).


• “The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God's hand had directed the great advent movement and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people. As the disciples of Jesus after the terrible night of their anguish and disappointment were "glad when they saw the Lord," so did those now rejoice who had looked in faith for His second coming.


• “They had expected Him to appear in glory to give reward to His servants. As their hopes were disappointed, they had lost sight of Jesus, and with Mary at the sepulcher they cried: "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." Now in the holy of holies they again beheld Him, their compassionate High Priest, soon to appear as their king and deliverer.

They had expected Him to appear in glory

• “Light from the sanctuary illumined the past, the present, and the future. They knew that God ad led them by His unerring providence. Though, like the first disciples, they themselves had failed to understand the message which they bore, yet it had been in every respect correct. In proclaiming it they had fulfilled the purpose of God, and their labor had not been in vain in the Lord. Begotten "again unto a lively hope," they rejoiced "with joy unspeakable and full of glory." The Great Controversy, 423.

Summary: 1. Andreasen/Canale—the central principle

for Adventist theology is the Sanctuary doctrine.

2. Exactly what our QOD trio never seemed to understand. 3. Exactly why Adventists today are so theologically divided regarding their core teachings.


4. Whether Calvary was the full payment and there was nothing more we needed to do for our salvation;

5. Whether character had anything to do with our salvation;6. Whether Jesus had the DNA—the

passions and inclinations of His forefathers

7. WRONG ANSWERS LEAD TO PURE CONFUSION


• TIME OUT: HANDLING OF EGW• 1. Deliberate misuse of EGW quotations so that

an opposite message became the new normal;• 2. Magic use of . . . to remove her real meaning

and then to continue the paragraph to display the opposite meaning.

• 3. BRI published in Feb 1972 MINISTRY a revised version of the misleadng quotations in QOD. Wow!!


EXAMPLES OF INADEQUATE SCHOLARSHIP AND MISUSE OF EGW: 1. Imported trigger words: “exempt” and

“vicarious”--used by R. C and most Protestants in describing how different Jesus was from other babies

2. Both terms pleased Calvinists because “we” essentially agreed with their Five points.


3. “Exempt”: Not according to Paul –Hebrews 2:17; 4:14-16

Or EGW: “It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin.


• “Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. . . .


• “Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.” DA 49.


• “Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.” DA 117.


• “Christ’s perfect humanity is the same that man may have through connection with Christ.” Ms 57, 1890 (16MR:181).


• Some have written books unfolding the NT and EGW regarding the ample evidence that Jesus did not “suffer vicariously” when He was on earth:

• 1. Appendices in A Fork in the Road• 2. Heartbeat of Adventism: the GCT in the

writings of Ellen White• 3. The Word Was Made Flesh—Larson• 4. Touched With Our Feelings--Zurcher


• Adventists not alone! Many biblcal scholars have challenged the “orthodox” view that Christ took Adam’s “pre-fall” nature: Irving, Erskine, Kohlbrugge, Bohl, Barth, Torrance, Ferre, Cranfield, Roberts, Newbigin, Stauffer, Nygren, Barrett, Pannenberg, Baker, Johnson, etc.

• LUNATIC FRINGE ???


• C.E.B. Cranfield, ICC on Romans, Vol 1, 379-383: After analyzing 5 different ways Romans 8:3-4 has been understood through the years (“in the likeness of sinful flesh”), Cranfield: “We conclude that (v) is to be accepted as the most probable explanation of Paul’s use of “omoiooma” here, and understand Paul’s thought to be that the Son of God assumed the selfsame fallen human nature that is ours.”


• Gregory of Naziansus (329-389) “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.” (Gregory, one of the leading theologians who helped to settle the Arian Controversy.)


• Second Trigger word— “vicariously”Yes, Jesus “died” for us “vicariously” (acting or done for another) BUT He was not our Example “vicariously.”Some don’t want Jesus to be like us for then we would be without excuse! Did He keep the law “vicariously? Did He resist Evil vicariously? 1 John 2 :6


• Contemporary (1950s) pertinent information deliberately ignored:

• 1. F.D. Nichol’s editorials, July 10, 17, 1952.• “The objector feels that the only way to do

honor to Chrst and to protect Him from all taint of sin is to take the position that He could not sin. But what comfort and assurance of personal victory over sin can we find in a spotless Christ if His freedom


“from sin as He walked this earth was not truly a victory over temptation but an inability to sin? We would rightly stand in awe of such a Holy Being. But we could not see in Him one who was “made like unto his brethren in all things,” and one who being “tempted like as we are” is “able to succor” us when we are “tempted.”


• 2. W.H. Branson’s Drama of the Ages (1054): “In order for Christ to understand the weakness of human nature, He had to experience it. In order to be sympathetic with men in their trials, He also had to be tried. He must tread the same paths, live under the same circumstances, and die the same death. Therefore He became bone of our bone and flesh of ou flesh, His incarnation was in actual humanity.”


• 3. The multitude of similar writings in Adventist periodicals prior to 1957--we are indebted to Dr. Ralph Larson for marshaling these statements in The Word Was Made Flesh (1986)

• 4. The remarkable volume, Touched With Our Feelings (1999), written by Dr. Jean Zurcher, perhaps one of the most persuasive books ever written aimed at


at putting the record straight re the QOD nuclear bomb. Reviewed a century of Adventist thinking, including many extracts from official church publications on two continents plus the printed materials since 1957 that extolled QOD. He used the words, “remarkable unanimity” to sum up his research on the “new theology.”


Attempted compromise-- a third option that would quiet opposition to QOD:Pre-fall vs Post-fall > Mediating positionJesus inherited the weaknesses of our “innocent infirmities” such as hunger, pain, sorrow, and death. But He came only in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3), that is, He did not inherit a “tendency to sin” or “sinful propensities.”


How shall we relate to this compromise, this third option?1. Jesus did not come to liberate humanity

from our “innocent infirmities” but to deliver us from indwelling sin (Matthew 1:21, Hebrews 2:17, 4:14-16).

2. Recognize the difference between“inherent propensities” and “evil propensities.”


3. Propensity is a bent, an enticement to temptation: if resisted, it is not sin: (James 4:17; John 9:49, 15: 22).4. A propensity becomes “evil” only when it yields to temptation: James 1:12-15.5. Basis for this new compromise: Misunderstanding of words that seem to be borrowed from Henry Melvill.


1. Melvill (1798-187l), Anglican preacher whose sermon, “Christ’s Man’s Example” was published in RH, July 5, 1887:

2. Melvill taught that fallen human nature had two characteristics: innocent infirmities and sinful propensities—that Jesus took the first and not the second, but Adam had neither.


• 3. Melvill, being a Calvinist and a Federalist, was driven by his presuppositions that man is born sinful and will always be sinful and thus Jesus can only forgive, while looks for transformation when glorified.

• 4. Yes, EGW, no doubt, did read Melvill and many others, borrowing often choice phrases that better spelled out her thoughts.


• 5. But it is very unwise to go to Melvill or Hanna, or D’Aubigne to understand what EGW meant by the words/thoughts that she would nail down in print.

• 6. EGW’s borrowing words did not alter her thought, just made her own meaning more pleasing and forceful.

• 7. EGW knew how to distinguish truth from error, even when gleaning!


• 8. Logic tells us that when certain words an author uses seem troublesome, then analyze how that author uses those words throughout his/her own writing.

• 9. “Corruption,” “propensities,” “passions,” etc. are clearly understood by reading EGW’s own usage, beginning with DA. (See Heartbeat of Adventism).


• Andreasen’s second concern--how the Atonement was explained in QOD:

• 1. Generally, QOD did acknowledge that for Adventists, the atonement did have a “wider connotation” in answer to Martin’s questions.

• 2. QOD used EW:260 to provide their answer: “the benefits of His atonement.”

• 3. That satisfied the Evangelicals in 1957 but it surely did not tell the whole story.


4. Andreasen pressed for the full picture of how Christ on the Cross was the “sacrificial” atonement and how His work as our High Priest completed the atonement—as foreshadowed in the Jewish sanctuary service of two phases.5. The full passage in EW: 253-261 explained what is meant by “benefits” that would have given the world the full picture of God’s plan for dealing with sin.


6. This, satisfied the Evangelicals but many Adventists were confused.7. So, what were the High Priestly benefits? “And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of


• “record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem His people; for when He comes, His reward is with Him to give to every man according to his works (Revelation 22:12).” GC 421.


• “Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the holy of holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man--to perform the work of investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits. . . . So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God.” GC:480


• The QOD trio’s Ministry articles before and after the printing of QOD, plus the book itself convinced Andreasen that they had little understanding of the immense purpose of Christ’s work as High Priest—the cleansing of His people not merely furniture as in the earthly cymbals: “The Spirit was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without that the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail.” DA:671


• “Now Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary. And what is He doing? Making atonement for us, cleansing the sanctuary from the sins of the people. Then we must enter by faith into the sanctuary with Him, we must commence the work in the sanctuary of our souls. We are to cleanse ourselves from all defilement. We must "cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” The 1888 Ellen G, White Materials, 127


• Immediate aftermath of 1957 publishing of GOD:

• 1. Andreasen’s “Seven Letters to the Church” brought heavy retaliation.

• 2. Bob Brinsmead and “The Awakening.”• 3. Bob Hancock’s 1962 Seminary thesis,

perhaps the last thesis on the biblical understanding of the“humanity of Christ” written there.


2013—What can we today do to rectify mistakes?1. Remember, that the QOD Trio were godly

men who were not equally matched with the Calvinist/Evangelical. Problem, not merely semantics!

2. Remember, that every theological system is based on the personal presuppositions of the writer/teacher.


• 3. Remember, that in 1957, the Adventist theological system was on firm ground when it bumped up against the Calvinistic tectonic plate—and the predicted earthquake was sensed throughout both worlds.

• 4. Remember, that the Adventist theological world is based on the GCT that is based on the whole Bible.


• 5. Remember, that thought leaders, including F. D. Nichol, W. H. Branson, Raymond Cottrell, Don Neufeld, M. L. Andreasen, Kenneth Wood during those 1950 years, built their theological contributions on the GCT—quietly, carefully and joyfully. To call them the “lunatic fringe,” seems laughable!


• 6. Remember that closing events in world history will be preceded by the Holy Spirit’s promise of the “Latter Rain”; that the Latter Rain falls on prepared people and then, through them, the power of the Loud Cry. Always character first before power.

• 7. Remember, QOD tends to diminish thse simple facts.


• 8. Remember, above all else, that the prophetic assignment of the Adventist Church as outlined in Revelation 7, 12, 12, 14, will be fulfilled by some generation of Adventists who recovers the message as outlined in the GCT. Some generation will be the Last Generation. Believe it, Love it, Live it!


• After thought:• From cowardice that shrinks from the truth,• From laziness that is content with half truths,• From the arrogance that that thinks it knows all

truth,• O God of truth, deliver us!

Significance of Questions on Doctrine - Herbert E. Douglass

Spiritual

significance of questions

questions matter

prominent adventists

walter martin

day adventists christians

donald barnhouse

divisive book

walter ralston martin