Opportunity of the Century And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It

HERBERT E. DOUGLASS Copyright © 2019 All rights reserved. Introduction Philippians Two Five Publishing Late in 2003, (QOD) was republished by the Andrews About the Author University Press with new historical notes and a theological introduction by George Author of 25 books, Herbert E. Douglass, R. Knight. Originally published in 1957, Th.D., has enjoyed a distinguished career as a this book as Knight wrote, “easily qualifies college professor at Pacific Union College; as the most divisive book in Seventh-day college academic dean and president at Adventist history. A book published to help Atlantic Union College; associate editor, bring peace between and con- ; vice-president, Pacific servative , its release brought Press Publishing Asso-ciation, and prolonged alienation and separation to the president of Weimar Institute. During the Adventist factions that grew up around it.”1 crucial period of the 1950s, Doug-lass wrote In fact, Knight wrote that the “explo- commentaries for five books of and served on sive issues” opened up by QOD placed the staff that edited, the Seventh-day Adventist the volume “at the very center of Adven- Bible Commentary. tist theological dialogue since the 1950s, This booklet contains an insider’s view of the setting the stage for ongoing theological 2 events that brought Adventism to the tension.” oppor-tunity of a century. How right he was! And, in the opinion of many, those “explosive issues” never had to be. 4 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 5 Historical Concerns started the strange chain of events that led In Knight’s Introduction he provides the to the publishing of QOD. background of early conversations between Unruh’s missive led Martin, a young spe- Adventist spokesmen and Dr. Donald Grey cialist in Christian cults, to visit Washington Barnhouse, Walter Martin, and others of in March, 1955, and hear from Adven- the Calvinistic wing of Evangelicalism. tist leaders exactly what they believed Some would say, the Fundamentalist wing. regarding certain doctrines that Martin had Their theological paradigms were on a dif- said were cultic. Knowing that Martin was ferent planet compared to Wesleyan and in the process of preparing another book Adventist theology. For example, Barn- entitled, The Rise of the Cults, Leroy E. house declared that Ellen White’s Steps to Froom, W. E. Read, and R. A. Anderson Christ was “false in all its parts.”3 thought it best to head off a negative bomb- The mystery to many of us in Washington shell by responding with irenic deference. 5 during the 1950s was T. E. Unruh’s (presi- A lofty goal for any leader! dent, East Pennsylvania Conference) letter Of course there were many topics that to Barnhouse wherein he complimented Martin and Barnhouse would concede as Barnhouse’s radio program on “righteous- interesting and different but not neces- ness by faith.” Barnhouse’s position was sarily cultic. Yet there were four items that light years away from Adventist thinking remained on the table: 1) that the atone- prior to 1957. The question was, “How could ment of Christ was not completed upon the Unruh possibly commend Barnhouse’s cross; 2) that salvation is the result of grace position on ‘righteousness by faith’?” Barn- plus the works of the law; 3) that the Lord house was equally astonished!4 This letter was a created being, not from all eter- 6 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 7 nity; and 4) that He partook of man’s sinful week for months this would be the routine fallen nature at the incarnation.6 as Thurber tried to delete much of the QOD Part of the drama of the middle 1950s manuscript and edit appropriately the rest. was happening backstage. Those watching Finally, Froom dug in and said, “No more from the sidelines determined that we editing. We’re going with what we have.” At would not reveal certain pertinent facts that point, the manuscript was about one- concerning the creation of QOD for var- half of what they originally wanted. We ious reasons, the chief of which was that had hoped to save the denomination from we never dreamed that the book would be even worse embarrassment and trouble, but so heavily advertised, with so many gratis it was not meant to be. copies. We thought it better to let the whole I remember the day as if it were yes- matter die for lack of attention. Were we terday when one of the associate editors of wrong! the Commentary left the room and returned The associate editors of the Seventh-day with a towel over his left arm and a basin Adventist Bible Commentary had the priv- of water in the other. We all took turns ilege of watching QOD being processed, washing our hands, formally absolving edited, rewritten, and rewritten again. ourselves of any connection to the ges- Our Commentary office was on the same tating manuscript. floor with Merwin Thurber, the seasoned We recognize with the authors that Review and Herald Publishing Association “no statement of Seventh-day Adventist Book Editor. Whenever he had a theolog- belief can be considered official unless it ical problem of whatever nature, he would is adopted by the General Conference in come to our office for counsel. Week after quadrennial session.” But perception often 8 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 9 overrules. You can imagine our astonish- Still, many thought that the book would ment when we began to see the galleys of not amount to much because of its weakness the forthcoming book with its self-con- in lucidly setting forth certain doctrines. gratulatory comments, such as on the title They chose to remain respectful. They page: “Prepared by a Representative Group knew that the authors had to work with a of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible vocabulary with which hard-core Calvin- Teachers, and Editors.” On pages 8, 9: ists could at least be comfortable. They “The replies were prepared by a group of believed that QOD would die a quick death recognized leaders, in close counsel with because most of our teachers and ministers Bible teachers, editors, and administra- had been taught differently on at least two tors.... These answers represent the position core subjects that were painfully stitched of our denomination in the area of church together. doctrine and prophetic interpretation.... But, and unfortunately for all concerned, Hence this volume can be viewed as truly Milian L. Andreasen, “the denomination’s representative of the faith and beliefs of most influential theologian and theolog- the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” These ical writer in the late 1930s and throughout statements did not represent the reality sur- the 1940s, had been left out of the process rounding the production of QOD. Many in both the formulation of the answers and were troubled by the direction of the book the critiquing of them, even though he had and told the authors so. And many more been generally viewed as an authority on who are listed among the 250 “readers” several of the disputed points.”7 never returned their comments. This omission was not apparent until QOD was published. We were dumb- 10 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 11 founded that such an intended oversight QOD would die a quick death and the less could have happened. The writers of QOD, we all said about it the better. specialists in their respective fields, were What we did not expect was the crescendo not equipped to play in the same theolog- of Ministry editorials and articles that ical league as Andreasen. Further, Knight joined with a remarkably orchestrated PR is right. “Looking back,” he offers, “one program in workers meetings throughout can only speculate on the different course North America from 1957 on. The new of Adventist history if Andreasen had president of the General Conference, R. R. been consulted regarding the working of Figuhr, recently from South America, was the Adventist position on the atonement, if captivated by what appeared to be a mag- Froom and his colleagues hadn’t been so nificent achievement—heading off Walter divisive in their handling of issues related to Martin from identifying Adventists as a the human nature of Christ, if both Froom cult in his next book. Many felt sure that if and Andreasen would have had softer per- Elder Branson, General Conference Presi- sonalities.”8 dent, 1950-1954, had not become ill, thus In 1957, I had reason to discuss certain removing his name from the nominating biblical subjects with Arthur White, the committee at the General Conference of director of the Ellen G. White Estate. QOD 1954, Questions on Doctrine may never was fresh on his mind, only weeks off the have seen the light of day. printing press. He said, “Herb, I thought I Within seven years the impossible hap- would die trying to make my views known pened! Few really were reading QOD but to Froom and Anderson.” We still felt that the story-line was out; the vice presidents, union presidents and conference presidents 12 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 13 were assured that any misunderstand- Theological Concerns ings were only semantic. Denominational Andreasen was primarily concerned with workers generally were either lulled to the “troublesome” issues—the “atonement” sleep or went underground to catch their and “the human nature of Christ.”9 breath. However, some administrators did Let’s take another look at the problem read QOD and quietly made their positions that Froom and Anderson faced—it seemed known, at least this was my experience in monumental! For example, Froom took a talking with several that later became vice poll of Adventist leaders and discovered presidents and presidents of the General that “nearly all of them” felt that Christ Conference! For a time, they too kept their had our sinful nature. Further, the recently peace, not wanting to appear disloyal. retired General Conference president, W. When it seemed to Andreasen that the H. Branson, plainly wrote in the 1950 edi- QOD authors plus the General Conference tion of his Drama of the Ages that Christ in President were not interested in recognizing His incarnation took “upon Himself sinful his concerns, Andreasen wrote open let- f lesh.”10 ters to church members. What may not be But indefatigable Froom and Anderson generally known is that Andreasen agreed that began their offense, not defense. much of QOD was solid Adventist thinking. He did not “repudiate” the greater part • In what appeared to Knight as being of QOD. “less than transparent,” they told Martin that “the majority of the denomination has always held” the human nature of Christ “to be sinless, holy, and perfect [true, when discussing His sinless char- 14 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 15 acter] despite the fact that certain of and attitudes of the Evangelicals. If their writers have occasionally gotten Branson were president he probably into print with contrary views com- would have pointed out that though pletely repugnant to the Church at large. the authors were using different vocab- They further explained to Mr. Martin ulary, they also were missing a grand that they had among their number cer- opportunity to make clear certain theo- tain members of their ‘lunatic fringe’ logical points that Adventists have long even as there are similar wild-eyed considered truly biblically based. irresponsibles in every field of funda- 11 mental .” QOD’s Treatment of the Atonement • The “lunatic fringe” obviously included • One of Andreasen’s chief complaints W. H. Branson, M. L. Andreasen and was the lack of lucidity and candor as a host of other authors through the the authors tried to pitch their answers years who held responsible positions as to Martin’s questions with language he teachers, pastors and administrators. could accept. Andreasen did not imme- • They kept the new General Confer- diately put his concerns in front of the ence president well informed. One of church at large. Instead, he wrote pri- Froom’s letters, sort of a mea culpa, vate letters to the General Conference acknowledged that in QOD “some of President, imploring him to look at the the statements are a bit different from big picture. After all, he had been cast 12 what you might anticipate.” He went as one of the “lunatic fringe.” on to suggest that their approach was • It seemed to some of us that both necessary in view of the backgrounds Andreasen and the authors of QOD 16 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 17 (plus the General Conference Presi- • Andreasen was wary about ’s dent) were shooting right past each limited gospel which focused Christ’s other. QOD did, in a way, try to salvage atonement ministry primarily on the any criticism by quoting the Adventist Cross; he feared that the Adventist twin position on Christ’s mediatorial work as focus of Christ’s atonement ministry part of the atonement. But the general on the Cross and in the Heavenly Sanc- emphasis in their answer unneces- tuary was being muted. Many have felt sarily threw the center of gravity onto that if Andreasen, with his undisputed the Cross, thus minimizing the equally theological experience, had been asked essential role of Christ in the Heavenly to participate in formulating answers to Sanctuary—even though that may not Martin’s questions, theological equilib- have been their intent. Adventists for rium would have prevailed. many years had believed 1) that “the conditions of the atonement had been QOD’s Treatment of the Incarnation fulfilled” on the cross (The Desire of Here again we must recognize the Calvin- Ages, p. 819) and 2) that “the interces- istic presuppositions of Barnhouse, Martin, sion of Christ in man’s behalf in the and others. The human Jesus for them was sanctuary above is as essential to the “impeccable,” that is, incapable of sinning. plan of salvation as was His death upon Bavinck, one of their theological giants, the cross. By His death He began that wrote that the possibility of Jesus’ “sinning work which after His resurrection He and falling is an atrocious idea.... For then ascended to complete in heaven” (The God Himself must have been able to sin— Great Controversy, p. 489, emphasis which it is blasphemy to think.”13 supplied). 18 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 19 Therefore, Adventist authors for a cen- These words, “exempt,” and “vicariously,” tury and specifically Ellen White who Catholics had been using for centuries in had been asserting that Jesus “took upon describing Christ’s humanity—cleverly himself fallen, suffering human nature, insisting that the genetic stream was blocked degraded and defiled by sin,”14 appeared with the Immaculate Conception of mother cultic, far separated from conventional Mary. Most Protestants never developed a Christian thought. novel solution, as did Roman Catholics— Froom admitted that some Adventists they just philosophized their notions with had made it into print emphasizing these no biblical basis (such as Barnhouse and “atrocious ideas” but offered that such Martin would use). were from those in the Adventist “lunatic How can we summarize what Knight fringe”! Remember, Froom and Anderson called “a less than transparent”17 defense were trying to find some common ground of conventional Adventist thinking on the with their Calvinistic friends! They used humanity of Jesus? language such as “exempt from the inher- • The Ellen White statements appended ited passions and pollutions that corrupt the to QOD created “a false impression on natural descendents of Adam.”15 And, “all the human nature of Christ.”18 that Jesus took, all that He bore whether the • The authors supplied in bold face a sub- burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the heading: “Took Sinless Human Nature.” diseases and frailties of our human nature— As Knight wrote, “that heading is prob- 16 all was taken and borne vicariously.” Pure lematic in that it implies that that was Catholic and Calvinistic notions! Ellen White’s idea when in fact she was 20 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 21 quite emphatic in repeatedly stating final end of being made to take all posi- that Christ took our ‘sinful nature.’”19 tions is to take no position at all!”21 • Curious touches of intimidation were • Not only did the ideas highlighted in the apparent when the authors said (after quotations often contradict their con- spelling out their interpretation of Ellen texts, they seem to have been arranged to White statements) “it is in this sense foster a particular presupposition. For an that all should understand the writings example of misrepresenting the context, of Ellen G. White when she refers occa- think of one that has been used many sionally to sinful, fallen and deteriorated times since 1957: “No one, looking upon human nature.” Further, “all these are the childlike countenance, shining with forceful cogent statements, but surely no animation, could say that Christ was one would designedly attach a meaning just like other children. He was God in to them which runs counter to what the human flesh.” Yet a few sentences ear- same writer has given in other places in lier, White also had written: “He was not her works.”20 And the implicit response like all children. Many children are mis- to both assertions seems to be, “Of guided and mismanaged. But Joseph, course not!” and especially Mary, kept before them • Later, such so-called “balancing state- the remembrance of their child’s divine ments” led Geoffrey Paxton in 1977 to Fatherhood. Jesus was instructed in conclude that Ellen White “has a wax accordance with the sacred character nose. She is turned this way, and then of his mission.... He was an example of that way, and then this way again.... The what all children may strive to be if par- ents will seek the Lord most earnestly, 22 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 23 and if children will co-operate with their deteriorated: “In His human nature He parents. In His words and actions He maintained the purity of His divine manifested tender sympathy for all.”22 character. He lived the law of God, We lay hold of the larger picture that and honored it in a world of transgres- White was painting when we look at the sion, revealing to the heavenly universe, whole article. to Satan, and to all the fallen sons and • Here is another example where it seems daughters of Adam, that through His we are observing a patently miscon- grace, humanity can keep the law of strued meaning of Ellen White, in the God. He came to impart His own divine attempt to force a pre-lapsarian position: nature, His own image, to the repentant, “Christ is called the second Adam. In believing soul.”23 purity and holiness, connected with God • In the listing of six reasons for Christ and beloved by God, He began where the coming to earth, it seems that the authors first Adam began. Willingly He passed of QOD omitted two of the most essen- over the ground where Adam fell, and tial: He came to save His people from redeemed Adam’s failure.” Note QOD’s their sins (Matthew 1:21). He came to special emphasis! But there was more be our Example (1 Peter 2:21). It would in the article quoted! The next sentence have been more than helpful if they is: “But the first Adam was in every had listed the additional reasons Ellen way more favorably situated than was White has provided us.24 Christ.”  Then White went on to show why Jesus became man after the race had 24 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 25 Radiation Fallout QOD’s pronouncements “unanimously” As Knight said, QOD “easily qualifies as the denomination’s official position. as the most divisive book in Seventh-day One of our young scholars told me that he Adventist history.” To document this divi- had been taught in four of our denomina- siveness is easy but painful. Most, if not all, tional schools and universities and on each of the so-called “dissident” or “indepen- campus QOD was considered “official.” dent” groups of the last 45 years are direct It was difficult to swallow QOD’s con- results of the explicit and implicit posi- tention that “a few, however, held to some tions espoused by QOD on the Atonement of their former views, and at times these and the Incarnation. On two continents the ideas got into print. However, for decades reaction was immediate. Most, if not all, of now the church has been practically at one these “dissidents” would not exist today if on the basic truths of the Christian faith.”26 QOD had not been published. That statement is correct for the most part Hovering over the theological fog that but surely not in QOD’s treatment of the QOD generated was the “official” impri- humanity of Christ or it’s lack of lucidity matur that the book was getting around in expressing the sanctuary doctrine—both the Adventist world. Although the authors of which are enormously important when tried to say that QOD was not an “official” one considers the purpose of the gospel. statement of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, In 1975, a representative group of us the description of their efforts could not be gathered in Washington in response to hidden.25 the Review and Herald publishing house’s In my Washington years, I heard that the call for counsel regarding the republica- workers of a certain world division upheld tion of QOD. The leadership of the General 26 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 27 Conference were generally opposed to its republished QOD, pp. 522, 523, seems to reprinting for many of the reasons included be less than sufficient to bridge the gap in this booklet. The more the book was between the “pre-laps and post-laps.” Mel- examined, the firmer their denial for a vill’s position does not throw real light on reprinting became.27 our Lord’s humanity as do White’s expla- Knight is as clear as blue sky on a cloud- nations in The Desire of Ages and in all her less day when he recounts Andreasen’s other writings when properly understood. point in declaring QOD to be “a betrayal in order to gain recognition from the Theological Concerns That Need evangelicals.” Knight observes, “Unfortu- Fresh Discussion nately, there does appear to be elements of Assertions in both the main text of the a betrayal in the manipulation of the data original QOD and it’s republished edition and in the untruths that were passed on to beg for clarification and correction. These Barnhouse and Martin on the topic.... The problems include: result would spell disaster in the Adven- 1. Mixing apples and oranges. For tist ranks in the years to come. Official example, “It could hardly be construed... Adventism may have gained recognition that Jesus was diseased or that He expe- as being Christian from the evangelical rienced the frailties to which our fallen world, but in the process a breach had been human nature is heir. These weaknesses, opened which has not healed in the last 50 frailties, infirmities, failings, are things years and may never heal.” which [sic] we, with our sinful, fallen However, the proposed explanatory solu- natures, have to bear. To us they are nat- tion for the nature of Christ in this recently ural, inherent, but when He bore them, He 28 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 29 took them not as something innately His, his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted but He bore them as our substitute. He bore humanity when the race had been weak- them in His perfect, sinless nature. Again ened by four thousand years of sin. Like we remark, Christ bore all this vicariously, every child of Adam He accepted the just as vicariously He bore the iniquities of results of the working of the great law us all.” 28 “He was nevertheless God, and of heredity. What these results were is was exempt from the inherited passions and shown in the history of His earthly ances- pollutions that corrupt the natural descen- tors. He came with such a heredity to dants of Adam.”29 share our sorrows and temptations, and But Adventists have never argued that to give us the example of a sinless life. Jesus ever sinned, or inherited evil, cor-  Satan in heaven had hated Christ rupted “passions and pollutions.” Arguing for His position in the courts of God. such creates a strawman! The Adven- He hated Him the more when he him- tist position in our first century was self was dethroned. He hated Him who solidly based on biblical statements such as pledged Himself to redeem a race of Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:14-16; 5:7-9; Romans sinners. Yet into the world where Satan 1:1-3; 8:3, 4; 2 Peter 2:21; Revelation 3:21. claimed dominion God permitted His This biblical foundation lies at the core Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to of Ellen White’s understanding of Christ’s the weakness of humanity. He permitted humanity. For example: Him to meet life’s peril in common with  It would have been an almost infinite every human soul, to fight the battle as humiliation for the Son of God to take every child of humanity must fight it, at 30 man’s nature, even when Adam stood in the risk of failure and eternal loss. 30 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 31 Throughout White’s The Desire of Ages, and the Moral Law,” “Scholarly Precedents many statements only add to the clarity of for 1844,” “The Meaning of Azazel,” “The the above. ,” “Condition of Man 2. Hermeneutics. One of the main princi- in Death,” and “Champions of Conditional ples of interpretation is to allow the author Immortality,” the QOD authors used a host to interpret himself/herself. Further, the of non-Adventist writers to supplement and author can best state his/her position in a enhance their doctrinal positions. book designed to clarify all aspects of the The weakness in using such a method author’s thinking. When an author has is that an equal supply of non-Adventist written sixty years on a subject, one should writers could be gathered, other than Cal- not be surprised to find statements lifted vinistic writers, to substantiate the historic from letters, diaries, and general manu- Adventist position on what is meant by scripts that may seem to be contradictory. Christ’s “sinful, fallen human nature.” Why But when the student has a grasp of the aren’t books authored by Harry Johnson, intent of a letter and has access to the entire Karl Barth, T. F. Torrance, Nels Ferré, C. diary or manuscript, those apparent dis- E. Cranfield, Harold Roberts, Lesslie New- crepancies vanish like Jello on a hot July bigin, Anders Nygren, C. K. Barrett, and day. In other words, The Desire of Ages Oscar Cullmann, referred to, for starters? should be the acid test of Ellen White’s Such scholars clearly espouse the New by which all other statements Testament position that Jesus was “truly should be judged. Man,” and became the kind of person that 3. Modus operandi. On subjects such as He came to redeem, not only in His death “The Ten Commandments,” “The Sabbath but throughout His life, that He inherited 32 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 33 fallen, sinful nature that makes sin very and “evil, corrupted passions;” between probable but He did not yield to that ten- “lower” and “higher nature.” Space does dency (John 5:17, 18; Mark 4:26, etc.). His not here permit a full discussion as to the personal self, His untarnished will, never distinction between these terms. Neverthe- yielded to the inherited tendency to sin; less, we should let an author tell us what He directed His energies and will power at she means by permitting her own usage to every point toward overcoming all sinful define her own terms. Jesus had all the nat- tendencies and doing the will of His Father ural passions of a child, or a teenager, or an in heaven. adult—for self-preservation, for reasonable In other words, the biblical writers and physical comforts, for an attraction for the Ellen White viewed what was generally opposite sex, and to be appreciated by His understood by others as “” as friends. But He never allowed these nat- actually being the universal tendency in ural, God-given passions to become “evil, human nature to seek selfish interests. Jesus corrupted passions.” He never permitted shared this commonality with humanity— His will to yield to any of these natural but He remained the unsullied Example for passions that would have contradicted the us all (Revelation 3:21)—He remained sin- will of His heavenly Father (Luke 22:42).31 less. “Thy will be done, not Mine” was His Jesus took our inherited tendencies to evil life motto. but not our cultivated tendencies of evil— 4. Distinguish between terms. For He did not choose to sin, to be corrupted. example, carefully differentiate terms such Christ’s higher nature, as ours, included as “propensities of sin” and “propensi- choice and will and thus character. His ties to sin;” between “inherited passions” lower nature embraced normal human pas- 34 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 35 sions that seek selfish, indulgent ends. The teaching] became the belief of the majority difference between Jesus and us is that He of Seventh-day Adventists in the first half always chose not to be defiled. He was of the twentieth century. That teaching was uncorrupted. so widely accepted that it no longer needed Many are Ellen White’s insightful com- to be argued in Adventist literature. It was ments: Speaking of those discouraged and accepted as a fact. It was upon that teaching who say, “My prayers are so mingled with that M. L. Andreasen would build his final evil thoughts that the Lord will not hear generation theology.”33 them,” she offers “These suggestions are • Here is the clear statement why QOD from Satan. In His humanity Christ met and was so “explosive”! QOD was directly resisted this temptation, and He knows how contradicting of many years of Adven- to succor those who are thus tempted.”32 tist Christology that had been a Rock of Many such embracing statements abound. appreciation and personal trust among 5. Other areas of concern. The reprinted clergy and laity. QOD introduces other matters that may • This “widely accepted” understanding still require open discussion. Some of these of the nature of Christ’s humanity was are found in the extended notes on pages not Andreasen’s novelty—Andreasen, 516-529. The author of the notes framed in a remarkable student of Ellen White’s gray was precisely correct: “The logic that thought, reasoned from the Bible and flowed from that belief was that if Christ her writings. Andreasen was only was just like us, yet had lived a sinless life, one of many thousands of pastors and then so must other human beings—espe- teachers who had reached the very con- cially those of the last generation.... [This 36 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 37 clusions that were “accepted as a fact” White were in either camp and Ellen White up until QOD was published. was in a third, “invisible” camp, seems to • The suggestion that Ellen White’s be a strange observation. The immediate understanding of Christ’s humanity was examples of that new “position” follow derived from her reading of Henry Mel- exactly the pattern of the 1957 QOD’s vill is far off the mark. Just because she mistreatment of Ellen White’s writings. underlined certain passages in Melvill’s • The “last-generation” concept (the work does not mean that she bought his one that waits expectantly for Christ’s argument any more than the many books return, cooperating with Him to be I underline suggest that I agree with the entrusted with His sealing—Revelation author. Easily she could use certain ch. 7) seems to be the distinctive fea- phrases without borrowing the author’s ture of Ellen White’s eschatology as she general meaning. This so-called Mel- reflects on many biblical themes. vill connection does not occur to those 6. The second topic that severely divided who spend a few moments noting how the Adventist Church since the late 1950s White herself used the words “propen- was the issue of righteousness by faith. sities,” “passions,” “infirmities,” etc. Watching Evangelicals observed that by the • The suggestion that since the 1890s “two 1970s our church was divided between “Tra- quite distinct Adventist understandings on ditional Adventists”—those who defended the human nature of Christ in Adventism” positions that were “accepted facts” before (pre-Fall Adam versus post-Fall Adam) QOD and “Evangelical Adventists” who have flourished needs substantiation. To emphasized the so-called suggest that all other writers except Ellen understanding of righteousness by faith.34 38 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 39 Implied in this “evangelical” under- became modus operandi for many pastors standing was 1) a rejection of Adventism’s and teachers who seemed to get the impres- distinctive view of a pre-Advent inves- sion that she has a “wax nose.” As Paxton tigative judgment and 2) the connection observed: “The final end of being made to between the cleansing of the heavenly take all positions is to take no position at sanctuary and the cleansing of habits and all!”35 choices in believers culminating in the a. In recent years, Ellen White has been close of probation. viewed as a devotional writer but not a theo- In minimizing the “essential” aspects logical guide. of the atonement that are embedded in the b. Because her clarity regarding the pur- doctrine, the spotlight pose of the gospel and the embedded focused attention primarily on the Cross. connection with the sanctuary doctrine was When this double focus is lost, the biblical strangely muted in QOD, it became a half concept of righteousness by faith is greatly step toward splitting the twin doctrine of damaged. Everything is connected to every- Christ’s being our “atoning sacrifice and an thing else on the genuine gospel tree; when all-powerful Mediator”—the ellipse of truth one aspect of gospel truth is compromised, that Satan “hates” (The Great Controversy, many other doctrines become tainted! p. 488). Limited gospels wherein Righteousness By This muting of joining our Lord’s Medi- Faith is focused only on the Cross are like atorial work with His death upon the cross birds trying to fly with one wing. opened the door to a limited understanding 7. Part of the fallout since 1957 is the cav- of and —a alier treatment of Ellen White’s ministry. It 40 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 41 division that has perplexed Adventist con- Endnotes gregations for forty-five years. 1. Seventh-day Adventists Answer Ques- tions on Doctrine, Annotated Edition, A Deeper Lesson to Be Learned (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Uni- What seems to be an unspoken, deeper versity Press, 2003), p. xiii. The format problem with QOD is what was left unsaid. of the new edition is helpful, with all Martin and Barnhouse were recognized Evan- annotations inserted in gray. gelical scholars though working with different 2. Ibid. p. xi. presuppositions, largely Calvinistic. But they 3. Ibid. p. xiii. Open citation. could think theologically. What a perfect 4. Ibid. opportunity it would have been for Adven- 5. Ibid. p. xiv. tists to use equally trained minds to show why 6. Ibid. Adventists have a distinctive understanding of soteriology, Christology, and eschatology! 7. Ibid. p. xviii. Like Hezekiah,36 who failed to show the Bab- 8. Ibid. p. xxvi. I had the unusual pleasure ylonians his rich treasure of truth, we missed of knowing Drs. Froom and Anderson the greatest opportunity of the last century to personally. Long after Dr. Froom give inquiring men the parameters of the big retired, while I was associate editor of picture of the . the Adventist Review in the 1970s, he Fifty years of division now trace to QOD. would sit in my office, time after time, No longer do we face a mystery. That was to discuss theological topics. All the then, this is now. What will be in our day? while He had been reading a number of my editorials that contradicted his 42 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 43 positions in QOD. We were friends 13. G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of and did not let theological differences Christ, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. poison our friendship. In 1974, I was Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. one of the very last persons to stroke 259. his hand just before he died in Sligo 14. The Youth’s Instructor, Dec. 20, 1900; Gardens Nursing Home, Takoma Park. Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1896;  For many years after Dr. Anderson Sept. 29, 1896. retired to his condo in Loma Linda, I 15. QOD, p. 383 (1957). would look forward to his telephone 16. Ibid., pp. 61, 62, 59. calls. His frequent questions went like 17. Ibid. p. xvi (Andrews University Press this: “Herb, what is happening to our Annotated Edition). church?” This went on for years until his death in 1985. It seemed that they 18. Ibid. p. xxx. both regretted the unintended conse- 19. Ibid. p. xvi. I remember well those quences of their labors in the 1950s. days in 1970 when I at last had the 9. Ibid. p. xv. opportunity to examine QOD’s ref- erences. As associate editor of the 10. Ibid. In 1953, Branson had changed Review and Herald, I had the luxury slightly his “sinful flesh” statement to of research in the publishing house’s keep the peace, still knowing that Ellen magnificent library. I began to read White used this phrase many times. the context of each of QOD’s state- 11. Ibid. p. xvi. ments that seemed to be cherry-picked 12. Ibid. by someone who tried to emphasize a certain point of view. One by one I 44 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 45 would bring those statements to Ken- 25. QOD, p. 8 (1957). neth H. Wood, editor in chief, and we 26. Ibid., pp. 30, 31. stared with amazement at someone’s 27. In the same year, a call was made to remarkable disregard for the context. republish L. E. Froom’s, Movement of This collection of tampered quota- Destiny (1971). Again a representative tions became ever since the armament group studied the question. Again, factory for teachers and pastors and because of a number of assertions in authors who relied on this collection it that were dubious and misleading, for their understanding of Christ’s Movement of Destiny has not been human nature, thus missing the big republished. Space here does not picture. permit a review of this book. 20. Ibid. p. 60 (1957). 28. QOD, pp. 59, 60. 21. Geoffrey Paxton, The Shaking of 29. Ibid., p. 383. Adventism (Wilmington, Delaware: 30. The Desire of Ages, p. 49. Zenith Publishers, Inc., 1977), p. 156. 31. See Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, 22. In QOD (1957) a portion of this pp. 182, 183 for a clear distinction article was republished. But consider between “corrupted propensities” and more from the article, The Youth’s “fallen but not corrupted.” Instructor, September 8, 1898. 32. Signs of the Times, November 19, 23. The Youth’s Instructor, June 2, 1898. 1903; See also Selected Messages, 24. See Herbert E. Douglass, God At vol. 1, p. 408; Manuscript 1, 1892 Risk (Roseville, CA; , in Manuscript Releases, vol. VI, pp. 2004), pp. 440-453. 334-343. 46 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 47

33. QOD Annotated Edition, pp. 518, 519. RESOURCES 34. Kenneth R. Samples, “From Contro- versy to Crisis: An Updated Assessment www.GreatControversy.org of Seventh-day Adventism,” Christian Books and Booklets published by Research Journal, Summer, 1988, p. 9. Philippians Two Five Publishing: 35. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism, p. 156. Cleanse and Close: 36. Isaiah ch. 39. Last Generation Theology in 14 Points (Book, 159 pp.) by Larry Kirkpatrick.

1973 and 1974 Annual Council Appeals (Booklet, 44 pp.) by General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

OpportunityOp of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It (Booklet, 48 pp.), by Herbert E. Douglass.

The Will: His Power, Your Choice (Booklet, 52 pp.), by Dennis Priebe.

The Last Generation (Booklet, 48 pp.), by M. L. Andreasen. 48 Opportunity of the Century: And How Seventh-day Adventists Missed It 49

DONATIONS CONTACT INFORMATION Philippians Two Five Publishing neither Physical address: solicits nor accepts tithe funds. All are Philippians Two Five Publishing urged to support the Seventh-day Adventist PO Box 1011 Church both locally and globally by the returning of tithes and offerings through Ukiah, CA 9482 the church organization. We are a non- E-mail address: profit corporation in the 501(c)(3) [email protected] classification. Your tax-deductible gift Phone: could materially advance the continued Office: (707) 462-3080 publishing of helpful materials. Thank you Mobile: (805) 729-1754 for consid-ering Philippians Two Five Publishing among your giving options.