Kenneth Samples' Presentation at the 50th
Anniversary Conference on Questions on Doctrine
Click here to go to our Home Page
Dear Reader,
This document is a review of Kenneth Samples’
presentation at the 50th Anniversary Conference on Questions on
Doctrine. I first present some excerpted statements from his presentation (
which appears below these excerpts), that you might make especial note of
them. I have made some commentaries and quoted Ellen White on some things.
“One of the most intriguing
features about Seventh-day Adventism is that unlike Mormonism, Christian
Science, and Jehovah’s Witnesses; the Adventist movement has shifted toward
historic Christian and biblical orthodoxy."
"The theological views of the primitive Adventist movement
(though hardy unified and systematic) reflected a non- or anti-Trinitarian
view of God..."
"From the standpoint of historic Christian or creedal
orthodoxy, the primitive Adventist movement was a theologically cultic
movement or a heretical sect in its basic theology. Several present-day
Adventist scholars have clearly documented that these sub-Christian
doctrinal views were present, if not prominent, at various stages within
early Adventist history.4"
"And yet, the next century saw Adventism’s doctrinal
views undergo analysis and change. Ellen G. White apparently played an
important, if not critical, role in helping the Adventist church move
toward theological orthodoxy. It has ultimately embraced a fully
Trinitarian theology with an orthodox understanding of the person and
nature of Christ and a belief that Christ’s righteousness in the atonement
is granted to the believer through faith alone."
Note by Ron: Ellen White said that the pillars of Adventist had been
established 50 years prior (scroll down for statement) to 1904. The next
century did indeed undergo CHANGE into a new movement.
Compare the above statement by Samples with the following by Ellen
White and James White:
As a people, we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth
that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of
our faith. The principles of truth that God has revealed to us are our
only true foundation. They have made us what we are. The lapse of time
has not lessened their value. It is the constant effort of the enemy to
remove these truths from their setting, and to put in their place spurious
theories. He will bring in everything that he possibly can to
carry out his deceptive designs. But the Lord will raise up men of keen
perception, who will give these truths their proper place in the plan of
God. {1SM 201.2}
Godhead as a pillar doctrine --
Personality of God and of Christ Landmarks: "Those who seek to remove
the old landmarks are not holding fast they are not remembering how they
have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would
remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the
personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are
seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift
without an anchor." {MR760 9.5}
I have been instructed by the heavenly
messenger that some of the reasoning in the book Living Temple
is unsound, and that this reasoning would lead astray the minds of
those who are not thoroughly established on the foundation principles of
present truth. It introduces that which is nought but speculation in
regard to the personality of God and where His presence is. No one on
this earth has a right to speculate on this question. The more fanciful
theories are discussed, the less men will know of God and of the truth that
sanctifies the soul. {1SM 201.3}
James White on the Trinity doctrine:
"As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath
other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church,
such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead
and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental
errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly but can it be supposed that the
church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment
scenes burst upon the world? We think not." (James White, September
12, 1854, Review & Herald, Vol. 6, No. 5, page 36, par.
8).
The above statement by James White falls
into the category of the past 50 years of Ellen White's statement
below made in in 1904:
"The enemy of souls has sought to
bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among
Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving
up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a
process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would
result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the
remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The
fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty
years would be accounted as error. A NEW ORGANIZATION would be
established. Books of a NEW ORDER would be written. A system of
intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system
would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course,
would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be
allowed to stand in the way of the NEW MOVEMENT. The leaders would teach
that virtue is better than vice, but GOD BEING REMOVED, they would place
their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their
foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep
away the structure.
Who has authority to begin such a [NEW]
movement? We have our Bibles, we have our experience, attested to by the
miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. We have a truth that admits of no
compromise. Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with
this truth? E.G. White, Selected
Messages, Vol. 1, 204, 205.
"Walter Martin saw a stark contrast concerning White and
Adventist theology in his research of the religious movements of nineteenth
century America. While he rejected White’s prophetic claims, Martin viewed
her—unlike Smith, Eddy, and Russell—as a genuine Christian believer."
Ron's commentary: Ellen White did indeed claim prophetic visions,
and if she lied about so many visions as she had, she would not be a
genuine Christian believer. This is an oxymoron by Walter Martin.
"But it is possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and a true
follower of Jesus Christ despite certain distinctive Adventist doctrines
that most evangelical Protestants respectfully consider to be unbiblical. I
think many Adventist scholars would return the favor and say something
similar about me and my conservative Reformed theological views."
Ron's Commentary: Really!? In light of Sample's Babylonian
doctrines! And no one said BOO!
"It is ironic that the discussions between the evangelicals and the
Adventists in the 1950s, while intending to bring unity, actually succeeded
in sparking increased controversy both in the evangelical ranks and within
the Seventh-day Adventist church."
Ron's Commentary: Dr. Herbert Douglass and others see no irony
whatsoever in light of the fact that Calvinism and Adventism cannot be
synthesized. There can be no compatibility of truth with error, for as
Ellen White stated..."We have a truth that admits of no
compromise."
"As an interested outsider with my nose pressed to the window,
I see quite a bit of theological diversity within Seventh-day Adventism. In
some ways it reminds me of present-day evangelicalism. One strand of
Adventism appears quite traditional, another very liberal, and still
another distinctly evangelical. There also seems to be a segment that is
atheological in nature and reflects what I would call a cultural Adventism."
Ron’s commentary: Atheological means opposed to theology or
atheistic! This is Samples’ new way of taking a dig at what they called
“wild eyed fanatics of the lunatic fringe element” in 1957. Now we are a
bunch of atheists without theology!
Atheological
\A`the*o*log"ic*al\, a.
Opposed to theology; atheistic. --Bp. Montagu.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
|
"I am instructed to say to Seventh-day Adventists the world
over, God has called us as a people to be a peculiar treasure unto Himself.
He has appointed that His church on earth shall stand perfectly united
in the Spirit and counsel of the Lord of hosts to the end of
time."--Letter 54, 1908. (Jan. 21, 1908.)
Even Babylonians can clearly see that the new movement is not
perfectly united.
Evangelical
Reflections on Seventh-day Adventism:
Yesterday
and Today
Kenneth Richard Samples
This brief essay presents some broad
reflections on the history and theology of Seventh-day Adventism,
specifically focusing upon issues relevant to the evangelical-Adventist
dialogues of the 1950s. It also offers some comments on how the theological
content of those interactions still carries important lessons for today
concerning the biblical gospel of grace.
As this conference clearly confirms, the
writings of the evangelical Baptist theologian and apologist Walter Ralston
Martin (1928-1989) significantly shaped the way most evangelical
Protestants came to view Seventh-day Adventism. So I’ll begin by briefly
tracing how I became acquainted with Adventism through my relationship with
Dr. Martin, the central figure in the ongoing evangelical-Adventist
discussions through the decades.
An Evangelical Perspective on Adventism
Of all the religious groups that emerged
in nineteenth century America—including the Mormons, Christian Scientists,
and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, among others—I have found the Seventh-day
Adventists to be the most intriguing. As a student and an interested
observer for more than twenty-five years, my first studies in Adventist history
and theology came about when I was an undergraduate student at Concordia
University (a Missouri Synod Lutheran educational institution in Southern
California). Enrolled in a religion course that focused upon cults and new
religious movements, I wrote a term paper on Seventh-day Adventism. In
particular, I evaluated the controversial position taken by the evangelical
counter-cult specialist Walter Martin. He claimed that Seventh-day
Adventism should not be classified as a non-Christian cult but rather as a
somewhat heterodox Christian church body.1
A few years later I had the privilege of
working closely with Dr. Martin at the Christian Research Institute (CRI),
an evangelical apologetics organization that specializes in the study of
cults and new religious movements. My duties included assisting Martin as a
research specialist on Seventh-day Adventism. With Martin’s encouragement
and support, that research ultimately led to my writing an updated
evangelical appraisal of Adventism in CRI’s Christian Research Journal. After Martin’s untimely death, I
also wrote “The Recent Truth About Seventh-day Adventism” for Christianity Today.2 These articles led to opportunities to dialogue with Adventist
scholars, pastors, and administrators at such places as Loma Linda
University, La Sierra University, and here at Andrews University. I also
interacted with the former editor of the Review and Herald and dialogued with a large number of Adventist
pastors from the Southeastern California Conference.
In light of the “Questions on Doctrine
50th Anniversary Conference,” I’d like to publicly thank my Adventist
friends for inviting me to participate and for their continued openness to
discuss issues relating to biblical truth. I hope this conference leads to
more open and frank discussion about where evangelical Protestants and
Seventh-day Adventists agree and disagree on important theological matters.
Before remarking specifically about some
of the theological issues relevant to the relationship between Adventists
and evangelicals, I want to provide a few personal insights about Walter
Martin and his relationship to Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895-1960). I will
also offer a brief qualification of Martin’s personal theological views in
contrast to Barnhouse. In addition, I also want to note Martin’s view of
the Adventists leaders that he met with in the 1950s and convey the
significance that Martin placed on those historic meetings.
I’ve come to conclude that Walter Martin
viewed Barnhouse in much the same way I view Martin. One of Martin’s early
teachers in the Christian faith, Barnhouse not only served as Martin’s boss
at Eternity magazine, but was
also a spiritual and intellectual mentor and a supportive friend. Martin
viewed Barnhouse as a courageous and insightful Christian thinker,
preacher, and apologist.
Walter was one of my first teachers in
the Christian faith. In working with him, he was a type of mentor to me as
well as to many other young evangelicals interested in studying new
religious movements. Many consider him today to be the father of the
counter-cult apologetics movement within evangelicalism. I especially
admired Martin for his courage to stand up for the truth of historic Christianity.
A number of Adventist sources have
identified Barnhouse and Martin as being Calvinistic in their theology as
well as embracing certain dispensational doctrinal distinctives.3 While that description holds true for Barnhouse, it is not true of
Martin, at least not the Martin I knew since the late 1970s.
When it came to the classic
Calvinism-Arminianism theological debate, Martin was quite fond of
referring to himself as a “Cal-minian.” As long as I knew him, he was
always very critical of the traditional Reformed theological system. I know
this because I am a card-carrying Calvinist (a member of the conservative
United Reformed Churches of North America, URC) and Martin and I differed
over some of the relevant theological issues. I think Martin’s understanding
of, and appreciation for, the more Wesleyan-Arminian tradition within
Christian history allowed him to relate more easily to Adventist theology.
Martin was certainly more sympathetic to non-Calvinistic theological
systems than were 1950s evangelical scholars Anthony Hoekema and J. K. Van
Baalen who were staunchly Reformed in their theology.
Martin was also quite critical of the
eschatological distinctives of traditional dispensationalism. For example,
he rejected dispensational premillennialism in favor of the historic
premillennialism as set forth by the evangelical New Testament scholar
George Eldon Ladd.
Martin spoke very highly of his Adventist
friends, specifically leaders such as Leroy Froom, W. E. Read, and
especially R. A. Anderson. Though Martin vigorously differed with them over
some important doctrinal issues, he considered these men to be genuine
brothers in Christ. He respected their intellectual and spiritual
integrity. Martin once said that he considered the evangelical-Adventist dialogues
and his subsequent theological assessment that Seventh-day Adventism was a
heterodox yet Christian church body to be one of the most significant
accomplishments of his career and ministry. I think he would be both
surprised and pleased to hear of this conference.
Adventist Theological Development
One of the most intriguing features about
Seventh-day Adventism is that unlike Mormonism, Christian Science, and
Jehovah’s Witnesses; the Adventist movement has shifted toward historic
Christian and biblical orthodoxy. Some contemporary Seventh-day Adventists
would no doubt be aghast to discover that their church was once widely
considered a theological cult (at least in conservative evangelical
circles). A liberal Adventist scholar once even scolded Martin and me for
making judgments about his church’s orthodoxy.
However, theologically speaking, the
Adventist pioneers made some very bold claims that according to Scripture
must be tested for their compatibility with biblical faith (Gal. 1:6-9; 1
Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1-4; Jude 3). These early Adventists proclaimed to be
“a special people, with a special message, for a special time!” They also
declared themselves to be the “remnant church” that uniquely kept the
commandments of God. In addition, they asserted that God was providing
unique guidance to the early Adventists through the prophetic voice of
Ellen G. White.
However, closer historical and
theological examinations reveal that the beliefs that coalesced to form
primitive Seventh-day Adventism, in the wake of the failed Millerite
movement, were far from biblically orthodox. The theological views of the
primitive Adventist movement (though hardy unified and systematic)
reflected a non- or anti-Trinitarian view of God, a semi-Arian Christology,
a message of restorationism, and a strongly legalistic understanding of the
gospel. From the standpoint of historic Christian or creedal orthodoxy, the
primitive Adventist movement was a theologically cultic movement or a
heretical sect in its basic theology. Several present-day Adventist
scholars have clearly documented that these sub-Christian doctrinal views
were present, if not prominent, at various stages within early Adventist
history.4
And yet, the next century saw Adventism’s
doctrinal views undergo analysis and change. Ellen G. White apparently
played an important, if not critical, role in helping the Adventist church
move toward theological orthodoxy. It has ultimately embraced a fully
Trinitarian theology with an orthodox understanding of the person and
nature of Christ and a belief that Christ’s righteousness in the atonement
is granted to the believer through faith alone.5
This movement toward historic
Christianity on the part of Ellen G. White and Seventh-day Adventism sets
them apart from the heretical sects of the nineteenth century. Joseph
Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and Charles Russell were leaders of religious
movements that repudiated historic Christianity. They desired to implement
a heretical restorationism accompanied with a replacement prophet and often
a new text of scripture.
Walter Martin saw a stark contrast
concerning White and Adventist theology in his research of the religious
movements of nineteenth century America. While he rejected White’s
prophetic claims, Martin viewed her—unlike Smith, Eddy, and Russell—as a
genuine Christian believer. And while I do not accept Mrs. White’s claim to
have the spirit of prophecy, I do believe she, at minimum, had some good
biblical and theological instincts.
Martin’s conviction remains my own—that
one cannot be a true Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, or Christian Scientist and
be a practicing Christian in the biblical sense of the word. Those sects
proclaim a different God, a different Christ, and a different gospel (2
Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-9). But it is possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist
and a true follower of Jesus Christ despite certain distinctive Adventist
doctrines that most evangelical Protestants respectfully consider to be
unbiblical. I think many Adventist scholars would return the favor and say
something similar about me and my conservative Reformed theological
views.
Evangelical-Adventist Dialogues of the 1950s
It is ironic that the discussions between
the evangelicals and the Adventists in the 1950s, while intending to bring
unity, actually succeeded in sparking increased controversy both in the
evangelical ranks and within the Seventh-day Adventist church. Some
evangelical scholars on cults and new religious movements (both fifty years
ago and today) are not completely persuaded by Martin’s assessment of
Adventism,6 though
for the most part his position has carried the theological day among
evangelicals.
Within Adventism, the book Questions on Doctrine, in the words
of Adventist historian George R. Knight, “easily qualifies as the most
divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist history.” 7 It appears that much of the doctrinal controversy that divided
Adventists into competing “traditional” versus “evangelical” camps in the
1970s and 1980s can be traced to issues addressed in that book.
While fifty years later the doctrinal issues raised by the
evangelical-Adventist dialogues are still being debated, at least four
positive features resulted from those historic discussions:
- Martin and
Barnhouse set a good example for how to properly engage in Christian
apologetic and doctrinal discussion with other religious bodies.
Namely, go to the source. Martin could have played the role of an
armchair apologist and critic of Seventh-day Adventism and written his
books without any serious interaction with the Adventists. But what he
did was attempt to practice what I call the golden rule of
apologetics: “Treat other peoples’ beliefs and arguments the way you
want yours to be treated.”
A genuine Christian theological critique
of the viewpoints of others should be characterized by honesty, fair play,
and by the willingness to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. This
approach involves a willingness to read their statements of belief in the
best and truest light possible. However, to fulfill this high scholastic
calling, interaction is required. To be candid, as a non-Adventist, I
sometimes struggle to understand, let alone convey, the details and
subtleties of Adventist doctrine and practice. I’m therefore grateful to
the numerous Adventist scholars, pastors, and administrators who have
helped me better understand Seventh-day Adventism.
2. Martin and Barnhouse demonstrated rare
apologetic courage in publishing their controversial assessment of
Adventism when they knew it would undoubtedly create quite a stir in the
conservative Protestant evangelical ranks. Martin said that when they
revealed their findings in several editions of Eternity magazine, 25 percent of the magazine’s subscribers
withdrew their subscriptions. How many Christian publications today would
be willing to take such a risk? Evangelical Christian organizations often
avoid controversial doctrinal issues lest they lose financial support.
3. The basic openness and honesty of the
Adventists who met with Martin in the 1950s should be applauded. While I’m
aware that some Adventist scholars today believe that “Freada” were less
than completely candid in representing certain Adventist distinctive
doctrines (for example, the fallen nature of Christ),8 I think
they were engaged in a difficult task and overall represented the diversity
of Adventism well. The central goal of Questions
on Doctrine was to answer questions posed by evangelicals, not to
necessarily set forth a systematic statement of Adventist beliefs (such as
is found in the later book Seventh-day
Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines).
As an educator, I’m impressed with the
question-and-answer format represented in Questions on Doctrine. As well, I appreciate the careful
summary of where Adventists agree with other conservative Christian groups
and where their views are distinctly their own.
4. As an interested outsider with my nose
pressed to the window, I see quite a bit of theological diversity within
Seventh-day Adventism. In some ways it reminds me of present-day
evangelicalism. One strand of Adventism appears quite traditional, another
very liberal, and still another distinctly evangelical. There also seems to
be a segment that is atheological in nature and reflects what I would call
a cultural Adventism.
The strand of Adventism that Martin and I
most identified with is evangelical Adventism. If the use of the word
“evangelical” is too self-serving on my part, then maybe I could call it a
“gospel-oriented” Adventism. The word “evangelical” comes, of course, from
the Greek euangellion, which
means gospel or “good news.”
Gospel-oriented Adventists are indeed
genuine Adventists. They believe deeply that God raised the Seventh-day
Adventist church up for a special purpose—to usher in the Second Coming of
Christ. They also deeply respect and honor the seventh-day Sabbath. In
addition they believe that Ellen G. White possessed the spirit of prophecy.
However, gospel-oriented Adventists owe their final allegiance to the
authority of Scripture alone (sola
Scriptura). Ellen G. White’s writings are tested by Scripture and not
the reverse.
The doctrinal feature that sets this
branch of Adventism apart is its view of the gospel. Gospel-oriented
Adventists believe that their right standing before God rests not in their
own obedience to the Law of God, but rather they place their complete
confidence in Jesus Christ and in his perfect substitutionary atonement for
their sins on the cross.9 These
evangelically oriented Adventists believe that salvation comes solely by
grace, through faith alone, and only in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8-9). They
also believe that the Christian life is lived out passionately in gratitude
to God for his precious gift of salvation (Eph 2:10).
Evangelical Adventists also recognize
that Adventism’s important doctrinal distinctives of Sabbatarianism, the
spirit of prophecy, and the belief in the imminence of Christ’s Second
Coming are only made truly meaningful when a person fully embraces the
gospel of grace. Evangelical Adventists insist that if God raised their
church up for a special purpose, then they definitely can’t afford to get
the gospel message wrong.
The roots of this robust type of
Adventism go back to the nineteenth century and can be traced through the
Adventist leaders who dialogued with Barnhouse and Martin. I also see it
clearly articulated in the gospel presentation found in the classic
Adventist source known as Questions
on Doctrine. As the Seventh-day Adventist church continues its rapid
growth in the twenty-first century, I pray that God will bless the church
with an increasing number of Adventists who believe, teach, and live out
this grace-oriented understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Just before he died,
Walter Martin expressed to me a few concerns about the theological state of
affairs within Adventism, as he saw it. He wondered whether Adventism
really stood behind the book Questions
on Doctrine, and, if so, why the book had been allowed to go out of
print. He also expressed concern about whether Adventism had come to view
Ellen G. White as the infallible interpreter of Scripture. He was also
perplexed by the fact that leading evangelical Adventists such as Desmond
Ford and others had been fired by the church. Finally, he told me that he
was planning to write a new book on Seventh-day Adventism, and he asked me
to assist him on that project. The Lord willing, I am planning to write a
book that will offer an updated evangelical assessment of Adventism that
will build upon Martin’s important work.
In retrospect,
Walter Martin had a significant and abiding influence upon the Adventist
church itself. He also greatly influenced how an entire generation of
evangelical Christians came to view Seventh-day Adventism.
In closing, I would like to publicly
thank my friend Julius Nam for writing an excellent dissertation on the
evangelical-Adventist dialogues. I would also like to thank George Knight
for his work in getting Questions on
Doctrine back into print and for his helpful introduction and notes
contained in the volume. Walter Martin, a friend and critic of Seventh-day
Adventism, would be quite pleased to see the new edition of this book.
Thank you.
|