“In order to
endure the trial before them, they must understand the will of God as revealed
in His Word; they can honour Him only as they have a right conception of His
character, government, and purposes, and act in accordance with them." The Great Controversy, 593.
“The humanity
of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our
souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our study. Christ was
a real man; He gave proof of His humility in becoming a man. Yet He was God in
the flesh. When we approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words
spoken by Christ to Moses at the burning bush, "Put off thy shoes from off
thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground" (Ex. 3:5).
{1SM 244}
My
vision on the humanity of Christ is presented in this part 11 in the series on
God’s character of Love and His final strange act. Over the years I have been
shown the following facts on the human nature of Jesus Christ.
·
The
purposes for Christ taking upon Himself our sinful human nature, were as
follows:
1) Christ was the second Adam to
prove that man need never have sinned. Whereby one man (Adam) all sinned, so by
one Man (Christ) all who will confess Him, will be saved.
2) In the Sanctuary Atonement, there
was a heavenly sacrifice and an earthly one. The heavenly involved a form of
eternal death of the Testator, by forever divesting His humanity from His
DIVINE ONLY HOLY SPIRIT PERSON.
3) The earthly part of the Sanctuary
Atonement Service was necessary for Christ to overcome temptation to sin unto
death, as well as the blood sacrifice of the sprinkling of blood. The life is
in the blood, and the Son had to be faithful unto the spilling of His blood,
and unto His death, at which time He experienced such separation from the
Father, that He could not see beyond the portal of the tomb, to wit:
“Satan
with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour
could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not
present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the
Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to
God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no
longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father’s wrath upon Him as man’s
substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the
Son of God.” {DA 753.2}
4)
The second and final choice to remain human forever,
occurred on the cross just before Christ bowed His head and died. He then
committed His Divine Holy Spirit to the Father as a gift to man. Henceforth, He
could never again return to His former state of being DIVINE ONLY. The first
“death” was His heavenly Incarnation Sanctuary Atonement at which time His
Divine Nature Holy Spirit was divested from His humanity. The second and final
“death” to His former state of being Divine only was on the cross.
·
New
Movement Adventism has come up with many false definitions of the Human Nature of
Christ since its conversations with the Evangelicals in the mid-1950’s.
·
The
SDA New Movement told the world via Ministry
and Questions on Doctrine, that
Christ took the nature of Adam BEFORE the fall. That is an antichrist lie.
·
The
Lord has shown me that the following history on this issue of the Human Nature
of Christ, by Vance Ferrell, a former SDA Minister, is correct.
In
the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
Ronald
William Beaulieu
From its earliest
days, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has taught that, when God partook of
humanity, He took, not the perfect, sinless nature of man before the fall, but
the fallen, sinful, offending, weakened, degenerated nature of man after the
fall of Adam.
The inclinations and
tendencies to sin that are in fallen man's flesh were in His flesh; but that,
by complete dependence upon His Father, His mind held its integrity and never
by a shadow of a thought responded to the weakness or sinful cravings of the
flesh.
This view of Christ's
human nature in no way denied or contradicted the Church's stand on the
complete Deity and absolute sinlessness of Jesus Christ.
As late as 1949, this
was the accepted teaching of the Church as presented in denominationally
published lesson quarterlies, books, and periodicals.
But, during the
fifteen-year period between 1940 and 1955, the words, "sinful" and
"fallen," with reference to Christ's human nature were largely
eliminated from denominationally published materials.
Since 1952, phrases
such as "sinless human nature," "nature of Adam before the
fall," and "human nature defiled" have taken the place of the
former terminology. These phrases are interpreted to mean that the human nature
of Christ was "sinful," "fallen," or
"degenerated," only in the sense of weakness and frailty of the
physical organism. It is
said that these weaknesses and frailties of the physical organism were not
innately and intrinsically a part of Christ's human body but were borne vicariously.
Let us now consider,
in more detail, the history of the changeover in the doctrine of the human
nature of Christ in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
This great truth about
the human nature of Christ was shared by the pioneer writers in the Advent
movement. Here are a few examples, penned by some of the leading men in our
church:
"[Jesus] was made
in all things like unto those whom He came to save. In all points He was made
like His brethren. And what the Law could not do, Christ came in the likeness
of sinful flesh to do .By His life He has shown that sin in the flesh is
condemned, and He has destroyed it, for in Him the body of sin is destroyed .He
has taken away this sinful nature, taken it upon Himself that we might be
delivered from !t." E. J. Waggoner. General Conference Bulletin, 1891.
"The garment was
woven in Jesus, in the same flesh that you and I have, for He took part of the
same flesh and blood that we have. In my flesh; it was my flesh that He had, It
was your flesh that He had. The Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I
stand, in the flesh in which I live," A. T. Jones, General
Conference-Bulletin 1893
"Christ came the
first time, clothed with humanity, taking not upon Himself the nature of
angels, but the seed of Abraham, that He might be made, like ourselves, subject
to temptation, pain, and death, that by His connection with humanity He might
sympathize with His fallen creatures," S, H. Haskell. Bible Echo, March
15, 1889.
"Very few of us
realize how nearly the Divine nature approached the human in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth. More properly speaking, it is impossible for us even to
conceive of the infinite condescension that was necessary in order that the Son
of God, the associate of the Father, should appear in mortal flesh and
participate in human experiences, with all their trials and weaknesses. But 'He was tempted in all points like as we
are': consequently, He must have partaken of our nature. Should any think this
expression too strong, let them read verse 16 of Hebrews 2: 'For verily He took
not on Him the nature of angels; but. He took on Him the seed of Abraham.’ His
faultless life under those circumstances becomes a constant reprover of our
sins as well as an encouragement to our weakness." G. C. Tenney,
editorial, Bible Echo, April 15, 1889.
"By partaking of
our nature, His human arm encircles the fallen race." Stephen Haskell,
Bible Echo, February 15, 1892.
"He took upon Him
sinful flesh to suffer and die for guilty man. "A. W. Semmens, Bible Echo,
April 15, 1892.
"But if He [Christ] comes no nearer to us than in sinless nature,
that is a long way off. It is true He is holy; He is altogether holy. But His
holiness is not that kind that makes Him afraid to be in company with people
who are not holy, for fear He will get His holiness spoiled." A. T. Jones,
General Conference Bulletin, 1895.
"The second Adam
came not at the point where the first Adam stood when he failed, but at the point at which mankind
stood at the end of four thousand years of degeneracy. "A. T.
Jones, Review, February 18, 1896.
"So you see that
what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the
same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin; flesh, however, in which He did
not sin. But He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. And what flesh could
He take but the flesh of the time? Not only that, but it was the very flesh He
designed to take; because, you see, the problem was to help man out of the
difficulty into which he had fallen, and man is a free moral agent. He must be
helped as a free moral agent. Christ's work must be, not to destroy him, not to
create a new race, but...to recreate man, to.. restore him in the image of
God." W. W. Prescott, Bible Echo, January 6, 1896.
In the section, just
below, we will quote more extensively from that sermon by W. W. Prescott.
"He did not come to this world and take
upon Himself Adam's condition, but He stepped down lower, to meet man as he is,
weakened by sin, polluted in his own iniquity. " Stephen Haskell, Signs,
April 2, 1896.
"Infinitely
superior in every respect to Boaz, yet He stooped to marry the lost race.
" E. Farnsworth, Signs, May 6, 1897.
"[Waggoner:] We
begin with the ninth verse:
'We see Jesus.' Where
are we looking?
"[Voice:] To man
in his fallen state.
"[Waggoner:] Yes,
our gaze is directed to man's first dominion; as we look, we see him fail, and
still looking, we see Jesus taking man's fallen condition. " E. J.
Waggoner, General Conference Bulletin, 1897.
"He brought
divinity from the courts of glory into fallen humanity. "S. N. Haskell,
Signs, January 17, 1900.
And that this is
likeness to man as He is in His flesh, sinful nature, and not as He was in His
original [heavenly] sinless nature, is made certain by the Word: 'We see Jesus
who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death.'
Therefore, as man is since he became subject to death; this is what we see
Jesus to be, in His place, as man." A. T. Jones, Consecrated Way to
Christian Perfection.
"Moreover, the
fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of
sinful man; that is, the flesh which He assumed and all the weaknesses and
sinful tendencies to which fallen nature is subject, is shown by the statement
that He 'was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.' " E. J.
Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 27.
Many, many more
examples could be cited! (Later in this present book, we will document the
change that later occurred in Bible
Readings.)
On Sunday
evening, October 31, 1895, W. W. Prescott preached a powerful sermon on the nature
of Christ, at the Armadale camp meeting, in Victoria, Australia. It contained
25 statements, that Christ took our nature in His birth and life on this
planet. Notice in that sermon, Prescott stated that Christ did not take the
unfallen nature of Adam.
Ellen White was
present and heard that sermon; and, in eight manuscripts and letters, soon
after expressed grateful appreciation for that lecture (MS 19,23,47, and 52,
1895; and Letter 25,32,83, and 84, 1895). It was only a couple months later
that she wrote that letter to W. L. H. Baker, which we will discuss shortly,
reproving him for teaching that Christ had sinned.
Prescott's sermon was
printed in the January 6 and 13, 1896, issues of the Bible Echo (our Australian
journal). Here are portions of that History of the Changeover sermon. You will
see why she valued it so highly:
"That through
death, being made subject to death, 'taking upon Him the flesh of sin, He might, by His dying,
destroy him that had the power of death [Heb. 2: 16, quoted] . So you see that what the Scripture states
very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh
of sin, flesh in which we sin, flesh, however, in which He did not sin, but He
bore our sins in that flesh of sin. Do not set this point aside.
"God made man a
little lower than the angels, but man fell much lower by his sin. Now he is far
separated from God; but he is to be brought back again. Jesus Christ came for
that work: and in order to do it, He came, not where man was before he fell,
but where man was after he fell. Jesus
Christ comes right down to where he is, and meets him there. He takes his flesh
and becomes a brother to him. Jesus Christ is a brother to us in the flesh; He
was born into the family.
"He came and took
the flesh of sin that this family had brought upon itself by sin, and wrought
out salvation for them, condemning sin in the flesh. To redeem man from the place into which he
had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity;
He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and
failed.
"Christ came, and
after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed
Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh
in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrously glad that it is
so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus
Christ is my brother in the flesh, 'for which cause He is not ashamed to call
them brethren' (Heb. 2: 11). He has come into the family, identified Himself
with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As
father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family,
condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin." 'For
there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'
(1 Tim. 2:5). There is a man in heaven now, the man Christ Jesus, bearing our
human nature; but it is no longer a flesh of sin; it is glorified. Having come
here and lived in a flesh of sin, He died; and in that He died, He died unto
sin; and in that He lives, He lives unto God. When He died, He freed Himself
from the flesh of sin, and He was raised glorified.Jesus Christ, our own
brother, the man Christ Jesus, is in heaven, living to make intercession for us
"This union of
the divine and the human has brought Jesus Christ very near to us. There is not
one too low down for Christ to be there with him. He identified Himself
completely with this human family. One version reads, 'Inasmuch as ye have done
it unto one of the least of these My little brothers, ye have done it unto Me.'
Christ looks upon everyone of the human family as His. When humanity suffers,
he suffers. He is humanity; He has joined Himself to this family.
Jesus Christ thus
united Himself with the human family, that He might be with us by being in us,
just as God was with Him by being in Him. The very purpose of His work was that
He might be in us, and that, as He represented the Father, so the children, the
Father, and the Elder Brother might be united in Him.
" 'Lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world' (Matt. 28:20). By being in us, He is
with us alway, and that this might be possible, that He might be in us, He came
and took our flesh. This also is the way in which the holiness of Jesus works.
He had a holiness that enabled Him to come and dwell in sinful flesh, and help
sinful flesh by His presence in it; and that is what He did, so that when He
was raised from the dead, He was glorified. His purpose was that having
purified sinful flesh by His indwelling presence, He might now come and purify
sinful flesh in us, and glorify us. He 'shall change our Vile body. that it may
be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He
is able even to subdue all things unto Himself' (Phil. 3:21).
"Let us enter
into the experience that God has given Jesus Christ to us to dwell in our
sinful flesh, to work out in our sinful flesh what He worked out when He was
here. He came and lived here that we might through Him reflect the image of
God. This is the very heart of Christianity.
"By following
where He leads, we shall know what Christian experience is, and what it is to
dwell in the light of His presence. I tell you, this is a wondrous truth. Human
language cannot put more into human thought or language than is said in these
words: 'The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,' This is our salvation.
Nothing short of it will meet what we have to meet, the world, the flesh, and
the devil. But He that is for us is mightier than he that is against us. Let us
have in our daily lives Jesus Christ, 'the Word' that 'became flesh,' "W.
W. Prescott, Sermon given October 31, 1895; printed in Bible Echo, January 6,
13, 1896.
"Therefore, just
as certainly as we see Jesus lower than the angels, unto the suffering of
death, so certainly it is by this demonstration that, as man, Jesus took the
nature of man as he is since death entered: and not the nature of man as he was
before He became subject to death." A. T. Jones, General Conference
Bulletin, 1895.
E. J. Waggoner wrote,
"Here is the same mystery as that the Son of God should die. The spotless
Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted
as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. "E. J.
Waggoner. Christ and His Righteousness. 27-28 (1890).
"When sin
entered, death came; so when man sinned, death came upon him. God stayed with
him; therefore, in that He stayed with man. although man had sinned, God took
upon Himself sinful flesh. And so He took upon Himself death, for death had
passed upon all the world. "General Conference Bulletin, "Studies in
the Book of Hebrews" (Series by E. J. Waggoner. No. 4. Lincoln. Nebraska,
1897), 45. "Christ taking fallen, sinful humanity upon
"The fact that He
came in fallen humanity is an evidence of God's presence and His presence to
give life." Op. cit., 46.
Here are a few
examples:
"Over a period of
years this view of Christ's human nature continued to reach the majority of
church members through the medium of the Sabbath School Lesson quarterlies.
Sample quotations are given below.
"Many hold that
from the nature of Christ it was impossible for Satan's temptations to weaken
or overthrow Him. Then Christ could not have been placed in Adam's position. to
go over the ground where Adam stumbled and fell; He could not have gained the
victory that Adam failed to gain. If man has in any sense a more trying
conflict to endure than had Christ. then Christ is not able to succor him when
tempted. Christ took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of
man, capable of yielding to temptation; and. with the same aid that man may
obtain, He withstood the temptations of Satan and conquered the same as we may
conquer .He assumed human nature. being the infirmities and degeneracy of the
race. It is not true that humanity has trials to bear which the Son of God has
not experience." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Spirit
of Sacrifice" a special testimony (Senior Division, No. 41, Third Quarter.
1905, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association), 89.
Jesus was God acting
in sinful flesh on behalf of the sinner. He made Himself one with humanity.
"International Sabbath School Quarterly. "Baptism and Temptation of
Jesus, " Senior Division, No. 56, Second Quarter, 1909, Pacific Press, 20.
"By assuming
sinful flesh, and voluntarily making Himself dependent upon His Father to keep
Him from sin while He was in the world, Jesus not only set the example for all
Christians, but also made it possible for Him to minister for sinful flesh the
gift of His own Spirit and the power for obedience to the will of God.
"International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Incarnation and the
Priesthood" (Senior Division, No. 71, First Quarter. 1913. Pacific Press).
15.
"That Son took
the flesh of sinful man, and overcame where man failed, overthrew sin in the
flesh."International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Flesh and the
Spirit" (Senior Division, No. 75. First Quarter, 1914, Pacific Press), 16.
"Christ assumed,
not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity. In this second experiment.
He stood not precisely where Adam before Him had, but as has already been said,
with intense odds against Him. ."International Sabbath School Quarterly.
"The Purpose of the Incarnation" (Senior Division. No.103. First
Quarter. 1921), 248-249.
As the Son of man, He
accepted the limitations and conditions of our common humanity."
International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Last Adam" (Senior Division.
No.105. Third Quarter. 1921. Pacific Press). 3.
"Christ took upon
Himself the infirmities and sins of the flesh. but to every sin He died, every
lust He crucified, every selfish desire He denied Himself—and all for our
sakes." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Godly Life"
(Senior Division, No. 112, Second Quarter, 1923, Pacific Press), 22.
In 1924, Southern
Publishing Association published a book by our evangelist, Carlyle B. Haynes,
in which (on pages 80, 83) he unequivocally states that as a people we believe
and teach that Christ took sinful. fallen flesh. He points out that there
really was no need for Christ to come at all unless He was to take such flesh.
Through the efforts of
colporteur evangelists, this Seventh-day Adventist teaching regarding Christ's
human nature entered thousands of non-Adventist homes tucked between the covers
of Bible Readings for the Home Circle. This book, under the heading, A Sinless
Life," contained the following note:
.. 'In His humanity Christ
partook of our sinful. fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto
His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome
as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour
man needs and must have to be saved. On His human side, from His very
conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit." Bible Readings For the
Home, Review and Herald, 174 (1942).
It was apparently with
a similar view of Christ's sinful flesh but sinless life that L. A. Wilcox
wrote in the Signs of the Times in 1927: He came where I was, He stood in my
place. In His veins was the incubus of a tainted heredity like a caged lion
ever seeking to break forth and destroy. For four thousand years the race had
been deteriorating in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth:
and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of humanity at its worst."
Llewellen Wilcox, Signs of the Times, March, 1927.
"In every
temptation that assails, it is strength to know that just such a temptation in
all its overwhelming force attacked Him in unexpected times and ways; and that,
with equal tendencies toward evil, in spite of bad blood and inherited
meanness, by the same power to which I have access, He conquered." Ibid.
Like A. T. Jones and others, even while expressing this view of Christ's
humanity, Elder Wilcox believed in the perfect sinlessness of Jesus Christ.
(See Walter R. Martin, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1960],8687.
" 'Seventh-day
Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a 'sinful
nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful
above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach
'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour
that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the
Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that
He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' "Frances D. Nichol, Answers to
Objections, Review and Herald, 1952,389.
In part, the author
replied that the "distinguishing mark of fallen mankind (that is, a
deceitful heart or mind) is not necessarily involved in the possession of a
human nature that is capable of sin" (op. cit., 392). He cites as an
example, Adam, who as a human being was capable of sin but who did not sin
until he exercised his will in the wrong direction.
"In other words,
Adventists believe that Christ, the 'last Adam,' possessed on His human side, a
nature like that of the 'first man Adam,' a nature free from every defiling
taint of sin, but capable of responding to sin, and that nature was handicapped
by the debilitating effects of four thousand years of sin's inroads on man's
body and nervous system and environment," Ibid.. 393.
In 1950, Southern
Publishing Association printed the book, Drama of the Ages. Authored by the
General Conference president, William Branson, this book was distributed and
sold all over the English-speaking world. On page 70 of this missionary book,
Branson wrote that Christ "had taken upon Himself the nature of fallen
man."
STEP ONE: THE CHANGE IN BIBLE READINGS
On page 174 of the
1915 edition of Bible Readings, a
note was added to the chapter, A Sinless Life." which clearly stated that
Christ took our nature.
But in the late 1940s,
the decision was made to revise Bible Readings. On pages 143-144 of the 1949
edition, that note was changed to a different one which downplayed the idea
that Christ took our nature. It questioned "how far that 'likeness' (to
sinful flesh) goes."
So, in this new
edition the statement, which had circulated with the book for thirty years, was
omitted because "it was recognized as being out of harmony with our true
position" (Roy A. Anderson. "Human- Not Carnal"; The Ministry,
September. 14, 1946). It was replaced by the following statement:
"Jesus Christ is
both Son of God and Son of man. As a member of the human family 'it behoved Him
to be made like unto His brethren' in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Just how
far that 'likeness' goes is a mystery of the incarnation which men have never
been able to solve."Bible Readings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1949). 143.
In that same September
1956, Ministry magazine article. Anderson discussed the revision in Bible
Readings, and gave the reason why the change had been made—because
non-Adventists did not like it!
"In fact, this
particular point in Adventist theology had drawn severe censure from many
outstanding Biblical scholars both inside and outside our ranks. "Ibid.
R. A. Anderson went on
to state that the idea that on His human side Christ partook of man's sinful,
fallen nature was eliminated because it did not represent our "true
position" (see Ministry. September 1956. 12-14).
Although that
statement had first appeared in Bible Readings in 1915. we have observed that
it correctly represented our "true position," held down through the
years from the time of our earliest pioneers. In addition, the terms
"sinful nature" and "fallen nature" were repeatedly in the
writings of Ellen G. White.
(For your information,
in our own edition of Bible Readings, initially released in the late 1980s, we
included that 1915 note in the chapter. "A Sinless Life." This
happens to be the lowest-cost Bible Readings available anywhere. And is also
the first Bible Readings in history to include a Scripture Index—which the book
has always obviously needed. The main print size is also slightly larger than
the $50 colporteur edition!)
STEP
TWO: THE EVANGELICAL CONFERENCES
As Walter Martin and
Donald Barnhouse later wrote in Evangelical magazines. the conferences (many of
which were held at our General Conference building in Washington. D.C.) began
when Martin, a Baptist writer, approached our leaders and told them he was
going to write an in-depth book, exposing the doctrinal errors of our
denomination.
As he later wrote,
they entered into a series of discussions with him that lasted two years,
during which they vigorously denied that the Adventist denomination still held
to earlier doctrines which the Evangelicals did not like. It was obvious that
the men on the other side of the table were determined to gain acceptance by
Protestants!
"There were
eighteen conferences, lasting one to three days and usually with three sessions
a day. These were held periodically, in Washington, D.C., Reading [Pa.].
Philadelphia, and New York City over a period of eighteen months.," L. E.
Froom, Movement of Destiny. 477.
The two men in charge
of what became a doctrinal sellout were Leroy Edwin Froom and Roy Allen
Anderson. Martin would come to the meetings with questions to be answered; and
in collaboration with Anderson, Froom would write those answers. Anderson's key
work was keeping Reuben Figuhr, the General Conference president, contented
with the progress of the conferences.
Froom later described
the first conference: "The first conference with Martin and Cannon [Dr.
George Cannon. Greek professor at a college in the Hudson Valley of New York],
followed by others, took place in an available office at our General Conference
headquarters, in Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. Martin came armed with a
formidable list of definitely hostile and slanted questions, most of them drawn
from well-known critics of Seventh-day Adventists among them the inevitable
Canright, on down to the late defector, E. B. Jones." Op. cit, 479.
The outcome of the Evangelical Conferences and the book which, in
agreement with Martin, the Review published radically altered church doctrine for
all time to come.
That book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (commonly
referred to as Questions on Doctrine), undermined our historic teaching on the
atonement, the nature of Christ, and several other points.
"On a [Martin's]
second visit [to the General Conference], he was presented with scores of pages
of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived
that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which
had been previously attributed to them.
"He pointed out
to them that in their bookstore adjoining the building [The ABC on Carroll
Avenue] in which these meetings were taking place, a certain volume published
by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary
to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that
Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of
the General conference officers, that this situation might be remedied and such
publications be corrected.
"This same
procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh which
the majority of the denomination has always held to be sinless. holy, and
perfect despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten
into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the church at large.
They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain
members of their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar wild-eyed
irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity. This action of the
Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of similar steps that were taken
subsequently." Donald Grey Barnhouse, Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?
A New Look at Seventh-day Adventists, Eternity magazine. September. 1956.
Barnhouse had founded
Eternity magazine, which had proven to be a very successful interdenominational
publishing venture. His organization had sponsored Martin's talks with the
Adventists. In September 1956, this (in their own words) "bombshell
article" came off the presses. Fortunately for our leaders, few of our
people ever heard about it. Both Barnhouse and Martin wrote articles in it,
exposing the Adventist doctrinal sellout, and promising that the Adventists
planned to publish a book, which would discuss their new doctrinal positions.
In the above quoted
statement, you will note that our leaders used a confusion of terms to get
their point across. They told Martin that our people always believed Christ was
sinless, which is true. But they said it in such a way that Martin believed
they said that Christ had a sinless nature. Martin, who had a powerful mind,
was a fast reader, had something of a photographic memory, and had scanned
through many of our books, including those by Ellen White.
Our men assured him
that statements about a "sinful nature" or "fallen nature"
would henceforth not be found in our new publications.
And this was done. In
the years since the mid-1950s, "sinful nature" has seldom if ever
appeared in our journals and new books. At the same time, terms such as Adam's
nature" and "sinless nature" have appeared more frequently.
STEP
THREE: THE MINISTRY MAGAZINE ARTICLES
As head of the
Ministerial Association, R. A. Anderson was editor-in-chief of Ministry
magazine, which is published for our ministers and workers, worldwide.
In 1956 and 1957. a
series of articles, intended to soften the blow for the changeover, were
released. Here are some examples:
"Christ did
indeed partake of our nature, our human nature with all its physical
limitations, but not of our
carnal nature with all its lustful corruptions.
"His was not a
corrupt, carnal nature. When He took upon Him sinless human nature, He did not cease to be God,
for He was God manifest in the flesh! "Roy A. Anderson, "Human. Not
Carnal." Ministry magazine, September 1956.
"He was indeed a
man, but withal He was God manifested in the flesh. True, He took our human
nature, that is, our physical form, but He did not possess our sinful
propensities." R. A. Anderson, "God With Us." Ministry. April,
1957.
"When God became
man He partook of the same
moral nature that Adam possessed before the fall. Adam was created holy,
and so was Christ. for He became the second Adam. "R. A. Anderson.
"Human. Not Carnal." ibid.
"When the
incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race. it is our
understanding that He
possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam was created in Eden.
"R. A. Anderson. "God with Us, " ibid,
These quotations,
illustrating a comparatively recent emphasis upon the perfection and
"sinlessness" of Christ's human nature, present a striking contrast
to earlier statements on this subject. For example, the Sabbath School lesson
for May 17, 1913, entitled, "God Manifest in the Flesh," quoted a
Roman Catholic statement; and, then, stated unequivocally that it was erroneous:
"God the Son. by
assuming this perfect human nature, which He took from the blessed virgin. was
born in the flesh, "Catholic Belief, 208.
"Thus, by
shutting Christ away from the same flesh and blood which we have (compare Heb.
2: 14), modern Babylon really denies the vital truth of Christianity. although
pretending to teach it. Such is the mystery of iniquity," International
Sabbath School Quarterly, "God Manifested in the Flesh" (Senior
Division, No. 72, Second Quarter, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 1913), 26.
"By its dogma
concerning the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, the Roman Catholic
Church gives to the Son of God in the incarnation a 'perfect human nature: and
thereby separates Him from those He came to save.
"This denial of the perfect union of
Christ with sinful flesh opens the way for a series of subsidiary mediators
whose duty it is to bring the sinner into saving touch with Christ."
International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Incarnation and the
Priesthood" (Senior Division. No. 71, First Quarter, Oakland: Pacific
Press Publishing Association, 1913), 14.
The belief that Christ had the "sinless"
human nature of Adam before the fall rather than the "sinful"
nature of fallen man is clearly expressed in an article in a Ministry magazine
article, entitled, "The Immaculate Christ. "
"Before Adam
fell, he was pure and clean, without taint of sin. He possessed human nature,
undefiled, as God created it. When Jesus, 'the second man: 'the last Adam' (1
Cor. 15:4547), came. in addition to His divine nature. He also possessed human nature. undefiled, as God
originally created it." Earnest W. Cox. "The Immaculate
Christ," Ministry, December, 1957. 10,
From 1955 to 1958, the
present writer attended our Seminary which at that time was next door to the
General Conference building. where many of the Evangelical Conferences were held.
We were beginning to hear hints of the doctrinal changeover in the classes;
and, outside of class, students were quietly discussing the matter.
When the
"bombshell" Eternity article came out. as well as the 1956 and 1957
Ministry magazine articles, everyone—students and faculty were quietly sending
for copies, The present writer
argued many times with Edward Heppenstall in various classes over some of these
changes, but to no avail.
STEP
FOUR: QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Leroy Edwin Froom
(18901974) was held in the highest respect at the General Conference. As their
in-house theologian and church historian, he had produced the 4-volume Faith of
Our Fathers and the 2-volume Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers. During and
following the Evangelical Conferences, which on the Adventist side Froom led
out in, Walter Martin also viewed him with the highest respect. especially
since it was obvious that Froom, the pivotal Adventist leader in the talks,
went out of his way to doctor our teachings so they would be received by the
Evangelicals.
As part of the
agreement. Martin's forthcoming book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists,
exonerating us as "Christians," was to be released at the same time as
a book published by the Review, titled Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions
on Doctrine.
When Questions on
Doctrine was released in 1957, Roy Anderson, who was extremely influential,
arranged for thousands of free copies to be mailed to every Christian college
and seminary in the world. Multiplied thousands of free copies were also mailed
to various denominational headquarters, leaders, and local pastors. The cost of
all this (Questions on Doctrine was a full-size, cloth-bound book) was immense,
"Many thousands of copies
have been placed with clergymen and theology teachers not of our faith in a few
instances thousands in a single conference. And they have had their wholesome
effect. Its total circulation by 1970 had exceeded 138,OOO." L. E.
Froom, Movement of Destiny, 489.
Note
by Ron: It should be pointed out that Vance Ferrell DOES NOT hold new movement
MEMBERS corporately responsible for any of the many abominations he cites. Nor
does he hold them corporately responsible for the Trinity Doctrine. Ellen White
says that it is IMPOSSIBLE to unite with the corrupt and become pure. Vance
DOES NOT concur with Ellen White. End note.
In Questions on
Doctrine, Froom (the author of the book) very skillfully explained away the
fact that Ellen White used the words, "sinful," "fallen,"
and "deteriorated" human nature" in referring to Christ:
"It could hardly
be construed, however, from the record of either Isaiah or Matthew, that Jesus
was diseased or that He experienced frailties to which our fallen human nature
is heir. But He did bear all this. Could it not be that He bore this
vicariously also, just as He bore the sins of the whole world?
"These
weaknesses, frailties, infirmities. failings are things which we, with our
sinful, fallen natures, have to bear. To us they are natural, inherent; but
when He bore them, He took them not as something innately His, but He bore them
as our substitute. He bore them in His perfect, sinless nature. Again, we
remark, Christ bore all this vicariously, just as vicariously He bore the
iniquities of us all.
"It is in this
sense that all should understand the writings of Ellen G. White when she refers
occasionally to sinful, fallen, and deteriorated human nature." Op. cit..
59-60..
Froom here puts words
in the mouth of Ellen White, trying to make her say that Christ did not take
our nature, but that He only took it "vicariously" as our
"substitute." The dictionary defines vicarious as "experienced
or enjoyed by imaginary sharing in the experience of another."
Anyone acquainted with
L. E. Froom's writings knew he was a master of vocabulary. Here is a companion
statement in that book:
': All that Jesus
took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or
the diseases and frailties of our human nature all was taken and borne
vicariously. Just as bearing vicariously the sins of the whole world did not
taint His perfect, sinless soul, neither did bearing the diseases and frailties
of our fallen nature taint Him in the slightest degree with the corrupting influences
of sin." Op. cit. 61-62.
The following passage
from the book clearly teaches the error that Christ took an immaculate nature
rather than the nature you and I inherit:
"Although born in
the flesh. He was nevertheless God. and was exempt from the inherited passions
and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam. He was 'without
sin,' not only in His outward conduct, but in His very nature. [He was] sinless
in His life and in His nature," Op. cit. 383.
Of course, we all believe that Christ never sinned. But, in the above
passage, Froom says that Christ inherited none of the negative factors which we
inherit.
From the beginning,
the two books (Martin's and ours) were to be released simultaneously, and to be
sold in each other's bookstores. But this did not happen. After ours was
released, extensive revisions were on Martin's book; it was not published until
three years later (1960). Because it contained so many attacks on Adventists,
our ABCs refused to carry it.
STEP
FIVE: FROOM'S MOVEMENT OF DESTINY
As Leroy Edwin Froom
neared the end of his life, he wrote a book reviewing doctrinal changes in our
denomination. In view of the very serious changes which have occurred, the book,
Movement of Destiny, could well have been called "Destiny of a Movement."
Published in 1971
(Froom died in 1974, at the age of 84), the book uses the same wordy style
found in Questions on Doctrine and his Faith of our Fathers books.
The first chapter of
Movement of Destiny is remarkable in the way it hints at so much. Froom was
obviously quite pleased with his central role, and he wanted the reader to
recognize the pivotal nature of his activities. He said he could not write the book until enough people had
died off. The book culminated in a defense of the Evangelical
Conferences, the "grand results" they produced.
Froom said he was
thankful that all his research resulted in opportunities to lecture before
various Protestant and Catholic groups; so they could recognize that we were,
indeed, Christians, sharing similar beliefs.
"The church
groups included Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Reformed,
Congregationist, United Brethren, and even Pentecostal and Unitarian faiths as
well as an organization of converted Roman Catholic priests. So I write from
personal knowledge, for I spoke to each of these groups.
"Universities
such as Marburg (Germany), Rutgers (N.J.), and Pittsburg (Pa.) extended unusual
invitations, with gratifying results from the presentation opportunities, with
question periods. And following these came various dialogues with Roman
Catholic student priests but groups and individual which were highly fruitful
and refreshingly frank. In one instance the contact was with thirty-eight
student priests-in-training for the Catholic University of America, in
Washington, D.C. an hour for presentation, and an hour for questions. Out of
this, smaller follow-up groups of five to eight. Later, I was privileged to
address a class of graduate students at the same 'Catholic .': on the same
theme. "L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 466.
Elsewhere in the book,
Froom says that Martin initially complained about four heretical notions; and
Froom set to work to clarify these: "According to Martin, the four leading
charges commonly brought against Adventism, dealt with in his article [in a
Protestant journal], were: "( 1) that the atonement of Christ was not
completed upon the cross; (2) that salvation is the result of grace plus the
works of the law; (3) that the Lord Jesus Christ was not a created being, not
from all eternity; (4) and that He partook of man's sinful fallen nature at the
incarnation.' "Op. cit., 473.
It is true that a few
of our 19th century writers advocated Arianism (point 3, above), but the other
positions are solid Adventism! Yet Froom set to work to change our historic
beliefs on each and every one of them.
He succeeded so well,
that Martin later wrote, in an Evangelical journal, as quoted below by Froom in
his book:
"Since there is
no conceivable doctrinal ground, in the light of verifiable evidence where the
fundamental tenets of the historic Gospel are concerned for refusing that
outstretched hand, I for one encourage the extension of our hand which will
usher in an new era of understanding and spiritual growth among the Church
which is Christ's body. "Walter Martin, quoted in L. E. Froom, Movement of
Destiny. 475.
Froom's book, Movement
of Destiny. gave added respectability to the doctrinal changes. in the eyes of
many of our church leaders and pastors. Yet he chopped up and twisted Spirit of
Prophecy quotations, in order to support his contention that Ellen White agreed
with his version of the human nature of Christ. Here is a sample:
" 'The reader has
now observed that the paragraph [in Movement of Destiny] opens with a title
line: 'Took Sinless Nature of
Adam before Fall. ' This heading is followed by nineteen statements
purporting to support its conclusion. Within each statement is a tiny quotation
fragment from Ellen White.
" 'But as Ellen
White wrote these quotations, not a single one of them says that Christ took
the nature of Adam before the fall, and some of them say exactly the
opposite! Three fragments are all taken
from the same paragraph in Ellen White's writings.[which] opens with the
unequivocal statement that Christ took the fallen nature of man!' "Ralph
Larson, Documentary Fraud, FF-26. p. 2.
So much for the
scholarship of Dr. Froom.
STEP SIX: JOHNSSON AND THE REVIEW
When, in the early
1980s, William Johnsson began as editor-in-chief of the Adventist Review, major
changeovers began to occur in our denominational paper.
Among other changes,
articles began appearing which recommended erroneous doctrines and lowered
standards. Photographs and drawings were printed which would never have been
seen in the Review in earlier decades.
Among the changes
which occurred were articles advocating the pre-fall nature of Christ. One
example of this was an article in the June 30, 1983, issue, authored by Norman
Gulley.
Gulley stated that "the church has never taken a stand for or
against one or the other" of the two positions on the human nature of
Christ.
You will recall, earlier in this present book, we quoted Morris Venden's
statement in Insight. that the fallen nature of Christ concept dovetailed with
that of the idea that sin was transgression of the law, and that we can
overcome sin in our lives now. Venden
said that he believed that sin is only a broken relationship with God.
In his Review article, Gulley took this same position, saying that the
definition of sin "is not so much a breaking of the law as it is a broken
relationship that leads to lawbreaking."
Note by Ron: A relationship with Christ must
involve love and faith (gold tried in the fire). There is a test for love and
faith. Christ says: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Those who claim to
be in relationship with Christ, WITHOUT HIS TEST, are deceiving themselves! End
note.
Thus both men switch
cause and effect. The Bible says that sin is the transgression of the law (1
John 3:4). That is the cause. The Bible also says that the effect of sin is the
broken relationship.
"But your
iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His
face from you, that He will not hear. "Isaiah 59:2.
It is bad enough that
doctrinal errors are printed in the pages of "the good old Review."
But, to make matters worse, no articles advocating the truth were printed!
STEP
SEVEN: THE 1983 GULLEY QUARTERLY AND BOOK
The senior
Sabbath School Quarterly for the First Quarter of 1983 was entitled Christ's
All-atoning Sacrifice. The lesson-help book which accompanied it bore the name,
Christ Our Substitute.
Both were written by
Norman R. Gulley, a religion teacher at Southern College (now Southern
University), in Collegedale, Tennessee.
In an attempt to
placate both sides while insidiously instilling error, Gulley taught that Christ had Adam's pre-fall nature,
combined with our post-fall physical infirmities.
"Christ took the
spiritual nature of man before the fall, and the physical nature of man after
the fall. "N. R. Gulley, Christ Our Substitute, 33.
If that is true, then He did not really take our nature. Repeatedly, the Bible
and Spirit of Prophecy said that Christ took our nature, and that it was a "fallen" nature;
yet, in that nature, He resisted temptation and sin. When the nature of Christ
is referred to in Scripture, it is moral issues which are dwelt upon, not
physical flaws.
Then Gulley uses another new theology argument: If Christ had really
taken our nature, He would have fallen into sin, since it is impossible for
mankind to stop sinning even with God's help!
"He [Christ] had
to identify Himself with us as far as His saving mission made it necessary. But
He could not go beyond the requirements of His mission or He would have needed
a Saviour Himself, and therefore His mission would have been a failure."
Op. cit, 38.
The idea here was to
"somehow save us," without Himself being caught by Satan.
Of course, the truth is that, if it is impossible to stop sinning, even
with God's help, then the law of God cannot be kept and Satan is right in the
great controversy after all!
In support of his
position, Gulley quotes a long (long!) list of pagans (Ovid, Euripides,
Senaeca, Epictetus, etc.), Catholics (Augustine, Methodius, etc.), and
Protestants (Hort, Moule, Barth, Barclay, Schweitzer, etc. (see pages 4851).
Then Gulley uses still
another "proof," that Christ could only save us by not taking our nature;
he says that Christ lived 2,000 years before our time, and human nature then would not have been adequate to
save us today!
"If Jesus lived four thousand years after Adam, we live two
thousand years farther down the line. Surely we have a much harder time than
Jesus." Op. cit. 52.
Note
by Ron: The is the kind of error that Regeneration of the faithful bride of all
ages will refute. End note.
Can you imagine such
trite being printed on the presses of the Review & Herald and sold through Adventist
bookstores as truth!
Gulley caps his
arguments for error, by declaring that we have Original Sin and Christ did not!
"In fact, we do
not have to do anything wrong to become sinners. We are born that way. But
Jesus was born sinless." Op. cit. 53.
Original Sin is the error invented by the licentious "Saint"
Augustine. He was so vile, that, by his own admission, he could not stop living
with women he was not married to. So he devised the "Original Sin"
teaching, to explain why he could still go to heaven. (Because he taught strict
submission to Rome, the Vatican later made him a saint.)
STEP
EIGHT: THE BOOK, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELIEVE
The book, Questions on Doctrine, went out of print in 1980. In March 1983. Walter
Martin gave a lecture at Napa, California. in which he announced that he had
written letters to our leaders in Takoma Park, threatening to negatively revise
his book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists, if we did not reprint
Questions on Doctrine or issue a new book, to take its place, which also had
the same doctrinal changes. Martin was very blunt and forceful about this. The
present writer reprinted sizeable portions of that lecture, and also noted this:
" 'He [Martin]
said that if Seventh-day Adventists continued to believe they are 'the remnant
church,' that Christ did not have a sinless nature. and that the atonement was
not finished at the cross. Tthey will be classed with
the cults. "[He said] that Reuben Figuhr and the
Holy Spirit had transformed the church. They will have so much to lose if they
do not take the correct position. as stated in Questions on Doctrine.
" '[He said,] 'We
must fight for our Seventh day Adventist brethren, that the church will take
the right position. Questions on Doctrine has been suppressed, and now voices
are teaching heresy which the church originally repudiated. This must be
remedied. Adventism is answerable to the authority of the Word of God, not to
those who would perpetuate heresy.’
" 'He stated that
he had submitted a list of questions to the General Conference, to be answered
by the hierarchy, and not the 'lunatic fringe,' so that he will know what
information to put in his forthcoming book and tapes.
The brethren at world headquarters set to work to please Martin; and, in
1988, a new Adventist doctrinal book. entitled Seventh-day Adventists Believe,
rolled off the presses.
It is highly unfortunate that we have had only two official doctrinal
books in our history and both were written to please Walter Martin and the
evangelicals!
Chapter 4, in this new
doctrinal book, dealt with the human nature of Christ. A strong attempt was
made to please all sides, but the erroneous view was still stated.
This is
understandable, since its
primary author was Norman Gulley, who wrote the infamous 1983 Gulley
Quarterly and the accompanying book. Christ Our Substitute, By his own admission, he believes in
a pre-fall nature of Christ.
"Jesus Christ
took upon Himself our nature with all its liabilities, but He was free from hereditary corruption.
"Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 49/1:4 (page 49, column 1, paragraph 4).
"He possessed the
essential characteristics of human nature," Op. cit., 46/1:3.
"Christ's
humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is. the humanity of Adam before the
fall, nor fallen humanity; that is. in every respect the humanity of Adam after
the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the
fallen. It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral
impurity. It was. therefore. most literally our humanity, but without
sin," Op. cit., 47/1:4-47/ 2:0.
The above statement
cleverly sidesteps the key issue in the nature of Christ controversy. It does this by equating
"fallen nature" with actual sinning.
Two pages later, another clever statement is made. which says that
Christ took our "fallen" nature but then denies that He did:
"The Bible
portrays Jesus' humanity as sinless. His birth was supernatural He was
conceived by the Holy Spirit. As a newborn baby He was described as 'that Holy
One,' He took the nature of man in its fallen state [that is. He took our
fallen nature], bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness [that is,
He did not take our fallen nature]. He was one with the human race, except in
sin. "Op. cit., 49/ 1:1-2.
The new theology can
be subtle in the extreme. They will not come out and say the truth about the
human nature of Christ, but they fear to pronounce the error. They talk about
the actions of Jesus as though they were the nature of Jesus.
The November 5, 1992,
issue of Adventist Review contained a 16-page booklet, entitled Issues: The
Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries.
Within a few months, a
full-sized purple-cover book, with the same title, was printed and widely sold.
(We will here refer to it simply as Issues.)
Having changed our
doctrinal beliefs nearly 30 years before, during the Evangelical Conferences,
leadership now asked that those pleading for a return to historic beliefs should
be tolerant. The reason given was that the denomination has never decided what
it believes on those points!
"In other words,
be tolerant on those points that the church has left open. "Issues, 16.
"Neither has the church ever 'formally' adopted a position on perfection
and the precise nature of human obedience." Issues, 47. "One side
stresses Jesus' role as our sinless substitute, arguing that His nature was like Adam's before the fall.
The other stresses Jesus' role
as our example, arguing that He came in the 'likeness of sinful flesh' with a
nature like Adam's after the fall.
Note by Ron: This is double speak
designed to make the reader feel comfortable in adopting the version of his/her
choice. End note.
"But the
significant point for the discussion here is: Adventists have never 'formally'
adopted a position on the question of just how Jesus' nature compared with
Adam's and with ours. Neither has the church ever 'formally' adopted a position
on perfection and the precise nature of human obedience," Op. cit., 46-47.
"[The independent
group] holds certain views on the human nature of Christ, the nature of sin,
and sanctification, These issues have never been settled among Christians, much
less among Seventh-day Adventists.
"There is no way
that the SDA Church can work with such an independent group. if it cannot lay
aside these positions that they have made so central to their work and mission.
"Over-specificity
in the content of faith [ie., consistently adhering to our historic beliefs]
and a rigid church structure [i.e.. asking that only beliefs and not errors be
presented to our people] reduce the possibility for healthy dissent and for
creative innovation." Op. cit.. 45. "[The church should] resist any
attempt by one segment of the church to impose its views on the rest." Op.
cit.. 50.
Yet, at the same time, only erroneous portrayals of these controverted
doctrines are presented in our denominational papers and at camp meetings.
Note by Ron: In other
words, it is okay for the leaders to espouse the erroneous view, but not for
the Reformers to espouse the correct view! End note.
As to what these
disputed teachings might be, the full-size Issues book made very clear. The
book reproved Independent Ministries for teaching the truth about the nature of
Christ, the continuing atonement, etc. And the book did more; it boldly proclaimed error as
orthodox! What have we come to, when our leaders dare to do this?
On pages 114-130 we
find the only explanatory in-depth doctrinal studies in the entire book,
Issues. It is a reprint form of what our leaders considered to be a landmark
series of doctrinal studies printed the year before in the Adventist Review.
Since they consider it
important, and since it is the single doctrinal series in Issues, it deserves
our careful attention. And when we do so, we find it is almost entirely focused on denying one
special doctrine: the great truth that Christ took our nature.
Why is this done? Because they realize that this is the foundation upon
which all the others are built: the nature of sin, the nature of man, the
nature of the atonement, and the nature of salvation.
This series,
consisting of six articles originally printed in the Review between January 18
to February 22, 1990, was reprinted in Issues.
Part I, entitled "Pressing
Together," is an appeal for all sides to unite in one position doctrinally.
"A meeting of minds on this question can bring us together as a
church." Norman Gulley, "Pressing Together," Adventist Review,
January 18, 1990, 8-10; reprinted in Issues, 114.
Part 2 is on the nature of sin. It
teaches Augustine's Original Sin heresy, and defines the nature of sin as being
separation from God, Gulley states our historic position on the nature of man,
in regard to sin:
"Early Adventists
considered the first death as being a result of Adam's sin, and the second
death the result of personal sin. In other words, the first death is merely the
consequence of not the penalty for Adam's sin." Norman Gulley, "In
Every Way but One, " Review, January 25, 1990, quoted in Issues, 117.
Then Gulley goes on to
expound Augustine's horrible theory: that everyone is born an evil criminal, to
be condemned to hellfire because of something he did not do:
"Are infants
sinners at birth because of their inheritance from Adam?" We are born
sinful and subject to death prior to lawbreaking. If a baby dies a few hours or days after birth, it is still
subject to the second death the condemnation death even though it has never
broken any commandment." Op. cit.. 117-118.
In the above passage,
Gulley says that what we inherit at birth will cause us to burn in hellfire.
That is not true! It is what we think, speak, and do that results in sin.
"It is the disobedience of Adam that constitutes a person a sinner,
and not merely his own acts of sin (disobedience)." Op. cit., 118
[parenthesis his).
But God's Word says it
differently:
"Our only definition of sin is that given in the Word of God; it is
'the transgression of the law: "Great Controversy, 493.
Gulley's concept, which is Augustine's Original Sin theory, is cited as
the basis for the theory that Christ could not have taken our nature. Instead,
Christ is said to have had an alternate type of immaculate conception.
"So if every man
is born a sinner (i.e.., a fallen being, separated from God needing salvation)
as the result of Adam's sin, how then could Christ enter the race through a
human mother and yet be sinless? The immaculate conception of Catholicism sidesteps this question by
making Mary unaffected by Adam's sin. Rather than this immaculate
conception. it is the miraculous conception:' Op. cit., 119 [italics his].
As do most new
theologians, Gulley plays with words in order to confuse. What he is obviously saying,
in the above paragraph, is that the Catholic teaching is that Christ's mother
had an immaculate conception, whereas
Gulley is teaching that Christ had His own immaculate conception. Of course,
the end result would be the same: Both Gulley and Rome teach that Christ had an
immaculate conception [i.e., He had a sinless nature].
Note
by Ron: All who believe that Christ DID NOT come in the likeness of sinful
flesh are antichrist. End note.
Both concepts are
based on the same error: Christ could not be born with our nature, but had to
be different than us. As Gulley explains it:
"He [Christ] did not have
'sinful flesh.' Thus He neither was a sinner by nature nor a sinner by acts. He
was a total Substitute." Ibid.
Thus, by the early
1990s, we find this totally erroneous, Catholic-based article featured in the
Adventist Review and, later, in the book, Issues. But, through it all, not one article was printed on
denominational presses, advocating the other, the true side that Christ took
our very nature; and, in it, He overcame the devil and now gives us power to do
the same.
Gulley is quite unashamed that he is teaching Original Sin in this
article, for he uses those words several times.
In Part 3 in the
Review series, also reprinted in Issues, Gulley began by reiterating the
conclusion of his previous article.
"Thus far we have
seen that His unique sinless
human nature made it possible for Him to be our substitute. We shall see
that the same unique nature qualified Him to be our example." Norman Gulley,
':Jesus Our Example," Review, February 1,1990,19, quoted in Issues, 120.
In this article, Gulley attempts to show that Christ could still be our
example, even though He was not like us; that is, did not take our nature. One cannot but wonder
how Gulley intends to do that. Here is the strange logic he uses:
"Clearly Jesus
did not have a sinful nature; He had no sinful passions or any taint of sin. By
contrast, all the rest of us are born into the world with these liabilities. On
the surface, at least, this looks like a huge advantage for Christ, and calls
into question His ability to be our example. "Ibid.
First, Gulley explains that Christ did not come into this world to
overcome in our place, but in unfallen Adam's place! How is that for original
thinking!
"Satan had
charged God with Adam's sin. The Creator became a created being. Jesus came as
the second Adam sinless, to show that Satan's charge was false. Adam need not
have sinned. Like Adam, He had nothing sinful within to respond to Satan's temptations,
but He could be tempted from an appeal to use His sinless passions and drives
in an unlawful way. He withstood the tempter." Op. cit., 120-121.
In other words, Christ
did not come to be our "substitute," but unfallen Adam's "substitute"! Such
foolish logic is all the more remarkable, in view of the fact that Gulley's key
phrase, which in 1983 he used as the title of his book, is "Christ Our
Substitute." But,
following Gulley's logic, Christ is not our substitute! Christ is only unfallen
Adam's substitute.
Even worse is Gulley's
effort to twist the charges of Satan against God as only concerning the fall of
Adam!
Following this, Gulley
declares that the immaculately born Christ, with His pre-fall nature, is our example, because He
kept the law. Obviously, his statement is pointless. How would Christ's sinless obedience, wrought out in a
nature which supposedly cannot sin, be an example to us in natures which can?
And this Gulley admits:
"Because His humanity was sinless, Jesus could not experience the
inner sinful urgings of sinful humans. But it was necessary that He, as our
example, experience an equivalency in intensity while remaining a sinless
human. "Op. cit., 121.
Gulley then claims
that Christ reached "the lowest depths" and suffered as we do at one
time in His life: during the last part of the 40day fast in the wilderness!
According to Gulley, at that one time, and no other, Christ suffered as we do.
But Scripture says it differently: (1) Christ took our nature, the
nature of Abraham's descendants; (2) and in our nature was tempted "in all
points like as we"; (3) yet without ever yielding to sin; (4) so we can
come to Him for help in every time of need (Heb. 2:10-18; 4:15-16).
In these words, Gulley
describes the one time Christ suffered "equivalent" to us:
"To be hungry was
not a sin; it was a proper desire. But through a 40-day intensification, His
gnawing hunger became equivalent to the worst sinful drives ever experienced by
humans. "Ibid.
"The human became
so emaciated and stressed out, through a nearly six-week fast, that His consuming passion to eat
became equivalent to sinful passions of men." Op. cit., 122.
Second, Gulley uses the shop-worn argument History of the Changeover
that. throughout His earthly life. the only real temptation He faced was to use
His divine power to help Himself! What kind of useful example is that to us?
None at all.
"He had received
honor in the heavenly courts. and was familiar with absolute power. It was as
difficult for Him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above
the low level of their depraved natures. and be partakers of the divine
nature." Op. cit.. 122.
"Can we
understand His supreme struggle? Never! But we must try to grasp its depths. He
had exercised absolute power from eternity! This power He had by nature; it was
inherent. If we grumble about our inheritance by nature. think of His. If we
say we have habits that bind us, think of His a habit with eternal use back of
it! Can you get any greater urge than that? Our habits, measured by His, are
but drops of water compared to a shore-less sea. He knows the human struggle in
temptations because His were infinitely greater. and precisely because of His
unique divine nature rather than from an identical human nature." Ibid.
Gulley summarizes the
terrible "weight" that was on Christ:
"What an
inexplicable intensification this staggering load brought to the agonizing
struggle of the emaciated One! In view of this unparalleled experience, can
anyone question the genuineness of His example? No! His temptations were
infinitely harder than man's!" Ibid.
In Part 4 of
this Review series, Gulley
once again reiterates that Christ had a sinless nature. "Sin. whether in His
nature or in act. would have disqualified Him from being our substitute.
For He would have needed a substitute Himself." Norman Gulley, "Jesus
Our Substitute," Review, February 8. 1990.8; in Issues. 123.
The primary objective of this entire series of articles has been to
prove that Christ had a sinless human nature. He recognizes it to be the
foundation stone. under-girding the entire plan of salvation.
Yet, shrewdly. Gulley,
speaking directly to those who maintain the other (the Scriptural) view, declares
that they should not be concerned about what nature Christ had, It really does
not matter.
Note by Ron: Ellen White said that the
human nature of Christ means everything to us:
“The humanity of the Son of God is
everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and
through Christ to God. This is to be our study. Christ was a real man; He gave
proof of His humility in becoming a man. Yet He was God in the flesh. When we
approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to
Moses at the burning bush, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the
place whereon thou standest is holy ground" (Ex. 3:5). {1SM 244}
End
note by Ron.
"Nowhere do
inspired sources make the birth of Christ as prominent as His death. Should not
those who are preoccupied with His birth take pause and look beyond to the
cross?" Ibid.
But. having
said that, Gulley himself keeps coming back to the nature of Christ.
"Some believe
that Jesus had to be exactly like us in fallen nature in order to span the gulf
gouged out by sin. Yet even that identity has a qualification for none other
comes into the world 'born of God: "Ibid.
Gulley next twists the
meaning of Romans 8:3.
"Just as that
brazen serpent only looked like a serpent. so the sinless Jesus only took the 'likeness
of sinful flesh: "Op. cit., 124 [italics his].
Yet both the Bible and
Spirit of Prophecy clearly support the position that Christ took our nature; He
did not just make-believe take it. Jesus was not a mirage while in the flesh!
He was a real flesh-and-blood man. He became like us, is what God's Word says.
The final two
articles in this doctrinal series mention the error of "the finished work
at the cross; but, in general, they are more inspirational than doctrinal.
The evidence
presented in this study indicates that, from its earliest years until the late
1940s, the Seventh-day Adventist Church: (1) has always upheld the Deity of God
in human flesh fully God and fully man, (2) has always been in close agreement
in regard to the sinlessness of Christ, and (3) has consistently taught that
Christ was in every sense sinless.
Under threats and
strong duress from Walter Martin. from 1954 to 1957. our leaders agreed to make
definite changes. These changes were printed in the first official doctrinal
book in our history.
The 1960s and 1970s
constituted a time of adaptation to the changes. The work of retraining our
pastors in retreats went on quietly. Our future leaders were being initiated
into new teachings in the colleges.
During the 1980s as the apostasy grew, strong pleas for patience and
toleration for other views were frequently heard.
During the 1990s, those advocating the errors about sin, the nature of
Christ, the atonement. and salvation were solidly in control; and there is
intolerance for those pleading for a return to historic beliefs.
Only God can change
the situation, and He will do it when it becomes illegal to be a Sabbath
keeper. Then the faithful, gathered in little companies here and there, will go
out and preach the identifying truth of Revelation 14:6-12 (the Third Angel's
Message) everywhere. May we be faithful to the end. Obedience by faith, in
Christ, to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy is what we need today. May we not forsake
our post of duty. In His strength, we can remain true to the end.
End of Article
Below is a recent article from Ministry
magazine, an SDA publication, on the human nature of Christ.Was Christ Truly Human?
Ralph Blodgett, Assistant Pastor, Niles, Michigan
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1964/09/was-christ-truly-human
CHAPTER 1 - THE
INCARNATION - WAS CHRIST EXEMPT?
The word
"incarnation" derives from the two Latin words, in carnis, which mean "in flesh" or "in the
flesh." As a theological term, it denotes "the taking on of the human
form and nature by Jesus, conceived of as the Son of God." In this sense
John uses the word when he says, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every
spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And
every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not
of God." 1 John 4:2,3. This makes belief in the incarnation a test of
discipleship, though doubtless more is meant than a mere belief in the
historical appearance of Christ.
The coming into the world of
a new life-the birth of a babe--is in itself a miracle. Infinitely more so must be the
incarnation of the very Son of God. It will ever remain a mystery beyond human
comprehension. All man can do is accept it as a part of the plan of redemption
which has been gradually revealed since the fall of man in the garden.
For reasons which we cannot
fully fathom, God permitted sin. In doing so, however, He also provided a
remedy. This remedy comprises the plan of redemption and is bound up with the
incarnation, the death, and the resurrection of the Son of God. It cannot be
conceived that God did not know what creation would cost Him; and the 'council
of peace' which decided the matter, must have included provisions for every
foreseen contingency. Paul calls this plan "God's wisdom in a mystery,
even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds
unto our glory." 1 Corinthians 2:7.
The phrase "before
the-worlds" means before there was creation of any kind. Thus the plan of salvation was not an afterthought. It was
"foreordained." Even when Lucifer sinned, the plan was not fully
revealed, but was "kept in silence through times eternal." Romans
18:25 A. R. V. For this God gives no reason. Paul informs us "that by
revelation He (God) made known unto me the mystery..
the mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of
men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit." Ephesians 3:3-5.
Became
There are two words in the
epistle to the Hebrews which are of interest in this connection. They are
"became" in verse ten of chapter two, and
"behoved" in verse seventeen of the same chapter.
The Greek word for became is
prepo, and is defined as "suitable, proper, fit,
right, comely." Paul, whom we believe to be the author of Hebrews, is very
bold when he thus presumes to attribute motive to God and declares that it is
fit and right for God to make Christ "perfect through suffering."
Hebrews 2:10. He considers it "comely" of God to do this; that is, He
approves of it. In judging God, he emulates Abraham who was even bolder than
Paul. Misunderstanding what God intended to do, Abraham counseled God not to do
it. Said he, "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
That be far from Thee to do
after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked..
That be far from Thee. Shall not the judge of all the earth do
right?" Genesis 18:23,25.
Moses also essayed to
admonish God and instruct Him. When Israel danced about the golden calf, God
said to Moses, "Let Me alone that My wrath may wax hot against them and
that I may consume them." Exodus 32:10. Moses attempted to pacify God and
said, "Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people?..
Turn from Thy fierce wrath and repent of this evil against Thy people."
Exodus 32:11,12. "And the Lord repented of the evil which He thought to do
unto His people." Verse 14.
We
readily see that in this interesting episode God was merely testing Abraham, and giving him an opportunity to plead for the
people. But we also note that this illustrates God's willingness to talk over
matters with His saints; yes, and with those who are not saints. His invitation
to mankind is, "Come now, and let us reason together." Isaiah 1:18.
God is anxious to communicate with His people. Neither Abraham nor Moses was rebuked for his boldness.
Behoved
The other word
to which we would call attention is "behoved." Speaking of Christ,
Paul says, "In all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His
brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
Hebrews 2:17. While "became" in verse 10 is a mild word,
"behoved" in-verse 17 (ophilo in Greek) is
a strong word, and is defined "under obligation," "ought,"
"must," "should," "bound," "indebted,"
"duty," "owe." If Christ is to be a merciful and faithful
High Priest, Paul says it behoves Him "in all things" to be like His
brethren. This is obligatory. It is a duty He owes and must not avoid. He
cannot make reconciliation for men unless He takes His place with them and in
all things becomes like them. It is not a question of choice. He should, He
must, He ought to, He is under obligation to, He owes it. Unless He has to struggle with the same temptations men do, He cannot
sympathize with them. One who has never been hungry, who has never been weak
and sick, who has never struggled with temptations, is unable fully to
sympathize with those who are thus afflicted.
For this reason it is necessary for Christ in all things, to become
like His brethren. If He is to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,
He must Himself be "compassed with infirmity." Hebrews 4:15; 5:2.
Therefore, if men are afflicted, He also must be afflicted "in all their
affliction." Isaiah 83:9. Christ Himself testifies: "I was not
rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave My back to the smiters,
and My cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face from shame
and spitting." Isaiah 50:5,6.
He
"Himself took our infirmities, and bare our
sicknesses." Matthew 8:17. In nothing Christ spared Himself. He did not
ask to be exempt from any trial or suffering of man; and God did not exempt
Him.
These experiences were all necessary if Christ
was to be a merciful High Priest. Now, He can sympathize with every child of
humanity; for He knows hunger by actual experience and sickness and weakness
and temptation and sorrow and affliction and pain, and
feeling forsaken of God and man. He has been "tempted in all points like
as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15. It is Christ's partaking of
men's afflictions and weaknesses which enables Him to be the sympathizing
Saviour that He is.
June
6, 2018
Was Christ Exempt?
With
these reflections in mind, we read with astonishment and perplexity, mingled with
sorrow, the false statement in Questions
on Doctrine, p. 383, that Christ was "exempt
from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants
of Adam." To appreciate the import of this assertion, we need
to define "exempt" and "passions."
The
College Standard Dictionary defines "exempt": "To free or excuse
from some burdensome obligation; free, clear or excuse from some restriction or
burden." Webster's New World
Dictionary, College Edition defines exempt: "to take out, deliver, set
free as from a rule which others must observe; excuse, release..
freed from a rule, obligation, etc., which binds others; excused, released.. exemption implies a release from some obligation
or legal requirement, especially when others are not so released."
"Passion"
is defined: "originally suffering or agony.. any
of the emotions as hate, grief, love, fear, joy; the agony and sufferings of
Jesus during the crucifixion or during the period following the Last Supper.
Passion usually implies a strong emotion that has an overpowering or compelling
effect." Passion is an inclusive word. While originally it has reference
to sorrow, suffering, agony, it is not confined to these meanings nor to
passions of the flesh only, but includes all man's emotions as mentioned above,
as well as anger, sorrow, hanger, pity; it includes, in fact, all temptations
that incite men to action. To
take these emotions away from a man, to exempt him from all temptation, results
in a creature less than a man, a kind of no-man, a shadow man, a non-entity,
which Markham calls a "brother to the ox." Temptations are the
character building ingredients of life for good or ill, as man reacts to them.
If Christ was exempt from the passions
of mankind, He was different from other men, none of whom is so exempt. Such
teaching is tragic, and completely contrary to what Seventh-day Adventists have
always taught and believed. Christ came as a
man among men, asking no favors and receiving no special consideration.
According to the terms of the covenant He was not to receive any help from God
not available to any other man. This was a necessary condition if His
demonstration was to be of any value and His work acceptable. The least deviation from this rule
would invalidate the experiment, nullify the agreement, void the covenant, and
effectively destroy all hope for man.
Satan's
contention has always been that God is unjust in requiring men to keep the law,
and doubly unjust in punishing them for not doing what cannot be done, and what
no one has ever done. His claim is that God ought at least to make a
demonstration to show that it can be done, and done
under the same conditions to which men are subject. Noah, Job, Abraham,
David--all were good men, but all failed to come up to God's high standard.
"All men have sinned," says Paul. Romans 3:23.
God
was not moved by Satan's challenge; for long before, even from eternity, God
had decided upon His course of action. Accordingly, when the time came, God sent "His own Son, in the
likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, and condemned sin in the flesh."
Romans 8:3. Christ did not condone sin in the flesh; He condemned it,
and in so doing upheld the power and authority of the law. By dying on the cross He further enforced the law by paying the penalty
required for its transgression, and upheld the infliction of its penalty by
paying its demand, He was now in position to forgive without being accused of
ignoring the law or setting it aside.
When
it became evident that God intended to send His Son and in Him demonstrate that
man can keep the law, Satan knew that this would constitute the crisis, and
that he must overcome Christ or perish. One thing greatly concerned him; would
Christ come to this earth as a man with the limitations, weaknesses and
infirmities which men had brought upon themselves because of excesses? if so,
Satan believed he might overcome Him. If God should exempt Him from the passions that corrupt the natural
descendants of Adam, he could claim that God played favorites, and the test was
invalid. In the following quotations we have God's answer:
"God permitted His Son to come, a
helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet
life's perils 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."
-Desire of Ages, p. 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..Our Saviour took humanity with all its liabilities.
He took the nature of man with the possibility of yielding to temptation."
--Ibid., p. 117.
"The temptations
to which Christ was subject were a terrible reality. As a free agent He was
placed on probation with liberty to yield to Satan's temptations and work at
cross purposes with God. If this were not so, if it had not been possible for
Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in all points as the human family
is tempted." -Youth's Instructor,
Oct. 28, 1899.
"When Adam was
assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in
the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body.. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the
wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been
decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ
took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue
man from the lowest depth of his degradation."--Desire of Ages, p. 117.
Christ
"vanquished Satan in the same nature over which Satan obtained the
victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the
Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature relying upon God for
power. This is the privilege of all."-Youths
Instructor, April 25, 1901.
"Letters have
been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature
as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He
did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a
partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it
were not possible for Him to yield to temptations, He could not be our helper.
It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battle as man, in man's
behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern;
men must become a partaker of the divine nature."-Review and Herald, Feb. 18, 1890.
"Christ bore the
sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to
help man.He took human
nature, and bore the infirmities of the degenerate race."--The Temptations of Christ, pp. 30,31.
If Christ had been exempt from
passions, He would have been unable to understand or help mankind. It, therefore, behoved Him "in
all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and
faithful High Priest.. for in that He Himself hath
suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."
Hebrews 2:17,18. A Saviour who has never been tempted, never has had to
battle with passions, who has never "offered up prayers and supplications
with strong crying and tears unto Him who was able to save Him from
death," who "though He were a son" never learned obedience by
the things He suffered, but was "exempt" from the very things that a
true Savior must experience: such
a savior is what this new theology offers us. It is not the kind of
Savior I need, nor the world. One who has never struggled with passions can
have no understanding of their power, nor has he ever had the joy of overcoming
them. If God extended special favors and exemptions to Christ, in that very act
He disqualified Him for His work. There can be no heresy more harmful than that
here discussed. It taken away the Savior I have known and substitutes for Him a
weak personality, not considered by God capable of resisting and conquering the
passions which He asks men to overcome.
It is, of course, patent to all, that
no one can claim to believe the Testimonies and also
believe in the new theology that Christ was exempt from human passions. It is one thing or the other. The denomination is now
called upon to decide. To accept the teaching of Questions on Doctrine necessitates giving up faith in the Gift God
has given this people.
Some History
It may interest the reader to know how these new
doctrines came to be accepted by the leaders, and how they came to be included
in Questions on Doctrine, and thus
receive official standing.
The question of
the nature of Christ while in the flesh is one of the foundation pillars of
Christianity. On this doctrine hangs the salvation of man. The apostle
John makes it a deciding factor by saying, "Every spirit that confesseth
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." 1
John 4:2,3.
In what kind of flesh did Jesus come to this earth? We
repeat a quotation which we have given above: "Christ took upon Him the
infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could he rescue man from the
lowest depth of his degradation." Desire
of Ages, p. 117.
Only as Christ placed Himself on the level of the
humanity He had come to save, could He demonstrate to men how to overcome their
infirmities and passions. If the men
with whom He associated had understood that He was exempt from the passions
with which they had to battle, His influence would immediately have been
destroyed and He would be reckoned a deceiver. His pronouncement, "I have
overcome the world" (John 16:33), would be accepted as a dishonest boast;
for without passions He had nothing to overcome. His promise that "to him
that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also
overcame and am set down with My Father in His throne" (Revelation 3:21),
would be met by the claim that if God would exempt them from passions, they
also could do what Christ had done.
That God exempted
Christ from the passions that corrupt men, is the acme of all heresy. It is destruction of all true religion and completely
nullifies the plan of redemption, and makes God a
deceiver and Christ His accomplice. Great responsibility rests upon those who
teach such false doctrine to the destruction of souls. The truth, of course, is
that God "spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us"
(Romans 8:32); rather because His nature was sensitive to the least slight or
disrespect or contempt, His tests were harder and His
temptations stronger than any we have to endure.
He resisted "even unto blood." No, God did not spare or exempt
Him. In His agony He "offered up prayers and supplications with strong
crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death,
and was heard in that He feared." Hebrews 5:7. "'
He were a son, yet learned He
obedience by the things which He suffered." Verse 8.
In view of all this, we repeat the question, how did this
God-dishonoring doctrine find its way into this denomination? Was it the result
of close and prayerful study by competent men over a series of years, and were
the final conclusions submitted to the denomination in public representative
meetings, advertised beforehand in the Review
giving the details of what changes were contemplated, as the denomination has
voted as the proper procedure? None of these things were done. An anonymous
book appeared, and men were judged and the brakes tightened on any one who objected.
Here is the story of how these new doctrines found their
way into the denomination as reported by Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of
the religious journal, Eternity, in
the September, 1956, issue of his magazine, later
issued as a copyrighted article entitled "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" With permission we
quote from this article. We may inject that Dr. Barnhouse advises us that the
entire content of the article was submitted to the Adventist brethren for
approval before publication. The fact that this report has been in print for
nearly three years and no correction or protest has been forthcoming from our
leaders would strongly argue that they accept the truthfulness of the account.
Dr. Barnhouse reports that "a little less than two
years ago it was decided that Mr. Martin should undertake research in
connection with Seventh-day Adventism." Mr. Walter R. Martin was at that
time a candidate for degree of Doctor of Philosophy in New York University and also connected with the editorial staff of Eternity. Wishing to get firsthand and
reliable information, Mr. Martin went to Washington to the Adventist
headquarters where he got in touch with some of the leaders. "The response
was immediate and enthusiastic."
Mr. Martin "immediately..
perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal
positions which had been previously attributed to them." Chief among these were the question of the mark of the beast, and the
nature of Christ while in the flesh. Mr. Martin "pointed out to
them that in their bookstore adjoining the building in which these meetings
were taking place, a certain volume published by them and written by one of their
ministers categorically stated the contrary to what they were now asserting.
The leaders sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and
immediately brought this fact to the attention of the General Conference
officers, that the
situation might be remedied and such publications be
corrected."
This concerned particularly the doctrine of the mark of
the beast, one of the fundamental doctrines of the Adventist church held from
near its beginning. When the leaders discovered that Mr. Martin was correct,
they suggested to the officers that the situation be "remedied and such
publications be corrected." This was done. We are not informed which
publications were so "remedied and corrected," nor if the authors
were notified before the changes were made; nor if the duly appointed book
committee was consulted; nor if the book editors or the publishing house were
agreeable to the changes. We
do know, however, that in the Sabbath school lessons for the second quarter of
1958, which dealt with the book of Revelation, chapter by chapter, the
thirteenth chapter which discusses the mark of the beast was entirely omitted.
Chapter 12 was there, so was chapter 14, but there was
no chapter 13. The Sabbath school lessons had evidently been "remedied and
corrected."
It is
certainly anomalous when a minister of another denomination has enough
influence with our leaders to have them correct our theology, effect a change
in the teaching of the denomination on a most vital doctrine of the church, and
even invade the Sabbath schools of the world and withhold from them the
important lessons of Revelation 13. For our leaders to accept this is
tantamount to an abdication of their leadership.
The Same Procedure
But this is not all. Dr. Barnhouse reports that the same
procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh, the subject with which
we have been here dealing. Our leaders
assured Mr. Martin that "the majority of the denomination has always held
(the nature of Christ while in the flesh) to be sinless, holy, and perfect,
despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into
print with contrary views completely repugnant to the church at large."
If our leaders told
Mr. Martin this, they told the greatest untruth ever. For the denomination has never held any other view than
that expressed by Mrs. White in the quotations used in this article. We
challenge our leaders, or anybody, to produce proof of their assertion. How
grossly untrue is the statement that certain writers got into print with views
"completely repugnant to the church at-large." Mrs. White was one of those writers who "got into print."
Hear also what our standard book, Bible Readings for the Home Circle, sold to the public by the millions, has to say on
the subject. I have before me two copies, one printed by the Pacific Press in
1916, the other by the Southern Publishing house in 1944. They both read alike.
Here is the accepted teaching by the denomination:
"In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen
nature. If not, then, He was not made 'like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all
points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome as we have
to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Savior man
needs and must have to be saved. The
idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother (Protestants do
not claim this for the virgin Mary), inherited no tendencies to sin, and for
this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from
the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam
inherits--a sinful, fallen nature. On the divine side, from His very conception
He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And this was done to place mankind on
vantage-ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every
one who is 'born of the Spirit' may gain like victories over sin in his
own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as
Christ overcame (Revelation 3:21). Without this birth there can be no victory
over temptation, and no salvation from sin (John 3: 3-7)." Page 21.
In explanation of how these writers "got into
print" with their views, our leaders told Mr. Martin that "they had
among their number certain members of their 'lunatic fringe,' even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental
Christianity." I think this is going too far. Mrs. White did not
belong to the "lunatic fringe" who got into print, nor did
the authors of Bible Readings. Our
leaders should make a most humble apology to the denomination for such a slur
upon their members. It is almost unbelievable that they should ever have made
such statements. But the accusation has been in print nearly three years, and
there has been no protest of any kind. I am humiliated that such accusations
should have been made, and even more so that our leaders are completely callous
in their attitude toward them.
That the reader may see for himself the original report
of Dr. Barnhouse, I herewith reproduce portions of the reprint, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?"
This is not the report in full, but only that part which relates to the
questions here discussed. Later I shall present other extracts.
"A little less than two years ago it was decided
that Mr. Martin should undertake research in connection with Seventh-day
Adventism. We got into touch with the Adventists saying that we wished to treat
them fairly and would appreciate the opportunity of interviewing some of their
leaders. The response was immediate and enthusiastic.
"Mr.
Martin went to Takoma Park, Washington, D. C., the headquarters of the
Seventh-day Adventist movement. At first the two groups looked upon each other
with great suspicion. Mr. Martin had read a vast quantity of Adventist
literature and presented them with a series of approximately forty questions
concerning their theological position. On a second visit he was presented with
scores of pages of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived that
the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which have
been previously attributed to them.
"As Mr. Martin read their answers he came, for
example, upon a statement that they repudiated absolutely the thought that
seventh-day Sabbath keeping was a basis for salvation and a denial of any
teaching that the keeping of the first day of the week is as
yet considered to be the receiving of the anti-christian 'mark of the
beast.' He pointed out to them that in their book store adjoining the
building in which these meetings were taking place a certain volume published
by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary
to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that
Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of
the General Conference officers, that this situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected. This same
procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh which the
majority of the denomination has always held to be sinless, holy, and
perfect despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten
into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the Church at large.
They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain
members of their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity.
This action of the Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of similar steps that
were taken subsequently.
"Mr. Martin's book on Seventh-day Adventism will
appear in print within a few months. It will carry a foreword by responsible
leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church to the effect that they have not
been misquoted in the volume and that the areas of agreement and disagreement
as set forth by Mr. Martin are accurate from their point of view as well as
from our evangelical point of view. All of Mr. Martin's references to a new
Adventist volume on their doctrines will be from the page proof of their book,
which will appear in print simultaneously with his work.
Henceforth any fair criticism of the Adventist movement
must refer to these simultaneous publications.
"The position of
the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to
them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership
which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views
divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination.
"To avoid charges that have been brought against
them by evangelicals, Adventists have already worked out arrangements that the
Voice of Prophecy radio program and the Signs of the Times, their largest
paper, be identified as presentations of the Seventh-day Adventist
church." In closing this paper, I wish to re-emphasize certain salient
facts:
1.
Questions on Doctrine,
page 383, states that Christ was exempt. The Spirit of Prophecy makes clear
that Christ was not exempt, from the temptations and passions that afflict men.
Whoever accepts the new theology must reject the Testimonies. There is no other
choice.
2. Mr. Martin was instrumental in having our teaching on the
mark of the beast and the nature of Christ in the flesh changed. Similar changes were made in other books, but we are not
informed what those changes are.
3. Our leaders have
promised not to proselytize. This effectively will stop our work for the world.
And we have promised to report to Mr. Martin those who transgress.
4. We have been threatened to have the brakes applied to such
as fail to believe and follow the leaders. Such are characterized as
"wild-eyed irresponsibles" and are said to
constitute the "lunatic fringe."
5. We are appalled to learn that in some way these
evangelical clergymen have had enough influence with our leaders to cause the
Voice of Prophecy and the Signs of the Times to trim their sails to "avoid
charges that have been brought against them by evangelicals." This is
terrifying news. These organs are instruments of God, and it is unbelievable that
the leaders should permit any outside influence to affect them. In this a great
sin against the denomination has been committed that can be blotted out only by
deep repentance of the guilty parties, or in lieu of this, that the men
concerned quietly resign from holy office.
Our
members are largely unaware of the conditions existing, and every effort is
being made to keep them in ignorance. Orders have been issued to keep
everything secret, and it will be noted that even at the late General
Conference session (1958) no report was given of our leaders' trafficking with
the evangelicals and making alliances with them. Our officials are playing with fire, and the resulting
conflagration will fulfill the prediction that the coming Omega "will be
of a most startling nature."
Seven
times I have asked for a hearing, and I have been promised one, but only on the
condition that I meet privately with certain men, and that no record be given me of the proceedings. I
have asked for a public hearing, or if it is to be a private one, that a tape
recording be made, and that I be given a copy. This has been denied me. As I
cannot have such a hearing, I am writing these messages which contain, and will
contain, what I would have said at such a hearing. Can the reader surmise the
reason why the officers do not want the hearing I ask?
I am a
Seventh-day Adventist, and I love this message that I have preached for so
long. I grieve deeply as I see the foundation pillars being destroyed, the
blessed truths that have made us what we are abandoned.
I am
thankful to be in good health and wish that the blessing of the Lord may be
with each reader. We have come to strenuous times, and it behooves each to keep
close to God in these perilous times. The Lord be with you.
End of
Article
Continuing
in the book by Fred T. Wright, Behold
Your God. Fred Wright’s objective was to demonstrate God’s character of
love and that God does not destroy even though the Bible uses language that
makes it appear otherwise to the surface reader.
Chapter Six
Behold Your God
Approaching
the Study of God
Character is
revealed by the way in which one acts, for the very simple reason that we do what we do because of what
we are. Allowance must be made for the work of deception which sinful
human beings practise, for some are very adept at making themselves appear to
be what they are not. Nevertheless, the time comes when the masquerade is rent and the real person is seen for what he is.
With God there
is no deception for He is the truth. Therefore, what He does, when rightly
understood, is a true and accurate revelation of what He is.
The doings of God may be divided into two general
parts. Firstly, there was the revelation of God by what He did during the
eternity of the past when there was no sin problem, and secondly, there is the
revelation of His character by what He did in response to the appearance of
sin.
In the natural
way of things, it follows that the greater of these two revelations must be the
one forthcoming during the great rebellion, for it is under the pressure of
great testing and difficulty that the otherwise hidden depths of one's nature
and capabilities are revealed.
Therefore,
the fullest and clearest revelation of God's character is
afforded us because of the entrance of sin. This being so, there are some who
have wickedly charged God with deliberately introducing sin so that He would be
provided with the theatre in which to display such depths of Himself as would
otherwise be impossible.
The enemy of
God and man is the originator of these charges which the true child of God will
treat with the utter disdain they deserve. Albeit, there are still the two
situations in which the behaviour of God is the revelation of His character.
The conditions prevailing in these two eras are as different as they can be,
but God remains unchanged through it all. Sin's appearance, problem, and pressure made far-reaching
changes in angels, men, and nature, but it made absolutely no change in God.
He is "the same yesterday. and to day, and forever." Hebrews 13.8.
While this Scripture directly relates to Jesus Christ, it is equally true of
the Father for, what can be said of the One, is equally true of the Other.
God is unchanged and unchangeable. He declares,
"I am the Lord, I change not. Malachi 3:6. He is ". . . the Father of
lights, with Whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1
17. He is "the incorruptible God." Romans 1:23.
These
evidences confirm that God did not follow a certain line of behaviour before
the entrance of sin and then, when sin appeared, engage in activities utterly
unknown before the uprising of evil. Rather, the [49] emergency of sin brought
forth from God only more of the same things He had always done.
Because there
was no occasion to punish, none have any difficulty in seeing that, before the
fall, God never did such a thing. Subsequent to that
sad day, however, an entirely different set of conditions demanded of God as
the responsible Ruler of all, a satisfactory and permanent solution. Because most men understand only the
use of force as such a solution, they cannot see God doing other than bearing
down with terrible punishments on the guilty. This is the only way they know,
resulting in their quickly interpreting all the reported actions of God in the
Old Testament as being of this character. To such, the declaration that God did
absolutely nothing after the fall that He did not do before, with all the
implications thereof, will certainly be a startling statement, hard to accept.
But it has to be true
nonetheless. Otherwise we are compelled to accept the thought that sin did make
changes in God, forcing Him, after its appearance, to do things He had never
done before. This cannot be and yet God remain as the unchangeable,
incorruptible God.
Some may counter
that this argument breaks down when it is considered that God did do something
different in giving His Son as a sacrifice for the lost.
But, when Christ's role in the eternity of the past
is rightly understood, it will be seen that God had given His only-begotten Son
to the created world for their blessing long before sin ever entered the
universe. The incarnation of
Christ into the human family was not something new for Him. It was a wonderful
extension of the role He had eternally occupied and of the work which He had
everlastingly done. From the eternity of the past, Christ has ever been God's
gift to His creatures even unto the death, for their salvation. Of this, more
will be revealed as the study progresses.
As surely as
this is true, then so surely has God done nothing new in the period when sin
emerged to establish its pernicious corruption. Therefore, by studying what God
did in the unmarred ages, we will study those revelations of His character
which find confirmation in the greater display of those same things in the
vastly more difficult era which has followed.
The study of
what God did in the sunny days of universal innocence and harmony is the
investigation of the constitution of the kingdom which He formed in such
wondrous perfection. How God
organized that government, how He related Himself to His subjects, what He
provided for them and how He ruled them is a very clear and wonderful
revelation of His character. He is a perfect God, has been and will be
eternally so, and therefore the government which He formed is likewise as
perfect. It is the only perfect rulership ever to exist. It is the pattern for
all governments to copy and they can have perfect government only as they form
theirs after the divine similitude.
Before we
begin the study of that government, a necessary note of warning must be given.
This is necessary because of the universal human [50] tendency to form concepts
of God's government after the
measure of human leadership. We are very familiar with the latter, from
personal acquaintanceship. It is all that we really know, and so we tend to
think of God and His kingdom as being the same.
But the Word
of God warns of this danger and directs us to approach this study from a
different standpoint. God
states very clearly, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are
your ways My ways, saith the Lord.
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:8, 9.
In His efforts
to reveal to men the principles of God's kingdom, Christ was forever faced with
the problem that there was nothing in this earth with which to compare it.
Everything with which man was familiar served to give a wrong, instead of
correct, concept of it. So Christ said: "Whereunto
shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare
it?" Mark 4:30.
"The
government of the kingdom of Christ is like no earthly government. It is a
representation of the characters of those who compose the kingdom. 'Whereunto shall we liken the
kingdom of God?' Christ asked, 'or with what comparison shall we liken it?' He
could find nothing on earth that would serve as a perfect comparison.
His court is one where holy love presides, and whose offices and appointments
are graced by the exercise of charity. He charges His servants to bring pity and
loving-kindness, His own attributes, into all their office work, and to find
their happiness and satisfaction in reflecting the love and tender compassion
of the divine nature on all with whom they associate." The Review and
Herald, March 19, 1908.
"
'Whereunto,' asked Christ, 'shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what
comparison shall we compare it?' He could not employ the kingdoms of the world
as a similitude. In society
He found nothing with which to compare it. Earthly kingdoms rule by the
ascendency of physical power; but from Christ's kingdom every carnal weapon,
every instrument of coercion, is banished. This kingdom is to uplift and ennoble humanity. God's church
is the court of holy life, filled with varied gifts, and endowed with the Holy
Spirit. The members are to find their happiness in the happiness of those whom
they help and bless." The Acts of the Apostles, 12.
There was
always the danger that the apostles might lose sight of the principles of the
kingdom of righteousness. Jesus sought to teach them the great differences
between that kingdom and the kingdom of men, as it is written:
"Lest the
disciples should lose sight of the principles of the gospel, Christ related to
them a parable illustrating the manner in which God
deals with His servants, and the spirit in which He desires them to labor for
Him.
" 'The
kingdom of heaven,' He said, 'is like unto a man that is an
householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his
[51] vineyard.' It was the custom for men seeking employment to wait in the
market places, and thither the employers went to find servants. The man in the
parable is represented as going out at different hours to engage workmen. Those
who are hired at the earliest hours agree to work for a stated sum; those hired
later leave their wages to the discretion of the householder.
" 'So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto
his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the
last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh
hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed
that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a
penny.'
"The householder's dealing with the workers in
his vineyard represents God's dealing with the human family. It is contrary to
the customs that prevail among men. In worldly business, compensation is given
according to the work accomplished. The laborer expects to be paid only that
which he earns. But in the parable, Christ was illustrating the principles of
His kingdom—a kingdom not of this world. He is not controlled by any human
standard. The Lord says, 'My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways
My ways. . . . For as the heavens are higher than the
earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your
thoughts.' Isaiah 55:8, 9." Christ's Object Lessons, 396, 397.
Thus, in His Word, the Lord has warned us not to
think of the kingdom of God in terms of earthly kingdoms. It is impossible to
learn of the heavenly from the earthly. It cannot be done. Anyone who
attempts to do so either consciously or unconsciously, will certainly be led
into incorrect understandings on the nature of God's kingdom.
Few, if any,
consciously set out to learn of God's government in this way. The student does
not even question this approach because, throughout the lifetime, no other than
earthly kingdoms have been known. He comes to the study of the heavenly with definite ideas already
established in his mind of what a kingdom has to be.
The Scriptures are read in the light of these understandings and the result is
a view of God, which is opposite from reality.
Christ's disciples took a long time to overcome this
problem. From their earliest days they had heard their elders talk of the
Messianic kingdom. No question was ever raised as to the constitution of that
kingdom. It was taken for granted that it would be just like the kingdoms round
about them, and as the Old Testament was read, every verse describing that
kingdom was misread in the light of those misconceptions.
When the
disciples joined the company of Christ, this misunderstanding of the true
nature of the kingdom and therefore of God's character, proved to be the
greatest hindrance to their drawing into full intimacy with Christ in His
divine mission. It caused Christ many unnecessary burdens, [52] added sorrow
and terrible heartache. Despite
His continual effort on their behalf, they were not delivered from this false
position until after the resurrection.
No lesson from the past should be learned with
greater care than the one from the experience of these men. We are to fear
greatly lest we, too, come to the study of God's kingdom with the same
pre-conceived ideas and notions in our minds. If we do, then we will certainly
emerge with an erroneous view. This in
turn will make it impossible to endure the trial which is before us, for of
that last successful people it is written, “In order to endure the trial before
them, they must understand the will of God as revealed in His Word; they can
honour Him only as they have a right conception of His character, government,
and purposes, and act in accordance with them." The Great Controversy, 593.
Therefore, the very beginning of the study of the
constitution of God's government is conversion to the realization that the
kingdom of God is different. It is unique. There is nothing in this world that
can be likened to it. Once this conviction is gained so that the tendency to
refer to earthly conditions as a guideline to understanding the heavenly has
been destroyed, we can approach the study with minds fresh and clean to receive
the correct understanding of God's character as revealed in the constitution of
His kingdom.
Earthly
kingdoms do have a reference value in the sense that they tell us what the
kingdom of God is not. In other words, wherever we find ourselves seeing the
kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men to be the same in any respect, we can
know that we have strayed from a true knowledge of God's realm.
So with minds fresh and clear, let the approach to the study of God and His
wonderful works begin. Let us
not be among that class who "fail of a satisfactory understanding of the
great problem of evil, from the fact that tradition and misinterpretation have
obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature
of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin." The Great Controversy, 492.
[53]
End of Chapter