How Can we Know the
SDA New Movement is Cold, Apostate, Antichrist?


“He took upon Him our sinful nature.” Ellen White, Review and Herald, 12/15/96.

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Click to go to our Home Page






I’m going to give you the conclusions to the following evidence and then you can read it for yourself. These are some of the more serious abominations for which we are to be sighing and crying and for which SDA sleeping virgins are oblivious to. The conclusion of the matter is:


·       In 1955, the SDA new movement, new organization was born. (1 Selected Messages, 204-205).

·       In that year, the SDA new movement became antichrist and this removed God from the church.

·       The first book of a new order was Bible Readings for the Home Circle, when it was changed from its original version which taught that Jesus came in our sinful nature.

·       The second book of a new order was Answers to Questions on Doctrine.

·       Answers to Questions on Doctrine and Ministry magazine, teaching an antichrist view on the human nature of Christ, was sent to hundreds of thousands non-SDA pastors and Libraries of the world as a testament to what SDA’s believe.

·       Any view that does not confess that Jesus came in our sinful nature is antichrist.

·       The meaning of 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 4:7, is that Jesus was God come in the likeness of our human sinful flesh. If He came in non-sinful flesh as Adam had before the fall, He could be no example for us in overcoming sin. Any variation on the theme that discounts Christ coming in our sinful flesh is antichrist.

·       New movement Adventism gave the truth on the Sanctuary/Atonement on one page of Questions on Doctrine (for SDA’s), and said that it was all done at the cross on another page (to satisfy the Evangelicals)! This double-speak dishonesty, lying witness, is not accepted by God. Ellen White said that anything that is not yea or nay is of the devil. God says: Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

·       New movement Adventism has never apologized to the world for its antichrist teachings your are about to become privy to.

·       In addition to being antichrist, the SDA church has instructed Russian parents to send their children to school on Sabbath for decades not. That church IS NOT the commandment-KEEPING people of God.

·       In concession to the Evangelicals, in order to prove SDA’s are Evangelical, the SDA new movement began to hold joint Easter Sunrise services with Babylon. It began to invite Roman Catholic leaders to speak at its General Conference World Sessions and at its colleges and universities. The World GC Sessions are supposed to be the voice of God to the people. Can you imagine Ellen White condoning this?

·       The Evangelicals proposed that if SDA’s are Evangelical they should prove it by joining the ecumenical movement’s associations, councils/counsel’s, girdings and confederacy/conspiracies which is strictly forbidden on penalty of being “broken in pieces” (Unpardonable sin), Isaiah 8:9-12.

·       For a long time the SDA new movement leaders denied any MEMBERSHIP in any National Council of churches. Then when the SDA Hungarian revolt of about 1400-1500 members broke out in the latter 1980’s, protesting SDA MEMBERSHIP in the Hungarian Council of Free Churches, the Adventist Review was forced to admit that the church has been a MEMBER of this ecumenical subsidiary to the World Council of Churches for 30 years past and it is still a MEMBER of that ecumenical council plus many more National Councils around the world. And most every SDA new movement pastor is a dues paying member of the local Ministerial Association, which a PhD person at the Canadian Council of Churches told me was a local arm of the World Council of Churches.

·       In 1988, I called the General Conference Treasurer’s Office and asked how much money the Conference had given to the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. that year. He checked the ledger and gave me a figure in excess of $8,000 for that year. Multiply that by every National Council in the world and that is a lot of sacred tithe money going to Babylon. Is it just as bad to support Babylonian doctrines financially as it is to teach them? If I should send annual dues to the church of Satan in San Francisco, would that be tantamount to supporting its agenda?


Beginning in March, 1955,  SDA leaders began to draft a concord with Evangelical leaders—the late Dr’s Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse, the editor of Eternity magazine. Dr. Martin was doing research for his forthcoming book Kingdom of the Cults. He wanted to determine for himself whether or not Adventists were a cult. He threatened Adventist leaders to brand the SDA church as a cult in his forthcoming book if they would not change certain long held fundamental beliefs of the SDA church regarding the Sanctuary/Atonement, the human nature of Christ, and the investigative judgment.


The central concerns of the Evangelicals were four alleged items of Adventist theology: (1) the atonement was not completed at the cross; (2) salvation is the result of grace plus the works of the law; (3) Jesus was a created being, not from all eternity; and (4) that Jesus partook of man's sinful, fallen nature at the incarnation.


In the Adventist Review library across the street from the Conference office, Walter Martin found the little book entitled Bible Reading for the Home Circle. In that book it said that Jesus came in sinful nature as Adam had after the fall. Martin was aghast! He showed the book to Froom and Anderson, and they responded as if they were in total, overwhelming shock and amazement. This was pure treason on their part because Ellen White taught flat out that Jesus came in our sinful nature.


"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 they feet, for the place where on thou standest is holy ground.' We should come to this study with the humility of a learner, with contrite heart. And the study of the Incarnation of Christ is a fruitful field, which will repay the searcher who digs deep for hidden truth." E.G. White, The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 13, 1898.


"Christ's life represents a perfect manhood. Just that which you may be. He was in human nature. He took our infirmities. He was not only made flesh but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh." EGW, 5 Bible Commentary, p. 1124.


“He took upon Him our sinful nature.” Ellen White, Review and Herald, 12/15/96. 


1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.


2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.


Antichrist: "Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds." {AA 554.2}


I believe that comparing Scripture with Scripture, God is referring to Christ coming in the likeness of sinful flesh and being made in all things like us.


"Christ's life represents a perfect manhood. Just that which you may be. He was in human nature. He took our infirmities. He was not only made flesh but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh." E.G. White, 5 Bible Commentary, p. 1124.


"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 real man." Selected Messages, vol. 1, 244.


2Cr 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


Hbr 2:17 Wherefore 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.


The prime SDA players in reaching a concord with these Evangelicals were Le Roy Edwin Froom, Walter E. Read, and Roy Allan Anderson, sometimes referred to as “FREDA.”  These men proceeded to build the foundation for the new movement, new organization of apostasy prophesied by Ellen G. White in Selected Messages, Bk. 1, 204-205. These men conceded to an antichrist view on the human nature of Christ. They gave a forked-tongued view on the Sanctuary/Atonement. They contradicted Ellen White on the correct view on grace and works by conceding that Jesus came in the flesh of Adam BEFORE the fall.


At the time, Roy Allen Anderson was editor of the Adventist magazine Ministry. In a 1957 issue of Ministry, Anderson said flat out that Jesus took the nature of Adam BEFORE the fall.




As head of the Ministerial Association, R. A. Anderson was editor-in-chief of Ministry magazine, which is published for SDA 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." Ministry, April, 1957.


"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, " Ministry, April, 1957.


What heresy! And it has never been repented of to the hundreds of thousands of worldlings Ministry and Answers to Questions on Doctrines was sent to! It was stated by SDA officials that QOD was sent to over 450,000 non SDA pastors and Libraries around the world!


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." Eamest W. Cox. "The Immaculate Christ," Ministry, December, 1957. 10,


From 1955 to 1958, later credentialed SDA Pastor Vance Ferrell attended the SDA Seminary which at that time was next door to the General Conference building, where many of the Evangelical Conferences were held. He stated: “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.

The real truth of the matter:

Catholic Coercion of Adventist Books

The Second Evangelical Conferences

Evangelical and Catholics Join Ranks


The New Movement’s Rendition

Questions on Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Cover of Questions on Doctrine

"qod" redirects here. For the medical abbreviation, see List of medical abbreviations#Q.


Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (generally known by the shortened title Questions on Doctrine, abbreviated QOD) is a book published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1957 to help explain Adventism to conservative Protestants and Evangelicals. The book generated greater acceptance of the Adventist church within the evangelical community, where it had previously been widely regarded as a cult. However, it also proved to be one of the most controversial publications in Adventist history[1] and the release of the book brought prolonged alienation and separation both within Adventism and evangelicalism.


Although no authors are listed on the title of the book (credit is given to "a representative group" of Adventist "leaders, Bible teachers and editors"), the primary contributors to the book were Le Roy Edwin Froom, Walter E. Read, and Roy Allan Anderson (sometimes referred to as "FREDA").


In Adventist culture, the phrase Questions on Doctrine has come to encompass not only the book itself but also the history leading up to its publication and the prolonged theological controversy which it sparked. This article covers all of these facets of the book's history and legacy.




·         1 History

·         2 50th anniversary conference

·         3 Topics

·         4 See also

·         5 References

·         6 External links

[edit] History


[edit] Background


The publication of Questions on Doctrine grew out of a series of conferences between a few Adventist spokepersons and Protestant representatives from 1955 to 1956. The roots of this conference originated in a series of dialogues between Pennsylvania conference president, T. E. Unruh, and evangelical Bible teacher and magazine editor Donald Grey Barnhouse. Unruh was particularly concerned because of a scathing review written by Barnhouse about Ellen White's book, Steps to Christ. Unruh had sent him a copy of the book in 1949. In the spring of 1955 Barnhouse commissioned Walter Martin to write a book about Seventh-day Adventists. Martin requested a meeting with Adventist leaders so that he could question them about their beliefs.


The first meeting between Martin and Adventist leaders occurred in March 1955. Martin was accompanied by George Cannon and met with Adventist representatives Le Roy Edwin Froom and W. E. Read. Later Roy Allan Anderson and Barnhouse joined these discussions. Initially both sides viewed each other with suspicion as they worked through a list of 40 questions. Central to these concerns were four alleged items of Adventist theology: (1) the atonement was not completed at the cross; (2) salvation is the result of grace plus the works of the law; (3) Jesus was a created being, not from all eternity; and (4) that Jesus partook of man's sinful, fallen nature at the incarnation.


By the summer of 1956 the small group of evangelicals became convinced that Seventh-day Adventists were sufficiently orthodox to be considered Christian. Barnhouse published his conclusions in the September 1956 issue of Eternity magazine in the article, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?"[2] In it, they concluded, "Seventh-day Adventists are a truly Christian group, rather than an anti-Christian cult."[3] This greatly surprised its readers, and 6,000 canceled their subscriptions in protest![4]


Following this announcement, Adventists were gradually invited to participate in Billy Graham's crusades.[5]


[edit] Conflict within Adventism


In Barnhouse's article it was stated that most Adventists believed in the sinless human nature of Christ and those who did not were part of the "lunatic fringe."[citation needed] M. L. Andreasen, a conservative Adventist theologian, took exception to this statement.


Further debate broke out between Andreasen and Froom in February 1957 after Froom published an article on the atonement in Ministry magazine. In this article Froom argued that the atonement was a "full and complete sacrifice."[citation needed] He furthermore asserted that "the sacrificial act on the cross [is] a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man's sins."[citation needed] Froom's articulation of the atonement still held to the Adventist belief in Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary going into the Holy of Holies to begin a final atonement for humanity.


Seventh-day Adventists have always believed in a complete atonement that is not completed.


—W. G. C. Murdock, SDA Theological Seminary Dean, 1980, Discussion, General Conference Session, Dallas[6]


Venden points out that the atonement must have been complete at the cross -- the sacrifice was sufficient. When Jesus died for man's sin it was enough to purchase man's salvation and man cannot add anything to it. Yet, the atonement involves more that just sacrifice. The process of redemption, the restoration of man's broken relationship to at-one-ment with God, was not completed at the cross, else there would be no more sin or sickness or pain or sorrow or separation or batter children or hospitals or funeral trains or tombstones or broken hearts. It is the winning of men back to a love relationship with God is not yet completed.[6]


Andreasen articulated a three-phase understanding of the atonement. In the first phase Christ lived a perfect life despite having a fallen nature. During the second phase the death of Christ on the cross occurred. And finally, during the third phase (the focal point of his theology), Christ demonstrates that man can do what He did. Satan was not defeated at the cross but would be defeated by the "last generation" in its demonstration that an entire generation of people could live a sinlessly perfect life.[7][8]


Questions on Doctrine intensified the tensions over these issues because it brought more weight to the death of Jesus as a complete work of atonement and that though Jesus possessed Adam’s physical human nature after the fall, he did not inherit Adam's fallen spiritual nature. "When Adam Came from the Creator's hand, he bore, in his physical, mental and spiritual nature, a likeness to his Maker--God created man in His own image."[9]


He [Jesus] had a sinless spiritual nature, the same as Adam had before his fall, concerning propensity or tendency to sin. Therefore it was natural for Jesus to be good. [As a child of the fallen Adam], I was born with a sinful spiritual nature and it's natural for me to be bad.

Morris Venden1978, Salvation by Faith and Your Will p. 86


As a consequence, Andreasen embarked on a campaign against QOD. He published a series of responses to Froom in 9 papers written in 1957/1958 and in a series of booklets entitled Letters to the Churches (1959). On April 6, 1961, Andreasen's ministerial credentials were suspended by the church because of his ongoing public protests against church leadership[citation needed]. But a few months later on March 1, 1962, after Andreasen died on Feb. 19, 1962, the General Conference executive committee revoked its earlier decision of his ministerial credentials.[10]


[edit] Evangelicals Divided Over Questions on Doctrine


In 1960, Walter Martin published his own response to Questions on Doctrine, entitled The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism,[11] which had wide circulation.[12] The book carried with it a disclaimer that only those Adventists whose theology agreed with Questions on Doctrine were true members of the body of Christ.[citation needed] From June 1960 till July 1961 Adventist magazine Ministry published a long series of responses to Martin's book, which are available online.[13] Other evangelicals besides Martin who argued for the acceptance of Adventism as an evangelical Christian group were Donald Barnhouse, E. Schuyler English, and Frank Mead.[14]


Many evangelicals disagreed with Martin and Barnhouse's positive assessment of Adventism. The leaders of this view included a large amount of Calvinist evangelical writers. Calvinist-Arminiandifferences were a major part in the debate (Adventism is Arminian), but Martin did not regard Calvinism as a test of orthodoxy.[citation needed] In 1962 Norman Douty published Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism and Herbert Bird, Theology of Seventh-day Adventism, both of which argued that Adventists were still a cult. Anthony Hoekema grouped Adventism together with Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science in his 1963 publication The Four Major Cults. In this book Hoekema praises Adventists for moving away from Arianism, but argues that Questions on Doctrine failed to truly repudiate the doctrine of Christ's sinful nature, and similarly failed to remove ambiguities and inconsistencies regarding the atonement.[15]


[edit] Legacy


Questions on Doctrine has proven to be divisive for many Adventists in the latter half of the twentieth century. Church historian George R. Knight has written that "Official Adventism may have gained recognition as being Christian from the evangelical world, but in the process a breach had been opened which has not healed in the last 50 years and may never heal."[16] Conservative Herbert Douglass agreed, "most, if not all, of the so-called 'dissident' or 'independent' groups of the last 45 years are direct results of the explicit and implicit positions espoused by [Questions on Doctrine] on the atonement and the Incarnation."[17]


Around 138,000 to 147,000 copies of QOD were circulated, but the book was so controversial that it was placed out of print in 1963.[12] Throughout the following decades, the two Adventist camps—those who supported and opposed QOD respectively—continued to struggle with the issues it brought up which was not eased by "the ambiguous stance taken by General Conference leadership on Questions on Doctrine".


Meanwhile, evangelicals were concerned that the withdrawal of QOD signified a doctrinal retreat by Adventists and called for the book to be reprinted. In an interview around 1986 with Adventist Currents, Martin himself said


"If the Seventh-day Adventist [Church] will not back up its answers with actions and put Questions on Doctrine back in print... then they're in real trouble that I can't help them out of; and nobody else can either"[18]


QOD was not republished until Andrews University Press independently chose to reprint the book in 2003 as part of their "Adventist Classic Library" series. This new edition contained annotations and a historical introduction by George R. Knight.[19] The text of the original book had also been available online for several years prior to this republishing, through a private website.[12] One review is by Nancy Vyhmeister.[20]


"It's a very positive and aggressive statement of Adventist beliefs", according to George Knight.[12] "This book played an important role in the history of the Adventist Church", according to Gerhard Pfandl.[12] Questions on Doctrine generated a theological movement which backs the theology of Andreasen and opposes the teaching set forward in the book. These "historic Adventists" perceive Questions on Doctrine as representing a major departure from traditional Adventist teaching, and believe that its publication has been harmful to the church. Other Adventists feel that Questions on Doctrine represents a courageous and insightful restatement of Adventist theology, while acknowledging that the book is not free from fault. For instance, it is clear that the authors pushed the facts too far with regard to Adventism's historic understanding of the Trinity, and present data about the human nature of Christ in a way that presents a false impression.


Evangelical Kenneth Samples has described four unique perspectives of Walter Martin given by Adventist friends of Samples. A more evangelical Adventist told him, "I really like Walter Martin. He stood up for us." A more liberal Adventist said, "Who's Walter Martin that he should ever question our orthodoxy?!" A more fundamentalist Adventist said, "Walter Martin poisoned our church." A cultural Adventist friend said, "Who's Walter Martin?"![21]


Walter Martin considered his impact on evangelical's perception of Adventism one of the highlights of his career[citation needed].


[edit] 50th anniversary conference


A scholarly conference marking the 50th anniversary of the book's publication was held from October 24–27, 2007 at Andrews University in Michigan.[22] It was precipitated by Julius Nam's 2005 doctoral dissertation on the book.[23] Scholars, church leaders and pastors from widely varying positions on the Adventist theological spectrum gathered with non-Adventist evangelical scholars interested in Questions on Doctrine for dialogue. Prior to the event, General Conference administrators including incumbent president Jan Paulsen had voiced reservations and even outright opposition to the conference, fearing that it might reignite a firestorm of controversy within the denomination.[24] In spite of this, the conference was hailed as a success by participants from all sides, and was felt to have promoted "healing".[22]


The organizers of the conference were Julius Nam, Michael Campbell and Jerry Moon, Adventist scholars specializing in Adventist history. Three institutions co-sponsored the event: Andrews University, Loma Linda University and Oakwood College. The keynote speakers were conservative theologian Herbert Douglass, Adventist historian George Knight, and Biblical Research Institute director Ángel Rodríguez. Presenters included Roy Adams, Arthur Patrick, Jon Paulien, Richard Rice, A. Leroy Moore and Woodrow Whidden. The "conservative" position was represented by Larry Kirkpatrick, Colin and Russell Standish as well as Douglass. In addition there were contributions from non-Adventist scholars Kenneth Samples and Donald Dayton.[25]