|
How Can we Know the “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.
THE MINISTRY MAGAZINE ARTICLES
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.” http://www.sdadefend.com/Defend-foundation/Christ-nature/christnat6.htm
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:
http://www.sdadefend.com/Ad-history/walter_martin.htm
http://www.sdadefend.com/Ad-history/Begin-end/Begin-End.htm
http://www.sdadefend.com/Books-new-order/sdadvent.htm
http://www.sdadefend.com/Ad-history/martin_johnsson_debate.htm
http://www.sdadefend.com/Ad-history/wm_250.htm
Catholic
Coercion of Adventist Books http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-B/CCofbooks.pdf
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-A/Atonement.pdf
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-A/Atonement.pdf
The Second Evangelical
Conferences http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-E-F/2nd-Ev-conferences.pdf
Evangelical and
Catholics Join Ranks http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-E-F/wm-541-Ev-Cath.pdf
The New Movement’s Rendition
Questions on Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Contents[hide] · 2 50th anniversary conference · 3 Topics |
[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
Venden, 1978, 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]
—rwb