THE BEGINNING OF THE END:
"Evangelical Conferences" and their aftermath
SECTION TWELVE - - c. 1961 -
"SATAN'S LAST DECEPTION"
following manuscript is of anonymous origin, although I believe I know the
one who authored it. As a result of the "Questions on Doctrine"
furor, not only Andreasen but others arose and strongly objected to this
flagrant setting aside of our historic teachings. Among those that objected
in print was a group of over two-dozen medical doctors who funded the
publication and wide distribution of a number of small booklets and tracts
that were issues in the early 60's (primarily from 1960 to 1962). They
titled themselves the "True Medical Missionary Association" and
mailed these publications from a Loma Linda address. One who was a
principal in this project personally told me in a letter recently that it
was because of his acquaintance with Andreasen that he urged the organizing
of the TMMA and the writing and publishing of its little booklets. The TMMA
ceased operations about the year 1962.
following is a reprint of most of a twelve-page booklet entitled
"Satan's Last Deception.] "
very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony
of the Spirit of God. "-S.M., 1, p. 48.
members of the Seventh-day Adventist church are prone to interpret this
testimony by the Servant of the Lord to mean that the final Great Apostasy
in these closing days of this earth's history,
will be the open denunciation, by leading members of our church of the
teachings and truths contained in the Spirit of Prophecy. However, closer
analysis of this statement by Sister White,
reveals that what she actually says is something entirely different. The
phrase 'to make of none effect' does not imply an attitude of open and
avowed defiance to the Lord's instructions, but rather the adoption of an
outward appearance of compliance to them, while actually adhering and
engaging in beliefs and practices directly contrary to the plain,
unmistakable meaning of the Lord's word as given by His Servant.
the teachings of the Spirit of Prophecy were openly discredited and
denounced by our leading church officials, it would be a simple matter for
any of our church members to detect the falsity of such and not be
deceived. But Sister White, referring to the final, Great Apostasy that
will be experienced by our church before the end, explains how subtly it
will take place-how she fears that many of God's people will be deceived
knew that the Omega would follow in a little while, and l trembled for our
people."-Special Testimonies, Series B; Mimeographed Edition, p. 49.
denouncing the Alpha of Apostasy which shook the very foundations of our
church, Sister White predicted:
Omega will follow, and it will be received by those who are not willing to
heed the warning God has given. "-ldem, p.
47. "The Omega will be of a most startling nature.'=Idem, p. 29. cf 1
SM 48, 19Z
writing to a leading church member whom Satan influenced to bring on the
Alpha of Apostasy, and which statement seems particularly applicable today
in regard to the Omega, the Servant of the Lord delivered the following
were professedly believing the Testimonies, and yet walking and working
contrary to them, following your own impulses, turning from the plain 'Thus
saith the Lord,' to carry out your own plans and devisings." -Letters
and Manuscripts Relating to Medical Missionary Work and Going to Battle
Creek, p. 119.
late Elder M. L. Andreasen, who for many years was considered the dean of
Seventh-day Adventist theologians, in his forceful series of booklets
entitled "Letters to the Churches" pinpoints the areas in which
Satan has succeeded in his efforts to make the Omega of Apostasy a reality.
As we read through Elder Andreasen's letters, we realize anew how the
hellish technique that Satan used with Dr. Kellogg,
has succeeded in bringing on this last great Apostasy within our church.
Brother Andreasen makes a summation of the crisis we are facing today, as
have reached a crisis in this denomination when leaders are attempting to
enforce false doctrine and threaten those who object. The whole program is
unbelievable. Men are now attempting to remove the foundations of many
generations, and think they can succeed. If we did not have the Spirit of
Prophecy we would not know of the departure from sound doctrine which is
now threatening us, and the coming of the Omega which will decimate our
ranks and cause grievous wounds."-Letters to the Churches, No. 3, p. 9.
Elder Andreasen so ably brings out, the Omega of Apostasy consists of an
open downgrading of the teachings of the Spirit of Prophecy, along with an
attempt to alter our doctrinal beliefs concerning the Nature of Christ, and
the Atonement, so that these will be in line with worldly doctrines. In his
"Letters to the Churches," Elder Andreasen gives a number of
examples of how some of our leaders have downgraded the teachings of the
Spirit of Prophecy.
1957, the General Conference released a book entitled, "Questions on
Doctrine." It was published as the outcome of a series of conferences
between certain of our leaders with evangelical representatives Martin, Barnhouse
and Cannon. The book was supposed to answer some pertinent questions raised
by Mr. Martin, as spokesman for the evangelicals, but it seriously
compromised and apostasized on some of the fundamental doctrines of our
late Elder Andreasen, whom we mentioned earlier in this study, was the
first prominent Adventist theologian that 'made himself a man of no
reputation' by calling attention to this apostasy which he identified as
let us consider briefly, some of the points of apostasy which crop up in
the book "Questions on Doctrine." One of the most important and
far-reaching of these is the position taken by our G. C. representatives
that negates our church's fundamental belief that Christ inherited fallen
human nature. "Questions on Doctrine" states flatly that Christ
possessed the same sinless nature that Adam had before he succumbed to
temptation in Eden. (See Q. D., pp. 50-66; 647-660) It is disconcerting and
disturbing in the extreme to note that this position is in complete
agreement with the views of Catholic and apostate Protestant sects. In
fact, the book takes the identical position on this important subject that
our leading theologians and leaders of the past unhesitatingly branded as
being the teachings of the anti-Christ. (A new book, released in September
1962, entitled, "Another
At Seventh-day Adventism" by Norman F. Douty, calls attention to the
historic Adventist position on the Nature of Christ and other Foundations
of our Faith. A host of Adventist writers are quoted to show that our
position in the past is not what we are teaching today. While he attacks
all our distinctive doctrines in a brotherly way, he conclusively makes the
point that "Questions on Doctrine" distorts our true and historic
Adventism. Mr. Douty is a Baptist minister, former president of Hephzibah
House, New York City, and of the Grand Rapids Theological Seminary and
should be noted also that the book "Questions on Doctrine" rarely
uses texts of Scripture to support its untenable new view on the Nature of
Christ. Instead, it bases its stand on an erroneous and misleading use of
quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy, many taken out of context.
instance, on page 650 of the book, the section headed "Took Sinless
Human Nature" is not only misleading, but also lends a false aura to
all the subsequent statements made in it. The initial statement under this
false heading is taken out of context and utterly fails in its attempt to
prove that Christ took sinless human nature. Three paragraphs prior to the
appearance of this statement, Sister White declares unequivocally that
Christ "took our nature in its deteriorated condition." 1 S.M.,
p. 253. This last statement has been disconnected from the first part and
placed under another section heading entitled "Bore the Imputed Sin
and Guilt of the World" (See Q.D., pp. 655, 657). One of our basic
Adventists doctrines is, as most S.D.A.'s should know, THAT WHEN CHRIST
TOOK OUR NATURE IN ITS SINFUL DETERIORATED CONDITION, HE TOOK IT THROUGH
INHERITANCE AND NOT BY IMPUTATION AS "QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE"
page 652, at the top of the page, we find another garbled and distorted
instance which purports to prove that "Christ took sinless human
nature." If we consider this statement in its entirety it serves to
prove just the opposite, i.e. that He actually partook of our fallen
nature. (See 1 S.M., pp. 267, 268).
made by Sister White in which she refers to Christ's sinless life, have
been distorted to prove that He actually took sinless human nature. Thus
there is created in the reader's mind unnecessary confusion between the
human nature He took by His inheritance and birth into the human family,
and the sinless life He led on earth. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit
(Luke 1:35), and thus was able, through the Grace of His Father, to tread
the weaknesses of His human flesh under foot. AND THUS IF WE ARE BORN AGAIN
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WE TOO CAN OVERCOME THE EVIL OF OUR HUMAN NATURE AND
TREAD IT UNDER FOOT.
on Doctrine" also quotes statements which show that Christ did not
have evil propensities and passions, but uses these as evidence that He did
not take fallen human nature. This is an extremely fallacious line of
reasoning because we all share in a fallen human nature, yet need not
retain one sinful propensity, and through Grace need not have any sinful
passions. (See "The Faith I Live By," p. 23).
the section heading "Bore the Imputed Sin and Guilt of the
World," (p. 655 of Q.D.), we find several statements which would more
appropriately be found under some heading such as "Took Fallen Human
Nature," but as the authors profess not to believe this doctrine, the
statements referring to Christ's taking our fallen nature are speciously
explained away by saying that His fallen nature is merely imputed and not
Spirit of God, through His Servant, has told us what the damaging effect of
this type of reasoning does to our concept of the completness of Christ's
we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have
in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His
humanity.'=7 B. C., p. 929.
Andreasen, in his "Letter to the Churches," states this same
truth very plainly: "A Savior 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' ever 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 (as given
in 'Questions on Doctrine') 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 takes 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."-Letters to the Churches,
No. 1, p. 7.
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."-Idem, p. 8.
is, of course, patent to all, that no one can claim to believe the
Testimonies and also believe in the new theology (as expounded in Q.D.) 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."-Idem, p. 7. "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."-Idem, p. 8.
before Elder Andreasen went to sleep to await the call of the Life Giver,
he expressed a desire to see Elder Figuhr to express his regret that during
the heat of their controversy over doctrinal matters, words were passed
that might better have been left unsaid. However, it should be made plain
that at no time did Elder Andreasen depart from the theological position he
takes in his "Letters to the Churches."
Wieland and Short quote the same thought as Elder Andreasen in these words:
"This is just what the religious world generally does deny. For while
admitting in words that Christ took upon Himself our flesh, they assert
that He had a sinless nature; that, unlike the Christian, in whose flesh
'dwells no good thing,' His flesh was without sinful desires and
infirmities, and therefore not the same flesh as that of other men. Thus
they deny the explicit statements of the apostolic writers that He really
and truly took our flesh upon Him. . It is to make His conflict an
unmeaning abstraction, a conflict and yet no conflict, tempted and yet not
being tempted, a being wholly without relation to man, and incapable of
attracting his sympathy.'-1888 Re-Examined, p. 189.
Hudson, well-known true Sabbath-keeper, has this to say on the subject at
officers of the General Conference give evidence that either they have largely
lost the spiritual eyesight to distinguish clearly the difference between
Christ and Satan, or having the requisite eyesight are unwilling to
shoulder the cross of Christ and bear the shame.
basic spiritual malady (incidentally charged by Christ Himself in the
message to Laodicea) has resulted in an inordinate love of the world,
compromise with sin and illicit relationship with Babylon
.. We wish to make our position clear that we hold the book
(Questions on Doctrine) to be the illegitimate child of gross spiritual
adultery."-Preliminary Memorandum, pp. 13, 29.
is made abundantly clear that Christ, while He was on earth, was not given
any divine advantage that is not freely offered to man, if he will but seek
it as Christ sought it.
withstood the temptation through the power that man may command. He laid
hold upon the throne of God, and there is not a man or woman who may not
have access to the same help through faith in God." -5 B.C., p. 1082.
"And he exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely
offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength
given Him from God . . His life testifies that it
is possible for us also to obey the law of God. "-D. A., p. 24.
met man as man, and testified by His connection with God that divine power-
was not given to Him in a different way to what it will be given to us. .
"-7 B.C., p. 925. "He was wholly
dependent upon God, and in the secret place of prayer He sought divine
strength, that He might go forth braced for duty and trial. As a man He
supplicated the throne of God till His humanity was charged with a heavenly
current that should connect humanity with divinity ..
His experience is to be ours. "-D.A, p. 363.
are told clearly and specifically that angels do not need Grace, and that
Adam did not need Grace to keep the law before his fall. (T.M., p. 519; 1
S.M., pp 331-332; S.C., p. 62). But now, let us give you more evidence to
show that Christ, because of His human heredity through Mary, His mother,
required God's Grace to live a sinless life.
the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the
Grace of God was upon Him." Luke 2:40. "And the Grace He received
is for us "-D.A., p. 73. ".. His soul
and His lips were anointed with Grace that He might impart to others"-
C.O.L, p. 139. "To the consecrated worker there is wonderful
consolation in the knowledge that even Christ during His life on earth
sought His Father daily for Fresh Supplies Of Needed Grace,.
. His own example is an assurance that earnest, persevering
supplication to God in faith-faith that leads to entire dependence upon
God, and unreserved consecration to His work-will avail to bring to men the
Holy Spirit's aid in the battle against sin. "-A.A., p. 56.
Inspired writers give us the reason why the Lord received the Holy Spirit
emptied Himself." Phil. 2:6, R. V. Because (He) `hast loved
righteousness and hated iniquity . "Heb. 1:9. 'To Jesus, who emptied Himself for the salvation of
lost humanity, the Holy Spirit was given without measure."-M. B. p.
19, "But the Son of God was surrendered to the Father's will, and
dependent upon His power. So utterly was Christ emptied of self that He
made no plans for Himself. He accepted God's plans for Him, and day by day
the Father unfolded His plans. So should we depend upon God, that our lives
may be the simple outworking of His will.
"-D.A., p. 208.
true followers of Christ, we too are called upon to empty ourselves
completely of self before we will be able to receive a full measure of
Heaven's light. In Christ, we are told 'dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily, and in Him ye are made full.' Col. 2:9, 10, R.V. But we
must remember that of our own selves it is impossible to empty ourselves of
self. This can only be done by us in the same way in which Jesus did it.
we place our will in unison with the will of God, the holy obedience that
was exemplified in the life of Christ will be seen in our
lives."-O.H.C., p. 107.
while He was on earth, received the Holy Spirit by daily supplication and
He received a fresh baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the early hours of the
new day the Lord awakened Him from His slumber and His soul and His lips
were anointed with grace, that He might impart to
others."-C.O.L., p. 139. "It was by faith and prayer that He
wrought His miracles "D. A., p. 536. "He
came not to our world to give the obedience o f a lesser God to a greater,
but as a man to obey God's Holy Law, and in this way He is our example. The
Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a
man could do. "-7 B. C., p. 929.
many quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy have been taken out of context
to support the new theology on the Nature of Christ, we would like at this
point in our study, to give some quotations from the Bible and the Spirit
of Prophecy which will give the reader a true concept of what the Inspired
Writers actually teach on this subject: Galatians 4:4 tells us that Christ
was made of a woman. Romans 1:3 says He was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 8:3
says He was made 'in the likeness of sinful flesh.' (Likeness here
is 'homoioma' which signifies not just 'resemblance,' but likeness in
actuality. See Rom. 9:29; 1 John 3:2; Rev. 1:13; Phil. 2:7). We are also
told in Hebrews 2:14, R.S.V. that He partook of the 'same nature' as the
children He came to redeem. All this being true, Hebrews 2:17, 4:15, and
2:18, agree that 'Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to made like unto
His brethren,' 'was in all points tempted like as we are,' and He 'suffered
are told that He took our heredity: [D.A., p. 49 quoted]
make-believe: [Q.D., p. 653 quoted]
weakened physical mental and moral powers: [D.A. p. 117 quoted]
degenerate nature: (1 S.M., p. 268 quoted] Took fallen human nature: E.W.,
p. 152 quoted]
sinful nature: [M.M. p. 181 quoted]
humanity reached lowest depths: 11 S.M., p. 272, 273 quoted]
nature of Adam the transgressor. [7 B.C., p. 926 quoted] Bore humanity we
bear: [7 B.C., p. 925 quoted]
knew what was in man: (D.A., p. 329 quoted) No evil propensity: [F.C.E., p.
sinful passions: "He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions
of our human, fallen nature . . "-2 T.,
p.202. ".. He. . suffered in proportion to
the perfection of His Holiness.. "-5 T., p. 422. ("We are to have
our tastes, inclinations, ambitions, and passions all subdued, and brought
into harmony with the mind and spirit of Christ. ")-M. L, p. 252.
to dwell in humanity, received no pollution: [D.A., p. 266 quoted]
are several other areas in which the book "Questions on Doctrine"
compromises and distorts our church's true position, such as to what is
meant by the terms 'The Remnant Church,' and 'Babylon,' as these are
defined and applied by the Servant of the Lord.
would like to conclude this study by considering for a few moments the
shameful apostasy by some of our leaders on the subject of the Atonement.
(See Q.D., pp. 341-402, 661-692). We have mentioned earlier in this study,
the series of meetings between General Conference representatives of the
Evangelicals. As a result of these conferences, the book:
on Doctrine" bent over backward in its efforts to modify the Adventist
concept of the Atonement to bring it more nearly into harmony with the
beliefs of Protestantism in general. We have no serious objection to
"Questions on Doctrine" emphasizing that there was a perfect, final,
and complete Atonement on Calvary, provided it is clearly understood that
this applies only to the sacrificial phase of the Atonement. But when we
examine the book's position on the mediatorial phase of the Atonement, we
find a glaring evasion of our church's historic position. This consists of
an absolute silence on the subject of the special phase of the Atonement,
which we have always believed, commenced in 1844. In the earthly sanctuary
service there were two divisions: the daily and the yearly (Heb. 9:6, 7).
The priest went every day into the first apartment to make Atonement (Lev.
6:30), but the special yearly Atonement was made in the second apartment,
or the most holy place. (See Lev. 16:17 & 1 S.M., p. 344).
Christ's Ascension, He 'shed upon His disciples the benefits of His
Atonement.'-E.W., p. 260. This mediatorial work of Atonement by the Lord
began at His Ascension to the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven,
and will continue daily until the close of human probation. This
mediatorial Atonement has been carried on since 1844 in the second
apartment or most holy place. In "Questions on Doctrine," the
authors have found it expedient to discuss only the mediatorial
ministrations of Christ in the first apartment and made it clear to the
Evangelical representatives already mentioned that they do not believe in
any distinct, special, and final work of Atonement that is taking place in
the most holy place.
Evangelicals summarized what the General Conference representatives had
told them about the Atonement in the following statement which appeared in
the magazine "Eternity" for September, 1956:
they (the Adventists), do not believe, as some of their earlier teachers
taught, that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead
that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844. This
idea is also totally repudiated. They believe that since His ascension
Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which He
completed on Calvary. Since the sanctuary doctrine is based on the type of
the Jewish high priest going into the Holy of Holies to complete his
atoning work, it can be seen that what remains is most certainly
exegetically untenable and theological speculation of a highly imaginative
order. What Christ is now doing, since 1844 'according to this version,' is
going over the records of all human beings and deciding what rewards are
going to be given to individual Christians."
above statement was never denied by any of our church leaders while Dr.
Barnhouse was alive, but since his recent death there seems to be a
tendency to infer that he was mistaken in some of the statements he made in
"Eternity" magazine. It is significant that no one had the
temerity to make these insinuations while Dr. Barnhouse was alive. But now
they are coming forward with the flimsy excuse that the reason they didn't
contradict Dr. Barnhouse's statement was that they had already effectively
answered it in the book "Questions on Doctrine." The only weakness
in this argument that causes it to fall apart at the seams is that these
answers closely parallel the "Eternity" magazine report. This
will become increasingly apparent to all as this study is concluded.
General Conference representatives who met with Dr. Barnhouse and his
associates told the latter the only work that began in 1844 was a talk of
'going over the records of all human beings.' In this manner the special
Atonement is completely glossed over and left out, although it is a
fundamental, historic Adventist belief. By way of contrast, note what the
Spirit of Prophecy has to say regarding the two-fold nature of the special
work of Atonement which began in 1844:
by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the Holy of Holies and
there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of His
ministration in behalf of man-to perform the work of investigative judgment
and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its
benefits. "-G. C., p. 480.
examining the appendix in "Questions on Doctrine," the reader
will find a flagrant example of 'intellectual dishonesty' which we have
little choice but to feel is a deliberate attempt to evade the facts. Here
is an excerpt from the Appendix of "Questions on Doctrine":
the writings of Ellen G. White have often been garbled when allegedly
'quoted' by critics or detractors, we here give a comprehensive assemblage
of her teachings on the deity and eternal pre-existence of Christ, and His
place in the Godhead, or Trinity; His nature during the incarnation; and
His atoning sacrifice and priestly ministry."-Q.D. p. 641.
when the authors state that the appendix contains a 'comprehensive
assemblage' of Sister White's statements about Christ's 'priestly
ministry,' this is just plain untruth. Every statement from the Spirit of
Prophecy which refers to the final, special, closing atonement in the most
holy place, has been completely omitted. By no
stretching of the imagination could this have been done inadvertently or by
oversight, because Sister White has written voluminously on this topic and
has made many statements in which she has systematically outlined the basic
Adventist doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary.
is significant to note that the Servant of the Lord foresaw that this very
situation would arise which Elder Andreasen terms the Omega of Apostasy.
was told that men will employ every policy to make less prominent the
difference between the faith of Seventh-day Adventists and those who
observe the first day of the week.. This is no
time to haul down our colors. A company was presented before me under the
name of Seventh-day Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign
which makes us a distinct people should not be held out so strikingly,- for they claimed it was not the best policy in
securing success to our institutions. This distinctive banner is to be
borne through the world to the close of probation .
. The world and the churches are uniting in transgressing the law of God,
in tearing away God's memorial, and in exalting a sabbath that bears the
signature of the man of sin.
realized only too well, because of his profound knowledge of sign to show
the difference between the obedient and the disobedient. l
saw some reaching out their hands to remove the banner, and to obscure its
significance . . Shall anyone then choose to hide this banner, to relax his
devotion? Shall the people whom God has honored, blessed and prospered,
refuse to bear testimony in behalf of God's memorial at the very time when
such a testimony should be borne? Shall not the commandments of God be more
highly esteemed when men pour contempt upon the law of God?"-2 S.M.,
realizes only too well, because of his profound knowledge of Inspired
Writings, that it is the general study and acceptance of the great
Sanctuary Message that will bring about the final revival, reformation and
shaking in the church of God. He also realizes that this Sanctuary truth is
to prepare it to stand in the time of trouble without a mediator. Thus the
Enemy of Souls is frantically engaged in seeking to create confusion and
division in our church by the introduction of false doctrines and
fallacious theories that will cause the unwary to stumble. We must
earnestly pray for these souls through whom Satan has succeeded in
introducing the Omega of Apostasy and for those who are now being deceived
thing is certain: those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under
Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs
contained in the Testimonies of God's spirit."- Spalding-Magan
Collection, p. 305.
THIRTEEN - - May, 1958 -
HUDSON'S CONVERSATION WITH BARNHOUSE
first individual to reprint Andreasen's mimeographed collection of papers
was Al Hudson in Baker, Oregon. A concerned Seventh-day Adventist, be was
another who dared to stand up and speak. And it cost him dearly also. He
was stripped of his church offices and later his church membership. A small
town printer, be was in an admirable position to speak up, and speak up he
following is a reprint of most of a telephone conversation that Brother
Hudson had with Donald Grey Barnhouse on May 16, 1958. This a year and a
half after the conclusion of the "bombshell" articles in
"Eternity" and a little less than a year after QD was released
and created its own bombshell among our people.
information given in this telephone conversation is devastating. Barnhouse
repeatedly tells his caller that the Seventh-day Adventist leaders who took
part in these Evangelical Conferences were totally repudiating certain
earlier teachings of their Church. He knew it and they knew it. But whereas
our people had been told by Froom and Anderson, both in articles and in the
pages of QD, that these changed teachings had always been the belief of the
majority of sane Adventists, -Barnhouse bad been told that although this
was indeed an outright repudiation of earlier Adventist "errors,"
yet the membership of the Church fully went along with the repudiation. The
very idea that some of the members might now be in disagreement with the
repudiation seemed to come as a shock to Barnhouse.
addition, we also here see a hint of the fury of Barnhouse's feelings about
the utter stupidity of the crazy Adventist doctrines.
the following conversation, "(H) "
indicates that Hudson is speaking and "(B)" that Barnhouse is
Good morning. (B) Good morning. (H) This is Al Hudson, Baker, Oregon. (B) Bob Hudson? (H) Al Hudson. (B) Al Hudson. (H)
Yes. (B) Yes? (H) On the 28th of last month I wrote to you and Mr. Martin
and Mr. Bryant a letter relative to some of the articles which have
appeared in your magazine on Seventh day Adventists, etc.
[to secretary] Have we a letter from a Mr. Al Hudson,
Baker, Oregon, concerning articles on subject Adventists? All right, go
ahead. (H) The reason I mentioned that was to try to identify myself. (B)
Yes. (H) Now, I'm, in this letter-. (B) What church are you connected with?
(H) I'm a Seventh-day Adventist. (B) Yes.
In my letter I stated what I'm calling you about. That's the reason I
mentioned the letter. I thought if you might have caught it, why then you
would know what--. (B) Well, we get so many thousands of letters that it
takes generally a long time to filter up to me.
Sure, I appreciate that. Well, then I can give you just a brief resume of
the situation. I'm writing a paper dealing with certain phases of
developments in the Adventist church, particularly in the last decade. Of
course this matter of our relationship to the Evangelicals has come along
as part of the picture. And I've read your articles in
"Eternity", also Mr. Martin's articles, and other articles that
other Evangelicals have written. Now, some time ago, I talked to Mr. Martin,
oh, I guess it's been about a month ago. I was
interested in when his book was coming out, and so on. I had talked to Mr.
Bryant of Zondervan publishing, and Mr. Martin. Then I wrote up the result
of our conversation as I understood it, and sent it to Mr. Martin, asking
him to confirm it, or correct it as he might see fit, and I haven't heard
from him. In fact, he seems unwilling to either confirm or deny the facts
that we discussed in our conversation.
Well, I tell you, I know this, that I know that his book has been cleared
by our office, and it is on the way. (H) I see. (B) That's the situation.
The book proposition. They don't want to, (H) I see. It's a matter of
financial--. (B) I don't know. It's a matter of, (H) I see. (B) But what
can I do for you?
Well, now the question: there's quite a bit of controversy over this matter
in the Evangelical press, and of course it is also appearing in our press.
Now, there seems to be one angle of the thing that I would like to get
cleared up. Have, to your knowledge, either you or Mr. Martin, or anyone
else, have Seventh-day Adventist leaders indicated formally or informally
that they desire fellowship in the National Association of Evangelicals?
I don't know anything about these things. My staff keeps me protected from
all controversy so that I can sit here at my desk and write, etc. (H) I see.
Now, I don't know, I don't think there is any doubt of the fact that
Seventh-day Adventists, that is the top leaders, understand that it is a
very important thing for Seventh-day Adventists to be recognized as
evangelical. But you see, the difficulty lies in the fact, that--the one
thing that I stated about Seventh-day Adventists, namely that they are
believers, has been totally overlooked by Talbot, and "King's
Business", and these people. The fact that I have said, and I've said
to thousands of people, I said, "All I'm saying is that the Adventists
are Christians." I still think their doctrines are about the screwiest
of any group of Christians in the world. I believe this beyond any
question. In fact, the doctrine of the investigative judgment is the most
blatant, face-saving proposition that ever existed to cover up the debacle
of the failure of Christ to come in 1844 as they said. When the two men
walked through the cornfield, and suddenly one of them struck his head and
said, "Why, Christ did come." Why, this is ridiculous, asinine
nonsense. The whole of the investigative judgment is a face-saving thing, and
now that a hundred years have gone by, if the Adventists had the
courage--because now the Adventists are becoming educated. A hundred years
ago, the Adventists were practically illiterate. And now they are becoming
educated, and they know that their doctrines will not hold the light of
exegesis. Just simply cannot stand. There is no Greek, no Greek scholar in
the world, that will fail to accept the fact that
Christ died once and for all. And that He didn't go in and out, and that He
wasn't wandering around in the tabernacle. He was seated, and that He has
never gotten up to walk anywhere in 1844, or anyplace else. Now, failure to
understand this is intellectual, ah, laziness or fear. Now, you see, [the]
Seventh-day Adventist group was formed by three groups that came together,
each one holding a pet doctrine that was false. One group held
Sabbatarianism, the others didn't at all. The second group held the
investigative judgment, the other groups didn't at
all. And the third group held the doctrine of conditional immortality, and
the other groups didn't hold it at all. They were all united on the great
truth of the second coming of Christ. And so, in order to come together in
one union, they effected what is a compromise. Each accepted the folly of
the other in order to get their own folly
accepted. Because--. Now, if you'll drop a post card to my office, they'll
send you my booklet, "The Christian and the Sabbath", which has
just been published about a week ago. You can get it free.
"The Christian and the Sabbath"? (B) Yes, Box 2000, Philadelphia.
I have just made an exhaustive study of the folly of Sabbatarianism
preaching on "one man esteemeth one day above another,
and another man esteems every day alike." And I have just published
this, and it's on--in fact if you listen next Sunday morning on National
Broadcasting system, I'm on this subject, the Christian and the Sabbath,
right now. I'm preaching six sermons on the Sabbath coast to coast on NBC,
pointing out that the Adventists are wrong in keeping Saturday, the
Protestants are wrong in keeping Sunday, and that that the only thing to
keep is, to have the attitude that every day is alike and that God not only
is not entering into this day, but He hates the Sabbath today. You see. (H)
Well, now, in your contact with Adventist leaders, which you mention in
your magazine, and also Mr. Martin, do you feel that our top ranking
leaders, who have as you say, become educated, are tending away from this
concept of the investigative judgment as you have mentioned it? (B) You
see, what we know is this. I cannot speak for any of these men, Roy
Anderson and Froom, etc. these are intelligent men. They'll speak for
themselves. They'll tell you what they're believing
and what they are doing. You wouldn't want anybody to call you up, or call
somebody else up, and ask what the inside of your thinking was.
No, except that you have had association with them, have talked with them.
(B) We have had great association; in fact I have a letter on my desk this
minute. When I asked my secretary she just handed me a letter from L.E.
Froom, and we are in correspondence right along, with the leaders of the
Seventh-day Adventist movement.
Well, then, that was the basis of my question. Now, you have mentioned in
your articles in "Eternity" that it seems to you that there is a
sort of a transition period, or a--. (B) There has to be. (H) Or a
metamorphosis as it were out of the--.
I mean there has to be . . Now, I recognize
clearly that Mrs. White very frequently wrote some very spiritual things,
but God Almighty never spoke through a woman. Let's face it. You can't
justify a woman preaching and usurping authority over a man. It can't be
done. Now, this is the position, psychologically we can understand the
Seventh-day Adventists very well, and the fact that I took the lead in
clearing them, in fact, I picked the Seventh-day Adventists out of the
association of Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses, and have said,
"These people are Christians." Seventh-day Adventists are immature
Christians. I don't think there is any doubt of the fact that Seventh-day
Adventists have a tremendous immaturity. And this immaturity rises from the
psychological complex of their background. Because, I mean, have you read
Froom's history? (H) I have it here. I use it as a reference book. I
haven't read it through, no.
All right, well, if you go to the last volume of it and let him describe
for you the whole Millerite proposition, he puts in capital letters, THE
GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT, capital G, capital R, capital E, all capitals, THE
GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT! Well, the great disappointment was that Jesus didn't
come back on that day. Well, all of the people that were in that movement, were Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians,
-it was an evangelical movement in all the great churches, looking for the
second coming of Christ. Miller was a Baptist,
Miller wasn't a Seventh-day Adventist. He didn't believe in Saturday the
Sabbath; he didn't believe in the investigative judgment; he didn't believe
in conditional immortality. Now, you see, those men, as I say, I forgot the
name of the man who went by the back way through the cornfield, you know
who I mean. Well, let's face it. What happened to him that day was a great
and terrible sin for what he was doing instead of getting down on his knees
and saying, "Lord God, I've been a fool, and the Bible says that if
any man make a prophecy and it does not come to pass, you will know that I
have not sent him." And there, I don't believe the Seventh-day
Adventists are ever going to be any real witness unless the Seventh-day
Adventist gets down on his knees and says, "Lord God, in the beginning
we were founded on a lie", because you were founded on a lie.
Well, of course those are moot points that, (B) Why, they're not even moot.
I mean, if you take anybody that is not a Seventh-day Adventist, the five
most honest men in the world, in fact if you take a Jew who is not a
Christian, even, or a Roman Catholic, and put the thing up to them and say,
"Now, historically, judge!" why, they're all going to say,
"This is a face-saving proposition, at most; certainly it has nothing
to do with the Bible." (H) Well, I can see your line of reasoning.
Now, I love all Christians. I love, and I have found-why, when these men
came to my home-I happen to have a nice place in the country-and these men
came to my home for days. And we were down on our knees together; we prayed
together; we walked in the garden together. And let me tell you, Roy
Anderson is one of the finest men I have ever met in my life and Unruh.
We've prayed together. I know these men are brothers in Christ, you see,
all that Talbot and the rest of them say-- I mean, you take this last copy
of the magazine "Evangelical Action," the organ of the National
Association of Evangelicals. Brother, they came out in a big blast of
Talbot and DeHaan against me and against the Seventh-day Adventists, on the
basis of the SDA book, but anybody who reads, have you read the big SDA
book? (H) Yes, I have a copy here.
Well, let's face It, in a very nice way, the leaders who have written this
book, have moved from the traditional position of the SDA movement. They've
come back toward the Bible. (H) But they insist that they haven't. Now,
that's the controversy, you see.
What you fellows ought to do, now I don't know what your position is, but
if you want to strike a blow for the truth, write an article and come right
out and say something like this, "Let's face the fact that we have
error in our fundamental position. Let's abandon them and go forward with
Now, you feel that Anderson and Froom are more or less of that disposition?
(B) No, I don't say that at all. (H) You don't think so? (B) No, I don't
say that at all. They should be, but I think there are a lot of fellows
that are holding sticks over them, and they don't dare advance as much as
they should. (H) You think they would advance more if they weren't being
Look, I think you would advance more if you weren't being held back. If you
follow the Holy Spirit, you would abandon the investigative judgment in one
minute. (H) Well, on the, of course, there is a lot of doctrinal
controversy there, but on the practical end, as I said before, it seems to
me this matter of fellowship--. Now, if Adventist leaders made overtures to
the Association for recognition-. (B) I don't think they have. (H) You
don't think they have. Well, then the controversy in the Evangelical press
to the effect that we are asking for fellowship has no foundation.
I don't think it has any foundation. You see, in a large measure, let's
face it, Mr. Hudson, in a large measure--. You see, I was a University
professor, and have had a great education, and they know that if I say
something that I have background for it. And they know what I've done in
coming out and saying that Seventh-day Adventists are Christians. You see,
one guy has earned half his living giving lectures against the cults,
Christian Science, etc. Now, this is the reason why he's attacking, and
he's attacking me as much as he's attacking Seventh-day Adventists. You see
this we know.
Well, now what is the basis of Mr. Martin's statement that there is no
question, I think I have it here. "There is no doubt that Seventh-day
Adventists desire to receive and extend the hand of fellowships to all
truly within the body of Christ," meaning, at least in part, the
members of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Well, I would put it this way: There is no doubt of the fact that any man
who is a truly born-again man wants to extend the hand to everybody else
who is born again. If he doesn't, he is out of the will of God. Now, I know
that some of the men at Takoma Park are not only saved, but they want to be
led by the Holy Spirit. Now, any man who wants to be led by the Holy Spirit-.
Now, this year, the year 1958, I have already spoken in a Seventh-day
Adventist meeting; I held a week of meetings in the Pentecost Assembly in
Missouri; last week I was in the Episcopal cathedral in Cleveland under the
great Cleveland Federation of Churches, and I have already preached this
year in Northern and Southern Baptist, Northern and Southern Presbyterian,
(?) Methodist church in Kansas City, and I want to work with the whole body
of Christ. If you were born again, and you are going to be in heaven, then
you are my brother. But if you are a sectarian-I don't know what your
attitude is. You called me up on the telephone and I'm speaking to you
plainly although I don't know who you are at all. But if you are a person
trying to stir up trouble, if you are a person trying to find out if you
can sharpen your knife using me as a whetstone in order that you may try to
sink it in some of the leaders who are trying to be godly men, then I tell
you that you are being led by the antichrist, and not led by the Holy
No, I'm not. Now what I had, I don't mean No to that last
question. I'm not trying to fly under any false colors. That's the
reason I mentioned my letter which if it had reached you, you would have
known exactly what my position is. Now, you and Mr. Martin have made
certain representations as to Adventist beliefs, etc. in your magazine. I
have been in correspondence with our men in Washington. I have on my desk
now a letter I received from the secretary of the general conference just yesterday.
There is quite a wide discrepancy between your interpretation of our belief
and what has been and is still current in our midst. I'm just trying to
iron out the facts.
Look, we have written and signed by the leaders of the Seventh-day
Adventist movement that we have not misrepresented Seventh-day Adventist
Now, that's what Mr. Martin told me as we talked this matter informally
more than a month ago. Now, I have asked our men in Washington about this
purported, not recommendation, but I think it is called a forward, which
was to be signed by an officer of the General Conference stating that you
had not misrepresented doctrine. I can't get any satisfaction out of our
men in Washington as to just what they agreed to and didn't agree to do,
but it doesn't agree with what you wrote in "Eternity." Now, I'm
just trying to get at the facts, that's all I'm trying to do, because I'm
writing a paper myself, and I think later on, will be incorporated into a
Now, what is your position? Are you trying to keep Seventh-day Adventism as
it has been for the last 100 years or so? (H) Frankly, my personal
position, I am not convinced of the necessity of a change, no.
I mean, you know that Christ didn't come back in 1844; you know if you know
anything at all, that Jesus hasn't been wandering around in heaven since
1844. He did not get up off the throne to go into any inner sanctuary. You
know that this was a face-saving device of men who were so scaredy cat that
they were walking through a cornfield in order to keep off the main road.
You know this wasn't the Holy Spirit. You know it in your heart, and if you
ever take the position, God is going to nullify your ministry, and at the
judgement seat of Christ, you are going to answer for it.
Now, I appreciate your franknesss. I wish our men would be just as frank as
to their relationship to you and Mr. Martin, and also the doctrinal
positions they are taking. Frankly, there is a considerable difference
between what you have published and what our men are telling us. I'm just
trying to find out if we have changed, if we should change, just what the
status of the thing is.
Everything I have published was read by Seventh-day Adventist leaders
before we published. Not one line have I ever printed that was not
previously read by Froom, for instance.
Well, I'm not trying to stir up any trouble. I'm a Seventh-day Adventist,
and I'm not convinced even from what you say, that I should change, but I'm
willing to consider it provided it is brought out in the open and handled
in a business-like way. Now, if our leaders in Washington feel that we
should modify our position, my position is that they should come out to us
as Seventh-day Adventists in the field, and say, "Brethren, we have
been in error on this. We'd better change to so and so and so and so."
Now, they're not doing that. They're telling us that we have not changed,
and yet apparently they are giving you and Mr. Martin the idea that we are
at least in the process of changing or are willing to change. Now, I'm just
trying to get the facts.
I think they're doing, as I say, I think these men are educated men, and
some of them know Greek. We sat here with their Greek professor, some of
these men know Greek, and Walter Martin pointed out, "By one offering
he had perfected forever them that are sanctified." That is the aorist
tense. And one man of the top leaders said, "Now, I don't know
Greek," he said, "myself, but three of us have had a lot of Greek."
And all of the wonderful part of fellowship with Anderson and Froom and
Unruh, and I forget the other men that came up from Washington, the top
men, and we spent two days one time and two and a half another, here in my
home. We entertained these men, and fed them vegetarian meals, and had a
nice time together. We had a wonderful time together.
I spoke for Richards in a Seventh-day Adventist group to all his people,
etc. and I'm going to preach in the Seventh-day Adventist church in Takoma
Park, Washington. And we had Dr. Roy Anderson come to my pulpit in the
Presbyterian church and my people heard him with great profit. He is a
godly man. Now this is a whole lot better than having everybody taking
Talbot's position and saying that you are all antichrist. (H) Well, that is
a complicated proposition.
Let me tell you this, if you don't want, I mean if you try to write a book
or anything that there has been no change in Adventism, then we're going to
have to go back and say, "You are anti-Christ." I will have to
make a public retraction, and send it to "Time" magazine, and
say, "Your article,"-did you read it when it came out in
"Time?" (H) No.
Well, you see "Time" magazine wrote a big article about my
article on Seventh-day Adventism and called it "Peace with the
Adventists." Well, I'll have to write "Time" magazine and
publish in "Eternity" and write an apology to Talbot for
"King's Business," "Moody Monthly," and say, "I
was wrong. These people are still anti-Christ. Put them back with Jehovah's
Witnesses where they belong," if you start writing the way you're
contemplating. (H) You actually believe, then, that our book,
"Questions on Doctrine," supports the attitude that you have put
forth in your magazine "Eternity", and which you have just set
forth here to me. You actually believe that that book supports that?
I say this, I have a copy of it within three feet
of me at the present moment. and what you have
done beyond any question in that book, is taking the position, for example,
that everybody that ever said that it was necessary to keep Saturday in
order to be saved, was wrong. Your book states this. Now, for instance, you
don't hold that Sunday is the mark of the beast, do you?
Yes. (B) You do? (H) Yes. (B) Well, then we might as well hang up. You
belong to the anti-Christ party. I'll tell you this, brother, and you, I
doubt if you're saved. (H) Well. (B) You don't know what salvation is.
Hudson, you don't know what salvation is. (H) Well, perhaps that's right, Mr. Barnhouse, but the Adventists believe that,
They, now, that's the point, the Adventists do not
believe this. This is the point I'm making. And everywhere we said, for
instance, a man in the Presbyterian Church, wrote
an article and he said they believe that there is no hell, and that they
don't believe. That's what a screwball on the fringe believes. Now, in the believe. That's what a scewball on the fringe
believes. Now, in the Seventh-day Adventist movement you've got screwballs
and people on the fringe. (H) Yeah, that's apparently where I am.
Well, if you believe that keeping any day but Saturday is the mark of the
beast then you are of the party of anti-Christ because you deny salvation
by grace alone. You do not believe that salvation is by grace alone, do you?
Not in the same sense that you use it, no. (B) Yeah, in other words you
believe that a man has to add something to the work of Christ in order to
be saved. (H) Yes, that's right. (B) Then, I say that is of the devil,
beyond any question, and you see, you're the one that's making the
difficulty, and I will print this in our magazine. Are you the pastor of a
church there in Oregon? (H) No, I'm a layman. (B) You're a layman? (H) I'm
an officer of the church, but I'm not an ordained minister. I studied for
the ministry, however, in the Adventists Church, and I think I know what
You really believe then, that everybody who is not a Seventh-day Adventist
is lost? (H) Oh, no. I didn't say that. (B) Well, this is what you say,
because the people who are not Adventists don't keep Saturday, and won't, I
hate Saturday as a Sabbath religious day. I hate it because Christ hates
it! - .
Do you feel that you are the remnant church? (H) That is Adventist
teaching. (B) Well, if you believe that, then you are a megalomaniac. Now,
let's face it. I'm not going to pull words. You just are not following the
Bible. (H) I appreciate your position. Now, of course, over the telephone
here I couldn't defend that position, but, friend, that is Adventist
teaching. (B) Well, it isn't Adventist teaching. Excuse me, but it is not.
(H) Well, that's the point. What makes you think it isn't? (B) Well, their
book, their statement, and even Ellen G. White. I can show you in Ellen G.
White that she doesn't believe this. (H) She doesn't believe that the
Adventist church is the remnant church?
She does not believe, she believes that God gave
some vital truth, some latter day truth, but she does not take the position
that anybody that is not a Seventh-day Adventist is not a believer in
Christ (H) No, She doesn't. Neither do we. (B) Oh,
yes you do. (H) No. (B) That's it. You just said that not keeping Saturday,
keeping Sunday, was the mark of the beast. Your
trouble is that you don't realize what you say. (H) Yes, I do realize what
I say. (B) Well, if you say for instance, let me ask you this. Do you think
I'm a lost soul? (H) Friend, that is up to God.
No, No, No. But you wait a minute. Let's ask a question; that's up to God
but do you think that I cursing Saturday as the Sabbath, cursing everything
that is of the law, and wanting grace alone, and wanting to live in
holiness, believing that all sin is removed by the blood of Jesus Christ
alone, do you believe that therefore I am a lost soul? (H) I believe that
you are a disobedient follower of Christ, and that disobedience, if
continued in, will ultimately cause the loss of your soul, yes. (B) Yeah,
well, you see there's no use in your talking. You don't even believe that
I'm saved. (H) Now, I think that you will find if you will investigate the
matter a little more closely that –
Thank God the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism do not hold your position.
(H) You don't think they do. (B) I know they don't. I know they don't.
We've gone on our knees together, and have gotten up from our knees
together, and they say, "Brother, this is wonderful. We are redeemed
and fellows in Christ." (H) And you don't think that Seventh-day
Adventist leaders believe that you are a disobedient follower of Jesus.
I didn't say that. They believe that I am a born again person. That I am
saved and have eternal life. They know that I hold the Calvinistic position
that I am saved forever and can never be lost. They say to me, they hold
the Armenian position, but nevertheless, they definitely believe that I am
a born-again believer and a brother in Christ.
Well, now here, I had one of these very men who have been foremost in this
relationship tell me when I was in Washington D.C. last November; I went
back for some conferences and study. He told me--. (B) Which man? (H) I'd
rather not give his name. (B) Oh, come on now. If you're not honest enough
to talk, what did you call me for? (H) Well, you accuse me, didn't accuse
me, but wondered if I was trying to stir up personal trouble. I'm not. But
I am trying to arrive at some facts. Now, if I tell you this man's name
personally, that is a personal thing. If I tell you the position he took,
then it becomes--. (B) You said one of the men who came to my house. (H) Well,
let's put it this way. One of the men that has been--. (B) You said one of
the men that came to my house. (H) You've got me on the spot. (B) Sure I
do. It's either Froom or Anderson or Richards. (H) Unruh? (B) No, Unruh is
from Pennsylvania. You said Washington. That's Froom and Anderson and the
fourth man, what's his name? (H) I don't know. (B) You don't know. Well,
that leaves it, it's Froom or Anderson who told
All right, I'll tell you, it was Froom. He told me that he had you men
right where you were going to have to admit the seventh day is the Sabbath.
(B) Oh, he never said anything of the kind. (H) Well, that's what he told
me. (B) We know that the seventh day is not the Sabbath. (H) That's what he
told me, and he told me in the offices of the General Conference in
Well, you listen to the National Broadcasting System coast to coast next
Sunday morning at 8:30. I'm preaching against the Sabbath right now. (H) My
point is this. As near as I can get the information together, here, our men
have been representing one thing to you and they are representing another
thing to us. (B) Well, put that down in so many words. (H) Well, now, I'll
put it in writing, and will you prove to the contrary? In other words, you
say you have in your files stuff that will support everything that you have
written in "Eternity" magazine. Well, now, will you come out with
that? (B) Well, uh—
Our men are denying that. Now let's get the thing straight. I have a stack
of correspondence here from our officials in Washington I'm trying to get
at the basis of this thing, and I don't know what is in your files. I know
what Martin told me, and I know that he will not answer my letters in
confirming what he told me, but our men are representing --. (B) Possibly
he believes that you are just a trouble maker. (H) I think that's entirely
possible. I appreciate his position. I'm not trying to cause trouble to
anybody, but I want to know what our men are teaching and if we should
change, I want to change with them, provided that they can convince me that
I should change, but to try to give the idea to you and Mr. Martin that we
have changed, and to give the idea to us that we haven't changed, I don't
go for that. Now, I think our men ought to come out and be honest on the
Well, look, the important thing is this, where the great change has come,
they have absolutely denied, and in the book, 700-page book which you have,
they have denied beyond question that they hold any position which makes
Christ anything other than the eternal second Person of the Godhead. (H) I
grant that. (B) Do you believe that Jesus is the Lord Jehovah? (H) Yes, if
I understand what you mean by the Lord Jehovah. I believe that He is the
second Person of the Godhead, eternally existent, He became incarnate and
became a man. Now, on that point, however, there is a great controversy.
Exactly. Now, you see there were Seventh-day Adventists who held that He
was sinful, that He did not have a sinless nature, and they took the Docetism
principle from back in the early church history. Now your leaders have come
out in the strongest possible repudiation of that phase of Seventh-day
They are taking the position, are they not, that Christ has the nature of
Adam before he sinned, isn't that true? (B) I hope not! (H) What is their
position as you understand it? (B) That Christ had, that He was the
God-man. Adam was created a being subject to fall. Jesus Christ was the
God-man, not subject to fall.
And that's your understanding of the position of our leaders? (B) Of
course! They have taken it so strongly and it is in their book. We hold,
they say, with the church of all the centuries that Jesus Christ was the
eternal sinless Son of God, etc. etc.
Well, I don't want to take longer of your time. I was trying to clear up
specifically the item of whether our leaders had made overtures to the
National Association of Evangelicals for fellowship. (B) I don't think they
have. (H) Now, that is what I am trying to get at. That puts it in a
different category. (B) This would precipitate a fight that might break the
National Association in pieces. (H) In other words, it still is a matter of
a theological discussion in comparative religions. It's not a practical
matter of determining whether or not Adventists should be admitted to the
National Association of Evangelicals. (B) Why, that has never been under
our discussion. I never heard about it until you told me, this morning.
It has come out in the Evangelical press. We have been represented as
standing before the door of the National Association of Evangelicals asking
for entrance. Now, I'm just trying to run that down and see if it is
nothing but rumor. (B) I'll tell you what was said was
this. The Seventh-day Baptists are already in. You see the Seventh-day
Baptists have been a member of the National Association of Evangelicals for
years. And someone stated, I believe, I wasn't at the convention, that
Seventh-day Adventists had as much right in it as the Seventh-day Baptists.
But I do not believe that anybody in the Seventh-day Adventist group
applied or made overtures. If it had been done it would have been done
through us because, brother, I came out and said that Seventhday Adventists
were Christians. But I'm going to have to say that a man called me up from
Oregon and spent half an hour on the telephone telling me that he was not a
Christian. For that's what you've told me this morning. (H) Well, of
course, that is a matter of opinion.
No, it isn't. Excuse me, but this is the matter. It says, if anybody come
and bring not the gospel of Christ, this is the
spirit of anti-Christ. Now you see, if you do not believe that Jesus Christ
is the eternal, sinless Son of God, that He could not have sinned, and
goodness, we have 18 quotations from Mrs. White saying the same thing, 18
quotations from Ellen G. White stating exactly this position, and denying
what you are telling me.
On the other hand I have quotations that state just the opposite. (B) One
quotation. (H) We have more than that. (B) No. (H) You don't have them all.
Oh yes we do. Look, Froom and the rest of them say that Walter Martin knows
more about Seventh-day Adventists than any professor in Takoma Park,
Washington,-. (H) Well, that again is a matter of opinion.
You know she wrote about 25 million words. That's quite a lot for a man to
read. (B) That's too much, you know. She was running off at the mouth, and
the Holy Spirit certainly was not doing it. (H) Do you think that Anderson
and Froom agree with you on that position?
Look, I know that these men are intelligent enough to know that she was a
fallible human being, and that she said so herself. You don't believe that
she was infallible, do you? Do you? (H) You get into the matter of the various
concepts of inspiration. You asked me a question. I'll answer it. I believe
she was a prophet. (B) Do you believe she was infallible? (H) Well, I say
that she was a prophet the same as any other true prophet. (B) Do you
believe that she was in error ever? (H) As a human being? (B) In her
writing. Do you believe that in some of her writing that you have to point
to certain sentences and say, "Boy, she sure pulled a blooper! That's for the birds! It is not true!" (H)
I haven't encountered any of those quotations, no. (B) You haven't? (H) No.
(B) Oh, brother, are you a dupe. You are not as honest as the people at
They feel that she has written error? (B) Of course they do. Every one of
these men have said this to me. Every man. Every
man. They believe that she was raised up of God to be a great blessing, and
that the Spirit of Prophecy was upon her, but they all agree that she wrote
error in some places. (H) You gather from your association with those men
that they believe that she was a prophet though. (B) They believe that God
came upon her in a special way, and for a message
to His people at a special time. (H) Would you gather the impression in
your talking with them that they feel that she was a prophet in the same
sense that Isaiah and Jeremiah were?
Of course not. Certainly not. They're intelligent men, and they are
Christians. I mean, anybody who would say that Ellen G. White was a prophet
in the same sense as Isaiah-- in the first place, they are denying the
Bible's word about prophecy concerning a woman. You see you simply have to
put all that out of your mind before you ever accept such a thing, and you
see, I mean, if you take this position, Seventh-day Adventism will have to
go back into the same position as Mormonism with their Book of Mormon. A
guest has just arrived for lunch, and I've got to go.
I appreciate your time. Now, I'll tell you my position on Mrs. White, just
for the record. I don't know what you're going to publish that I have said.
I hope that you have it accurately. My position is this-- the Bible
mentions two kinds of prophets, a true prophet and a false prophet I
believe Mrs. White was a true prophet. Now that is my position.
Yeah, I know that's your position. She was just a good woman who was
greatly blessed and greatly mistaken, frequently. (H) And you don't think
Elder Froom and Richards and the others take my position? That she was a
Of course they don't. (H) I see. (B) None of them do. (H) Well, I
appreciate your time.
- SECTION FOURTEEN - January
and April 1956 –
TWO ANDERSON LETTERS TO GREIVE
you will recall, we have chosen in this lengthy documentary to lump certain
items together instead of keeping everything strictly chronological. We
shall now provide you with three letters. The first two were written by Roy
Allan Anderson, Secretary of the Ministerial Association of the General
Conference, to R.A. Greive, at that time President of the North New Zealand
was an original thinker who liked to come up with new ideas. He had already
developed a peculiar concept of "instantaneous sanctification"
while he was president of the Queensland Conference in Australia. We are
told that as soon as he presented it, nearly all of the ministers in the
conference immediately began preaching it, even though inherent in it was
the idea that at the moment of conversion one is "instantaneously
sanctified and therefore need not concern oneself with obedience to the Law
of God, for he is already fully prepared for heaven. (Ford's heresy is but
a variant of this. Greive taught a sanctification that is a momentary act
that is in reality a denial of its existence; Ford and the "new
theology " teach that sanctification (obedience by faith in Christ)
may exist but has no significance in the plan of salvation; justification
(forgiveness by God of one's past record) is all that is needed.) When
Grieve went from Queensland to the presidency of the North New Zealand
Conference, be took the teaching with him and upon presenting it to the
pastors and church workers in workers' meetings, they accepted it as
wonderful new light and began teaching it to their church members. It
doesn't take long to ruin a church: All that is required is one man who
likes to dream up new theologies-and a majority of hirelings beneath him.
a year before the publication of "Questions on Doctrine, " Greive learned about Anderson and Froom's
attempt back in Washington D.C. to change still other doctrines. Greive was
a forceful man, so he twice wrote to find out what was taking place.
Anderson's two replies are low-key but of interest. Here they are.
a few years, Greive left Adventism entirely, joined a Protestant church and
became one of their ministers. His reason for leaving: He no longer
believed that Moses and Paul were right when they said there is a literal
Sanctuary in heaven. This is the identical point that Ford now rejects. But
Ford continues on as a member of the Pacific Union College Church. It is
our understanding that this is because a majority of its members agree with
his thinking and therefore refuse to disfelowship him.
Assoc. Gen. Conf. of S.D.A.
Washington 12, D.C.
January 19, 1956
R. A. Greive
N. Z. Conference
8541, Upper Symonds St., P.O.
dear Brother Greive:
letter is long, long overdue and it carries sincerest apologies for what is
an unpardonable neglect. At the time of your accident in New Guinea I was
under a terrific pressure with appointments away from the office, and as
you know when you get back things pile high, and somehow this was
overlooked. I wrote to Stan Gander and it somehow was in the back of my
mind that I had written you as well. How thankful we are that the Lord
spared your lives, although it was a terrible experience.
now, brother, we are in the midst of a most interesting study. For your
sake I wish you could be here in Washington right now. You remember the
things we discussed in both Australia and Auckland, especially concerning
the nature of Christ. Well, at that time some things that Sister White
wrote more than half a century ago were kind of in the background.
Practically nobody knew of their existence although they were published in
the Review and also in personal letters and counsels, etc. The pity of it
is that these statements which throw a great deal of light on the subject
had not been made available to our workers generally long before now.
soon as I returned from Australia I was plunged into the thick of a very
important series of counsels with some outstanding theologians belonging to
several different groups, but remarkable Christians, each of them. They had
been given the task of writing against us, and when they came down here to
get first handed material they discovered that instead of our being a cult
we were sound evangelical Christians. This discovery was a shock to them
and after some days of study they openly and joyfully received us as
brethren in Christ, gripping our hands in the spirit of fellowship. Their
eyes filled with tears as they told of their remarkable change of concept
and of how thrilled they were to discover that on the great fundamentals of
Christianity we rang absolutely true.
this is just a wee note to tell you that while we have not yet finished our
research and our work with these men, yet the present situation is very
encouraging. What I am saying is not for publication right now, although
doubtless within a few months we will be able to share. these
things with all our workers; and they should be shared. Brethren L. Froom
and W. E. Read and I have been a trio working very closely with these men
and it has demanded much of our time, for we have been studying to state
our beliefs in terms that could not be misunderstood by the theologians.
may remember drawing my attention to a book you were reading just as we
were going into a meeting on the Sabbath morning there in Auckland. You
read a fine paragraph from it; but I failed to take the name of the book or
even the name of the author. We discussed Campbell Morgan and others, but
this man I think was an English theologian and his statements seemed so
clear. I would appreciate it if you could let me know the title of the book
and the author for I would like a copy.
are absolutely right in the contention that Jesus did not partake of our
sinful nature. If I could put it simply it would be in these words: He
partook of human nature but not carnal nature. He was made in the likeness
of sinful flesh, not just sinful flesh, so that He could say to His
apostles, "The Prince of this world cometh and hath nothing (findeth
no response) in Ale."
this opens up a very big question and in a very little while I will send
you some things that I know will delight your heart. This is just a
friendly letter to tell you how much I appreciated the many kindnesses you
showed us and to express the hope that the Lord is giving you success in
the leader of that important field.
I could drop one little sentence of friendly counsel it would be: Don't
stress theology among your workers for the time being. Your best intentions
can be and often are misunderstood. But be assured that some of these very
points of discussion will be brought into the open, and then maybe you can
give them the emphasis they will need.
God bless you. Give my greetings to all the workers there.
your brother, (Signed)
Assoc. Gen Conf. of S.D.A.
R. A. Greive
8541, Auckland Dear Brother Greive:
would seem from your letter that there are some out there in the
Australasian field who have the impression that these questions and answers
have been prepared by just a small group and because the General Conf.
Committee has not passed action upon them that they are not authoritative.
Actually, the General Conf. Committee does not rule on matters of faith and
doctrine or church policy. All such matters must be dealt with at a General
Conf. in session. Between such sessions, however, the General Conf. officers
who represent the administration of the cause of God serve as a body of
counsel on all such matters, but of course these brethren have no authority
to change any teaching. It was to this group that these questions and
answers were presented. A number of the leading officers with certain
selected individuals have given much time to the study of these answers. In
fact very careful attention has been given to every particular word. These
answers therefore represent responsible leaders of the denomination, the General
Conf. President being the chairman at every such meeting. .
thing should be made clear; we are not trying to harmonize our beliefs with
those of other Christian groups. In fact the ministers with whom we have
been working represent different denominations, and are therefore in
disagreement among themselves on minor points of faith, such as the mode of
baptism, church organization, etc. But on the essentials of the gospel, as
they relate to the person and work of Jesus Christ, they stand together.
And when they have discovered that we stand with them on these vital
issues, it has brought them a great joy and satisfaction. Some of these men
have been among the most able opponents of Adventism but that was because
they did not know what we actually believe, having received their concepts
from some of our older books. And of course, believing that Sister White
had also taught these things, they regarded her as a false prophet and
branded the whole denomination as a cult, eaten through and through with
heresy. Their discovery of our understanding of real New Testament truth
has made them our friends and has led them to a very deep and thorough
study of our other points of faith which, as they point out, are not at the
heart of the gospel but rather on the periphery; they are works of
righteousness which grow out of our relationship to Christ and not the
basis of that relationship. Such doctrines are the Sabbath, tithing, health
have asked concerning the nature of Christ during the incarnation. This is
a point on which many of our writers and preachers have not been clear. .
It is a point of faith in which our preachers and writers have expressed
themselves very emphatically at times but usually on the wrong side of the
you would suffer me this little word of counsel as a friend, I would
suggest that you hold these thoughts in your heart and not make an issue of
them until we as a people have come to the place where we understand this
doctrine as clearly as we should, and as clearly as we do other points of
faith. The fellowship of the brethren and the communion of saints is too
precious an experience to have destroyed by the spirit of controversy. I am
confident that the time is near when this great mystery of godliness will be
understood better by us as a people. But until then it would seem wise if
we could confine ourselves to a prayerful discussion of it between us as
workers. While it is truth, we should be very careful not to set it before
the laity until we are prepared to speak with a united voice. I think you
will recall a suggestion I made to you on this point before and will not
misunderstand my mentioning it again. .
closing let me declare as my personal conviction that we have come to the
time in our history and the history of the evangelical Christian church in
general that we are moving into the experience of the Pentecostal
outpouring of power. . (signed)
- SECTION FIFTEEN - - February
COTTRELL'S LETTER TO ANDERSON
F. Cottrell was an editor at the Review and Herald Publishing Association
from 1952 till 1980. Back in the late 50s be wrote a personal letter of
protest to Roy Allen Anderson. As a Review editor, just across the alley
from the General Conference in Washington D.C:, he had witnessed the storm
of protest that had arisen in the Review over the galleys of
"Questions on Doctrine" as they were gradually sent over from the
General Conference to check over. Then, following complaints from the world
field and a limited amount of redoing,-the entire manuscript was sent over
to the Review for publication! Upon arrival it was met by men who were
shocked that the errors were still in the thing-even after having been
"checked over" by enough men around the globe so that the title
page of the book could give as the "author" of the book:
`Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible
Teachers, and Editors. "And they were still more shocked that Anderson
on behalf of the General Conference now wanted them to go ahead and print
have already mentioned the fact that at this point the Review editorial
staff took the liberty to tone down some of the errors and to substitute
"atoning sacrifice" for "atonement" as that which was
completed at the cross, in a number of passages in the book manuscript.
then in 1957 this mingling of good and evil came off the presses and went
out to Adventism at large. And a surge of protest poured in to the Review
offices from laity and workers out in the field. Half a year of this
passes, and then Raymond F. Cottrell wrote a letter to Roy Allen Anderson.
I believe that you will be impressed with the clarity of the letter: 1
R. A. Anderson
Adventist Ministerial Association
Park, Washington 12, D.C.
dear Brother Anderson:
the years I have held you in highest esteem, and recalling the past, I have
considered your series of evening sermons at Lynwood some years ago to be
the most uplifting and outstanding series of campmeeting messages, I have
ever been privileged to hear.
few days ago, an outline of your address presented to the Southeastern
Conference workers, was placed in my hands, and I have been surprised and pained
as I read its contents. I am writing to you as a beloved brother in the
Lord, and trust you will receive it in the same spirit as it is written.
I am persuaded that all who wholeheartedly accept the Spirit of Prophecy, will stand solidly on the platform of truth
that has stood unshaken for over a century; and no one should attempt to
change our fundamental beliefs concerning the atonement. The Bible and the
Spirit of Prophecy teach that there are two important phases to the
atonement; that Christ's work of atonement was begun, rather than
completed, on Calvary; and that the final phase of the atonement is now
being carried forward in the heavenly sanctuary.
the ancient sanctuary service, the atonement was not made by the victim
that was slain, but by the priest who carried the blood into the
tabernacle, sprinkling it before the veil, and in this way making the
atonement. See Leviticus 4, and "Patriarchs and Prophets," p. 354.
the latter phase of Christ's atoning work, we read: "As in the typical
service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before
Christ's work for the redemption of men is completed, there is a work of
atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary." G.C., p. 421.
the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy
place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of
atonement."-id., p. 422.
"it is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work
of atonement who receive the benefits of His mediation in their
behalf."-id., p. 430.
in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment, the only
cases considered are those of the professed people of God."-id., p.
sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work in behalf of men. It
concerns every soul living upon the earth. .
intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as
essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His
death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to
complete in heaven. . We are now living in the great day of
atonement."-id. pp. 488, 489.
blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the
condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on
record in the sanctuary until the final atonement . .
Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ the sins of all the truly
penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven." -P.P., pp. 357,
similar quotations could be given, but this will suffice to present the
undeviating testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy on this question. We also
note the quotations that you present stating that Christ's sacrifice was
"a perfect atonement;" that the atoning sacrifice was
all-sufficient; and that it need never be repeated. This is in perfect
harmony with Hebrews 9:24-26.
presentation, however, carries the thought that the cross is central in the
work of atonement. The same thought is emphasized again and again in the
new book, "Questions on Doctrine;" but I am confident, dear
Brother Anderson, that the emphasis is in the wrong place. Paul stated that
the central feature in the work of atonement and the plan of salvation is
seen in our High Priest ministering in the sanctuary above. Hebrews 8:1-5.
Again note the words from Great Controversy: "The sanctuary in heaven
is the very center of Christ's work in behalf of men." It appears most
unfortunate that in the portions of the book, "Questions on
Doctrine." dealing with Christ's ministry in the sanctuary, the word
"atonement" appears to be scrupulously avoided. A crucified and
risen Saviour was present truth in New Testament times, but in this the
time of the end, Christ's ministry in the final phase of the atonement, is
present truth today for this remnant people.
therefore must utterly deplore any attempt at downgrading and belittling
the atoning work of our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. And at
this late date to attempt to change the terminology regarding this great
pillar of our faith, can only result in bringing in confusion and
years ago, the servant of the Lord declared: "Satan is
striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions regarding
sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representation of God and the ministry
of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind. He
removes its presiding theories invented to make void the truths of the
atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held
sacred since the Third Angel's Message was first given"'-Series B, No.
7, p. 17.
would appear that in your numerous conversations with Dr. Walter Martin,
you have been insidiously led to compromise the truth, so as to state it in
terms acceptable to the popular evangelical churches. You have evidently endeavored
to give the doctrine of the atonement "a new look;" but it
appears as a doubtful, dubious look, and one of which our heavenly Father
my more than a half century in the ministry, I have seen quite a number of
good men, and some of them General Conference men, slip off on a tangent.
Some of them returned to the full acceptance of the message, but others did
not. And now, dear brother, I appeal to you to study again the great
fundamental truth of the atonement. Study the counsel
given on page 63 of Early Writings; and with the rest of us present
those themes that will "establish the faith of the doubting, and give
certainty to the glorious future."
Lord has mightily blessed your ministry in the past and I pray He will
grant to you clear vision, and the unction of the Holy Spirit to proclaim
the three-fold message with soul winning vigor and effectiveness in the
days to come.
RETURN TO TOC