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