My Vision on SDA’s Consulting the Witch of Endor

Part 5

The Anatomy of Corporate Responsibility and The Laodicean Church

 “The evidence given one day, if rejected, may never be repeated.” {RH September 16, 1873, par. 22}

“The angel with the writer's ink horn is to place a mark upon the foreheads of all who are separated from sin and sinners, and the destroying angel follows this angel (Letter 12, 1886).” {4BC 1161.5}

“Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” {1T 322.2}


1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

2Ch 33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

Click to go to our Home Page


In this Part 5 of my vision, my instruction is to continue to portray the serious issue of corporate responsibility for antichrist apostasy, not only as it involves the new movement that has removed God (1SM 204-205), but as it involves even home churches. We are our brother’s keeper, and there are tares (insincere believers (COL p. 70-72) in the home churches that will be shaken out in the time of Jacob’s Trouble. However, OPEN SINNING THORNS will not be tolerated in any valid Home Church, for that would preclude the presence of Christ, which is nessessary to the existence of any valid church militant.

I was shown that it is a serious fact that even in the home churches, there are tares who are insincere believers. They love to be where the truth is spoken, but they don’t want to obey it. One of the biggest tests of the tares is that they don’t like to return to the Lord that which is His by way of tithes and offerings. They want the truth, but they don’t want to support it. God says that the laborer is worthy of his/her hire, but they disagree with the Lord. They often look for and/or construe things to disagree with, so as to ease their conscience if they have one. But in the end, they will be judged as robbers of God, and there will be no robbers in the Kingdom. And the Sunday Law will shake them out of the Home Churches and/or the new movement wherever they choose to sojourn.

I have been instructed that the following scholarly treatise on Corporate Responsibility, by Miroslav Danihel of Andrews University, leaves no excuse for ignorance on this all important issue.


Additional Biblical Teachings on Corporate Responsibility


One can observe from the treatise by Danihel, that professing SDA leaders are not ignorant of the principle of corporate responsibility. However, when it comes to disciplinary measures that involve leaders in high positions, there is a disposition to ignore corporate responsibility as though it did not exist. This is glaringly exhibited in the case of the formation of the new movement, new organization, that Satan formed “AMONG’ “WITHIN” the church, because he knew that Adventists would not join another movement. Thus, Ellen White was so correct when she said that the greatest dangers are from within.


Satan’s Trojan Horse “AMONG” WITHIN is the New Movement, New Organization that “removed God.” When God is removed, there is only one other master—Satan. The Jews felt that they could not fail because they were God’s “chosen people.” Adventists are prone to this same mistake. God has shown me that end-time Adventists feel this even more than the Jews did for the reason that they are the end-time church, and they believe that God NEEDS THEM NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. GOD IS STUCK WITH THEM AND NEEDS THEM TO DELIVER THE LOUD CRY TO THE WORLD. They believe the church is too big to fail. This fact has been presented to me in a number of different visions as being the reason why Adventists are indifferent to corporate repentance for all the abominations. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Greatest Dangers From Within


1887: "We have far more to fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church than from the world." Review and Herald, March 22, 1887.


Reasons Why Professing SDA Leaders Ignore the Biblical Principle of Corporate Responsibility


I asked the Angel of the Lord why professing SDA leaders totally ignore something as serious as the Biblical principle of corporate responsibility. I was shown the following reasons for this spiritual crime:

1.    The first reason I was shown was:  UNBELIEF. In Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 211, the Holy Spirit gift to the church indicts the leaders with UNBELIEF. The unbelief involves a total rejection of the CONDITIONS God has outlined for His people in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.

2.    Because of unbelief, the leaders came to conclude that God is too merciful to visit His people in Ezekiel 9 judgment. 5T 211.

3.    Because of unbelief on the part of the leaders, the members of the church came to have the same laxity toward the conditions that their leaders exhibit.

4.    I asked my Angel about Ellen White’s statements that the Laodicean state of the church is the foolish virgin state. I was expressly shown that when new movement leaders are asked about Ellen White’s statement that Laodicea is the foolish virgin state of the church, they commonly retort that the church had often vacillated in and out of the Laodicean LUKEWARM state. That part is true. That was the pattern before the church became cold apostate in the mid 1950’s, by agreeing with the Evangelicals on their antichrist belief that Christ’s human nature was/is that of Adam BEFORE the fall. Bible Readings for the Home Circle was changed by Masons Froom and Anderson. It was this act that moved the church from being lukewarm Laodicean to COLD ANTICHRIST APOSTATE. My Angel told me that this CONSPIRACY with the fallen churches was in direct parallel to Jeremiah 11:9-15, and constituted antichrist unpardonable sin. This fully accords with Ellen White’s COUNTERPART STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS:

5.    COUNTERPART: "The Lord commanded one of his ancient servants, 'Pray not thou for this people [Jer. 7:16 and 11:14], neither lift up cry nor prayer for them neither make intercession to me for I will not hear thee.' The prophet thus describes the sins which had called forth this fearful denunciation: 'The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means and my people love to have it so and what will ye do in the end thereof?' 'From the least of them even unto the greatest of them, every one is given to covetousness and from the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace.' The apostles declare that this state of things will find its COUNTERPART in the last days. Many have a form of godliness, but in their daily life deny the power thereof. They have ceased to be convicted of their sins or alarmed at their state. They say in their hearts, 'The church is flourishing. Peace and spiritual prosperity are within her borders.' The words of the prophet may well apply to these self-deceivers, 'They have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them." E. G. White,  Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald,  11-07-82.

6.    The dumb-dog “watchmen” of Isaiah 56:10-12 and Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 211, never deal with such powerful, conclusive statements. That is because such statements cannot be made to agree with their false teaching that the new movement is the Noble ship that goes through to port heaven.

7.    My angel repeated three times to me that the Noble Ship that goes through to port heaven is the original Adventist message foundation and the three angel’s messages of Revelation 14. The new movement is the once Noble Ship that “sinks to rise no more.” The dumb-dog “watchmen,” never distinguish between these ships, AND THEY NEVER MENTION THE “NOBLE SHIP THAT SINKS TO RISE NO MORE.”

8.      Noble Ship #1: "I lately read of a NOBLE SHIP that was plowing its way across the sea, when at midnight, with a terrific crash, it struck upon a rock; the passengers were awakened only to see with horror their hopeless condition, and with the ship they sank to rise no more. The MAN AT THE HELM [VERSUS CHRIST] had mistaken the beacon light, and hundreds of souls were at a moment's warning launched into eternity." E.G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, 128.

9.      Noble Ship #2: "There is no need to doubt, to be fearful that the work will not succeed. God is at the head of the work, and He will set everything in order. If matters need adjusting at the head of the work, God will attend to that, and work to right every wrong. Let us have faith that God is going to carry the noble ship which bears the people of God safely into port." E.G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, 390.

10.      I was shown that the context of the above statement in regard to God attending to any adjustment needed at the head of the work, applied BEFORE the once SDA church militant committed antichrist apostasy in 1955. After 1955, Great Controversy, Chapter 1, is the PREFIGURE (p. 25) of how Jesus ADJUSTED MATTERS AT THE HEAD OF THE WORK AFTER THE JEWS COMMITTED APOSTASY, AND HOW HE WILL NOW HANDLE THE HEAD OF THE WORK relative to the new movement that has removed God. 1SM 204-205. I was shown that it is now IMPOSSIBLE for God to adjust matters at the head of the new movement any other way than GC, Chapter 1, for the new movement, new organization “removed God,” in 1955, by THEN beginning to teach the antichrist heresy that Jesus took the nature of Adam BEFORE the fall.

11.      I recently viewed a video by Walter Veith on Jeremiah, where he applied it as a POSITIVE typology for Adventists today. He quoted all around Chapters 7 and 11, but omitted Jeremiah 11:9-15 entirely. I was shown that Veith often applies FAVORABLE ancient typologies of the Hebrews in a Jesuit Preterist fashion which is entirely OUT OF CONTEXT to Adventists today.

12.      I was shown that the correct Biblical typology applicable to the new movement masquerading as Adventists, is from the time of Jesus’ first advent to A. D. 70, and the first chapter of The Great Controversy.

13.      There is still hope for Adventists to repent on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS, but not corporately since 1955.

14.      I was shown that the final nail in the coffin of the once SDA church militant, was when it voted in 1980 to adopt the Trinity Doctrine, which effectively annuls the heavenly Sanctuary/Atonement sacrifice BY ITS TEACHING THAT THE THREE PERSONS TO THE GODHEAD ARE CO-ETERNAL, when in actuality it was that sacrifice that produced a THIRD PERSON in the humanity of Christ, which had no part in the Godhead until the Incarnation Sacrifice. I saw that the thing Satan hates most after Christ, is the Atonement, giving man another chance. Thus, he has succeeded in getting the majority of Christianity to believe UNWITTINGLY in a doctrine that is totally subversive to the Atonement sacrifice.

15.      The rejection of light in the past, led to a shut-down of additional light that would have prevented a continuum of apostasy in the church. For example, in 1950, elders Wieland and Short tried to convince the leaders of the corporate duty to repent for the church’s position on the rejection of the 1888 message of righteousness by faith. The leaders rejected the call for corporate repentance for that debacle, and beginning in 1955, the omega of heresy began and has continued in a hell-bound spiral ever since.

16.      When General Conference President Robert H. Pierson’s term ended in 1979, he delivered a sermon on the new movement statement of 1SM 204-205. He pleaded with the church to not let that statement come to fruition. He did not possess the spiritual discernment to KNOW that the church had fulfilled that statement in 1955. This accords with Isaiah 56:10-12, which applies to ALL the leaders since that time (1955).

17.      Because of the rejection of corporate repentance, which is the very message to the Laodicean church, Revelation chapter 3, spiritual discernment to perceive and curtail the devices of Satan has been totally absent. Thus, the leaders have blindly plunged from one anchrist, unpardonable sin to another. I refer to strictly forbidden ecumenical liaison with Babylon as mentioned three times in Isaiah 8:9-16. In Jeremiah 11:9-15, when the Israelites conspired/confederated with God’s enemies, God told Jeremiah not to pray for them, and that if he persisted, God would not hear his prayers. This connotes unpardonable sin. In verse 15, God asks what His beloved (bride) has to do in His house (church) since she, the church had wrought lewdness (forbidden apostasy) with many. And when Israel did this abomination, she rejoiced; she delighted in her abominations. The current new movement CELEBRATED, employing the CELEBRATION TACTICS origininating with Vatican II, which it adopted from apostate Pentecostalism.

18.      Because of the lack of the Holy Spirit inspired discernment due to the above abominations, the church finally adopted the antichrist Trinity Doctrine in 1980, at its World General Conference Session. Just as in the Alpha heresy, the Trinity Doctrine renders the Sanctuary/Atonement GONE, while the ministering brethren looked on, BUT DID NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND. They did not possess the spiritual discernment to enable them to understand. Isa. 56:10-12, because of their past UNBELIEF, 5T 211.

19.      Ellen White made a prophetic statement that the leaders would REFUSE THE CONDITIONS, so that God’s promises are not fulfilled to them, so they NEVER REPENT for the abomination of the Trinity Doctrine. A prolepsis statement goes into the future and comments on it as though the even had already been fulfilled, to wit:


/proʊˈlɛpsɪs/ Show Spelled[proh-lep-sis] Show IPA

noun, plural pro·lep·ses /-siz/ Show Spelled[-seez] Show IPA.

1. Rhetoric . the anticipation of possible objections in order to answer them in advance.

2. the assigning of a person, event, etc., to a period earlier than the actual one; the representation of something in the future as if it already existed or had occurred; prochronism.

3. the use of a descriptive word in anticipation of its becoming applicable.

4. a fundamental conception or assumption in Epicureanism or Stoicism arising spontaneously in the mind without conscious reflection; thought provoked by sense perception.

5. Pathology . the return of an attack of a periodic disease or of a paroxysm before the expected time or at progressively shorter intervals.




Here is the Spirit of Prophecy prophesied prolepsis statement regarding the final fate of that once Noble Ship. This is a major LYNCHPIN to my warning message. Can you explain it away? Are you a passenger on this once NOBLE SHIP, that is about to sink to rise no more? NOTICE WHO SEPARATES FROM WHOM:


"Jesus sends HIS PEOPLE a message of warning to prepare them for his coming. To the prophet John was made known the closing work in the great plan of man's redemption. He beheld an angel flying 'in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him for the hour of his Judgment is come and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters [Rev. 14:6, 7.].

The angel represented in prophecy as delivering this message,  symbolizes a class of faithful men, who, obedient to the promptings of God's Spirit and the teachings of his word, proclaim this warning to the inhabitants of earth. This message was not to be committed to the religious leaders of the people. They had failed to preserve their connection with God, and had REFUSED THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN therefore they WERE NOT of the number described by the apostle Paul: 'But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day we are not of the night nor of darkness' [1 Thess. 5:4, 5]. 

The watchmen upon the walls of Zion should be the first to catch the tidings of the Saviour's advent, the first to lift their voices to proclaim him near, the first to warn the people to prepare for his coming. But they were at ease, dreaming of peace and safety, while the people were asleep in their sins. Jesus saw HIS CHURCH, like the barren fig-tree, covered with pretentious leaves, yet destitute of precious fruit. There was a boastful observance of the forms of religion, while the spirit of true humility, penitence and faith--which alone could render the service acceptable to God--was lacking. Instead of the graces of the Spirit, there were manifested pride, formalism, vainglory, selfishness, oppression. A BACKSLIDING CHURCH closed their eyes to the signs of the times. God did nor forsake them, or suffer his faithfulness to fail but they departed from him, and SEPARATED THEMSELVES from his love. As they REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS, his promises were NOT FULFILLED to them."  E.G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, pp. 199-200 [The 1884 edition of The Great Controversy, 199, 200].

 Note these important delineations in the above statement:

·       Ellen White is addressing HIS PEOPLE.

·       Ellen White is addressing those to whom God committed the EVERLASTING GOSPEL of Revelation 14.

·       Ellen White is defining the angel represented in prophecy as symbolizing a class of faithful men.

·       Ellen White is saying emphatically that the final Loud Cry message is delivered NOT BY THE LEADERS OF THE SDA CHURCH, but by a class of faithful men, because the leaders had failed to preserve their connection with God and had refused light from heaven!

·       Ellen White is addressing "watchmen upon the walls of Zion," NOT FALLEN BABYLON!

·       Twice Ellen White mentions HIS CHURCH, NOT FALLEN BABYLON.


·       The above reasons are why there is another coming out of a faithful remnant FROM APOSTATE JERUSALEM AS WELL AS FALLEN BABYLON.

·       Isa 37:31   And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward: 

·       Isa 37:32   For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this. 

Ellen White is addressing a BACKSLIDING CHURCH whose leaders and laity alike failed and rejected light from heaven and who refused to comply with the conditions so that God's promises are not fulfilled to them. Consider the following commentary on the 1884 Great Controversy that the above statement is quoted from:

“Consider for a few moments the chapter in the first edition of Great Controversy, Volume IV, published by Pacific Press in 1884. In Chapter XXVII, ‘The Snares of Satan,’ you find that about four pages in the latter part of the chapter were omitted from the later editions of Great Controversy. These four pages are to be found in Testimonies to Ministers, pages 472 to 475. The information contained in these four pages is very valuable to Seventh-day Adventists and was very appropriately included in the first edition of Great Controversy, Volume IV, which when it was published was like the other volumes considered to be A MESSAGE ESPECIALLY TO SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, and to [all] Christian people sympathizing with them in beliefs and aims.” W. C. White, Selected Messages, Appendix C, pp. 452, 453.

Sanctuary Gone Atonement Gone -- "In a representation which passed before me, I saw a certain work being done by medical missionary workers. Our ministering brethren were looking on, watching what was being done, but they did not seem to understand. The foundation of our faith, which was established by so much prayer, such earnest searching of the Scriptures, was being taken down, pillar by pillar. Our faith was to have nothing to rest upon--the sanctuary was gone, the atonement was gone." E.G. White, The Upward Look, 152.


The Alpha heresy rendered the Sanctuary/Atonement GONE, via an antichrist teaching on the Godhead in Kellogg’s pantheism, taught that every living thing has the Holy Spirit of God within it. Thus, man did not need the SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT in order to receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit, because he already had it innately from birth.


A similar antiChrist Omega heresy involving the Godhead, accrued in 1980, when the General Conference voted in the Trinity Doctrine, Rome’s Central Doctrine. How did/does that doctrine affect the Godhead—the Sanctuary/Atonement? The Trinity Doctrine teaches that the three persons to the Godhead are co-ETERNAL. At the Incarnation of the Son of God into a human person, at the Atonement Sacrifice, the human personality of Christ was divested from His Divine Holy Spirit HIMSELF person, to become an INDEPENDENT PERSON, a THIRD PERSON to the Godhead, where there-to-fore, there was only the Father and the Son and their ONE ETERNAL HOLY SPIRIT which constitutes their essence.  And that is all we know of their NATURE AS FAR AS THEIR ESSENCE AND SUBSTANCE IS CONCERNED.


The humanity of the Son of God did not exist BEFORE His incarnation into the womb of Mary. So how could His humanity PERSON be co-ETERNAL with His former Holy Spirit Person HIMSELF?


"Cumbered with humanity Christ could not be in every place personally, therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them to go to His Father and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit.” E.G. White, (Manuscript Releases Volume 14 (No’s 1081-1135) MR No.1084.


At the Incarnation of the Son of God, THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF of the Son, was divested of the personality of humanity and INDEPENDENT THEREOF. The humanity of the Son of God is Jesus. The Holy Spirit HIMSELF Son of God was divested of the personality of humanity and INDEPENDENT THEREOF. To the personality of the Son’s humanity THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE AT THE INCARNATION, made a THIRD PERSON that IS NOT CO-ETERNAL with the Father and the former Holy Spirit Himself, which was the pre-Incarnation state of the Son of God.


When the Trinity Doctrine says that ALL THREE PERSONS to the Godhead are CO-ETERNAL, that infers that THERE WAS NO INCARNATION, because it was the Incarnation that produced the INDEPENDENT HUMAN PERSON JESUS CHRIST, another THIRD PERSON to the Godhead. In this manner, the Trinity Doctrine renders the SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT AS GONE, because it teaches there were THREE PERSONS ETERNALLY BEFORE THE INCARNATION.


Satan hates the Atonement, because it was that SACRIFICE OF SACRIFICES that gave man another chance. So if Satan can get man to believe in a spurious, antichrist doctrine that totally obfuscates the Atonement, he has won the Great Controversy. But not all men will believe his spurious antichrist Trinity Doctrine, which is totally subversive to the SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT by teaching that there are THREE CO-ETERNAL PERSONS without the SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT INCARNATION SACRIFICE which produced a THIRD PERSON in the humanity of Christ. In other words, the humanity of Christ DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO HIS INCARNATION, SO HOW COULD THAT HUMAN PERSON BE CO-ETERNAL with the Godhead?


Christ became FULLY MAN as well as RETAINING HIS FULLY HOLY SPIRIT DIVINE PERSON. The Trinity Doctrine also teaches that Christ did not come in the flesh of our sinful human nature, as the Bible attests. That is another facet that makes it an  antichrist doctrine. Why? Because if Christ did not come in our flesh, our sinful flesh, He could be no example for us. He would have been like Adam BEFORE the fall, and that IS NOT the case.


The Bible says that those who don’t believe Christ came in the flesh are antichrist. The “catch” is that Rome believes Christ came in immaculate flesh, SINLESS FLESH, rather than SINFUL FLESH. Immaculate flesh would be like Adam’s flesh BEFORE the fall. Sinful flesh is like Adam’s flesh AFTER the fall. So all who don’t believe that Christ came in the FLESH, EVEN SINFUL FLESH, are antichrist. Again, Rome believes that Christ came in the flesh, 2 John 1:7, but Rome DOES NOT believe that Christ came in sinful flesh and that is what makes Rome antichrist.


1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

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

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

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:


The Alpha heresy involved the personality of God and Christ, so the Omega heresy must involve that as well, even though there are many other apostasy factors present.


An Impersonal God Who Made No Atonement


The Alpha heresy made Christ an impersonal God who made no INCARNATION ATONEMENT SACRIFICE that produced a third person, AND PROVIDED FOR THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF THE SON OF GOD AS A GIFT FOR OVERCOMING ALL KNOWN SIN. How? Why? Because Kellogg’s pantheism taught that the Holy Spirit was already an intrinsic part of every living thing. So that would preclude the necessity of the Incarnation/Atonement sacrifice which made the gift of the Son’s HOLY SPIRIT possible.


The Omega heresy makes Christ an impersonal God who existed CO-ETERNALLY with the shared Holy Spirit of the Son and the Father. If the humanity of Christ existed CO-ETERNALLY with His Holy Spirit HIMSELF and the Father, there was no sanctuary atonement sacrifice, because IT WAS THE INCARNATION SANCTUARY/ATONEMENT SACRIFICE, that produced ANOTHER PERSON in the humanity of Christ come in sinful flesh, making THREE PERSONS IN ALL:


1.    The Eternal Father.

2.    The Eternal Holy Spirit of the Eternal Son of God.

3.    The NON-ETERNAL Christ, come in sinful flesh via His Incarnation sacrifice, making a THIRD NON-ETERNAL PERSON TO THE GODHEAD.


All the above should help us better appreciate why Mrs. White "was called upon to rebuke those who were presenting the doctrine of an impersonal God pervading all nature." p.293. She was called upon to rebuke those who presented pantheistic sentiments, who were teaching that the power we see manifested in nature is a mere impersonal essence. This impersonal essence, they call it, God! The result is that there is no personal God, no personal Christ. This teaching sweeps away the whole Christian economy! Pantheists are actually atheists! They do not believe in a personal God, a living God, who, by His Spirit, is moving in all things according to His will. What they do is "deify" nature. Therefore, to them, nature is God. The universe is God. But "Nature is not God, nor was it ever God." 1 S.M.293.


 "The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God [the Godhead], followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy. They estimate as nothing the light that Christ came from heaven to give John to give to His people. They teach that the scenes just before us are not of sufficient importance to be given special attention. They make of no effect the truth of heavenly origin, and rob the people of God of their past experience, giving them instead a false science." E.G. White, Selected Messages, Bk.1, p. 204.


The Trinity Doctrine is nothing more than a heretical, man-made, spiritualistic theory that teaches that there was no heavenly Sanctuary Incarnation Atonement Sacrifice, because it was that specific sacrifice that gave rise to a THIRD PERSON, and if the three persons are CO-ETERNAL, there was Incarnation Atonement sacrifice, because it was that sacrifice which produced a THIRD PERSON in the form of the human personality of Christ—the humanity of Christ in human, sinful flesh.


If Christ Jesus did not come as a result of the Heavenly Sanctuary Incarnation Sacrifice, in sinful flesh, He is not a personal God who made a sacrifice to become human FOREVER, taking the death which WAS ours, that we might have the life that WAS HIS—His eternal life.


"He (Christ) suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which WAS His." Desire of Ages, p. 25 1 Cor. 11:24-265, cf. John 6:53, 54, Titus 3:5, 6.


SDA AntiChrist Teachings to the World Since the Early 1950’s


Since 1952, the following statements have been taught to the world through Ministry magazine, the SDA magazine for ministers of other faiths. Another way the same teaching has been taught is by saying that Christ did not come and make an atonement for man, so man has no example in Christ Jesus, for overcoming sin. This latter teaching is implied in the Trinity Doctrine which teaches there are three CO-ETERNAL persons to the Godhead. Clearly, by that teaching none of them DIED if they are all co-ETERNAL, so the Son was not Incarnated because it was His Incarnation into humanity that produced ANOTHER NON-ETERNAL PERSON TO THE GODHEAD.


"Christ did indeed partake of our nature, our human nature with all its physical limitations, but not of our carnal nature with all its lustful corruptions.

"His was not a corrupt, carnal nature. When He took upon Him sinless human nature. He did not cease to be God, for He was God manifest in the flesh! "Roy A. Anderson, "Human. Not Carnal." Ministry magazine, September 1956.

"He was indeed a man, but withal He was God manifested in the flesh. True, He took our human nature, that is, our physical form, but He did not possess our sinful propensities." R. A. Anderson, "God With Us." Ministry. April, 1957.

"When God became man He partook of the same moral nature that Adam possessed before the fall. Adam was created holy, and so was Christ. for He became the second Adam. "R. A. Anderson. "Human. Not Carnal." ibid.

"When the incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race. it is our understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam was created in Eden. "R. A. Anderson. "God with Us, " ibid,

"When God became man He partook of the same moral nature that Adam possessed before the fall. Adam was created holy, and so was Christ. for He became the second Adam. "R. A. Anderson. "Human. Not Carnal." ibid.

"When the incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race. it is our understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam was created in Eden. "R. A. Anderson. "God with Us, " ibid

History of the changeover to the Unfallen Nature position  by Vance Ferrell

  We have learned that the human nature of Christ is an important truth. We will conclude this book with a brief overview of the history of the doctrinal change. It was only a few decades ago that our church was teaching the truth on this point; but now, in books, magazines, and lectures, an error is being taught.

From its earliest days, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has taught that, when God partook of humanity, He took, not the perfect, sinless nature of man before the fall, but the fallen, sinful, offending, weakened, degenerated nature of man after the fall of Adam.

The inclinations and tendencies to sin that are in fallen man's flesh were in His flesh; but that, by complete dependence upon His Father, His mind held its integrity and never by a shadow of a thought responded to the weakness or sinful cravings of the flesh.

This view of Christ's human nature in no way denied or contradicted the Church's stand on the complete Deity and absolute sinlessness of Jesus Christ.

As late as 1949, this was the accepted teaching of the Church as presented in denominationally published lesson quarterlies, books, and periodicals.

But, during the fifteen-year period between 1940 and 1955, the words, "sinful" and "fallen," with reference to Christ's human nature were largely eliminated from denominationally published materials.

Since 1952, phrases such as "sinless human nature," "nature of Adam before the fall," and "human nature defiled" have taken the place of the former terminology. These phrases are interpreted to mean that the human nature of Christ was "sinful," "fallen," or "degenerated," only in the sense of weakness and frailty of the physical organism. It is said that these weaknesses and frailties of the physical organism were not innately and intrinsically a part of Christ's human body but were borne vicariously.

Let us now consider, in more detail, the history of the changeover in the doctrine of the human nature of Christ in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  


This great truth about the human nature of Christ was shared by the pioneer writers in the Advent movement. Here are a few examples, penned by some of the leading men in our church:

"[Jesus] was made in all things like unto those whom He came to save. . In all points He was made like His brethren. . And what the Law could not do, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh to do . . By His life He has shown that sin in the flesh is condemned, and He has destroyed it, for in Him the body of sin is destroyed . . He has taken away this sinful nature, taken it upon Himself that we might be delivered from !t." E. J. Waggoner. General Conference Bulletin, 1891.

"The garment was woven in Jesus, in the same flesh that you and I have, for He took part of the same flesh and blood that we have. . In my flesh; it was my flesh that He had, It was your flesh that He had, . The Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I stand, in the flesh in which I live," A. T. Jones, General Conference-Bulletin 1893

"Christ came the first time, clothed with humanity, taking not upon Himself the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham, that He might be made, like ourselves, subject to temptation, pain, and death, that by His connection with humanity He might sympathize with His fallen creatures," S, H. Haskell. Bible Echo, March 15, 1889.

"Very few of us realize how nearly the Divine nature approached the human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. More properly speaking, it is impossible for us even to conceive of the infinite condescension that was necessary in order that the Son of God, the associate of the Father, should appear in mortal flesh and participate in human experiences, with all their trials and weaknesses. . But 'He was tempted in all points like as we are': consequently He must have partaken of our nature. Should any think this expression too strong, let them read verse 16 of Hebrews 2: 'For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but. He took on Him the seed of Abraham' . . His faultless life under those circumstances becomes a constant reprover of our sins as well as an encouragement to our weakness." G. C. Tenney, editorial, Bible Echo, April 15, 1889.

"By partaking of our nature, His human arm encircles the fallen race." Stephen Haskell, Bible Echo, February 15, 1892.

"He took upon Him sinful flesh to suffer and die for guilty man. "A. W. Semmens, Bible Echo, April 15, 1892.

"But if He [Christ] comes no nearer to us than in sinless nature, that is a long way off . . It is true He is holy; He is altogether holy. But His holiness is not that kind that makes Him afraid to be in company with people who are not holy, for fear He will get His holiness spoiled." A. T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1895.

"The second Adam came not at the point where the first Adam stood when he failed, but at the point at which mankind stood at the end of four thousand years of degeneracy. "A. T. Jones, Review, February 18, 1896.

"So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin; flesh, however, in which He did not sin. But He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. And what flesh could He take but the flesh of the time? Not only that, but it was the very flesh He designed to take; because, you see, the problem was to help man out of the difficulty into which he had fallen, and man is a free moral agent. He must be helped as a free moral agent. Christ's work must be, not to destroy him, not to create a new race, recreate man, to.. restore him in the image of God." W. W. Prescott, Bible Echo, January 6, 1896.

In the section, just below, we will quote more extensively from that sermon by W. W. Prescott.

 "He did not come to this world and take upon Himself Adam's condition, but He stepped down lower, to meet man as he is, weakened by sin, polluted in his own iniquity. " Stephen Haskell, Signs, April 2, 1896.

"Infinitely superior in every respect to Boaz, yet He stooped to marry the lost race. " E. Farnsworth, Signs, May 6, 1897.

"[Waggoner:] We begin with the ninth verse:

'We see Jesus.' Where are we looking?

"[Voice:] To man in his fallen state.

"[Waggoner:] Yes, our gaze is directed to man's first dominion; as we look, we see him fail, and still looking, we see Jesus taking man's fallen condition. " E. J. Waggoner, General Conference Bulletin, 1897.

"He brought divinity from the courts of glory into fallen humanity. "S. N. Haskell, Signs, January 17, 1900.

And that this is likeness to man as He is in His flesh, sinful nature, and not as He was in His original [heavenly] sinless nature, is made certain by the Word: 'We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death.' Therefore, as man is since he became subject to death; this is what we see Jesus to be, in His place, as man." A. T. Jones, Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection.

"Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful man; that is, the flesh which He assumed and all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He 'was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.' " E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 27.

Many, many more examples could be cited! (Later in this present book, we will document the change that later occurred in Bible Readings.)


On Sunday evening, October 31, 1895, W. W. Prescott preached a powerful sermon on the nature of Christ, at the Armadale camp meeting, in Victoria, Australia. It contained 25 statements, that Christ took our nature in His birth and life on this planet. 1\vice in that sermon, Prescott stated that Christ did not take the unfallen nature of Adam.

Ellen White was present and heard that sermon; and, in eight manuscripts and letters, soon after expressed grateful appreciation for that lecture (MS 19,23,47, and 52, 1895; and Letter 25,32,83, and 84, 1895). It was only a couple months later that she wrote that letter to W. L. H. Baker, which we will discuss shortly, reproving him for teaching that Christ had sinned.

Prescott's sermon was printed in the January 6 and 13, 1896, issues of the Bible Echo (our Australian journal). Here are portions of that History of the Changeover sermon. You will see why she valued it so highly:

  "The theme of redemption will be the science and the song of the eternal ages, and well may it occupy our minds during our short stay here. There is no portion of this great theme that makes such a demand on our minds in order to appreciate it in any degree, as the subject we shall study tonight, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' Through Him all things became; now He Himself became. He who had all glory With the Father, now lays aside His glory and becomes flesh. He lays aside His divine mode of existence, and takes the human mode of existence, and God becomes manifest in the flesh. This truth is the very foundation of all truth. . Let us consider, first, what kind of flesh, for this is the very foundation of this question as it relates to us personally (Heb. 2:1418, quoted).

"That through death, being made subject to death, 'taking upon Him the flesh of sin, He might, by His dying, destroy him that had the power of death [Heb. 2: 16, quoted] . . So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, flesh, however, in which He did not sin, but He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. Do not set this point aside. .

"God made man a little lower than the angels, but man fell much lower by his sin. Now he is far separated from God; but he is to be brought back again. Jesus Christ came for that work: and in order to do it, He came, not where man was before he fell, but where man was after he fell. . Jesus Christ comes right down to where he is, and meets him there. He takes his flesh and becomes a brother to him. Jesus Christ is a brother to us in the flesh; He was born into the family. .

"He came and took the flesh of sin that this family had brought upon itself by sin, and wrought out salvation for them, condemning sin in the flesh. . To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and failed. .

"Christ came, and after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrously glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh, 'for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren' (Heb. 2: 11). He has come into the family, identified Himself with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin. . " 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2:5). There is a man in heaven now, the man Christ Jesus, bearing our human nature; but it is no longer a flesh of sin; it is glorified. Having come here and lived in a flesh of sin, He died; and in that He died, He died unto sin; and in that He lives, He lives unto God. When He died, He freed Himself from the flesh of sin, and He was raised glorified. . Jesus Christ, our own brother, the man Christ Jesus, is in heaven, living to make intercession for us

"This union of the divine and the human has brought Jesus Christ very near to us. There is not one too low down for Christ to be there with him. He identified Himself completely with this human family. . One version reads, 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My little brothers, ye have done it unto Me.' Christ looks upon everyone of the human family as His. When humanity suffers, he suffers. He is humanity; He has joined Himself to this family. .

Jesus Christ thus united Himself with the human family, that He might be with us by being in us, just as God was with Him by being in Him. The very purpose of His work was that He might be in us, and that, as He represented the Father, so the children, the Father, and the Elder Brother might be united in Him. .

" 'Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world' (Matt. 28:20). By being in us, He is with us alway, and that this might be possible, that He might be in us, He came and took our flesh. This also is the way in which the holiness of Jesus works. He had a holiness that enabled Him to come and dwell in sinful flesh, and help sinful flesh by His presence in it; and that is what He did, so that when He was raised from the dead, He was glorified. His purpose was that having purified sinful flesh by His indwelling presence, He might now come and purify sinful flesh in us, and glorify us. He 'shall change our Vile body. that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself' (Phil. 3:21) . .

"Let us enter into the experience that God has given Jesus Christ to us to dwell in our sinful flesh, to work out in our sinful flesh what He worked out when He was here. He came and lived here that we might through Him reflect the image of God. This is the very heart of Christianity . .

"By following where He leads, we shall know what Christian experience is, and what it is to dwell in the light of His presence. I tell you, this is a wondrous truth. Human language cannot put more into human thought or language than is said in these words: 'The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,' This is our salvation. . Nothing short of it will meet what we have to meet, the world, the flesh, and the devil. But He that is for us is mightier than he that is against us. Let us have in our daily lives Jesus Christ, 'the Word' that 'became flesh,' "W. W. Prescott, Sermon given October 31, 1895; printed in Bible Echo, January 6, 13, 1896.

"Therefore, just as certainly as we see Jesus lower than the angels, unto the suffering of death, so certainly it is by this demonstration that, as man, Jesus took the nature of man as he is since death entered: and not the nature of man as he was before He became subject to death." A. T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1895.

E. J. Waggoner wrote, "Here is the same mystery as that the Son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. "E. J. Waggoner. Christ and His Righteousness. 27-28 (1890).

"When sin entered, death came; so when man sinned, death came upon him. God stayed with him; therefore, in that He stayed with man. although man had sinned, God took upon Himself sinful flesh. And so He took upon Himself death, for death had passed upon all the world. "General Conference Bulletin, "Studies in the Book of Hebrews" (Series by E. J. Waggoner. No. 4. Lincoln. Nebraska, 1897), 45. "Christ taking fallen, sinful humanity upon Him is Christ crucified," Op. cit., 31.

"The fact that He came in fallen humanity is an evidence of God's presence and His presence to give life." Op. cit., 46.


  Throughout the first half of the 20th century, our speakers and writers continued to teach the truth about the human nature of Christ.

Here are a few examples:

"Over a period of years this view of Christ's human nature continued to reach the majority of church members through the medium of the Sabbath School Lesson quarterlies. Sample quotations are given below.

"Many hold that from the nature of Christ it was impossible for Satan's temptations to weaken or overthrow Him. Then Christ could not have been placed in Adam's position. to go over the ground where Adam stumbled and fell; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If man has in any sense a more trying conflict to endure than had Christ. then Christ is not able to succor him when tempted. Christ took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, capable of yielding to temptation; and. with the same aid that man may obtain, He withstood the temptations of Satan and conquered the same as we may conquer . . He assumed human nature. being the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. It is not true that humanity has trials to bear which the Son of God has not experience." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Spirit of Sacrifice" a special testimony (Senior Division, No. 41, Third Quarter. 1905, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association), 89.

Jesus was God acting in sinful flesh on behalf of the sinner. He made Himself one with humanity. "International Sabbath School Quarterly. "Baptism and Temptation of Jesus, " Senior Division, No. 56, Second Quarter, 1909, Pacific Press, 20.

"By assuming sinful flesh, and voluntarily making Himself dependent upon His Father to keep Him from sin while He was in the world, Jesus not only set the example for all Christians, but also made it possible for Him to minister for sinful flesh the gift of His own Spirit and the power for obedience to the will of God. "International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Incarnation and the Priesthood" (Senior Division, No. 71, First Quarter. 1913. Pacific Press). 15.

"That Son took the flesh of sinful man, and overcame where man failed, overthrew sin in the flesh. . "International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Flesh and the Spirit" (Senior Division, No. 75. First Quarter, 1914, Pacific Press), 16.

"Christ assumed, not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity. In this second experiment. He stood not precisely where Adam before Him had, but as has already been said, with intense odds against Him. ."International Sabbath School Quarterly. "The Purpose of the Incarnation" (Senior Division. No.103. First Quarter. 1921), 248-249.

As the Son of man, He accepted the limitations and conditions of our common humanity." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Last Adam" (Senior Division. No.105. Third Quarter. 1921. Pacific Press). 3.

"Christ took upon Himself the infirmities and sins of the flesh. . but to every sin He died, every lust He crucified, every selfish desire He denied Himself—and all for our sakes." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Godly Life" (Senior Division, No. 112, Second Quarter, 1923, Pacific Press), 22.

In 1924, Southern Publishing Association published a book by our evangelist, Carlyle B. Haynes, in which (on pages 80, 83) he unequivocally states that as a people we believe and teach that Christ took sinful. fallen flesh. He points out that there really was no need for Christ to come at all unless He was to take such flesh.

Through the efforts of colporteur evangelists, this Seventh-day Adventist teaching regarding Christ's human nature entered thousands of non-Adventist homes tucked between the covers of Bible Readings for the Home Circle. This book, under the heading, A Sinless Life," contained the following note:

.. 'In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful. fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. . On His human side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit." Bible Readings For the Home, Review and Herald, 174 (1942).

It was apparently with a similar view of Christ's sinful flesh but sinless life that L. A. Wilcox wrote in the Signs of the Times in 1927: He came where I was, He stood in my place. In His veins was the incubus of a tainted heredity like a caged lion ever seeking to break forth and destroy. For four thousand years the race had been deteriorating in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth: and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of humanity at its worst." Llewellen Wilcox, Signs of the Times, March, 1927.

"In every temptation that assails, it is strength to know that just such a temptation in all its overwhelming force attacked Him in unexpected times and ways; and that, with equal tendencies toward evil, in spite of bad blood and inherited meanness, by the same power to which I have access, He conquered." Ibid. Like A. T. Jones and others, even while expressing this view of Christ's humanity, Elder Wilcox believed in the perfect sinlessness of Jesus Christ. (See Walter R. Martin, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960],8687.

" 'Seventh-day Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a 'sinful nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach 'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' "Frances D. Nichol, Answers to Objections, Review and Herald, 1952,389.

In part, the author replied that the "distinguishing mark of fallen mankind (that is, a deceitful heart or mind) is not necessarily involved in the possession of a human nature that is capable of sin" (op. cit., 392). He cites as an example, Adam, who as a human being was capable of sin but who did not sin until he exercised his will in the wrong direction.

"In other words, Adventists believe that Christ, the 'last Adam,' possessed on His human side, a nature like that of the 'first man Adam,' a nature free from every defiling taint of sin, but capable of responding to sin, and that nature was handicapped by the debilitating effects of four thousand years of sin's inroads on man's body and nervous system and environment," Ibid.. 393.

In 1950, Southern Publishing Association printed the book, Drama of the Ages. Authored by the General Conference president, William Branson, this book was distributed and sold all over the English-speaking world. On page 70 of this missionary book, Branson wrote that Christ "had taken upon Himself the nature of fallen man."  


   On the next two pages (pages 68-69) (In printed book only) will be found documentary reprints of four pages from Bible Readings for the Home Circle. Here is a brief overview of the printing history of that book: In 1888, the first edition of Bible Readings came off the Review presses. Those who have read the present writer's book, Editions of Great Controversy, will know that the Review managers pushed that book ahead of the 1888 edition of Great Controversy, because the several authors of Bible Readings relinquished royalty payments, whereas Ellen White refused to do so. She had been instructed that she should receive that money, so it could be used to help Advent work in various areas where needed. For this reason, the "1888 edition" of Great Controversy did not come off the presses at the Review until 1889, and at Pacific Press until 1890. (See the author's book, Editions of Great Controversy for the full story of the history of that most important book—in all its editions.)

On page 174 of the 1915 edition of Bible Readings, a note was added to the chapter, A Sinless Life." which clearly stated that Christ took our nature.

But in the late 1940s, the decision was made to revise Bible Readings. On pages 143-144 of the 1949 edition, that note was changed to a different one which downplayed the idea that Christ took our nature. It questioned "how far that 'likeness' (to sinful flesh) goes."

So, in this new edition the statement, which had circulated with the book for thirty years, was omitted because "it was recognized as being out of harmony with our true position" (Roy A. Anderson. "Human- Not Carnal"; The Ministry, September. 14, 1946). It was replaced by the following statement:

"Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of man. As a member of the human family 'it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren' in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Just how far that 'likeness' goes is a mystery of the incarnation which men have never been able to solve. . "Bible Readings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1949). 143.

In that same September 1956, Ministry magazine article. Anderson discussed the revision in Bible Readings, and gave the reason why the change had been made—because non-Adventists did not like it!

"In fact, this particular point in Adventist theology had drawn severe censure from many outstanding Biblical scholars both inside and outside our ranks. "Ibid.

R. A. Anderson went on to state that the idea that on His human side Christ partook of man's sinful, fallen nature was eliminated because it did not represent our "true position" (see Ministry. September 1956. 12-14).

Although that statement had first appeared in Bible Readings in 1915. we have observed that it correctly represented our "true position," held down through the years from the time of our earliest pioneers. In addition, the terms "sinful nature" and "fallen nature" were repeatedly in the writings of Ellen G. White.

(For your information, in our own edition of Bible Readings, initially released in the late 1980s, we included that 1915 note in the chapter. "A Sinless Life." This happens to be the lowest-cost Bible Readings available anywhere. And is also the first Bible Readings in history to include a Scripture Index—which the book has always obviously needed. The main print size is also slightly larger than the $50 colporteur edition!)  


As Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse later wrote in Evangelical magazines. the conferences (many of which were held at our General Conference building in Washington. D.C.) began when Martin, a Baptist writer, approached our leaders and told them he was going to write an in-depth book, exposing the doctrinal errors of our denomination.

As he later wrote, they entered into a series of discussions with him that lasted two years, during which they vigorously denied that the Adventist denomination still held to earlier doctrines which the Evangelicals did not like. It was obvious that the men on the other side of the table were determined to gain acceptance by Protestants!

"There were eighteen conferences, lasting one to three days and usually with three sessions a day. These were held periodically, in Washington, D.C., Reading [Pa.]. Philadelphia, and New York City over a period of eighteen months.," L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny. 477.

The two men in charge of what became a doctrinal sellout were Leroy Edwin Froom and Roy Allen Anderson. Martin would come to the meetings with questions to be answered; and. in collaboration with Anderson. Froom would write those answers. Anderson's key work was keeping Reuben Figuhr, the General Conference president, contented with the progress of the conferences.

Froom later described the first conference: "The first conference with Martin and Cannon [Dr. George Cannon. Greek professor at a college in the Hudson Valley of New York], followed by others, took place in an available office at our General Conference headquarters, in Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. Martin came armed with a formidable list of definitely hostile and slanted questions, most of them drawn from well-known critics of Seventh-day Adventists among them the inevitable Canright, on down to the late defector, E. B. Jones." Op. cit, 479.

The outcome of the Evangelical Conferences and the book which, in agreement with Martin, the Review published radically altered church doctrine for all time to come.

That book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (commonly referred to as Questions on Doctrine), undermined our historic teaching on the atonement, the nature of Christ, and several other points.

"On a [Martin's] second visit [to the General Conference], he was presented with scores of pages of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed to them. .

"He pointed out to them that in their bookstore adjoining the building [The ABC on Carroll Avenue] in which these meetings were taking place, a certain volume published by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of the General conference officers, that this situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected.

"This same procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh which the majority of the denomination has always held to be sinless. holy, and perfect despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the church at large. They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity. This action of the Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently." Donald Grey Barnhouse, Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians? A New Look at Seventh-day Adventists, Eternity magazine. September. 1956.

Barnhouse had founded Eternity magazine, which had proven to be a very successful interdenominational publishing venture. His organization had sponsored Martin's talks with the Adventists. In September 1956, this (in their own words) "bombshell article" came off the presses. Fortunately for our leaders, few of our people ever heard about it. Both Barnhouse and Martin wrote articles in it, exposing the Adventist doctrinal sellout, and promising that the Adventists planned to publish a book, which would discuss their new doctrinal positions.

In the above quoted statement, you will note that our leaders used a confusion of terms to get their point across. They told Martin that our people always believed Christ was sinless, which is true. But they said it in such a way that Martin believed they said that Christ had a sinless nature. Martin, who had a powerful mind, was a fast reader, had something of a photographic memory, and had scanned through many of our books, including those by Ellen White.

Our men assured him that statements about a "sinful nature" or "fallen nature" would henceforth not be found in our new publications.

And this was done. In the years since the mid-1950s, "sinful nature" has seldom if ever appeared in our journals and new books. At the same time, terms such as Adam's nature" and "sinless nature" have appeared more frequently.  


As head of the Ministerial Association, R. A. Anderson was editor-in-chief of Ministry magazine, which is published for our ministers and workers, worldwide.

In 1956 and 1957. a series of articles, intended to soften the blow for the changeover, were released. Here are some examples:

"Christ did indeed partake of our nature, our human nature with all its physical limitations, but not of our carnal nature with all its lustful corruptions.

"His was not a corrupt, carnal nature. When He took upon Him sinless human nature. He did not cease to be God, for He was God manifest in the flesh! "Roy A. Anderson, "Human. Not Carnal." Ministry magazine, September 1956.

"He was indeed a man, but withal He was God manifested in the flesh. True, He took our human nature, that is, our physical form, but He did not possess our sinful propensities." R. A. Anderson, "God With Us." Ministry. April, 1957.

"When God became man He partook of the same moral nature that Adam possessed before the fall. Adam was created holy, and so was Christ. for He became the second Adam. "R. A. Anderson. "Human. Not Carnal." ibid.

"When the incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race. it is our understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam was created in Eden. "R. A. Anderson. "God with Us, " ibid,

These quotations, illustrating a comparatively recent emphasis upon the perfection and "sinlessness" of Christ's human nature, present a striking contrast to earlier statements on this subject. For example, the Sabbath School lesson for May 17, 1913, entitled, "God Manifest in the Flesh," quoted a Roman Catholic statement; and, then, stated unequivocally that it was erroneous:

"God the Son. by assuming this perfect human nature, which He took from the blessed virgin. was born in the flesh , "Catholic Belief, 208.

"Thus by shutting Christ away from the same flesh and blood which we have (compare Heb. 2: 14), modern Babylon really denies the vital truth of Christianity. although pretending to teach it. Such is the mystery of iniquity," International Sabbath School Quarterly, "God Manifested in the Flesh" (Senior Division, No. 72, Second Quarter, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1913), 26.

"By its dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, the Roman Catholic Church gives to the Son of God in the incarnation a 'perfect human nature: and thereby separates Him from those He came to save.

"This denial of the perfect union of Christ with sinful flesh opens the way for a series of subsidiary mediators whose duty it is to bring the sinner into saving touch with Christ." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Incarnation and the Priesthood" (Senior Division. No. 71, First Quarter, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1913), 14.

The belief that Christ had the "sinless" human nature of Adam before the fall rather than the "sinful" nature of fallen man is clearly expressed in an article in a Ministry magazine article, entitled, "The Immaculate Christ. "

"Before Adam fell, he was pure and clean, without taint of sin. He possessed human nature, undefiled, as God created it. When Jesus, 'the second man: 'the last Adam' (1 Cor. 15:4547), came. in addition to His divine nature. He also possessed human nature. undefiled, as God originally created it." Eamest W. Cox. "The Immaculate Christ," Ministry, December, 1957. 10,

From 1955 to 1958, the present writer attended our Seminary which at that time was next door to the General Conference building. where many of the Evangelical Conferences were held. We were beginning to hear hints of the doctrinal changeover in the classes; and, outside of class, students were quietly discussing the matter.

When the "bombshell" Eternity article came out. as well as the 1956 and 1957 Ministry magazine articles, everyone—students and faculty were quietly sending for copies, The present writer argued many times with Edward Heppenstall in various classes over some of these changes, but to no avail.


Leroy Edwin Froom (18901974) was held in the highest respect at the General Conference. As their in-house theologian and church historian, he had produced the 4-volume Faith of Our Fathers and the 2-volume Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers. During and following the Evangelical Conferences, which on the Adventist side Froom led out in, Walter Martin also viewed him with the highest respect. especially since it was obvious that Froom, the pivotal Adventist leader in the talks, went out of his way to doctor our teachings so they would be received by the Evangelicals.

As part of the agreement. Martin's forthcoming book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists, exonerating us as "Christians," was to be released at the same time as a book published by the Review, titled Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine.

When Questions on Doctrine was released in 1957, Roy Anderson, who was extremely influential, arranged for thousands of free copies to be mailed to every Christian college and seminary in the world. Multiplied thousands of free copies were also mailed to various denominational headquarters, leaders, and local pastors. The cost of all this (Questions on Doctrine was a full-size, cloth-bound book) was immense, For many more details, see the author's documentary on the Evangelical Conferences,

"Many thousands of copies have been placed with clergymen and theology teachers not of our faith in a few instances thousands in a single conference. And they have had their wholesome effect. Its total circulation by 1970 had exceeded 138,OOO."L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 489.

In Questions on Doctrine, Froom (the author of the book) very skillfully explained away the fact that Ellen White used the words, "sinful," "fallen," and "deteriorated" human nature" in referring to Christ:

"It could hardly be construed, however, from the record of either Isaiah or Matthew, that Jesus was diseased or that He experienced frailties to which our fallen human nature is heir. But He did bear all this. Could it not be that He bore this vicariously also, just as He bore the sins of the whole world?

"These weaknesses, frailties, infirmities. failings are things which we, with our sinful, fallen natures, have to bear. To us they are natural, inherent; but when He bore them, He took them not as something innately His, but He bore them as our substitute. He bore them in His perfect, sinless nature. Again, we remark, Christ bore all this vicariously, just as vicariously He bore the iniquities of us all.

"It is in this sense that all should understand the writings of Ellen G. White when she refers occasionally to sinful, fallen, and deteriorated human nature." Op. cit.. 59-60..

Froom here puts words in the mouth of Ellen White, trying to make her say that Christ did not take our nature, but that He only took it "vicariously" as our "substitute." The dictionary defines vicarious as "experienced or enjoyed by imaginary sharing in the experience of another."

Anyone acquainted with L. E. Froom's writings knew he was a master of vocabulary. Here is a companion statement in that book:

':All that Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature all was taken and borne vicariously. Just as bearing vicariously the sins of the whole world did not taint His perfect, sinless soul, neither did bearing the diseases and frailties of our fallen nature taint Him in the slightest degree with the corrupting influences of sin." Op. cit.. 61-62.

The following passage from the book clearly teaches the error that Christ took an immaculate nature rather than the nature you and I inherit:

"Although born in the flesh. He was nevertheless God. and was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam. He was 'without sin,' not only in His outward conduct, but in His very nature. [He was] sinless in His life and in His nature," Op. cit.. 383.

Of course, we all believe that Christ never sinned. But, in the above passage, Froom says that Christ inherited none of the negative factors which we inherit.

From the beginning, the two books (Martin's and ours) were to be released simultaneously, and to be sold in each other's bookstores. But this did not happen. After ours was released, extensive revisions were on Martin's book; it was not published until three years later ( 1960). Because it contained so many attacks on Adventists, our ABCs refused to carry it.  


As Leroy Edwin Froom neared the end of his life, he wrote a book reviewing doctrinal changes in our denomination. In view of the very serious changes which have occurred, the book, Movement of Destiny, could well have been called "Destiny of a Movement."

Published in 1971 (Froom died in 1974, at the age of 84), the book uses the same wordy style found in Questions on Doctrine and his Faith of our Fathers books.

The first chapter of Movement of Destiny is remarkable in the way it hints at so much. Froom was obviously quite pleased with his central role, and he wanted the reader to recognize the pivotal nature of his activities. He said he could not write the book until enough people had died off. The book culminated in a defense of the Evangelical Conferences, the "grand results" they produced.

Froom said he was thankful that all his research resulted in opportunities to lecture before various Protestant and Catholic groups; so they could recognize that we were, indeed, Christians, sharing similar beliefs.

"The church groups included Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Reformed, Congregationist, United Brethren, and even Pentecostal and Unitarian faiths as well as an organization of converted Roman Catholic priests. So I write from personal knowledge, for I spoke to each of these groups.

"Universities such as Marburg (Germany), Rutgers (N.J.), and Pittsburg (Pa.) extended unusual invitations, with gratifying results from the presentation opportunities, with question periods. And following these came various dialogues with Roman Catholic student priests but groups and individual which were highly fruitful and refreshingly frank. In one instance the contact was with thirty-eight student priests-in-training for the Catholic University of America, in Washington, hour for presentation, and an hour for questions. Out of this, smaller follow-up groups of five to eight. Later, I was privileged to address a class of graduate students at the same 'Catholic .': on the same theme. "L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 466.

Elsewhere in the book, Froom says that Martin initially complained about four heretical notions; and Froom set to work to clarify these: "According to Martin, the four leading charges commonly brought against Adventism, dealt with in his article [in a Protestant journal], were: "( 1) that the atonement of Christ was not completed upon the cross; (2) that salvation is the result of grace plus the works of the law; (3) that the Lord Jesus Christ was not a created being, not from all eternity; (4) and that He partook of man's sinful fallen nature at the incarnation.' "Op. cit., 473.

It is true that a few of our 19th century writers advocated Arianism (point 3, above), but the other positions are solid Adventism! Yet Froom set to work to change our historic beliefs on each and every one of them.

He succeeded so well, that Martin later wrote, in an Evangelical journal, as quoted below by Froom in his book:

"Since there is no conceivable doctrinal ground, in the light of verifiable evidence where the fundamental tenets of the historic Gospel are concerned for refusing that outstretched hand. I for one encourage the extension of our hand which will usher in an new era of understanding and spiritual growth among the Church which is Christ's body. "Walter Martin, quoted in L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny. 475.

Froom's book, Movement of Destiny. gave added respectability to the doctrinal changes. in the eyes of many of our church leaders and pastors. Yet he chopped up and twisted Spirit of Prophecy quotations, in order to support his contention that Ellen White agreed with his version of the human nature of Christ. Here is a sample:

" 'The reader has now observed that the paragraph [in Movement of Destiny] opens with a title line: 'Took Sinless Nature of Adam before Fall. ' This heading is followed by nineteen statements purporting to support its conclusion. Within each statement is a tiny quotation fragment from Ellen White.

" 'But as Ellen White wrote these quotations, not a single one of them says that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall, and some of them say exactly the opposite! . . Three fragments are all taken from the same paragraph in Ellen White's writings. . [which] opens with the unequivocal statement that Christ took the fallen nature of man!' "Ralph Larson, Documentary Fraud, FF-26. p. 2, now in Doctrinal History Tractbook.

So much for the scholarship of Dr. Froom.  


When, in the early 1980s, William Johnsson began as editor-in-chief of the Adventist Review, major changeovers began to occur in our denominational paper.

Among other changes, articles began appearing which recommended erroneous doctrines and lowered standards. Photographs and drawings were printed which would never have been seen in the Review in earlier decades.

Among the changes which occurred were articles advocating the pre-fall nature of Christ. One example of this was an article in the June 30, 1983, issue, authored by Norman Gulley.

Gulley stated that "the church has never taken a stand for or against one or the other" of the two positions on the human nature of Christ. You will recall, earlier in this present book, we quoted Morris Venden's statement in Insight. that the fallen nature of Christ concept dovetailed with that of the idea that sin was transgression of the law, and that we can overcome sin in our lives now. Venden said that he believed that sin is only a broken relationship with God.

In his Review article, Gulley took this same position, saying that the definition of sin "is not so much a breaking of the law as it is a broken relationship that leads to lawbreaking."

Thus both men switch cause and effect. The Bible says that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). That is the cause. The Bible also says that the effect of sin is the broken relationship.

"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear. "Isaiah 59:2.

It is bad enough that doctrinal errors are printed in the pages of "the good old Review." But, to make matters worse, no articles advocating the truth were printed!


 The senior Sabbath School Quarterly for the First Quarter of 1983 was entitled Christ's All-atoning Sacrifice. The lesson-help book which accompanied it bore the name, Christ Our Substitute.

Both were written by Norman R. Gulley, a religion teacher at Southern College (now Southern University), in Collegedale, Tennessee.

In an attempt to placate both sides while insidiously instilling error, Gulley taught that Christ had Adam's pre-fall nature, combined with our post-fall physical infirmities.

"Christ took the spiritual nature of man before the fall, and the physical nature of man after the fall. "N. R. Gulley, Christ Our Substitute, 33.

If that is true, then He did not really take our nature. Repeatedly, the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy said that Christ took our nature, and that it was a "fallen" nature; yet, in that nature, He resisted temptation and sin. When the nature of Christ is referred to in Scripture, it is moral issues which are dwelt upon, not physical flaws.

Then Gulley uses another new theology argument: If Christ had really taken our nature, He would have fallen into sin, since it is impossible for mankind to stop sinning even with God's help!

"He [Christ] had to identify Himself with us as far as His saving mission made it necessary. But He could not go beyond the requirements of His mission or He would have needed a Saviour Himself, and therefore His mission would have been a failure." Op. cit, 38.

The idea here was to "somehow save us," without Himself being caught by Satan.

Of course, the truth is that, if it is impossible to stop sinning, even with God's help, then the law of God cannot be kept and Satan is right in the great controversy after all!

In support of his position, Gulley quotes a long (long!) list of pagans (Ovid, Euripides, Senaeca,  Epictetus, etc.), Catholics (Augustine, Methodius, etc.), and Protestants (Hort, Moule, Barth, Barclay, Schweitzer, etc. (see pages 4851).

Then Gulley uses still another "proof," that Christ could only save us by not taking our nature; he says that Christ lived 2,000 years before our time, and human nature then would not have been adequate to save us today!

"If Jesus lived four thousand years after Adam, we live two thousand years farther down the line. Surely we have a much harder time than Jesus." Op. cit. 52.

Can you imagine such trite being printed on the presses of the Review & Herald and sold through Adventist bookstores as truth!

Gulley caps his arguments for error, by declaring that we have Original Sin and Christ did not!

"In fact, we do not have to do anything wrong to become sinners. We are born that way. But Jesus was born sinless." Op. cit. 53.

Original Sin is the error invented by the licentious "Saint" Augustine. He was so vile, that, by his own admission, he could not stop living with women he was not married to. So he devised the "Original Sin" teaching, to explain why he could still go to heaven. (Because he taught strict submission to Rome, the Vatican later made him a saint.)  


The book, Questions on Doctrine, went out of print in 1980. In March 1983. Walter Martin gave a lecture at Napa, California. in which he announced that he had written letters to our leaders in Takoma Park, threatening to negatively revise his book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists, if we did not reprint Questions on Doctrine or issue a new book, to take its place, which also had the same doctrinal changes. Martin was very blunt and forceful about this. The present writer reprinted sizeable portions of that lecture, and also noted this:

" 'He [Martin] said that if Seventh-day Adventists continued to believe they are 'the remnant church,' that Christ did not have a sinless nature. and that the atonement was not finished at the cross. . they will be classed with the cults. "[He said] that Reuben Figuhr and the Holy Spirit had transformed the church. . they will have so much to lose if they do not take the correct position. as stated in Questions on Doctrine.

" '[He said,] 'We must fight for our Seventh day Adventist brethren, that the church will take the right position. Questions on Doctrine has been suppressed, and now voices are teaching heresy which the church originally repudiated. This must be remedied. Adventism is answerable to the authority of the Word of God, not to those who would perpetuate heresy' . .

" 'He stated that he had submitted a list of questions to the General Conference, to be answered by the hierarchy, and not the 'lunatic fringe,' so that he will know what information to put in his forthcoming book and tapes,' "The Beginning of the End, Part 18, and Doctrinal History Tractbook.

The brethren at world headquarters set to work to please Martin; and, in 1988, a new Adventist doctrinal book. entitled Seventh-day Adventists Believe, rolled off the presses,

It is highly unfortunate that we have had only two official doctrinal books in our history and both were written to please Walter Martin and the evangelicals!

Chapter 4, in this new doctrinal book, dealt with the human nature of Christ. A strong attempt was made to please all sides, but the erroneous view was still stated.

This is understandable, since its primary author was Norman Gulley, who wrote the infamous 1983 Gulley Quarterly and the accompanying book. Christ Our Substitute, By his own admission, he believes in a pre-fall nature of Christ.

"Jesus Christ took upon Himself our nature with all its liabilities, but He was free from hereditary corruption. "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 49/1:4 (page 49, column 1, paragraph 4).

"He possessed the essential characteristics of human nature," Op. cit., 46/1:3.

"Christ's humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is. the humanity of Adam before the fall, nor fallen humanity; that is. in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen, It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was. therefore. most literally our humanity, but without sin," Op. cit., 47/1:4-47/ 2:0.

The above statement cleverly sidesteps the key issue in the nature of Christ controversy. It does this by equating "fallen nature" with actual sinning.

Two pages later, another clever statement is made. which says that Christ took our "fallen" nature but then denies that He did:

  "The Bible portrays Jesus' humanity as sinless. His birth was supernatural He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. As a newborn baby He was described as 'that Holy One,' He took the nature of man in its fallen state [that is. He took our fallen nature], bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness [that is, He did not take our fallen nature]. He was one with the human race, except in sin. "Op. cit., 49/ 1:1-2.

The new theology can be subtle in the extreme. They will not come out and say the truth about the human nature of Christ, but they fear to pronounce the error. They talk about the actions of Jesus as though they were the nature of Jesus.  


The November 5, 1992, issue of Adventist Review contained a 16-page booklet, entitled Issues: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries.

Within a few months, a full-sized purple-cover book, with the same title, was printed and widely sold. (We will here refer to it simply as Issues.)

Having changed our doctrinal beliefs nearly 30 years before, during the Evangelical Conferences, leadership now asked that those pleading for a return to historic beliefs should be tolerant. The reason given was that the denomination has never decided what it believes on those points!

"In other words, be tolerant on those points that the church has left open. "Issues, 16. "Neither has the church ever 'formally' adopted a position on perfection and the precise nature of human obedience." Issues, 47. "One side stresses Jesus' role as our sinless substitute, arguing that His nature was like Adam's before the fall. The other stresses Jesus' role as our example, arguing that He came in the 'likeness of sinful flesh' with a nature like Adam's after the fall..

"But the significant point for the discussion here is: Adventists have never 'formally' adopted a position on the question of just how Jesus' nature compared with Adam's and with ours. Neither has the church ever 'formally' adopted a position on perfection and the precise nature of human obedience," Op. cit., 46-47.

"[The independent group] holds certain views on the human nature of Christ, the nature of sin, and sanctification, These issues have never been settled among Christians, much less among Seventh-day Adventists. .

"There is no way that the SDA Church can work with such an independent group. if it cannot lay aside these positions that they have made so central to their work and mission.

"Over-specificity in the content of faith [ie., consistently adhering to our historic beliefs] and a rigid church structure [i.e.. asking that only beliefs and not errors be presented to our people] reduce the possibility for healthy dissent and for creative innovation." Op. cit.. 45. "[The church should] resist any attempt by one segment of the church to impose its views on the rest."Op. cit.. 50.

Yet, at the same time, only erroneous portrayals of these controverted doctrines are presented in our denominational papers and at camp meetings.

As to what these disputed teachings might be, the full-size Issues book made very clear. The book reproved Independent Ministries for teaching the truth about the nature of Christ, the continuing atonement, etc. And the book did more; it boldly proclaimed error as orthodox! What have we come to, when our leaders dare to do this?

On pages 114-130 we find the only explanatory in-depth doctrinal studies in the entire book, Issues. It is a reprint form of what our leaders considered to be a landmark series of doctrinal studies printed the year before in the Adventist Review.

Since they consider it important, and since it is the single doctrinal series in Issues, it deserves our careful attention. And when we do so, we find it is almost entirely focused on denying one special doctrine: the great truth that Christ took our nature.

Why is this done? Because they realize that this is the foundation upon which all the others are built: the nature of sin, the nature of man, the nature of the atonement, and the nature of salvation,

This series, consisting of six articles originally printed in the Review between January 18 to February 22, 1990, was reprinted in Issues.

  Part I, entitled "Pressing Together," is an appeal for all sides to unite in one position doctrinally.

"A meeting of minds on this question can bring us together as a church." Norman Gulley, "Pressing Together," Adventist Review, January 18, 1990, 8-10; reprinted in Issues, 114.

  Part 2 is on the nature of sin. It teaches Augustine's Original Sin heresy, and defines the nature of sin as being separation from God, Gulley states our historic position on the nature of man, in regard to sin:

"Early Adventists considered the first death as being a result of Adam's sin, and the second death the result of personal sin. In other words, the first death is merely the consequence of not the penalty for Adam's sin." Norman Gulley, "In Every Way but One, " Review, January 25, 1990, quoted in Issues, 117.

Then Gulley goes on to expound Augustine's horrible theory: that everyone is born an evil criminal, to be condemned to hellfire because of something he did not do:

"Are infants sinners at birth because of their inheritance from Adam?". . We are born sinful and subject to death prior to lawbreaking. If a baby dies a few hours or days after birth, it is still subject to the second death the condemnation death even though it has never broken any commandment." Op. cit.. 117-118.

In the above passage, Gulley says that what we inherit at birth will cause us to burn in hellfire. That is not true! It is what we think, speak, and do that results in sin.

"It is the disobedience of Adam that constitutes a person a sinner, and not merely his own acts of sin (disobedience)." Op. cit., 118 [parenthesis his).

But God's Word says it differently:

"Our only definition of sin is that given in the Word of God; it is 'the transgression of the law: "Great Controversy, 493. 

Gulley's concept, which is Augustine's Original Sin theory, is cited as the basis for the theory that Christ could not have taken our nature. Instead, Christ is said to have had an alternate type of immaculate conception.

"So if every man is born a sinner (i.e.., a fallen being, separated from God needing salvation) as the result of Adam's sin, how then could Christ enter the race through a human mother and yet be sinless? The immaculate conception of Catholicism sidesteps this question by making Mary unaffected by Adam's sin. Rather than this immaculate conception. it is the miraculous conception:' Op. cit., 119 [italics his].

As do most new theologians, Gulley plays with words in order to confuse. What he is obviously saying, in the above paragraph, is that the Catholic teaching is that Christ's mother had an immaculate conception, whereas Gulley is teaching that Christ had His own immaculate conception. Of course, the end result would be the same: Both Gulley and Rome teach that Christ had an immaculate conception [i.e., He had a sinless nature].

Both concepts are based on the same error: Christ could not be born with our nature, but had to be different than us. As Gulley explains it:

  "He [Christ] did not have 'sinful flesh.' Thus He neither was a sinner by nature nor a sinner by acts. He was a total Substitute." Ibid.

Thus, by the early 1990s, we find this totally erroneous, Catholic-based article featured in the Adventist Review and, later, in the book, Issues. But, through it all, not one article was printed on denominational presses, advocating the other, the true side that Christ took our very nature; and, in it, He overcame the devil and now gives us power to do the same.

Gulley is quite unashamed that he is teaching Original Sin in this article, for he uses those words several times.  

In Part 3 in the Review series, also reprinted in Issues, Gulley began by reiterating the conclusion of his previous article.

"Thus far we have seen that His unique sinless human nature made it possible for Him to be our substitute. We shall see that the same unique nature qualified Him to be our example." Norman Gulley, ':Jesus Our Example," Review, February 1,1990,19, quoted in Issues, 120.

In this article, Gulley attempts to show that Christ could still be our example, even though He was not like us; that is, did not take our nature. One cannot but wonder how Gulley intends to do that. Here is the strange logic he uses:

"Clearly Jesus did not have a sinful nature; He had no sinful passions or any taint of sin. By contrast, all the rest of us are born into the world with these liabilities. On the surface, at least, this looks like a huge advantage for Christ, and calls into question His ability to be our example. "Ibid.

First, Gulley explains that Christ did not come into this world to overcome in our place, but in unfallen Adam's place! How is that for original thinking!

"Satan had charged God with Adam's sin. . The Creator became a created being. Jesus came as the second Adam sinless, to show that Satan's charge was false. Adam need not have sinned. Like Adam, He had nothing sinful within to respond to Satan's temptations, but He could be tempted from an appeal to use His sinless passions and drives in an unlawful way. He withstood the tempter." Op. cit., 120-121.

In other words, Christ did not come to be our "substitute," but unfallen Adam's "substitute"! Such foolish logic is all the more remarkable, in view of the fact that Gulley's key phrase, which in 1983 he used as the title of his book, is "Christ Our Substitute." But, following Gulley's logic, Christ is not our substitute! Christ is only unfallen Adam's substitute.

Even worse is Gulley's effort to twist the charges of Satan against God as only concerning the fall of Adam!

Following this, Gulley declares that the immaculately born Christ, with His pre-fall nature, is our example, because He kept the law. Obviously, his statement is pointless. How would Christ's sinless obedience, wrought out in a nature which supposedly cannot sin, be an example to us in natures which can? And this Gulley admits:

"Because His humanity was sinless, Jesus could not experience the inner sinful urgings of sinful humans. But it was necessary that He, as our example, experience an equivalency in intensity while remaining a sinless human. "Op. cit., 121.

Gulley then claims that Christ reached "the lowest depths" and suffered as we do at one time in His life: during the last part of the 40day fast in the wilderness! According to Gulley, at that one time, and no other, Christ suffered as we do.

But Scripture says it differently: (1) Christ took our nature, the nature of Abraham's descendants; (2) and in our nature was tempted "in all points like as we"; (3) yet without ever yielding to sin; (4) so we can come to Him for help in every time of need (Heb. 2:10-18; 4:15-16).

In these words, Gulley describes the one time Christ suffered "equivalent" to us:

"To be hungry was not a sin; it was a proper desire. But through a 40-day intensification, His gnawing hunger became equivalent to the worst sinful drives ever experienced by humans. "Ibid.

"The human became so emaciated and stressed out, through a nearly six-week fast, that His consuming passion to eat became equivalent to sinful passions of men." Op. cit., 122.

Second, Gulley uses the shop-worn argument History of the Changeover that. throughout His earthly life. the only real temptation He faced was to use His divine power to help Himself! What kind of useful example is that to us? None at all.

"He had received honor in the heavenly courts. and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for Him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures. and be partakers of the divine nature." Op. cit.. 122.

"Can we understand His supreme struggle? Never! But we must try to grasp its depths. He had exercised absolute power from eternity! This power He had by nature; it was inherent. If we grumble about our inheritance by nature. think of His. If we say we have habits that bind us. think of His a habit with eternal use back of it! Can you get any greater urge than that? Our habits, measured by His, are but drops of water compared to a shore-less sea. He knows the human struggle in temptations because His were infinitely greater. and precisely because of His unique divine nature rather than from an identical human nature." Ibid.

Gulley summarizes the terrible "weight" that was on Christ:

"What an inexplicable intensification this staggering load brought to the agonizing struggle of the emaciated One! In view of this unparalleled experience, can anyone question the genuineness of His example? No! His temptations were infinitely harder than man's!" Ibid.

  In Part 4 of this Review series, Gulley once again reiterates that Christ had a sinless nature. "Sin. whether in His nature or in act. would have disqualified Him from being our substitute. For He would have needed a substitute Himself." Norman Gulley, "Jesus Our Substitute," Review, February 8. 1990.8; in Issues. 123.

The primary objective of this entire series of articles has been to prove that Christ had a sinless human nature. He recognizes it to be the foundation stone. under-girding the entire plan of salvation.

Yet, shrewdly. Gulley, speaking directly to those who maintain the other (the Scriptural) view, declares that they should not be concerned about what nature Christ had, It really does not matter.

"Nowhere do inspired sources make the birth of Christ as prominent as His death. . Should not those who are preoccupied with His birth take pause and look beyond to the cross?" Ibid.

  But. having said that, Gulley himself keeps coming back to the nature of Christ.

"Some believe that Jesus had to be exactly like us in fallen nature in order to span the gulf gouged out by sin. Yet even that identity has a qualification for none other comes into the world 'born of God: "Ibid.

Gulley next twists the meaning of Romans 8:3.

"Just as that brazen serpent only looked like a serpent. so the sinless Jesus only took the 'likeness of sinful flesh: "Op. cit., 124 [italics his].

Yet both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy clearly support the position that Christ took our nature; He did not just make-believe take it. Jesus was not a mirage while in the flesh! He was a real flesh-and-blood man. He became like us, is what God's Word says.

  The final two articles in this doctrinal series mention the error of "the finished work at the cross; but, in general, they are more inspirational than doctrinal.  


  The evidence presented in this study indicates that, from its earliest years until the late 1940s, the Seventh-day Adventist Church: (1) has always upheld the Deity of God in human flesh fully God and fully man, (2) has always been in close agreement in regard to the sinlessness of Christ, and (3) has consistently taught that Christ was in every sense sinless.

Under threats and strong duress from Walter Martin. from 1954 to 1957. our leaders agreed to make definite changes. These changes were printed in the first official doctrinal book in our history.

The 1960s and 1970s constituted a time of adaptation to the changes. The work of retraining our pastors in retreats went on quietly. Our future leaders were being initiated into new teachings in the colleges.

During the 1980s as the apostasy grew, strong pleas for patience and toleration for other views were frequently heard.

During the 1990s, those advocating the errors about sin, the nature of Christ, the atonement. and salvation were solidly in control; and there is intolerance for those pleading for a return to historic beliefs.

Only God can change the situation, and He will do it when it becomes illegal to be a Sabbath keeper. Then the faithful, gathered in little companies here and there, will go out and preach the identifying truth of Revelation 14:6-12 (the Third Angel's Message) everywhere. May we be faithful to the end. Obedience by faith, in Christ, to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy is what we need today. May we not forsake our post of duty. In His strength, we can remain true to the end.


The End


The Spirit of Prophecy Warned That The Dangers From WITHIN are More Serious Than From WITHOUT


Ellen White warned that the dangers from within were to be greater than from without. But the people continue to worship their leaders rather than heed the Word of God, even with the example of Israel!


It was the same with ancient Israel:


But the dangers from without were not so serious as the dangers from within. By their apostasy and rebellion the people who should have been light bearers among the nations were inviting the judgments of God. Many of the evils of the northern kingdom, which had been denounced by Hosea and Amos, were fast corrupting Judah. In their desire for gain, men were adding house to house and field to field. See Isaiah 5:8. Justice was perverted, and no pity was shown the poor. God declared, “The spoil of the poor is in your houses.” Isaiah 3:14. Even magistrates turned a deaf ear to the cries of the poor, the widows, and the fatherless.” See Isaiah 10:1, 2. {SS 162.3}


“But the dangers from without, overwhelming though they seemed, were not so serious as the dangers from within. It was the perversity of his people that brought to the Lord’s servant the greatest perplexity and the deepest depression. By their apostasy and rebellion those who should have been standing as light bearers among the nations, were inviting the judgments of God. Many of the evils which were hastening the swift destruction of the northern kingdom, and which had recently been denounced in unmistakable terms by Hosea and Amos, were fast corrupting the kingdom of Judah.” {RH March 4, 1915, par. 8}


Ellen White prophesied that the leaders would betray sacred trust by proving unfaithful to the work of the Lord, and she said what happens then:


"Here we see that the church the Lord's sanctuary was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. They had taken the position that we need not look for miracles and the marked manifestation of God's power as in former days. Times have changed. These words strengthen their unbelief, and they say: The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil. He is too merciful to visit His people in judgment. Thus "Peace and safety" is the cry from men who will never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God's people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who feel the just vengeance of an offended God. Men, maidens, and little children all perish together." E.G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 211.

“The Lord Jesus will always have a chosen people to serve Him. When the Jewish people rejected Christ, the Prince of life. He took from them the kingdom of God and gave it unto the Gentiles. God will continue to work on this principle with every branch of His work. When a church proves unfaithful to the work of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear important responsibilities. But, if these in turn do not purify their lives from every wrong action, if they do not establish pure and holy principles in all their borders, then the Lord will grievously afflict and humble them and, unless they repent, will remove them from their place and make them a reproach.

God is not 'worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing' (Acts 17:25).” E. G. White, The Upward Look, 131.


From the beginning of this vision, I have recounted many and serious betrayals of sacred trust. Ellen White clearly stated that when a CHURCH proves unfaithful to the work of the Lord, WHATEVER THEIR POSITION MAY BE, HOWEVER HIGH AND SACRED THEIR CALLING, (LIKE BEING A “CHOSEN PEOPLE”), God can no longer work with them. OTHERS ARE THEN CHOSEN.


Most of God’s once “CHOSEN” people, DON’T BELIEVE THE ABOVE STATEMENTS. They believe God needs them and is stuck with them NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO! They believe the once CHURCH IS TOO BIG TO FAIL, just as the Jews believed concerning their Temple.


I was shown that it should not be the stretch it is for God’s second “chosen people” to believe they could and have failed, when His first “chosen people” failed. My Angel repeated Ellen White’s statements on Ezekiel 9 three times, and commented that this should be conclusive evidence to God’s second “chosen people,” that they will receive the same fate as God’s first chosen people.


When Ellen White says in The Great Controversy, p. 25, that the destruction of A.D. 70 was a PREFIGURE of the terrors of the last great day, and then says in Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 211, that they BEGIN at HIS SANCTUARY, HIS CHURCH, THE HOUSE OF JACOB, this should leave NO PARTICLE OF A DOUBT in the minds of any person with any modicum of spiritual discernment, but alas, dumb-dog “watchmen” and their patron members, do not possess the spiritual discernment necessary to see the CURRENT DAY TYPOLOGY PARALLEL with God’s first “chosen people.”


I asked my angel this specific question: “Why can’t men as intelligent as Walter Veith, Andrew Henriques, and Vance Ferrell, see this clear as crystal typology?” And the reply, stated three times: Isaiah 56:10-12. No additional comment is necessary except to say that men of the very same “apparent” mental ability, responded exactly the same way in the TYPE of the Jewish experience. The Scribes and the Pharisees were very capable men, but were naked and blind to certain spiritual truths that were understood by the prophets who warned them. So it is today. Nothing under the sun has changed.


I have been shown previously that the men I speak of, like an audience, and that true reformers don’t get large audiences. These men like a large audience for their sermons and/or their wares that they sell. But, as in the case of D.M. Canright, this type of mindset will reap a terrible harvest, both to these men and all who follow their lead.


In the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,


R. William Beaulieu