Foreword by Ron Beaulieu: Friends, if you want to see an exact fulfillment of every specification about the New Movement—New Organization that was to form as part of the Omega of Apostasy, as prophesied in Selected Messages, Bk. 1, 204-5, just read this document. This is one of 21 papers presented at the QED 50th Anniversary conference last year.
Here is the Website where you may obtain the other 20 presentations:
Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference
October 24-27, 2007
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI
THE QOD EARTHQUAKE—ATTEMPTED MERGER OF
TWO THEOLOGICAL TECTONIC PLATES
Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D.
October 24, 2007
THE QOD EARTHQUAKE—ATTEMPTED MERGER OF TWO THEOLOGICAL
I.Early Warning Signs 4
Began with a friendly letter 4
“Eternal Verities” 6
Double Challenge 7
“Lunatic Fringe 7
If only . . . 7
II. Basis Flaw on the Part of Both Parties 8
Tectonic Plates Colliding 8
Calvinism Rooted in Augustine 9
“Five Points” 9
Forensic-only Salvation 10
Adventist Trio’s Fatal Flaw 10
Principle Issues 11
Adventist Trio Were Highly Respected Leaders 11
Personal Friends 11
III. Analysis of a Theological Impasse 12
More What Ifs 13
Perpetuating the Myth 14
Group Think 14
Loma Linda Professionals 15
Mythical Mantra 16
Cottrell’s Sixteen-page Warning 16
Nichol’s Warning 17
Washing of Hands 17
Unknown to Commentary Editors 18
Why Commentary Editors Did Not Speak Louder 18
Missed the Opportunity of a Century 19
IV. Time to See the Big Picture 19
Major Issues in Great Controversy 19
Adventist Template and Calvinistic Template Incompatible 20
Obviously, Andreasen and Others Aroused 21
Biblical Sanctuary Doctrine 21
V. When Theological Clarity Becomes Fog 21
180 Degree Turn—Nature of Christ’s Humanity 22
Two Trigger Words 22
Another Subheading Flaw 23
Nichol’s Editorials 23
Brief Review of 100 Years 24
Branson’s 1954, Drama of the Ages 24
Strange Act of 1949 25
Anderson’s Explanation 26
Scholarly Fraud 26
Anderson’s Strawman 27
Ellen White Consistency 27
Not a Mere Theological Exercise 28
Another Ministry Editorial 29
Strange Hermeneutics 29
Misrepresentation Worked Both Ways 29
An Attempted Compromise 30
Henry Melvill 30
Melvill’s Federal Theology 32
Ellen White, No Calvinist 32
Adventists Not Alone 33
Andreasen’s Second Concern 33
QOD Trio’s Defense to Andreasen’s Charge 34
Misapplication of One Statement 35
Again, the Larger View 36
Missing the Opportunity of a Century 36
Why Was Andreasen Upset? 37
February 15, 1957 Letter 37
October 15, 1957 Letter 38
November 4, 1957 Letter 39
November 14, 1957 Letter 39
December 2, 1957 Letter 40
January 5, 1958 Letter 40
January 19, 1958 Letter 41
January 31, 1958 Letter 41
September 1960 Letter 41
“Outright Deceit” 42
“The Highest Infamy” 43
Flash Points in Later Eternity Editorials 43
Barnhouse’s Eternity, September 1957 Editorial 44
Martin’s Eternity, September 1957 Article 44
Barnhouse’s Eternity, November 1957 Editorial 44
What If Barnhouse and Martin Read Annotated QOD? 44
Adventist Professionals Not Asleep 45
Telephone Conversation 45
Chief Issue: Connection Between Christology and Eschatology 46
Reality Check 46
Hancock’s Research 46
VI. Fifty Years of Muddle 47
Quick Overview of Adventist Disarray Since 1960 47
Bull and Lockhart’s Analysis 48
Edward Heppenstall, Chair, Systematic Theology 48
Change of Emphasis in Nearness of Advent 49
Unity and Coherence in Andreasen’s Theological Paradigm 50
Theological Liberalism 50
QOD Magisterium 51
Opportunity of the Century, What ifs 51
VII. Fifty Years Later, What Should We Do To Rectify Mistakes?
A Summary of Issues in the Great Controversy Theme.1
B Ellen White’s Use of Words Such as Passions, Inclinations,
Propensities, Corruptions, etc.
C. The Elliptical Nature of Truth.
D. Why Did Jesus Come to Earth?
E. Why Did Jesus Die?
F. What Do We Mean by Moral Perfection in Contrast to
1 A very brief summary of my book, God At Risk— the Cost of Freedom in the Great Controversy,(Roseville,
CA: Amazing Facts, 2004), 480p p.
The QOD earthquake—Attempted merger of two theological
Early Warning Signs
In editing the Annotated Edition of Questions on Doctrine, George Knight spoke for many in his
usual fresh way when he wrote that QOD became the most divisive book in the Adventist world
over the last 50 years.2 Many believe that denomination confusion the Seventh-day Adventist Church
ever since has been a devastating price to pay for the theological detour.3 Those who think
other wise have been in an historic/theologic coma.
My limited assignment was to answer two questions: What happened and Why!
The fundamental problem in 1955-7 was that the participants unwittingly tried to merge two different theological systems without realizing all of its ramifications. When Adventists try to overlay their theology on the Evangelical grid, warning lights, buzzers, etc., should be going off—many areas simply won’t fit. Neither the Evangelicals nor the Adventists seemed to see some of the basic doctrines that created this Grand Canyon between Calvinism
and the Adventist form of Arminianism.4
From another perspective, Adventists did not realize that they had certain aspects of their
tectonic plate that couldn’t merge with the Calvinist tectonic plate. In the attempt to close
that difference, a theological earthquake jarred both worlds—and the debris of the resulting
volcano is still settling down today.5
In discussing the far-reaching effect of Questions on Doctrine with a Union Conference
committee recently, I was not surprised, just sad. Some of the reaction was, “That was long
ago, Herb. We are more interested in today and the future.” Or, “That was decided by our
brethren years ago, why try to go over it again.” Among other issues, when I suggested that
most independent ministries that thrive in our churches today exist because of what
happened in 1957, I got more blank looks. But also a new interest to hear more! Every cause
has an effect and nothing is without cause. And that is why we are here this week on the 50th
2 Annotated Edition, Questions on Doctrine (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press), 2003), xiii.
3 Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart Seeking a Sanctuary, Second Edition (Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press, 2007), 106: “Questions on Doctrine raised uncertainties about what Adventists actually
believed that made the evangelical era that followed the most destabilizing in the church’s history.”
4 Adventists part with Wesleyan Arminianism in (1) their understanding of the immortal soul notion that has
much to do with one’s understanding of the atonement and the doctrine of sin and (2) how to fully understand
John 3:16: was it a gift to be accepted or an offer to be sought. or both?
5 I am indebted to many through the years who have wrestled with the impact of QOD on Adventist thinking. I
am particularly grateful for Julius Nam’s remarkable doctoral dissertation, “Reactions to the Seventh-day
Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrine 1955-1971.” Others who have been extremely
thorough in their analyses through the years include Kenneth Wood, Jerry Moon, Ralph Larson, Ken
McFarland, Robert Hancock, Sr., Leroy Moore, Jean Zurcher, Kevin Paulson, William Grotheer, Larry
Kirkpatrick, Woody Whidden and George Knight.
anniversary of the publication of QOD, to look at cause and effect of probably the most
“divisive” book in Adventist history.
Began With a Friendly Letter
The whole QOD dance began with a letter of special appreciation (November 28, 1949)
from T.E. Unruh, president of the East Pennsylvania Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
to Dr. Donald Barnhouse, editor of the influential Eternity magazine, after hearing his radio
address on “righteousness by faith” in 1949. Barnhouse was astonished that an Adventist
leader would commend him when Barnhouse was convinced that Adventists believed in
“righteousness by works.” Barnhouse also noted that Adventists had a “satanic and
But Unruh hung in with several exchanges of letters. In one of them he enclosed Steps to
Christ, “affirming the evangelical character of Adventist doctrine.” And Barnhouse fired
back, in an Eternity article on “How to Read Religious Books,” stating that Steps was “false
in all its parts.” bearing the “mark of the counterfeit” from the first page. He also charged
that Steps to Christ promoted “universalism. . . half-truths and Satanic error. . . so much
emphasis on God’s love to unregenerate men smacked of universalism.”7 Unruh decided
there was no point of continuing the correspondence. No further communication took place
between Unruh and Barnhouse from June 1950 until 1955.
Another thread was also being weaved into the big picture when E. Schuyler English,
chairman of the Revision Committee of the Scofield Reference Bible, wrote a January 1955
editorial in his Our Hope magazine. He stated erroneously that Seventh-day Adventists
“deny Christ’s Deity” and that we “disparage the Person and work of Christ.” He based the
latter expression on the fact that some of our literature used the expression, “partook of our
sinful, fallen nature.”
Froom wrote immediately to English contending that “the old Colcord minority-view note in
Bible Readings—contending for an inherent sinful, fallen nature for Christ—had years
before been expunged because of its error, and again furnishing incontrovertible evidence to
sustain these statements.”8
English subsequently acknowledged that he had made “mistakes through the columns of
Our Hope” regarding Adventists. When he still contended that Christ “did not partake of
the fallen sinful nature of other men,” Froom assured him that “is precisely what we
likewise believe.” Then Froom footnoted this sentence with a typical misuse of Ellen White
comments allegedly supporting his viewpoint.9
6 Donald Grey Barnhouse, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians? A New Look at Seventh-day Adventism,”
Eternity, September 1956; T. E. Unruh, The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956,
Adventist Heritage, fourth quarter, 1977.
7 Barnhouse, “Spiritual Discernment, or How to Read Religious Books, Eternity, June 1950.
8 Movement of Destiny (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1971), 469.
9 Ibid. 470.
Now enters Walter Martin, a young researcher with a reputation in the evangelical world as
a specialist in non-Christian cults and one of Barnhouse’s consulting editors on Eternity. He
was finishing up his next book on The Rise of the Cults in which he categorized Seventhday
Adventists as one of “The Big Five”—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science,
Mormonism, Unity, and Seventh-day Adventists.10 But it seems that the Holy Spirit was
urging him to check his facts once more regarding Adventists because he wanted to treat
them fairly. Martin turned to Toby Unruh because he had been reading the correspondence
between Unruh and Barnhouse of five years before.11
Martin knew of LeRoy Froom for his impressive major work on the history of prophetical
interpretation.12 He asked Unruh for a meeting in Washington, D.C., where he could
interview Froom and other leaders in preparation for his upcoming book on the cults.
The rest is history. The stage was set for a frank, open discussion on the vital issues that
troubled Martin and Barnhouse. Unruh and Froom asked Walter Read, a field secretary of
the General Conference and biblical linguist, to join them, believing that this was a dramatic
moment in Adventist history to improve the Adventist image with Evangelicals. A short
time later, Roy Allan Anderson, editor of Ministry, was asked to join the study group.13
These conferences began in March 1955 and ended in May 1956.
The Adventist trio responded to Martin’s questions with a list that Froom called “the eternal
verities”—“eternal pre-existence and complete Deity of Christ, His miraculous conception
and virgin birth and sinless life during the Incarnation, His vicarious atoning death on the
Cross—once for all and all-sufficient—His literal resurrection and ascension, His Mediation
before the Father, applying the benefits of the completed Act of Atonement He had made on
the Cross And climaxing with His personal, premillennial Second Advent, which we firmly
believe to be near, but without setting a time.14
In a further presentation he listed certain doctrines that only some of the evangelical
churches would agree with, such as: “baptism by immersion, the seventh-day Sabbath, free
will, conditional immortality, and the complete annihilation of the wicked in the end-time.”
Then the Adventist trio presented a third group of five doctrines that appeared to be unique
to Adventism, such as: the heavenly sanctuary and Christ’s two-phase ministry in it, the
investigative judgment, the Spirit of prophecy as manifested in Ellen G. White’s ministry,
10 Walter R. Martin, (The Rise of the Cults, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1955) 12.
11 Unruh, Adventist Heritage, op cit.
12 L. E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald, 1950). Four
13 Unruh, op. cit.
14 Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C., Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1971) 478.
Emphasis in original.
the seal of God and mark of the beast, and the three angels’ messages of Revelation 13.
These five were designated to be distinguishing characteristics of Seventh-day Adventists.15
While saying all this, Martin soon saw that what he was now hearing was “a totally different
picture from what [he] had fancied and expected.”16 It seemed to deny many teachings that
he had ascribed to Adventists “because of his reading of Adventist literature.” Not many
hours went by before Martin told the Adventists that “you folks are not heretics as we
thought but rather redeemed brethren in Christ.” He, of course, was focusing on Froom’s list
of “eternal verities while recognizing that some of the second list were also believed by
some evangelical churches.17
For Martin, his challenge was that he had been commissioned by Zondervan Publishing to
finish his book on the cults that was to include Adventists.18 For the Adventist trio, they had
the burden of explaining to the Adventist Church why certain books and doctrinal points of
the past were to be purged, hoping that church members would understand that their
answers to Martin were expressed in ways that evangelicals could understand.
At that point began the attempt to merge two theological tectonic plates. Froom, Read and
Anderson convinced Martin and Barnhouse that the troublesome issues such as the human
nature of Christ and the larger view of the atonement were, as Barnhouse wrote, the
products of “the lunatic fringe as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of
The fat was in the fire! At least M. L. Andreasen, long-time Adventism’s leading
theologian, read Barnhouse’s article and found himself among the “lunatic fringe” along
with most other Adventist writers who emphasized the human experience of Jesus and His
The “Lunatic Fringe”
Obviously, after Barnhouse had made this charge, whatever else the Adventist trio would
write would be suspect and would have to be “met” with Adventist vigor. This accusation of
a “lunatic fringe” was incredible when we take a quick look at those who did believe that
Jesus took on Himself sinful flesh to live a sinless life. Think about the following list of
prominent “lunatic” Adventist leaders: Francis Nichol, W. H. Branson, Ray Cottrell, Don
Neufeld (all living in Washington, D.C. during the 1950s) as well as a century of Adventist
leadership, such as E. J. Waggoner, A. T. Jones, S. N. Haskell, W. W. Prescott, Uriah Smith,
M. C. Wilcox, G. W. Reaser, G. B. Thompson, M. E. Kern, C. M. Snow, C. P. Bollman,
15 Julius Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrine
1955-1971, 57. Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 2005, 54, 55.
16 Froom, Movement of Destiny, 479.
17 Julius Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrine
1955-1971, 57. Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 2005.
18 Froom, op. cit., 480.
19 Barnhouse, Eternity, September 1957.
Mead MacGuire, C. B.Haynes, I. H. Evans, L. A. Wilcox. William Wirth, E. F. Hackman, A. G. Daniells, Oscar Tait, Allen Walker, Merlin Neff, W. E. Howell, Gwynne Dalrymple,
T. M French, J. L. McElhany, C. Lester Bond, E. K. Slade, J. E. Fulton, D. H. Kress,
Frederick Lee, L. H. Wood, A. V. Olson, Christian Edwardson, J. C. Stevens, F. M.
Wilcox, A. W. Truman, F. G. Clifford, Varner Johns, Dallas Young, J. B. Conley, Fenton
Edwin Froom, W. E. Read, J. A. McMillan, Benjamin Hoffman, H. L. Rudy, including the
writings of M. L. Andreasen and hundreds of times that Ellen White unambiguously wrote
that Jesus “accepted the results of the great law of heredity . . . to share our sorrows and
temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.”20
If only. . .
If only both sides had stepped back for a quiet moment, they would have realized that they
were both shooting at moving targets. They stood on two separate tectonic plates attempting
to merge, setting up earthquakes that would reverberate for at least fifty years. If Froom had
not had a short fuse and a driving premise that obscured his normal historical nose for truth,
and if Anderson had been not so excited about what seemed to be a monumental public
relations scoop—we would not have had the QOD earthquake.
Strange as it now appears, if Froom had not early on so quickly dismissed the results of his
own informal poll among Adventist leaders regarding their understanding of Christ’s human
nature, he may have avoided the developing earthquake. In the answers to his poll he
discovered that “nearly all of them had that idea” [that Christ had a “sinful nature”]21 In
Froom’s letter to R. R. Figuhr, president of the General Conference, he blamed this
unfortunate situation of these leaders being “too weak in theology and in giving the right
impression to others.”22 Friend Froom was simply wearing blinders caused by personal
assumptions while Figuhr was intimidated by Froom’s august stature as the long-time editor
of Ministry magazine.23
II. Basis Flaw on the Part of Both Parties
Tectonic Plates Colliding
Calvinism and Arminianism, two tectonic plates, were about to collide. Even as earth
scientists have warning systems in the ground that can help predict the collision of moving
plates, so keen theologians should have warning systems in place. When Adventists try to
impose their theological structure on Evangelical Calvinism, warning lights in computers
should be going off before huge, unintended consequences develop for both parties. And
Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, 49. “Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He
wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful
nature.” Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1896. “He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature that He might know
how to succor those that are tempted.” —Ellen G. White, Medical Ministry, 181.
21 Nam, op. cit., 66.
23L. E. Froom (1890-1974), secretary of General Conference Ministerial Association from 1926-1950. During
this time, he founded The Ministry magazine and was its editor for 22 years.
vice versa. Many contemporary Evangelicals tried to warn Barnhouse and Martin of what
was happening but only time would have to tell the full story.24
Evangelical Calvinism is the theological tree of most Evangelicals although some
Evangelicals try to graft some branches to the Arminian tree.25 The Calvinism tree has its
24I was and still am grateful for the courage and gracious spirit of both Barnhouse and Martin. As soon as
Martin’s book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960) was published (with
Barnhouse’s foreword), scathing reviews appeared in books and magazine articles. These well-known but
unconvinced writers included John W. Sanderson, Westminster Theological Journal 23, (1960); Merrill
Tenney, Eternity, May 1960; Frank A. Lawrence, Christianity Today, July 4, 1960; John Gerstner, The
Theology of the Major Sects; Herbert S. Bird, Theology of Seventh-Day Adventism,1961; Norman F. Douty,
Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism, 1962; Russell P. Spittler, Cults and Isms: Twenty Alternates to
Evangelical Christianity, 1962; J. Oswald Sanders, Heresies and Cults, revised, 1962; Jan Karel Van Baalen,
The Chaos of Cults, 4th rev. and expanded,1962;Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults,1963; Gordon R.
Lewis, Confronting the Cults,1966; Irving Robertson, What the Cults Believe, 1966. I found it more than
interesting that none of these books were published by Zondervan Publishing, the publisher of Martin’s The
Truth about Seventh-day Adventism. In 1965, Martin published his response to the major, near-unanimous
evangelical opposition to Martin and Barnhouse in his next book, The Kingdom of the Cults: An Analysis of the
Major Cult Systems in the Present Christian Era, 1965. He did not list Seventh-day Adventism among the
twelve major non-Christian cults but he did provide an appendix with a lengthy overview of evangelical
responses to The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism. For an extended review of these unsatisfied
Evangelicals, see Julius Nam, op. cit., 105-174.
25 For example, splitting the Evangelicals today is the “Lordship/no-Lordship salvation” controversy. Though
both sides are admittedly predestinarians, the debate is virtually identical to what has tended to divide the
Adventist church for the past 50 years. Reading what John F. MacArthur, Jr (the leading representative of
Lordship salvation) teaches and then reading Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie (leading spokesmen for no-
Lordship salvation), one hears echoes of the same issues that Paul faced in the first century, and every other
church leader from Paul’s day to ours. (See John F. MacArthur, Jr., Faith Works, the Gospel According to the
Apostles (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993, especially chapter two: “A Primer on the ‘Lordship Salvation’
Controversy”). However, MacArthur and I differ fundamentally on the “definition of faith,” which colors his
defense, even though he is vastly more correct than his opponents.
25For perhaps the latest and most inclusive biography of Augustine, see James. J. O’Donnell, Augustine
(HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), 1-396.
26Roger Olson summarized: “Augustine’s God, though Trinitarian, is made captive to the Greek philosophical
theology of divine simplicity, immutability, and impassibility and turns out to be more like a great cosmic
emperor than a loving, compassionate heavenly Father. . . . [Theologians] ought to consider the extent to which
classical Christian doctrines of God have been unduly influenced by Greek philosophical categories of
metaphysical perfection.” The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1999), 530.
27Probably the greatest phenomenon in Christian church history has been the magisterial role that Augustine
has played in his development of the original sin notion. None of the Latin fathers before him taught that moral
sin was somehow transmitted to offspring; the Eastern church never bought into Augustine’s notions. Irenaeus
(c.144-c202), the church’s first systematic theologian, clearly avoided Augustine’s later conclusions. Julian
and Pelagius, Augustine’s contemporaries, countered his biblical exegesis regarding his use of Romans 5
especially, as all previous church fathers had interpreted that chapter and other texts Augustine had used.
Pelagius, of course, was equally wrong in opining that each person is born with a clean sheet and not born with
inherited weaknesses and liabilities, each person able to make moral decisions without prevenient (Godinitiated)
grace. Because of Augustine’s immense political, oratorical and philosophical skills, he became the
recognized chief architect of orthodoxy in the Western Church. Augustine’s system of theology is reflected in
Calvinism, which Evangelical Protestantism generally holds in common.
roots in a partial picture of God—God only as Sovereign. But sovereign in such a way that
all that happens in this world is fore-ordained or predestinated. Thus, only some men and
women are elected to be saved; others are not, they go to an eternally burning hell. The idea
of human responsibility is eliminated—God wills the future for everyone because no one
can possibly thwart God’s will.
Calvinism rooted in Augustine
Calvinism’s roots are nurtured by Augustine theology, who is considered by many as
antiquity’s greatest theologian and to whom Roman Catholicism is also greatly
indebted.26Augustine’s logical but ill-conceived presuppositions began with his huge major
premise of the Sovereignty of God27 that led to his innovative notions concerning original
sin and man’s total depravity. In turn, these particular notions infused those who followed
him from the sixth century A. D., through Aquinas and into the Reformation, to our day.28
Calvinists reduce their theology to the famous Five Points, all emanating from the core
doctrine of their understanding of the sovereignty of God.
1. Total depravity of mankind (all men and women are born sinners)
2. Unconditional election (some are elected to be saved; others are not)
3. Limited atonement (Christ died for only the elect)
4. Irresistible grace (men and women who are elected are given the “gift” of faith)
5. Perseverance of the saints (“once saved, always saved”)
Arminians begin with their roots in the soil of freedom out of which develops all aspects of
the Great Controversy between God and Satan. Because God made men and women out of
love, for love and to live in love, Arminians clash with Calvinists on every main issue
concerning responsibility in salvation. However, most Arminians, lacking the integrity of a
coherent theology, have many viewpoints in common with Calvinists such as total
depravity, Sunday being the Sabbath of the fourth commandment and the soul being
immortal, leading to an ever-burning hell and other biblical inconsistencies.
But the concept of human responsibility (synergism) in response to the love of God became
the fundamental, core truth for Arminians in their 16th century response to Roman Catholics
and Calvinism. And Calvinists repaid their response with incredible cruelty! Predestination
(implicit monergism) was, for the Arminians, unbiblical. They accepted the biblical message
that Jesus indeed died for sinners, all sinners, not just for the selected few. For them, the
decision to be a follower of Christ was the response of a thoughtful man or woman, thus
leading to the rejection of infant baptism among other differences.
Further, for Arminians, those finally lost or unsaved are those who reject 1) God’s offer to
forgive them and 2) God’s power to live a transformed life. Thus, for most Arminians
sanctification is as important as justification—a point rejected by Calvinists because it
didn’t fit their rigid straitjacket of predestination—human performance for them didn’t
matter. Even further, Arminians are not forced into Calvinism’s straitjacket that assumed
Christ’s work on Calvary alone to be sufficient for salvation and that His work as High
Priest had nothing to do with preparing men and women to be eventually saved.
Calvinism’s straitjacket led to “forensic-only salvation,” which has troubled the Christian
church for 400 hundred years. “Forensic justification” is another term for “penal
substitution” wherein, in some way, (1) God’s wrath is appeased in the death of Jesus and 2)
the sinner is forgiven by “faith” that is denuded from any relationship to character change in
the process. This unbiblical notion has confused the works of grace and the meaning of
“righteousness by faith.”29 This confusion has been at the bottom of divisions in the
Adventist Church since the 1960s. For many, it became monomania.
Adventist Trio’s Fatal Flaw
One of the major issues that seemed to elude Froom, Anderson, and Read was that
Adventists do not fit into either the Calvinist tectonic plate or Arminian tectonic plate. Here
was their fatal flaw—they were unprepared to portray the gestalt of classic Adventism!
For instance, Adventists differ with Calvinists and many Arminians in regard to the nature
of mankind; that is, we do not believe that we possess an immortal soul, which immediately
involves one’s concept of original sin and/or the kind of body/mind human beings are born
29Forensic-salvation (overemphasis on its own definition of justification) ignores 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and
Titus 3:5, etc. The Bible never considers sanctification as inferior to justification—they are considered as two
foci in the ellipse of truth. Ellen White said it best in a few words: “So we have nothing in ourselves of which
to boast. We have no ground for self-exaltation. Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ
imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us.”–Steps to Christ, 63. “The proud
heart strives to earn salvation, but both our title to heaven and our fitness for it are found in the righteousness
of Christ.”—The Desire of Ages, 300. The basis for the “forensic-only salvation” notion rests squarely on
one’s understanding of original sin that, for many, pollutes all humans from birth and thus makes perfect
obedience impossible. Marvin R. Vincent Word Studies in the New Testament, volume III (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, ,n.d.): “[Justification] is not, however, to be construed as indicating a mere legal
transaction, or adjustment between God and man, . . .The element of character must not only not be eliminated
from it; it must be foremost in it. Justification is more than pardon. Pardon is an act which frees the offender
from the penalty of the law, adjusts his outward relation to the law, but does not necessarily effect any change
in him personally. It is necessary to justification but not identical with it. Justification aims directly at
character. It contemplates making the man himself right; that the new and right relation to God in which faith
places him shall have its natural and legitimate issue in personal rightness. The phrase faith is counted for
righteousness, does not mean that faith is a substitute for righteousness, but that faith is righteousness;
righteousness in the germ indeed, but still bona fide righteousness. The act of faith inaugurates a righteous life
and a righteous character. The man is not made inherently holy in himself, because his righteousness is derived
from God; neither is he merely declared righteous by a legal fiction without reference to his personal
character.” 39, 40 (emphasis in original).
Again, because we have a more complete understanding of why Jesus is our High Priest,
Adventists think carefully about how His High Priestly work directly affects one’s salvation
and one’s preparation to be entrusted with eternal life. That is, the QOD trio did not make
exceedingly clear to Martin and Barnhouse how our Lord’s Cross and High Priestly
ministries are two equal parts of His atonement that directly affect our human responsibility
in the redemption process. More about this later.
Further, because Adventists, almost unanimously, for a century prior to 1955, accepted the
biblical counsel that Jesus was born a human being, “in every respect,” and “that He was in
all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15), they had believed that
Jesus met and defeated Satan’s fiery darts in the same way He asks us to—by trusting in the
Holy Spirit’s intervention in our lives. He showed us how to live and die so that we can
eventually be entrusted with eternal life. This too was under-emphasized with Martin and
Barnhouse—an unfortunate failure on the part of the Adventist trio.
In other words: the principal issues in the 1955-1957 tectonic earthquake were clear-cut 1)
differences regarding sin, original sin and its implications and 2) conditionalism and free
will—all of which affected (a) one’s understanding of Christ’s humanity, (b) the multiple
aspects of His atonement, and c) the consequences of all this on one’s eschatology. Above
all, one’s understanding of sin and the nature of man is the “issue underneath all other
issues”—the key to Adventist theological taxonomy.
Adventist Trio Were Highly Respected Leaders
How could all this happen? We say this with complete respect for our Adventist friends:
R. A. Anderson was a revered homiletician and public evangelist. His preaching became a
mountaintop experience for large audiences on several continents. During the 1950s he was
editor of Ministry, the monthly magazine that all Adventist leaders and pastors would avidly
read. But he was not a trained theologian.
W. E. Read knew his biblical languages and was a highly respected and valued church
administrator— but not trained in systematic theology. Framed by his white goatee, we
enjoyed his slight whistle when he softly spoke. And he and Froom labored with less than
Leroy Froom was well known in Christian circles as an indefatigable researcher. His major
contributions, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers and The Conditionalist Faith of Our
Fathers31, became benchmarks for scholars in many denominations. His productive capacity
was enormous; his towering energy made him a leader in any conversation. But, he too was
over his head in systematic theology.
30 Nam, op. cit., 70-72.
31 Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Vols I, II (Washington, D.C., Review and Herald, 1965).
These were remarkable men, highly respected. Anderson and Froom became my strong,
lifelong friends. In the 1970s, while I was associate editor of the Review and Herald, Froom
would visit me periodically to discuss current events in the world and in the church. He
knew exactly where I stood theologically because of my weekly editorials that deliberately
focused on the flaws in QOD—but theological positions did not interfere with our
friendship. Froom aged gracefully. When he was dying at the age of 84, in the Sligo Nursing
Home (Takoma Park, MD) I was probably one of the last persons to stroke his hand. I
treasure his memory.
Anderson and I had a father/son relationship. He ate in our home, our children were
impressed. In his retirement, especially after his move to Loma Linda, he would call
periodically, at least every month. With his famous voice now weak and raspy, he would
invariably ask, “Herb, what is happening to our church?” I never did have the courage to
suggest that most of the problems he was troubled with started with the publishing of QOD.
Elder Anderson died in 1985 at the age of 90—a model preacher and wholesome friend.
But the facts are that our Adventist trio, untrained as theologians, was no match for Martin
and Barnhouse, specialists in Calvinistic-Evangelicalism. What made the situation in 1955
even thornier was the deliberate decision to ignore M. L. Andreasen, the senior Adventist
theologian for decades.32 Andreasen had been head of the Systematic Theology department
of the Adventist Seminary for years, retiring in 1949. He had written numerous articles and
at least 13 books, some of which have never been surpassed.33 Well-known as an authority
on the sanctuary doctrine, he was the author of the section on the book of Hebrews in the
Seventh-day Adventist Commentary.
I can heartily affirm Dr. Knight’s penetrating statement in his “Introduction to the
Annotated Edition” of QOD: “Looking back, one can only speculate on the different course
of Adventist history if Andreasen had been consulted regarding the wording of the Adventist
position on the atonement, if Froom and his colleagues hadn’t been divisive in the handling
of issues related to the human nature of Christ, if both Froom and Andreasen would have
had softer personalities.”34 Probably, it could not have been said any better!
III. Analysis of a Theological Impasse
Nevertheless, we now work with what happened. We now realize, after 50 years, that the
nuclear fallout of the 1957 QOD needs to be thoughtfully and fairly addressed. Why is this
2007 seminar on QOD more than mere history lectures? Because:
32 Nam., 267: “Despite his contributions as a leading theologian of the church,. . . he had not been one of some
250 who were invited to review the manuscript in September 1956.”
33 Some of Andreasen’s books include The Sanctuary, The Epistle to the Hebrews, A Faith to Life By, The
Faith of Jesus, What Can a Man Believe, and Saints and Sinners.
34 Annotated QOD, xxvi.
1) We owe it to a generation of pastors and administrators who have been schooled
since 1957. They have been taught that the conclusions of QOD fairly represented
the core beliefs of the Adventist movement.
2) And we owe it to a generation of millions of lay members who have very little clue
as to the colossal issues at stake for clear Adventist thinking today. On several
continents they wonder why certain theological issues still divide our church and
why there are so many “independent” groups the world over.
We must heartily note before we analyze some of the imbedded theological flaws in QOD
that much of QOD has served us well, such as its treatment of law and legalism, Sabbath
and Sunday, Daniel 7-9, etc. Andreasen himself said that “there are so many good things in
the book that may be of real help to many”35
But several problem areas stare us in the face! We have already noted the flaw in the
mystifying reference to scores of Adventist thought leaders who were listed as the “lunatic
fringe.” The second puzzling problem was the amazing maltreatment of Ellen White
quotations and the unwarranted subheads used to group them. Dr. Knight analyzed this well
when he noted that the 1957 QOD “creates a false impression on the human nature of
Christ” and that one of the headings, that Christ ‘Took Sinless Human Nature’, especially
was “problematic in that it implies that that was Ellen White’s idea when in fact she was
quite emphatic in repeatedly stating the Christ took ‘our sinful nature,’ etc.36
In the early 1970s while serving as one of the Review and Herald editors, I had the library
resources to check all the QOD statements in its Appendixes and Indexes. I was repeatedly
shocked at the obvious bias of those who had collected the Ellen White statements. Day
after day, when time permitted, I would bring the original source into Ken Wood’s office
(Editor-in-chief) and we would exchange our amazement and bafflement that the
denomination for decades had been misled in such crucial areas. Many statements were
deliberately altered with unethical use of the ellipsis (…); many were obviously used only in
part, removing the clarity of the context.37
The third problem was the method the Adventist trio employed in using non-Adventist
references to support certain positions. Fair enough. In several places, Froom used his
encyclopedic knowledge of “champions of conditional immortality” to validate the
Adventist position on the nature of man and our position on the immutability of the moral
law.38 But when the trio tried to defend our century-old understanding of the unique
importance of Christ’s human nature, they went into a fog. An immense line of Protestant
scholars could have been presented to underscore this long-standing position of Adventist
leaders, but not one was referred to.
36 Ibid., xvi.
37 I am reminded of those times when Ellen White was disappointed with those who misused her writings: “I
know that many men take the testimonies the Lord has given, and apply them as they suppose they should be
applied, picking out a sentence here and there, taking it from its proper connection, and applying it according
to their idea.” —Selected Messages, bk.1, 44.
38 1957 QOD, 567-609.
Because of these valiant attempts to reconcile Calvinistic disagreements with an agreeable
presentation from the Adventists, major theological issues were misconstrued. No amount
of historical analysis will gloss over this theological malfeasance. Adventists missed the
opportunity of the century! Never had Adventists been given such a platform to cheerfully
clarify any misunderstanding with Protestants and to illuminate distinctive doctrines that
Adventists think important—but they missed it by a couple of light years.
Obviously it could be argued that if we had laid out the logical, symbiotic interaction of
Adventist beliefs, Martin and Barnhouse would have responded differently, perhaps.
Perhaps QOD would not have been published!
More What Ifs!
But the “what ifs” continue:
(1) if QOD had been winsomely clear regarding its beliefs, the
Adventist church would not have spawned the plethora of troubled responses within
Adventism that segued into many so-called “independent” groups. Think about these
“independent ministries,” dozens of them, almost all concerned with the undertreatment of
two specific Adventist truths: the importance of the dual ministry of Jesus and the full
humanity of Jesus as He accepted the genetic stream of His many ancestors, as any baby
(2) Another “what if” is the theological swerve in certain Seminary instruction beginning in
the 1960s. Some of the new uncertainties floating as theological germs in QOD directly led
to unintended consequences in the Adventist bloodstream; a so-called “new theology”
suddenly highlighted so-called “Reformation theology,” muting the century-old emphasis on
character transformation expected in God’s loyalists. Interweaving within these new
theological contours since 1957 has been an attempt to “revise” what happened in the 1888
General Conference and an attempt to reevaluate Ellen G. White—resulting in her
inspirational assets being highlighted at the expense of her theological insights and
(3) Another “what if” is the phenomenal silence in the Adventist media, pulpit and
classroom for the past forty years regarding a proper emphasis on traditional Adventist
topics such as “the investigative judgment,” “latter rain,” “loud cry,” “sealing work,”
“character determining destiny,” “delay in the Advent,” “why Christ’s humanity is so
important to a transformed life,” etc.40
39 The Desire of Ages, 49, 117.
40 In fact, almost unbelievably, the Biblical Research Institute opined in 1989 that “the world church has never
viewed these subjects [nature of Christ, nature of sin] as essential to salvation nor to the mission of the remnant
church. . . . There can be no strong unity within the world church of God’s remnant people so long as segments
who hold these views agitate them both in North America and overseas divisions. These topics need to be laid
aside and not urged upon our people as necessary issues.” Cited in Issues: The Seventh-day Adventist Church
and Certain Private Ministries, Appendix XVI, 238-244. In fact, many pastors and teachers were advised (as
well as threatened) not to speak on these subjects.
(4) What about the “what if” that never happened, such as the misleading assertions in
Figuhr’s article in Ministry, January 1958, before the ppu “Probably no other book
published by this denomination has been so carefully read by so large a group of responsible
men of the denomination before its publication as the one under consideration. Some 250
men in American and in other countries received copies of the manuscript before it was
published. The preliminary manuscript work by a group of some fourteen individuals had
been so carefully prepared that only a minimum of suggestions of improvement were made.
There was, however, a remarkable chorus of approval.”
But, in fact, only a small number actually replied and “those who did respond supplied a
number of penetrating and (even what turned out to be brilliantly prophetic) critiques.”41 (At
that time, Adventists, leaders and lay members alike, were accustomed to believing the
statements of contemporary leaders, especially if they were in print!) These leadership
beguiling assertions were all it took to hijack a whole generation of Adventists!
Perpetuating the Myth
For instance, look at Anderson’s editorial in the June, 1957 issue of Ministry where he
perpetuated the myth: “Of all the books we have ever published, none has had more careful
scrutiny than this one. . . . No manuscript has been more carefully prepared and no book has
been awaited with more eager anticipation.”
R. R. Figuhr, president of the General Conference writing further in the January 1958, issue
of Ministry, made matters even more surreal, Referring to the Ellen White quotations in the
appendix, he stated: “This book representing, as it does, the careful work of a large group of
responsible leaders, and containing such valuable quotations from the Spirit of prophecy, is
unique and, we believe, fills a needed place among our published works.”
This is a marvelous example of “group think” that anesthetized everyone in the General
Conference group, 1957-1958, and for decades thereafter. In the March 1958 issue of
Ministry, Anderson continued this nightmarish drama after repeating the enthusiastic
reception that QOD received after publication.
He pointed out that while 250 denomination leaders had approved the manuscript, “except
for minor suggestions, no change whatsoever in content was called for. . . . Some valuable
suggestions were offered, but in no area of doctrine was any major change called for.”
Further, “A careful reading of Questions on Doctrine makes one aware that alongside the
Bible is the constant confirmation of our denominational beliefs by the Spirit of prophecy.
In the light of this we are surprised that a section of this book, as well as certain statements
in Ministry has evidently been misunderstood by a very few. This is particularly surprising
to us in the light of the universal appraisal that has come.”
41 Nam, 246.
But there was more. Apparently even Anderson felt uneasy; He needed to convince himself
as well as the rest of the Adventist Church, even further. He continued: “As already stated,
from all parts of the world field have come expressions of heartfelt gratitude for the
convincing and scholarly answers this book contains. . . . The field reveals the unanimity of
our denominational beliefs, and a careful reading of Questions on Doctrine will reveal that it
is in complete accord with the clear statements of the Spirit of prophecy, which we have had
in our libraries for more than half a century.”
Loma Linda Professionals
In other words, if anyone disagreed with QOD, he surely was not in the mainstream of
genuine Adventism! Or did not believe in the Spirit of prophecy! This message was not lost
on many around the United States. A group of prominent leaders in Loma Linda, CA, signed
a very unambiguous statement charging that QOD “misrepresented “certain vital
fundamentals and compromised other tenets of our faith” and that “certain statements and
teachings of the book will never be accepted by a considerable number of our people. In
fact, it is our conviction that not since the time of J. H. Kellogg’s pantheistic controversy of
more than a half century ago has anything arisen to cause such disquietude, dissension [sic]
and disunity among our people as the publication of this book.”42
Looking back, we must give the QOD trio a huge A+ for their fantastic public-relations,
propaganda campaign, even before QOD was published.43 For example, the trio did an
incredible sales job in softening up Adventists on the new slant that chiefly focused on
whether Jesus assumed “sinful nature” when He became a baby boy and whether the best
way to explain the work of Jesus in the Heavenly Sanctuary was only in terms of “applying
the benefits” of the Cross. (More about this later.)
In January 23, 1958, Figuhr, president of the General Conference, wrote in the Review and
Herald that Questions on Doctrine had been “prepared by the General Conference by a
group of our ablest scholars and approved by our leaders through the world—to clarify to
the world the true evangelical nature of Adventist beliefs and teachings.”44
On July 25, 1956, in writing to Adventist leaders worldwide, Froom said: “No more eminent
or representative group could have been consulted. No more competent group could
approve. And that they did.”45
42 J. R. Zurcher, Touched With Our Feelings (Hagerstown, MD, Review and Herald Publishing Association,
43 Nam. op, cit.,229-239.
44 Nam observed that “Figuhr seems to have been guilty of overstating his case and misleading his readers.
While it is true that the manuscript was widely distributed, documentary evidence and later testimonies from
those involved in the publication of the book indicate that there was never a resounding and unanimous
‘chorus of approval.’ . . .It remained essentially the product of a few men.” op cit., 280-281.
45 Nam, 98/
The Mythical Mantra
I was there. I read and heard the mantra that this large group of Adventist leaders had
indeed affirmed the QOD approach. Only later did the truth come out that only a very few
actually responded. Nothing arrived from outside of North America; no local or union
conference administrator from North America responded46—partly because they were
stunned or, on reflection, they thought that QOD was not going anywhere.
The editors at the Review and Herald Publishing Association sent individual letters to
Figuhr and to the QOD trio. Each expressed great concern for the general procedure, hoping
for more biblical backup for each of our doctrines.47
Cottrell’s Sixteen-page Warning
The inimitable Raymond Cottrell, associate editor of the Commentary, would find it
impossible to write only a one-page letter, especially when asked by the Review’s editorial
committee to respond to QOD. In his sixteen-page evaluation (November 1956) written
exclusively for General Conference leaders, Cottrell listed five areas of concern:
1) the change in Adventist theology;
2) Ellen G. White;
3) the remnant church;
4) Adventism in
relation to other evangelical churches; and
5) the proposed book on Adventism by Martin.48
(1) Cottrell declared that the evangelicals’ assertion that Adventist theology had recently
changed to be “a fundamental fallacy.”
(2) Cottrell argued that Ellen White never claimed
infallibility and that “there is no intrinsic difference between the Bible and the writings of
Ellen G. White as to degree of inspiration, infallibility, authoritative quality, or binding
force upon the consciences and lives of Seventh-day Adventists.”
(3) Cottrell contended
Adventists had not suddenly changed their definition of the “remnant church,” still believing
that they still considered their movement to be the remnant church but always appealing to
others to join them.
(4) Cottrell declared that no evangelical church could agree not to
proselytize for no church anywhere could prevent members from switching churches.
Cottrell questioned the objectivity in Martin’s book on Adventism, whether readers would
“know where facts end and where Martin’s interpretation of the facts began.”
Cottrell ended his neatly developed fears regarding QOD that was still in the editing process
by appealing for clarity and honesty on the part of the Adventist trio. He was fearful that
Martin would feel “double-crossed” which would “lead. . . to the most intense bitterness
when he discovered that QOD did not clearly represent the Adventist mind and that he and
Barnhouse had been deliberately misled.
In his closing sentences, Cottrell predicted: “Almost certainly, there will also arise a storm
of opposition when our ministry and laity discover the real meaning of the actual terms on
which we have achieved rapprochement with Martin and other evangelicals.” He said that
we should expect “a serious division” among Adventist workers when both QOD and
46 Ibid., 247.
47 Ibid., 250-256.
48 Ibid., 240.
Martin’s book were published but that there was still time to “take adequate measures now
to clear the atmosphere before Martin’s book is published, and to set forth in [Questions on
Doctrine] a clear exposition of [Adventism’s] true position (Cottrell’s emphasis).”49
Cottrell’s warnings and suggestions did not seem to have any marked effect on the finished
Francis D. Nichol, editor of the Review and Herald, wrote in a confidential letter to Figuhr,
that some statements were made to Martin that “many of us, on mature consideration, are
unable to support.” He feared that the QOD trio had “either not sensed as they should the
full import of most distinctive doctrinal differences with the world, or else unwittingly
succumbed to the temptation to blur deficiencies in order to find a middle ground of
However, even though some minor editing was done, QOD did not reveal any indication
that the criticisms made any significant impact on the book’s content. The Adventist trio
won out, almost as if keen readers of the manuscript did not count. Note the extravagant
language in QOD’s introduction: “These answers represent the position of our
denomination. . . . This volume can be viewed as truly representative.”52
I remember as if it were yesterday when the QOD trio finally told the Review and Herald
editing committee on January 30, 1957 that no more editing would be permitted. Thus, the
Review and Herald Publishing Association accepted the manuscript on a “text basis,” that
is, the publishing house would not be providing any editorial oversight, but simply would
serve as a printer and distributor. Thus they would not be held responsible for its content.53
Washing of Hands
That morning in the Commentary office, Raymond Cottrell left the room and returned with a
towel over his left arm and a basin of water in his right. Then each of us on the
Commentary staff took turns washing our hands of any more input or responsibility for
QOD. We didn’t know then the full implications of what we were doing together around
Unknown to the Commentary Editors As Well Others
For many months prior to the printing of QOD, the covert battle was on between M. L.
Andreasen and the QOD trio. Andreasen first sent his concerns privately to Figuhr who did
his best to be loyal to the trio. Several editorials in Ministry, however, rang Andreasen’s
bell, setting off well-reasoned concerns. Other church leaders pled with General Conference
administrators to at least let Andreasen see the manuscript before publication—all were
49 Ibid., 239-245.
50 Ibid.,, 254, 268.
51 Ibid., 255.
52 1957 QOD, 8.
53 Unruh, Adventist Heritage, fourth quarter, 1977.
denied. All this correspondence has been resurrected in Dr. Nam’s doctoral thesis, which I
hope gets published in book form soon.
Thoughful men such as Merlin Neff and Richard Lewis,54 both book editors at the Pacific
Press Publishing Association, wrote cogent concerns in defense of Andreasen. M. E. Kern,
General Conference administrator,55 speaking for others, was deeply concerned. North
American leaders, such as R. R. Bietz, predicted a great disaster ahead, that “a tornado was
yet to come.”56
Theodore Carcich, president of the Central Union Conference, sent a letter to all his local
conference presidents: “Under a guise of sweet-honeyed words oozing with so-called
Christian fellowship, Mr. Martin proceeds to serve up the same theological hash . . . that our
spiritual forefathers had to refute years ago.” In his letter to Figuhr, he called QOD “a clever
and subtle attempt to undermine the foundational doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists.”57
Edward Heppenstall wrote ominously, “It will be very unfortunate, if after . . . publication,
any position taken will be repudiated by a large section of the workers themselves,” leading
to “widespread division” and “confusion with and without.”58
And Cottrell was even more prophetic: “Let us be certain that nothing gets into the proposed
book that will take us the next 50 years to live down.”59
Why Commentary Editors Did Not Speak With Louder Voices
I know some may be asking: What if the editors of the SDA Bible Commentary had reacted
sooner or with a louder voice? As we have seen, the various editors did make their concerns
known but not in public or in their periodicals. Why? For two specific reasons:
1) We truly never thought QOD would go anywhere. Who would buy it? But we never
dreamed of the push-polling that the editors of Ministry would do, with the hovering
blessing of the General Conference president. Many local conferences were invited,
after a considerable price break, to send QOD to all their workers.
2) A larger picture served as a backdrop—editors did not want to take sides publicly
because financially the Review and Herald Publishing Association had gone deep
into the preparation of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary; we didn’t want
anything to limit its potential sale. In other words, we didn’t think taking sides
publicly on QOD was worth jeopardizing the success and appeal of the much bigger
54 Nam, op, cit.,299, 300.
55 Ibid., 316.
57 Letter to Local Conference Presidents, Central Union Conference, March 24, 1960. In a letter to Figuhr, on
the same date, he said that none of the Adventist bookstores in the Central Union would be stocking Martin’s
book because it would “confuse the faith of man.” Both items cited in Nam, op. cit.,346, 347..
58 Ibid., 255.
contribution that the Commentary would make on the very issues that were already
dividing the church. The Bible Commentary avoided the errors of QOD by
emphasizing the classic Adventist understanding of the humanity of Christ and the
purpose of the sanctified life in preparing people to live forever.
Missed the Opportunity of a Century
All these “what ifs” contributed to the nuclear fallout or, as some say, the neutron bomb of
the 1957 QOD. The Adventist church had seemingly lost for a time its uniqueness as the
bearer of God’s last-day message to a mixed-up, terror-ridden world. In our attempts to
prove our “Christianity” we muted our distinctive contribution to rediscovering the genuine
roots of Christianity (I will leave it to other presentations to document this virtual silence of
distinctive Adventists principles since 1962).
IV. Time to See the Big Picture
The issue in 1957 was the fatal attempt to meld (1) the limited understanding of the
Adventist trio’s understanding of what made Adventism work with (2)
Augustinian/Calvinism’s Sovereignty of God theme. What could have made all the
difference would have been a biblical review of the Great Controversy Theme in contrast to
Calvinism’s limited understanding of the character of God and the gospel. The central
question for both parties is: What does God plan to accomplish with His Salvation Plan?
Major Issues in the Great Controversy Theme60
In a few words, on God’s side, the purpose of the Great Controversy Theme is to prove
Satan wrong in his charges against God’s character and His government.61 The issue is
always planted in God’s created soil of Freedom. Before love, there had to be freedom. All
created intelligences beginning with the angels, extending throughout the inhabited worlds
were endowed with freedom—the freedom to even say No to God’s plan for them. In other
words, responsibility (ability to-response) was the actionable word—freedom to respond to
their Creator, either positively or negatively. Love is an attribute found only in the larger
embracing air of freedom. Throughout the biblical story, God was trying to make clear what
He planned to accomplish with His salvation plan as He manifested His fairness, love, and
trustworthiness through His dealing with, first the Israelites and eventually in the person of
On the human side, the purpose of the Great Controversy Theme is to restore in willing men
and women the image of Christ, their Maker. To do so, the Holy Spirit’s task is to work out
of a person’s life all that sin has worked in. By God’s grace, men and women, regardless of
60 See Appendix A: “Issues in the Great Controversy.”
61 “Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the
saints” (Revelation 15:3). “For true and righteous are His judgments” (Revelation 19:2). For a biblical essay
on how the Great Controversy Theme pervades the Scriptures, see the author’s “God on trail,” in Ministry,
May 1982. For a extended unfolding of the Great Controversy Theme, see author’s God At Risk (Roseville,
CA: Amazing Facts, 2004), 408 pp.
nationality and level of schooling, can be forgiven and transformed into overcomers who
hate sin. People that God and the angels can trust with eternal life will inhabit the redeemed
world. No rebels will be granted eternal life. The highest motivation for God’s loyalist is to
honor God, not to merely impress Him.
Therefore, the following principles do follow:
1. The believer’s character determines destiny, not merely one’s profession of faith.
2. Perfection is a matter of continual moral growth and not a concern for arbitrary goal
3. Christian growth rests on the profound linkage of human will and divine grace—the
grace of pardon and the grace of power.
How does this all work out in theological talk?
Soteriology is the study of the plan of salvation. The life and work of Jesus should be one’s
chief consideration. How one thinks about Jesus directly affects all other biblical studies,
especially Eschatology, the study of Last-day Events.
For Calvinists, their Five Points’ yardstick controls all aspects of their soteriology. Their
understanding of the utter depravity of mankind rests on their notion of original sin and,
thus, the companion doctrine that all men and women are born sinners. Their only
explanation for the sinfulness of mankind was to simply declare that we all are sinners
because Adam sinned. Because of their controlling “sovereignty of God” principle, mankind
could not possibly have free will and thus any responsibility. If anyone were to be “saved” it
would have to be due to God’s sovereign choice, not man’s response.
Therefore, for the Calvinist, if Jesus is man’s Savior, He would have to die for those that are
already elected to be saved. Further, our Lord could not have inherited as we do the genetic
stream of His ancestors because, if so, He too would have been born a sinner. The
Calvinistic solution: Jesus had to be “exempt” from all inherited tendencies to sin—just as
Roman Catholics had concluded. Thus, to make their major premise work, the elect would
be those who were “given” faith and thus the “ability” to profess gratefulness for Christ’s
substitutionary atonement. Because they had been foreordained to be saved, the elect could
not fall out of grace; they could never be “unsaved.”
Adventist Template and Calvinist Template Incompatible
Obviously, Seventh-day Adventists should have great difficulty trying to harmonize their
understanding of salvation with their Calvinist friends, no matter how much linguistic
gymnastics they could muster. The problem in 1955-1957 was that foggy thinking on the
part of the Adventists led them, almost unknowingly, into capitulating to the Evangelicals.
Here began fifty years of focus on some kind of objective atonement without equal weight
on the subjective aspect of the atonement that would have highlighted our Lord’s work as
our High Priest.
The Adventist trio were untrained theologians. They had not seen that 1) the Scriptures
embrace a complete system of truth and that every part in the Bible should sustain and not
contradict any other part; 2) that any defective or imperfect concept of any one doctrine
must inevitably lead to confusion and error throughout the whole system and 3) that two or
more self-consistent systems of theology are possible but they cannot both be biblically
correct. For instance, it is impossible to join the tectonic plates of Augustianisn-Calvinism
with either Pelagianism/SemiPelagianism or Arminian-Adventism. Unless one is prepared
for a plethora of troubles
This explains the volcanic eruptions that soon developed.
Obviously, Andreasen and Others Aroused
All this incompatibility aroused Andreasen and many others. The veteran theologian knew
from personal study and experience that only those who acknowledge the binding claim of
the moral law can explain the nature and purpose, of the atonement—that when Jesus paid
the indebtedness of the repentant sinner, He did not give him or her license to continue
sinning but to now live responsibly in obedience to the law. Calvinists are not able to
process this fundamental thought.
Because Andreasen started with the systematic principle of God’s freedom and man’s
responsibility and not God’s sovereignty and man’s predestination, the veteran theologian
saw immediately that the Adventist tectonic plate should be an unmovable theological mass.
Thus, the ruling principle of human responsibility led Andreasen toward a different
understanding of the Atonement. He saw that the sanctuary doctrine (including the purpose
of the Old Testament sanctuary service and its New Testament application as best described
in the Book of Hebrews) painted a picture of the unbroken union between the objective and
subjective aspects of the Atonement. From the moment Christ was “slain from the
foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8) to the end of the millennium when Satan and the
consequences of sin will be no more, Andreasen could see what the Calvinists could not
Biblical Sanctuary Doctrine.62
The sanctuary doctrine emphasizes how God forgives and justifies only penitent men or
women, but more! The doctrine equally emphasizes that God promises to empower the
penitent so that sins are eliminated by the inner graces of the Holy Spirit. The penitent men
62 Exegetical methodology, biblical theology, etc., have their limitations for each text, chapter, book, because
their drilling for meaning depends on their presuppositions. Each scholar works with his own presupposition as
he/she sifts biblical materials. “Only systematic theology provides the tools and disciplinary space for such a
task . . . . Biblical theology requires a center from which to gather the vast variety of issues, histories, and
teachings present in biblical texts. . . .Thus, the proper expression of the Sanctuary doctrine as hermeneutical
vision of a complete and harmonious system of truth requires the contributions of new approaches to biblical
and systematic theologies. . . . From this foundational level, the Sanctuary doctrine becomes the hermeneutical
light guiding in the interpretation of these far-reaching ideas (hermeneutical conditions of theological method)
and in the understanding of the complete and harmonious system of Christian theology.” Fernando Canale,
“From Vision to System,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 16/1-2 (2005)
and women who continue to cooperate with God will truly find the peace, assurance, and
divine empowerment that comes in completing the gospel plan in his or her life. This was
never made clear to our Calvinist friends in 1957 and it has been one of the causes of
Adventist theological muddle in the years since.63
V. What Happens When Theological Clarity Becomes Fog
In the years since 1957, both clergy and laypeople have experienced this theological and
leadership muddle. Think how many articles in Adventist periodicals that have argued over
whether sanctification was even part of righteousness by faith. Think how many churches
were rent over those who said justification was far more important than sanctification.
Behind all this was the confusion over what happened on the Cross and what happened in
Further, how many pastors left the Adventist Church because they were convinced by very
persuasive scholars that Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary was not only not needed, but a
twisted fabrication of Ellen White theology? How many young people were elated to hear
that their character had nothing to do with their salvation? Or that Jesus paid it all on the
Cross and our only responsibility was to accept His death as full payment and not to worry
about doing anything to add to what Jesus did for us? All this is pure confusion!
180 Degree Turn On The Nature of Christ’s Humanity
The other chief concern that Andreasen and others had with QOD was the astonishing, 180
degree deflection regarding the nature of Christ’s humanity, in addition to the murky
explanation of the Adventist understanding of the atonement.
Two Trigger Words
Along with the lack of careful biblical scholarship and the general misuse of Ellen White
quotes, two words became flaming beacons that something was terribly confused. Those
words were “exempt” and “vicarious”—words that had been most used by the Roman
Catholic Church as well as many Protestants to explain their novel understanding of the
human Jesus. .
QOD, states that Jesus was “exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt
the natural descendants of Adam.”64 Further, we read “Jesus took, all that He bore, whether
63 Canale is correct in his understanding of the necessity of a central hermeneutical principle for any
theological system; for Adventist theology, Canale believes that foundation principle is the sanctuary doctrine.
This is precisely what the QOD trio never seemed to understand. Note the following: “The scripture which
above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith, was the declaration,
“Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (Daniel 8:14).”—White, The
Great Controversy, 409. “The subject of the sanctuary was the key with unlocked the mystery of the
disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious,” Ibid., 423.
“Those who received the light concerning the sanctuary and the immutability of the law of God, were filled
with joy and wonder, as they saw the beauty and harmony of the system of truth that opened to their
understanding.” Ibid., 454.
64 QOD, 383.
the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature—
all was taken and borne vicariously” (emphasis in text).65
What should we make of these interesting words? Why did these words add to the Grand
Canyon between authentic Adventism and Calvinism?
These two words, exempt and vicariously pleased our Calvinist friends because of their
“Points” that emphasized (1) that men and women, are not responsible for their sins because
they are born sinful, and (2) are “saved” only because God so elects them. Thus, as applied
to Jesus, since all men are corrupt from birth, Christ could not have come as all babies do,
accepting the genetic flow of His forebears (or He would have needed a Savior as well).
Therefore, for salvation purposes, He must be seen as our Substitute only. As our Example,
He would only be an inspiration, a portrait of a better life that is unreachable this side of the
These two words, exempt and vicariously, really turned on Andreasen’s after-burners.
Though Jesus could vicariously die for our sins, how could His human life of 33 years relate
to our salvation vicariously? He made it possible that we will not be punished for our sins—
He died for us, vicariously. But how could He live as our Example vicariously? Does that
mean we don’t have to live an overcoming life, resisting the Tempter at every turn—
because He did it for us vicariously? Did He keep the law for us vicariously? Rather, in
resisting evil as our Example, He showed us how to “walk as He walked” (1 John 2:6).
Although He died for us vicariously, He didn’t obey for us vicariously! Vicariously, He
gave us freedom from the “wages of sin.”
Another Sub-heading Flaw
But this theological confusion was heightened by another flawed subheading in the
compilation of Ellen White quotations: “VI. Bore the Imputed Sin and Guilt of the
World.”66 Calvinists would love this statement but not a trained Adventist thinker! Not one
of the listed White statements came close to the implication of this heading! White couldn’t
have supported Christ bearing our “imputed sin and guilt” because her understanding of the
Bible overruled such Calvinistic representations. Similarly, she never associated “pollution”
with “passion” is if the two concepts were interchangeable.67
65 Ibid., 61, 62. It is more than interesting that these two words, “exempt,” and “vicariously” do not appear in
the prepublication manuscript copy of QOD. In fact, considerable editing is evident in the section “The
Incarnation and the “Son of Man,” between the prepublication manuscript and the printed book. In some
respects, the printed QOD was improved over the manuscript in rhetorical smoothness and clarity of
explanation; in other instances, some of the reasons for Andreasen’s concerns were greatly augmented. At this
point in time, I cannot determine when and where the editorial staff of the Review and Herald Publishing
Association ended their editing at the request of the General Conference officers as prompted by the QOD trio.
See also Nam, op. cit. 99.
67 See Appendix B: “Ellen White’s Use of Words Such as Passions, Inclinations, Propensities, Corruptions,
The next step follows logically: If Christ had such an advantage over all men and women, it
would be unfair, and even unreasonable, for God to expect us to live and overcome as He
did (Revelation 3:21). Thus, for Calvinists, God could not expect us to “stop sinning.” Thus,
with this reasoning,we are told that He “saves” us in our sins, not “from” our sins (Matt.
It should not require a rocket scientist to see the deep gulf between this understanding of
salvation and the century-old, classic Adventist understanding. However, the nuclear fallout
of the 1957 QOD provided the climate for this kind of thinking to become standard fare in
many Seminary classes and later, in many of our college religion departments. Of course, it
was challenged by others but they were classed as theological dinosaurs.
For anyone thinking that the QOD trio had it right in stating that only a “lunatic fringe” had
believed that (1) Jesus took our sinful nature (but not a sinning nature) and that (2) His
“temptations” to sin were exactly like what other human beings have to face and therefore
could have sinned—all they had to do was read, for one example, Francis D. Nichol’s two
Review editorials on July 10 and 17, 1952.
Nichol, invited to become an associate editor of the Review and Herald in 1927, was elected
editor-in-chief in 1945. In part he said in his July 10 editorial: “Indeed, just what is
comprehended by the term ‘sinful nature’? Protestants, from the earliest of Reformation
times, have been unable to agree. But certain critics of the Advent Movement seemingly
have no difficulty whatever in the whole matter, and move forward with dogmatic assurance
through the mystery of the nature of Christ and the mystery of a sinful nature to the
conclusion that Seventh-day Adventists are guilty of fearful heresy. . . .In our literature that
could be considered as truly authoritative on this is what Mrs. E. G. White has written. . . .
On page 49 [of The Desire of Ages] Mrs. White declares: ‘Into the world where Satan
claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness
of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life’s peril in common with every human soul, to
fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal
“This is Adventist belief. And we hold this belief because we feel it agrees with revelation
and reason.” Nichol then proceeded to quote New Testament verses and a lengthy excerpt
from F. W. Farrar’s Life of Christ after which he wrote: “These should suffice to prove that
the Adventist view of Christ in relation to temptation is not a strange, heretical teaching. . . .
When we speak of the taint of sin, the germs of sin, we should remember that we are using
metaphorical language. Critics, especially those who see the Scriptures through Calvinistic
eyes, read into the term ‘sinful flesh’ something that Adventist theology does not require.”
In his July 17 editorial, he quoted numerous theologians that also declared that “Christ, the
‘last Adam,’ won the bat