A Fork in the Road

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 fifty years. Many believe that denominational confusion in the Seventh-day Adventist Church ever since has been the devastating price paid for this theological detour. Those who think otherwise have been in an historic/theologic coma.

My limited assignment at the Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference held October 24—27 of 2007 at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan, was to answer two questions: What happened—and why!

The fundamental problem in 1955—1957 was that the participants unwittingly tried to merge two different theological systems without realizing all the ramifications of doing so. When Adventists try to overlay their theology on the Evangelical grid, warning lights and buzzers 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.

From another perspective, Adventists did not realize that they had certain aspects of their tectonic plate that couldn't perfectly merge with the Calvinist tectonic plate. In the attempt to close that difference, the plates clashed, and a theological earthquake jarred both worlds—the debris of which is still settling today.

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 the 50th anniversary conference on the publication of QOD took time to look at cause and effect of probably the most "divisive" book in Adventist history.

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 the 50th anniversary conference on the publication of QOD took time 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 dangerous" Christology.

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." Unruh decided there was no point in 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 ... minority-view note in Bible Reading—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." 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 this "is precisely what we likewise believe." Then Froom footnoted this sentence with a typical misuse of Ellen White comments allegedly supporting his viewpoint.

Now enters Walter Martin, a young researcher with a reputation in the Evangelical world as a specialist in non-Christian cult 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 Seventh-day Adventists as one of "The Big Five"—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormonism, Unity, and Seventh-day Adventists. 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.

Martin knew of LeRoy Froom for his impressive major work on the history of prophetical interpretation. 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 cult. 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. These conference began in March 1955 and ended in May 1956.

"Eternal Verities"

The Adventist trio responded to Martin's question 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."

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 judgement, the Spirit of prophecy as manifested in Ellen G. White's ministry, the seal of God and mark of the beast, and the three angel's messages of Revelation 13. These five were designated to be distinguishing characteristics of Seventh-day Adventists.

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." It seemed to deny many teachings that he had ascribed to Adventists "because of this 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.

Double Challenge

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. 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 fundamental Christianity."

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 two-phased atonement.

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 de 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, Meade 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, Frederic 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 the hundreds of times that Ellen White unambiguously wrote that Jesus "accepted the results of the great law of heredity ... to share our sorrows and temptation, and to give us the example of a sinless life.

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 not been 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 pool 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].” In Froom's letter to R.R. Figuhr, president of the General Conference, he blamed this unfortunate situation on these leaders being "too weak in theology and in giving the right impression to others." 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.