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 onto Evangelical Calvinism, warning lights in computers should be going off, before huge, unintended consequences develop for both parties—and 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.
Evangelical Calvinism is the theological tree of most Evangelicals, although some Evangelicals try to graft some branches onto the Arminian tree. The Calvinism tree has its 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's theology, who is considered by many as antiquity's greatest theologian and to whom Roman Catholicism is also greatly indebted. Augustine's logical but ill-conceived presuppositions began with his huge major premise of the Sovereignty of God's that led to his innovative notions concerning original sin and man's total depravity. In turn, these particular motions infused those who followed him from the sixth century A. D., through Aquinas and into the Reformation, to our day.
"Five points"
Calvinists reduce their theology to the famous Five Points, all emanating from the core doctrine of their understanding of the sovereignty of God.
- Total depravity of mankind (all men and women are born sinners).
- Unconditional election (some are elected to be saved; others are not).
- Limited atonement (Christ died for only the elect).
- Irresistible grace (men and women who are elected are given the "gift" of faith).
- 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 sixteenth-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 eventually to be saved.
Forensic-only Salvation
Calvinism's straitjacket led to "forensic-only salvation," which has troubled the Christian church for 400 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," This confusion has been at the bottom of divisions in the Adventist Church since the 1960's. 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 with which human beings are born.
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.
Principle Issues
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 mutual trust.
Leroy Froom was well known in Christian circles as an indefatigable re searcher. His major contributions, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers and The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, 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.
Personal Friends
These were remarkable men, highly respected. Anderson and Froom became my strong, life-long 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 mad the situation in 1966 even thornier was the deliberate decision to ignore M. L. Andreasen, the senior Adventist theologian for decades. 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 thirteen books, some of which have never been surpassed. 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 Annoted 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." Probably, it could not have been said any better!