In the years since 1957, both clergy and laypeople have experienced this theological and leadership muddle. Think of how many articles in Adventist periodicals have argued over whether sanctification was even part of righteousness by faith. Think of how many churches were rent over those who said justification was far more important than sanctification. Behind all this was confusion over what happened on the Cross—and what happened in 1957.
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's theology? How many young people were relieved if not 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." Further, we read, "Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature—all was taken and borne vicariously."
What should we make of these interesting words? Why did these words add to the Grand Canyon between classic 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 grave.
These two words, exempt and vicariously, really turned on Andreasen's afterburners.
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." 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.
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). "This, for Calvinists, God could not expect us to "stop sinning." Further, with this reasoning, we are told that He saves us "in" our sins, not "from" our sins (Matt. 1:21).
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's Editorials
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 loss."
"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 require."
In his July 17 editorial, he quoted numerous theologians who also declared that, "Christ, the 'last Adam,' won the battle with the tempter; and we, through His promised forgiveness and power, may also win. Adam could have won, but he lost. Christ could have lost, but He won. Therein lies the startling contrast, and the contrast is heightened by the fact that Christ was born into the human family some four thousand years after sin's entry into our world, with all that is mysteriously involved of a weakening of body and mind in the fight against sin. ... Christ won despite the fact that He took on Himself 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' with all that that implies of the baleful and weakening effect of sin on the body and nervous system of man, and its evil effects on his environment.
"The objector feels that the only way to do honor to Christ and to protect Him from all taint of sin is to take the position that He could not sin. But what comfort and assurance of personal victory over sin can we find in a spotless Christ if His freedom from sin as He walked this earth was not truly a victory over temptation but an inability to sin? We would rightly stand in awe of such a Holy Being. But we could not see in Him one who was 'made like unto his brethren' 'in all things,' one who being 'tempted like as we are' 'is able to succour' us when we are 'tempted.'"
Brief Review of a Hundred Years
The fascinating part of this brief review of Adventist history is that between the years 1852-1952 we find more than 1,200 similar statements (as highlighted by Nichol) that Christ's human nature was fallen like ours and not like that of the unfallen Adam. Four hundred of these statements were written and published by Ellen G. White. In addition during this 100-year period, thousands of statements written and published by Ellen White and other Adventist authors emphasized that by the power of the Holy Spirit, Christians can stop sinning even as Jesus could overcome. Nichol was simply part of the historical stream of classic Adventist thought.
Branson's 1954 Book
But there was more that the QOD trio should have been reading. Unfortunately, in 1954, W. H. Branson, president of the General Conference, retired for health reasons. Author of many books in addition to valiant service in China, he finished his last book, Drama of the Ages, just months prior to his retirement. He wrote: "Here is a glorious truth, a marvellous condescension; for God the Son designed to dwell with men even to the point of taking upon Himself sinful flesh and becoming a member of the human family. ... The Catholic doctrine of the 'immaculate conception' is that Mary, the mother of our Lord, was preserved from original sin. If this be true, then Jesus did not partake of man's sinful nature. This belief cuts off the lower rungs of the ladder, and leaves man without a Saviour who can be touched with the feeling of man's infirmities, and can sympathize with them.
Then Branson explained why Christ took the fallen nature of humanity: "In order for Christ to understand the weakness of human nature, He had to experience it. In order for Him to be sympathetic with men in their trials, He also had to be tried. He must suffer hunger, weariness, disappointment, sorrow, and persecution. He must tread the same paths, live under the same circumstances, and die the same death. Therefore He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, His Incarnation was in actual humanity."
It has been well said that if Branson had continued his presidency, QOD would never have seen the light of day!
Strange Act of 1949
Except! Except for that strange act in 1949 that set the stage for the overture that would soon present the strange music in the new opera called QOD! It was the first of many acts to come.
The issue? Since 1915, Adventists had published Bible Readings for the Home circle. Exceptionally large numbers had been sold in several countries. Many thousands became Adventists after reading this powerful book. Here is the original question and answer on the humanity of Christ before the editing in 1949:
"How fully did Christ share our common humanity? 'Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.' Hebrews 2:17. Note.—In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are' (Hebrews 4:15), did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits—a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every one who is 'born of the Spirit' may gain like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. Revelation 3:21. Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. John 3:3-7".
Now follows the 1949 revision:
"How fully did Christ share our common humanity? 'Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.' Verse 17.
"Note—Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of man. As member of the human family 'it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren'— 'in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Just how far that 'likeness' goes is a mystery of the incarnation, which men have never been able to solve. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ was tempted just as other men are tempted—'in all point ... like as we are.' Such temptation must necessarily include the possibility of sinning; but Christ was without sin. There is no Bible support for the teaching that the mother of Christ, by an immaculate conception, was cut off from the sinful inheritance of the race, and therefore her divine Son was incapable of sinning. Concerning this false doctrine, Dean F. W. Farrar has well said: 'Some, in a zeal at once intemperate and ignorant, have claimed for Him not only an actual sinlessness but a nature to which sin was divinely and miraculously impossible. What then? If His great conflict were a mere deceptive phantasmagoria, how can the narrative of it profit us? If we have to fight the battle clad in the armor of human free-will, ... what comfort is it to us if our great Captain fought not only victoriously, but without real danger; not only uninjured, but without even the possibility of a wound. ... Let us beware of contradicting the express teaching of the Scriptures, ... by a supposition that was not liable to real temptation.'—The life of Christ (1883 ed.), vol. 1, p. 57.
God's Demonstration of Victory
"Where did God, in Christ, condemn sin, and gain the victory for us over temptation and sin?
'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Romans 8:3.
"Note—God, in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgment seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in the flesh."
In 1956, this revised question/answer passage in Bible Readings for the Home circle first became public knowledge in Anderson's Ministry September editorial. He used this revision as an example of Adventist literature that had been purged. No one apparently had seen the edited Bible Readings before this September editorial. Anderson's editorial hit the fan!
Anderson's Explanation
Here is how Anderson explained the revision: "Many years ago a statement appeared in Bible Readings for the Home Circle (1915 edition) which declared that Christ came 'in sinful flesh.' Just how this expression slipped into the book is difficult to know. It has been quoted many times by critics, and all around the world, as being typical of Adventist Christology. But when that book was revised in 1949 this expression was eliminated, since it was recognized as being out of harmony with our true position."
However, when we look at the original 1915 statement, it is obvious that the phrase "in sinful flesh" was not an "expression" (it took almost a full page of explanation so that no reader should have been confused). Further, this nearly full page of explanation of "sinful flesh" was certainly not "out of harmony with our true position." It was clearly harmonious with the position of dozens of Adventist writers as well as with hundreds of Ellen White statements that were the most lucid on the subject.
The question should have been obvious to the QOD trio, even in reading the 1949 revision: How could our Lord condemn sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3, 4) if He did not take "sinful flesh"?
What was causing this blind spot in the QOD trio's theological response to the Evangelical's concern? In the attempt to appear gracious and accommodating, they read into the expression, "fallen, sinful nature," the "corruptions" that come from actually choosing to sin. (Publishing house editors, Sabbath School lesson editors, many leaders, and Ellen White for scores of years—had differentiated between inherited tendencies and cultivated habits of sin.) But with this desire to please the Evangelicals, the QOD trio allowed their visiting friends to set the agenda. What seems more than interesting is that the revision did not mute the Adventist understanding of how Christ's life and death made it possible for faithful Christians "to live a sinless life in sinful flesh."
In a way, I find this little episode that started a theological forest fire, amusing, except the QOD/Evangelical dialogue kept missing the whole point of what God wants to accomplish in His Plan of Salvation.
Scholarly Fraud
But there was more in this September 1956 issue of Ministry. Here for the first time were fragments from Ellen White's writings that Dr. Knight has shown to be far off the mark of careful scholarship—excerpts contrary to context and ellipses that amounted to scholarly fraud. And this was the same set of quotations later found in Appendix B of QOD and the last section of Volume 7A in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary! The Commentary editors knew nothing about this later inclusion.
Anderson's editorial (mentioned above) recommended this compilation "as full coverage of this subject as can be found in the writings of Ellen G. White. ... As far as we have been able to discover, this compilation fully represents the thinking of the messenger of the Lord on this question. A few other statements have been found, but these are either repetitions or mere verbal variations, and add no new thought." Amazing!
Further, in the editorial, we find: "In only three or four places in all these inspired counsels have we founds such expressions as 'fallen nature' and 'sinful nature.' But these are strongly counterbalanced and clearly explained by many other statements that reveal the thought of the writer. Christ did indeed partake of our nature, our human nature with all its physical limitations, but not of our carnal nature with all its lustful corruptions."
Andersons's Straw Man
Let's take a little time out to analyse again what my friend Anderson is saying. In logic theory, he here is using the "straw man" to throw off or mislead his opponents: no Adventist has ever applied the words "corrupt, carnal, or lustful" to our Savior! Never! Because of Anderson's marvellous record as an evangelist and editor of Ministry, his readers blithely accepted his manufactured comments without a pause for further reflection.
But we should now pause a moment and at least look briefly at the seventy-year writing ministry of Ellen White. Definitely, she referred to our Lord's humanity as possessing "our sinful nature." She always put this profound concept in connection with what it meant to our individual Salvation: "The example He has left must be followed. He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature that He might know how to succor those that are tempted."
Again, "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. Clothing his divinity with humanity, that he might associate with fallen humanity, he sought to redeem for man that which by disobedience Adam had lost, for himself and for the world."
This particular White quotation reminds us of Gregory of Naziansus (329—ca. 389) who said: "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved." Gregory was a leading theologian who helped to settle the Arian controversy as well as the teachings of Apollinarius, who denied the rational soul in Christ and held that the body of Jesus came from heaven.
Ellen White Consistency
Many times Ellen White quoted Romans 8:3, 4 to signal this weighty concept: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh'—it could not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep the law—'God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.' Romans 5:1, 3:31, 8:3. 4."
Briefly, it would take many pages in this review to list the quotes of her constant theme that Jesus came into this world to accept "the result of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. ... Yet 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 loss."
Obviously, if the QOD trio emphasized even slightly the mass of Ellen White quotes that linked our Lord's humanity with fallen mankind, Martin and Barnhouse would have quickly packed their bags continued their attacks on the Adventists as cultists, in their eyes. As Calvinists, they had no other choice.
Not a Mere Theological Exercise
But Ellen White did not emphasize our Lord's humanity as a mere theological exercise. She virtually always linked His humanity with mankind's only hope for rescue from the cords of sin. In other words, theologically speaking, what one thinks about the humanity of Christ directly affects what one thinks about what our Lord excepts from men and women regarding character transformation. Further, this linkage is exactly what Andreasen saw that the QOD trio did not—that character transformation had much to do with the Adventist understanding of Revelation 14 and thus the Second Advent. And they knew that if they emphasized this linkage, it would have demolished the Five Points of Calvinism.
For example: "He for our sakes laid aside His royal robe, stepped down from the throne in heaven, and condescended to clothe His divinity with humility, and became like one of us except in sin, that His life and character should be a pattern for all to copy, that they might have the precious gift of eternal life.
These insights could be reproduced hundreds of times: "The character of the Lord Jesus Christ is to be reproduced in those who believe in him as their personal Saviour. They will be 'rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate: laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.' Our acceptance with God is not upon the ground of our good works, but our reward will be according to our works. 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.'"
Another Ministry Editorial
But another Ministry editorial turned up the heat for blastoff. Before the publication of QOD in September, after the Calvinistic leaders had accepted the answers provided by the QOD trio, in April 1957, Louise Fleuser, associate secretary of the General Conference Ministerial Association, and a graceful, lifelong Bible Worker, wrote that the soon-to-be published QOD was "a new milestone" in the history of the Adventist church. More kerosene on the fire!
Some would call these Ministry editorials and articles supporting QOD a gigantic fraud that would be chiselled into Adventist history. If not a fraud, it would be at least gross misrepresentation!
Strange Hermeneutics
One of the strangest techniques ever used in Adventist literature was the use of a personal letter as if in that one letter Ellen White was changing seventy years of her teaching ministry. As if that one letter indeed said something (which I doubt) that "counterbalanced" the many lucid, unequivocal statements in just one book, The desire of Ages, never mind hundred of other statements elsewhere, like those in Desire. That really is a test of one's hermeneutical principles!
Instead of using Ellen White's hundreds of similar thoughts to help us to understand certain phrases in the Baker letter, the QOD trio used the Baker letter to explain what White meant in hundreds of her unambiguous statements about the humanity of Jesus! For the purposes of this study, we can safely say that the Baker letter can be understood and reconciled with all of White's hundreds statements as well as biblical exegesis. Ellen White does not have a wax nose, as some have suggested!
Misrepresentation Worked Both Ways
Of course, the misrepresentation worked both ways: Calvinists were to be convinced that Adventists had changed their teachings and Adventists had to be convinced that we had not changed our teachings. It worked, for awhile! For forty-five years, secrecy even veiled the names of the QOD trio, except for those of us who were "there" when it was happening.
How do we explain all this? If both parties had stood back for even two weeks and as trained scholars reviewed their data, their quotations, etc., they would have suddenly seen that they were proposing and accepting garbled references and conclusions without adequate verification. No graduate student in any university could have even earned a master's degree with such substandard scholarship! Yet, I have read several doctoral dissertations that have defended the inconsistencies and underwhelming logic of QOD.
Dr. Jean Zurcher, an Adventist scholar and distinguished administrator, was well recognized in the academic world for his notable book, The Nature and Destiny of Man. In 1999, he wrote Touched With Our Feeling—one of the most persuasive books ever written aimed at putting the record straight regarding the QOD nuclear bomb. He reviewed a century of Adventist thinking regarding the divine and human nature of Christ, including many extracts from official church publications on two continents. Further, he examined the printed material since 1957 that extolled QOD, all in lockstep, naive acceptance.
In all his broad research, Zurcher found no sign of any disagreement among Seventh-day Adventists anywhere, on both continents, regarding the human nature of Christ, before the middle 1950s. He used the words, "remarkable unanimity" to sum up his research regarding pre-QOD Adventist thinking on the humanity of Christ.
An Attempted Compromise
I know some are wondering how later administrators and theological leaders eventually attempted a compromise that would quiet opposition to QOD. Some suggested an alternative or a third option that would explain what seemed to them to be contradictory statements in the writings of Ellen White. It was a brave attempt at a mediating position between the prelapsarians and the post-lapsarians.
It worked like this: 1) Christ's humanity was not Adam's innocent humanity before his Fall; that is, He inherited the weaknesses of our 'innocent infirmities" such as hunger, pain, sorrow, and death. 2) He came only in the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3); that is, He did not inherit a "tendency to sin" or "sinful propensities."
How shall we relate to this compromise, the recent third option in the Adventist Christological debate? First, we should note that Jesus did not come to liberate humanity from our "innocent infirmities" but to deliver from indwelling sin. That is why Jesus came "in the likeness [not unlikeness] of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3) and "in all things He had to be made like unto his brethren" Hebrews 2:17).
Further, we must recognize the difference between "inherent propensities" and "evil propensities." In Ellen White's world, these two phrases do not say the same thing. A propensity is a tendency, a bent, an enticement to temptation. If resisted, it is not sin (James 4:17; John 9:49; 15:22). "Inherent propensities" become "evil" or "sinful propensities" only after yielding to temptation.
The same distinction may be made between "evil tendencies" and "evil propensities." Jesus never had "evil propensities." But Ellen White Wrote that Jesus met and was "subjected to all the evil tendencies to which man is heir working in every conceivable manner to destroy his faith."
Henry Melvill
Probably the strongest argument (and strangest) that the third option makes is the connection they see between some phraseology Ellen White may have borrowed from a sermon by Henry Melvill. Melvill taught that fallen human nature had two characteristics: Innocent infirmities and sinful propensities—Jesus took the first but not the second. Melvill said that before the Fall, Adam had neither. But Jesus, weakened by four thousand years of sin, Melvill said, assumed mankind's "innocent infirmities" but not the "sinful propensities." Nice try, but Melvill was burdened with his Calvinistic presuppositions!
Ellen White also borrowed phrases from Octavius Winslow's The Glory of the Redeemer, who also used language, similar to Melvill, in describing Christ's humanity. Some Adventists, unfortunately, leaped immediately into thinking that a few words from Melvill and Winslow would help us understand what Ellen White meant in the scores of times she used similar words.
Strange reasoning! Perhaps it would have been better hermeneutics to turn the reasoning around: read Ellen White to help us to understand what she was warning Baker about and what Melvill "should" have written to be more exegetically correct.
Observations come to mind immediately: 1) Ellen White never used the phrase, "innocent infirmities." 2) She used "infirmities" in the sense that "for four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation. ... Our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities.
Further, we think it would have been helpful for the Annotated Edition of QOD to include Ellen White's many insights, such as "Christ's perfect humanity is the same that man may have through connection with Christ. ... Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God.
Or, make reference to White's understanding regarding how Jesus was saved from corruption by His godly mother and their leaning together on the empowerment of the Holy Spirit:
"Jesus knows the burden of every mother's heart. ... Let mothers come to Jesus with their perplexities. They will find grace sufficient to aid them in the management of their children. ... Even the babe in its mother's arms may dwell as under the shadow of the Almighty through the faith of the praying mother. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth. If we will live in communion with God, we too may expect the divine Spirit to mold our little ones, even from their earliest moments."
In other words, whenever Ellen White applied term "corrupt propensities" to Jesus she meant that Jesus never sinned, never corrupted Himself. Whenever Ellen said anything similar to the following quotation, she never thought in terms of "vicariously": "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help men. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.
Melvill's Federal Theology
Henry Melvill was a federalist; much of his Christology and salvation theory can then be better understood under his federalist rubric: "If a man be a fallen man, he must have fallen in Adam [the natural/federal head of the human race]; in other words, he must be one of those whom Adam federally represented. But Christ, as being emphatically the seed of the woman, was not thus federally represented; and therefore Christ fell not, as we fall in Adam. He had not been a party to the broken covenant, and thus could not be a sharer in the guilt consequences of the infraction.
Federal theology, often called "Covenant Theology," is rooted in Augustinian theology that began with Augustine's notion that all mankind is inherently depraved and sinful because we all sinned in Adam. Further, in Federalism theology, God holds all mankind responsible for the violation of a covenant that God made with Adam although all descendants of Adam had no part in its violation. Common sense should tell us that imputation of sin cannot precede and thus account for corruption; corruption is the result of a choice to sin, not the cause of it. One can do wonders with theological gymnastics!
Because of this Federal or Covenant Theology, Calvinist thinkers, including Melvill and Winslow, are blind to their Augustinian roots. Whenever they use the word "corrupt" or "corruption," especially when discussing the humanity of Christ, they must be understood as employing the sovereignty of God notion that required more theological gymnastics to explain why we are sinners! Their chief texts are Romans 5:17-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. Thus, in their interpretation: "as the sin of Adam was legally and effectively our sin so the obedience of Christ is legally and effectively the righteousness of all believers. ... To provide their salvation [those federally related to Adam], the needed reparation had to be made by another who was not of federal connection with Adam and thus was free from the imputation of guilt. Federal theology represented these requirement as being met in Christ, the second Adam, in whom a new race begins."
Ellen White, no Calvinist
Ellen white did not buy into this kind of reasoning, which kept her from using Melvill's formulation of a "third" way of looking at the humanity of Christ. Of course, we find a voracious reader like Ellen White indebted to phrases of others, such as d'Aubigne, Wylie, Melvill, Winslow, and Hanna, etc.—phrases that spelled out her desired concepts more eloquently that her own choice of words in her hurry to complete a manuscript. The choice phrases did not alter Ellen White's thought intent but did make her meaning more pleasing and forceful. She borrowed some of their felicitous phrases but not their theological intent. Ellen knew when to distinguish truth from error whenever she gleaned helpful thoughts from others.
Adventists Not Alone
Before leaving our comments on the nature of Christ issue it would be salutary to note that Adventists are not alone in their 150 years of understanding the humanity of Christ. Many biblical scholars have challenged the so-called "orthodox" view that Christ somehow took Adam's pre-Fall nature rather than the human equipment inherited by every other child of Adam. Among these are, and not limited to, Edward Irving, Thomas Erskine, Herman Kohlbrugge, Eduard Bohl, Karl Barth, T.F. Torrance, Nels Ferré, C.E.B. Cranfield, Harold Roberts, Lesslie Newbigin, E. Stauffer, Anders Nygren, C.K. Barrett, Wolfhard Pannenberg, and Eric Baker, among many more.
Would Barnhouse and Martin include this galaxy as the "lunatic fringe" of the Protestant world?
Andreasen's Second Concern
The other major concern of Andreasen and others looking on from the sidelines was QOD's less-than-lucid language used to describe the Adventist doctrines of the atonement, sanctuary service (type and antitype), and the investigative judgment.
Froom's February 1957 article in Ministry entitled "The Priestly Application of the Atoning Act" was designed to prepare readers for QOD, yet to be published. He continued his typical cherry-picking of Ellen White statements. However, in this article, Froom rightly wrote, on one hand, that the atonement could not be limited to Christ's death on the cross or the investigative judgment in heaven, that the atonement "clearly embraces both—one aspect being incomplete without the other, and each being the indispensable complement of the other." All right, so far!
But, on the other hand, he used unfortunate language to describe that Christ's death provided "a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man's sin" and "a completed act of atonement." Because of these poorly chosen words, Andreasen felt that Froom had swung too closely to the Calvinist viewpoint in over-emphasizing the Cross at the expense of other equally important sanctuary truths.
Later, after Andreasen's agitation (which I think was overstated on this occasion) aroused many others around the country, Fighur himself felt that "it would have been better if that article of Brother Froom's had not appeared in the Ministry."
All this before QOD had been printed! As I see it, if the QOD trio were wise and secure in their opinions, they would have circulated their manuscript pages to Andreasen, as they did to many others. If they had, some of Andreasen's concerns would have been eliminated. He would have seen on pages 342-347 that QOD did indeed present a "wider connotation" when discussing the atonement. That is, they fully agreed "that the work accomplished on Calvary involves also the "application" of the atoning sacrifice of Christ to the seeking soul. This is provided for in the priestly ministry of our blessed Lord, our great High Priest in the sanctuary above." Good—but they were not finished.
Further, QOD correctly showed their Arminian understanding of the atonement on 1957 QOD, p. 350: "But this sacrificial work will actually benefit human hearts only as we surrender our lives to God and experience the miracle of the new birth. In this experience Jesus our High Priest applies to us the benefits of His atoning sacrifice."
QOD Trio's Defense to Andreasen's Charges
What was the trio's proof? They quoted Early Writings, page 260: "The great Sacrifice had been offered and had been accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus had entered by His own blood, to shed upon His disciples the benefits of His atonement."
But what is this sentence saying, and what is the context of this cherry-picked sentence?
First, it was in answer to Martin's question 29: "Seventh-day Adventists have frequently been charged with teaching that the atonement was not completed on the cross. Is this charge true?"
How should the Adventist trio have answered this question? For clarity's sake, they should have replied, "Yes." And then proceeded to explain the larger view of the atonement that a Calvinist would never have thought of. Of course, our Lord's sacrificial atonement was completed on the cross, but there is more to be said. The Bible and Ellen White, expanding on the biblical understanding, should robustly have been used to show that the Cross and the heavenly sanctuary are two phases of the Atonement and that the cleansing of the planet from the instigator and consequences of sin completed the Atonement.
Let's look again at Early Writings (1851), p. 260. At first glance, the inference is that whatever is going on in the heavenly sanctuary is not part of the atonement but only an "application of the atonement."
The larger context of this "benefit of the atonement" statement begins on page 251 of Early Writings: "Jesus sent His angels to direct the minds of the disappointed Adventist Millerities to the most holy place, where He had gone to cleanse the sanctuary and make a special atonement for Israel."
Then, page 253: "As the priest entered the most holy once a year to cleanse the earthly sanctuary, so Jesus entered the most holy of the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8, in 1844, to make a final atonement for all who could be benefited by His mediation, and thus to cleanse the sanctuary."
Finally, page 254: "The third angel closes his message thus: 'Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.' As he repeated these words, he pointed to the heavenly sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. It includes all who died trusting in Christ, but who, not having received the light upon God's commandments, had sinned ignorantly in transgressing its precepts."
Misapplication of One Statement
It is more than difficult to extract from these statements that the Atonement was made at the Cross only and that only its "benefits" summed up Christ's work as High Priest. With a misapplication of one statement taken out of context that inferred that the atonement was completed at the Cross, the Protestant world was satisfied—but the Adventist world was confused and sadly misrepresented.
What seemed even worse, for some strange reason, other than a temporary blindness, the QOD trio did not follow the maturing of Ellen White's larger view of the atonement, subsequent to 1851. If so, Andreasen would have been their loudest cheerleader"
For instance, they could have quoted: "It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of the atonement, who received the benefits of his mediation in their behalf. ... They saw that their great High Priest had entered upon another work of ministration, and following Him by faith, they were led to see also the closing work of the church."
The Larger View
What were these High Priestly benefits? As High Priest, "Christ was to complete His work and fulfill His pledge to 'make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.' Isa. 13:12. All power in heaven and on earth was given to the Prince of life, and He returned to His followers in a world of sin, that He might impart to them of His power and glory."
The QOD trio could have included White's larger view of the atonement:
"The Spirit was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail. ... Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty energy of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer. ... Christ had given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church."
These two statements in The Desire of Ages are examples of many more that spell out Ellen White's grasp of the ellipse of truth that grounded her mature theology.
But there is so much more where Ellen White had enlarged on this concept of "benefits" and "atonement":
"And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation—a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem His people; for when He comes, His reward is with Him to give to every man according to his works. (Rev. 22:12). ...
"Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the holy of holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man—to perform the work of investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits. ... So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment, the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God [that is, all those of all the ages who professed loyalty to God]."