Anyone reading what Andreasen was reading would also have felt nettled and disappointed by the church leaders who were surely missing the opportunity of a century. But those who supposedly "read" the page proofs of QOD didn't bother to read the context of this "benefits of the atonement" statement nor many later congruent statements in the Conflict series. They too were also part of the missed opportunity of a century.
For many involved, however, including the General Conference president, the clumsy statements in QOD seemed to demolish Andreasen's concerns. But Andreasen and others knew that these carefully cherry-picked quotations portrayed a limited understanding of the Adventist doctrine of the atonement and could be easily accepted by the Evangelicals.
To repeat, QOD's selected quotations did not embrace the fuller understanding that Adventists had taught for many years. For instance, "And everyone who will break from the slavery and service of Satan, and will stand under the blood-stained banner of Prince Immanuel, will be kept by Christ's intercessions. Christ, as our Mediator, at the right hand of the Father, ever keeps us in view, for it is as necessary that He should keep us by His intercessions as that He should redeem us with His blood. If He lets go His hold of us for one moment, Satan stands ready to destroy. Those purchased by His blood, He now keeps by His intercession. He ever liveth to make intercession for us. Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them' Heb. 7:25."
So much was left unsaid—and that was the pity and the essence of Andreasen's concern, as well as the concern of others. Andreasen knew Adventist thought far better than any of the QOD trio. His filing system was probably the most inclusive, private collection of Ellen White materials known anywhere. He knew that page 488 of The Great Controversy was as clear as the noonday sun: "Satan invents unnumbered schemes to occupy our minds, that they may not dwell upon the very work with which we ought to be best acquainted. The arch deceiver hates the great truths that bring to view an atoning sacrifice and an all-powerful mediator. He knows that with him everything depends on his diverting minds from Jesus and His truth.
"Those who would share the benefits of the Saviour's mediation should permit nothing to interfere with their duty to perfect holiness in the fear of God. The precious hours, instead of being given to pleasure, to display, or to gain seeking, should be devoted to an earnest, prayerful study of the word of truth. The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill."
Here is another typical example of Ellen White's understanding of the ellipse of truth—Atoning Sacrifice and All-powerful Mediator. We can't have one without the other, anymore than we can find water without hydrogen and oxygen!
Again, Why Was Andreasen Upset?
The question arises—about what was Andreasen upset in his attacks on the atonement issue? The best way to understand Andreasen's concern is to see the situation through his eyes. I will let Andreasen speak for himself as he reviewed Froom's editorials, beginning with Froom's February article in Ministry, to which we have already referred. (These were unpublished, private letters written to the president of the General Conference. Andreasen was a highly principled man who, throughout his ministry, was respectful of church leadership as his contemporaries well knew.)
Let's role-play with Andreasen:
February 15, 1957: Andreasen was astonished that Froom said that the QOD revision of the doctrine of the atonement was because "no one had taken the time for the sustained effort involved in laborious, comprehensive search [in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy] to find, analyse, and organize them." Previous church leaders were "largely unaware of this latent evidence and its priceless value: the need was not felt, and the time required for such a vast project was not considered available."
This was too much for Andreasen, in view of the many books that previous thought-leaders had written, in addition to his own excellent, synoptic studies on the sanctuary doctrine and the atonement.
Andreasen could see that Froom's narrow understanding of the atonement was missing the grand picture that Adventists have studied for most of a century—that Christ on the cross was not the beginning or the end of the suffering that sin brought to the heart of God. In other words, the cost to God of the atonement is not to be measured by the hours on the cross. He saw Froom's problem—he had too limited views of the atonement.
Further, Andreasen wrote: "To rush into print at this time with shallow and confused ideas; to announce to the world that the theories set forth in the article under consideration is the Adventist understanding of the atonement, is unfortunate and is not true."
October 15, 1957: The question now focused on Froom's statement that Christ's sacrificial act of the cross [is] complete, perfect, and final atonement for man's sin." Andreasen appealed to the denomination's "Declaration of the Fundamental Principles of the Seventh-day Adventists" which said: "Jesus Christ ... ascended on high to be our only Mediator in the Sanctuary in Heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes atonement for our sins: which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood: which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven."
If only the Adventist trio had sat down with Andreasen before publication, it seems obvious that careful rewording would have eliminated what seemed to be a grievous error.
November 4, 1957: Again, the issue revolved around what happened on the cross. If Calvinists are correct in insisting that Christ's death was the Day of Atonement, then Adventists for a century had been wrong. Andreasen quoted extensively from Uriah Smith, J.H. Waggoner, C.H. Watson, plus many Ellen White references.
Further, Andreasen was astonished at Froom's question regarding Ellen White: "Why in our early days, did not Mrs. White point out and correct the limited or sometimes erroneous concepts of some of our early writers concerning the atonement? Why did she employ some of the restricted phrases without contrasting, at the same time, her own larger, truer meaning when using them?" Then Froom answered his own question: "No doctrinal truth of prophetic interpretation ever came to this people through the spirit of Prophecy—not a single case."
This kind of thinking requires more than a strong assertion. Andreasen turned to Ellen White's own words: "Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, 'We can do nothing more,' the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.
"During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was not of the greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the Word of God. The brethren knew that when not in vision, I could not understand these matters, and they accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given."
The point Andreasen was making is that Froom was either ignorant of his Adventist history—or the QOD trio is, here and in other places, downgrading Ellen White.
November 14, 1957: Andreasen is still concerned (although he may have misunderstood Froom) with the wording that "the death of Christ [was] the complete sacrificial atonement for sin." Again, he cites more Adventist scholars who had taught the larger view, and he lists them as evidence that "there is too much at stake to leave any doubt in the mind of the reader." No one could read these letters and not "see" of "feel" the anguish of the veteran Adventist scholar who sensed that the central feature of Adventist theology was being compromised.
He referred to copious quotations from The Great Controversy and for the first time submitted the clearest Ellen White statements of all that could be quoted. If only the Adventist trio had quoted and emphasized these statements, it seems to me that Andreasen would have had no reason to continue his warning: "The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven. We are now living in the great day of atonement." And then he added White's appeal: "Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ."
We can see that the 80-year-old veteran had the big picture of the plan of salvation in mind, which had no limited views of the atonement—he was in the major leagues, while the QOD trio remained in the minor leagues, playing a theological game with other minor league players, especially in discussing the atonement.
As Jerry Moon said so eloquently in 1988: "Much more might have been accomplished had the conferees (QOD trio) been able to show the evangelicals the significance of the investigative judgment as the logical extension and refinement of Arminianism and the blotting out of sins as essential to the completion of a universe-wide atonement."
December 2, 1957: Andreasen reviewed Froom's editorials again with added insights regarding the historic Adventist understanding of the big picture of the Atonement. Probably no person alive in 1957 had a more extensive library of Ellen White writings; his index system was a marvel to those who saw it and this was before any attempts had been made by the White Estate to formally index her writings.
Those most familiar with Ellen White theology recognize her profound insight into the elliptic nature of biblical truth—the symbiotic union of the objective and subjective aspects of all truth, such as grace-faith, Savior-Mediator, for-us in-us and through-us, justification-sanctification, forgiven-cleansed, law-gospel, etc. In other words, we can't have one without the other. In this way, Andreasen could easily appreciate Ellen White's wording that our Lord's High Priest ministry is just as important as His death on the cross. And any dimming of this symbiotic relationship became a red flag to his brilliant mind.
He was especially disturbed when he read Froom's defense: "When, therefore one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature—even in the writings of Ellen G. White—that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests."
(When keen Adventists read that the QOD trio was telling the world that they now were the experts as to what Ellen White meant, using the words, "it should be understood," a great big exclamation point goes up! That was the underlying Achilles' heel of QOD. For Andreasen and others, this pervading hubris tainted even the best of their effort.)
January 5, 1958: Here, Andreasen reiterated his concerns of the past year and noted, regarding his observations in Froom's February 1957 article in Ministry that "there has been no renouncement of the doctrines, no public repudiation of the new ideas set forth, nor any public reprimand. We are, therefore, warranted in believing that the article under consideration speaks for the denomination." Amazing, to read this today!
Andreasen went further in analyzing the QOD trio's response to Martin's question on p. 341 of QOD: "Seventh-day Adventist have frequently been charged with teaching that the atonement was not completed on the cross. Is this charge true?" Andreasen opined that the trio could have answered in the words of Elder Nichol, as used in his Review and Herald 1952 July editorials that we referred to earlier. Andreasen then dissected the trio's answer, calling it "unique" and "evidently confused," especially when "bloodless atonements" are mentioned.
Before ending this letter he referred to two letters from the General Conference officers asking him to cease his activities and if not, it "will undoubtedly bring up the matter of your relationship to the church." In prescience, Andreasen said that "this is the approved and diplomatic way of saying that my credential and sustentation will be affected."
January 19, 1958: Andreasen reviewed his former letters, each review using fresh logic and new information. He mentions the defection of A. F. Ballenger, a much-respected evangelist at the turn of the twentieth century. Andreasen noted that "the heresy for which he was dismissed is the very doctrine now being forced upon us, teaching that the atonement was made on the cross." In one way, Andreasen was correct but he was overlooking the QOD trio's intentions amidst their bumbling explanations. Thus, he overstated his objections,
January 31, 1958: Andreasen continued his dissection of QOD's understanding of a "bloodless atonement"—that Christ's "blood" was efficacious only on the Cross and not involved in our Lord's work in the Holy and Most Holy Places in the heavenly sanctuary. He knew many Ellen White statements say otherwise. In other words, "the 'new view' entirely denies the blood atonement in the sanctuary" contrary to the Old and New Testament descriptions. For instance, the death of the victim is not the atonement. It is after the goat was slain that the high priest "goeth into make atonement in the holy place. Lev. 16:17." Andreasen emphasized that the atonement was made when the high priest went in to make atonement in the holy place, not outside in the court. See also Hebrews 9:7, 11, 12.
September 1960: Andreasen now looked back on the published QOD (1957) and on Martin's 1960 book The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism. On page 15 of Martin's book is a statement signed by H. W. Lowe, chairman, Bible Study and Research Group of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, that said in part: "His [Martin's] presentation of our doctrines and prophetic interpretations as found on page 47-87 is accurate and comprehensive. ... The reader will not overlook the fair and accurate statements of Adventist teachings so clearly set forth on pages mentioned above, 47-86." Again, "This author has earned our gratitude and respect for his earnest endeavor to set forth correctly our doctrinal positions and by his attitude of Christian brotherhood."
In Martin's opinion, what hinders Adventist's full acceptance of the Evangelicals is our older Adventist literature which "is still in circulation," and which "teach some of the divergent views of Seventh-day Adventism. ... It must be remembered that it will take time for divergent literature within the denomination to be brought under editorial control, and harmonized with the declared denominational position. The Adventists are seriously studying this problem."
For Andreasen, a long-time Adventist scholar especially skilled in the very subjects being discussed in both books (QOD and Martin's book), the trauma had to be most troubling. But then there was the Cleveland General Conference in 1958, which Martin referred to in his book: "The General Conference meeting in quadrennial session in Cleveland in 1958, thought the book [QOD] was sufficiently in harmony with Adventist views to preclude any necessity of even reviewing the issue. Its approach was apparent to all, as was its acceptance." Martin had a point!
"Outright Deceit"
Finally, in his 1960 letter, Andreasen, after expressing his disappointment over QOD's treatment of the atonement, came to the "worst" of the distortions of Adventist doctrine—"it attacks the character of God, and accuses both the Father and the Son of outright deceit. Here is the QOD statement: "Although born in the flesh, He was nevertheless God, and was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam.'"
Then Andreasen quoted p. 49 of The Desire of Ages, which we have looked at earlier. His comment: "Christ was not exempt from the working of the great law of heredity. He accepted it."
After a discussion of "temptation"—whether from God who tests or from Satan who tempts to make men and women to fall into evil habits—Andreasen quotes several Ellen White paragraphs:
"These were real temptations, no pretense. ... It was enough. Satan could go no further.
... The severity of this conflict no human mind can compass. The welfare of the whole human family and of Christ Himself was at stake. ... Human power was ready to fail. But all heaven sang the song of eternal victory. The human family have all the help that Christ had in their conflicts with Satan. They need not be overcome.
... The Son of God in His humanity wrestled with the very same fierce, apparently overwhelming temptations that assail men—temptations to indulgence of appetite, to presumptuous venturing where God has not led them, and to the worship of the god of this world, to sacrifice an eternity of bliss for the fascinating pleasures of this life. Everyone will be tempted, but the Word declares that we shall not be tempted above our ability to bear. We may resist and defeat he wily foe."
In other words, if Christ was tempted in all points as man is tempted but yet "exempt" in some way that other humans are not, underneath the plan of salvation God was not playing fair—how could He ask men and women to overcome as Jesus overcame (Revelation 3:21)? Andreasen believed that God would be practicing "outright deceit," in requiring something impossible.
"The Highest Infamy"
In closing comments in his September 1960 letter, Andersen wrote explicit arguments for retaining Ellen White's understanding of Christ's humanity: "Had God favored His Son, Satan would have had an argument that even God could not meet. God sent His Son to show that He is not unjust in requiring obedience of Him. Christ came to earth to demonstrate God's justice. If God favored His Son, He would in that act have admitted that man cannot keep the law, that it was necessary for God to exempt Christ from some of the requirements He had imposed upon man. This would be for God to admit defeat. Moreover, it would have vitiated the whole plan of salvation. If Christ had received favors or exemptions, He would thereby have admitted Satan's claim that it is impossible for man to do God's will.
"Perish the thought that God in any way favored Christ! To teach or believe such is the highest of infamy, in that it is an indictment of God Himself, and accusing Him of deceit. It would be one of Satan's masterpieces to have His denominated people accept such doctrine.
"The matter we have been discussing here in regard to Christ being exempt from the passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam, we consider one of the most heinous of the many departure from the faith which a study of the book Questions on Doctrine reveals. ... That God miraculously exempted Him, as He did not exempt the rest of humanity; that He favored Christ so that He could not sin, was heathenism of the worst kind."
Flash Points in later Eternity Editorials
During this time of private communication to Figuhr and, later, the QOD trio, Andreasen was reading and rereading Barnhouse and Martin's five editorials in Eternity, during 1956 and 1957. Much of what they had written was surprisingly cordial and accurate. But several points aroused Andreasen's fears.
To be historically faithful to reality in the late 50s, we should role-play with Andreasen and think as he thought. For instance:
In his September 1957 Eternity editorial, Barnhouse wrote, "They [the QOD trio] further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their 'lunatic gringe' even as there are similar wild-eyes irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity. ... The position of the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination. ... [The investigative judgment] to me, is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history" ... Further, they do not believe, as some of their earlier teachers taught, that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844. ... [Regarding the investigative judgment since 1844] we personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable!"
How would any of us have reacted to this editorial written after QOD had been published, if you had the theological insights of Andreasen, or most any other Adventist pastor, editor, or teacher?
In Martin's editorial in Eternity September 1957, he again characterized himself and Barnhouse as representatives of "historic orthodoxy" (meaning Calvinism and not including Arminians such as the Methodist, Nazarenes, etc.) After recognizing that Adventists "have always as a majority, held to the cardinal, fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith which are necessary to salvation, and to the growth in grace that characterizes all true Christians believes, he then listed seven areas of disagreement. These were conditional immortality (including the annihilation of the wicked), sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment, the scapegoat (a teaching concerning Satan), the seventh-day Sabbath, Spirit of Prophecy, health reform, and the remnant church.
In Barnhouse's November 1957, Eternity, editorial, after noting the cordial interchanges of the previous two years, he referred again to how one Adventist writer "in particular set forth that Jesus Christ had a sinful human nature. The present volume [QOD] approaches this statement from several different points of view and repudiates it with horror. Because this has been made such a large issue by one 'defender of the faith,' who has attempted to pin this error on Mrs. White herself, the Adventist leaders in this present volume boldly present thirty-six different quotations from the writings of Mrs. White expressing herself in the strongest fashion in positive statements concerning the eternal Godhead and sinless human nature of our Lord. In another appendix are listed more than fifty quotations concerning the mystery of the incarnation in which Mrs. White expresses over and over the wonder of the Word made flesh and the glory of His sinlessness. The original difficulty arose from the fact that Mrs. White was not a trained theologian. She was unaware that some of her terms might be constructed against her. In my opinion she lacked profundity, accuracy, and scholarship, but she owned, honored, and taught Jesus Christ as the eternal, sinless Son of God."
Suppose the Annotated Edition of QOD was Read by Barnhouse and Martin
How would Barnhouse and Martin have felt if the Annotated Edition of QOD had been printed in their lifetime? How would they have responded to the Adventist trio if he discovered that QOD's misuse of Ellen White quotations should have made a trained theologian weep?
Adventist Professionals, Not Asleep
But laypersons around the United States were not asleep. An Adventist printer and first elder, Al Hudson, in Baker, Oregon, had lawyers who contracted with him to print their briefs for submission to the Oregon Supreme Court. Following their format, Hudson prepared a "Supporting Brief" for a proposed Resolution to be submitted to the delegates to the 1958 General Conference in Cleveland, Ohio. It read:
"Let it be resolved, that in view of the evidence presented, the book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine does not represent the faith and belief of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and is hereby repudiated on the following five points:
- It contains specimens of scholastic and intellectual dishonesty.
- It contains duplicity.
- It is inadequate.
- It contains error.
- It is Satan's masterpiece of strategy to defeat the purpose of God for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
In the balance of the Brief, much evidence was given to support the five charges. The Brief was ignored and never presented to the delegates. Hudson wrote to both Martin and Barnhouse and received no replies.
Telephone Conversation
However, on May 16, 1958, Hudson had a lengthy telephone conversation with Dr. Barnhouse. Some of Barnhouse's comments are as follows:
"All I'm saying is that the Adventists are Christians. I still think their doctrines are about the screwiest of any group of Christians in the world. I believe this beyond any question. In fact, the doctrine of the investigative judgment is the most blatant face-saving proposition that ever existed to cover up the debacle of the failure of Christ to come in 1844 as they said.
"The Adventists are wrong in keeping Saturday, the Protestants are wrong in keeping Sunday, and that the only thing to keep is, to have the attitude that every day is alike that God is not entering into this day, but He hates the Sabbath today. ...
"[Regarding Ellen White] she was just a human being in the first place. Now I recognize clearly that Mrs. White very frequently wrote some very spiritual things, but God Almighty never spoke through a woman. Let's face it. You can't justify a woman preaching and usurping authority over a man. It can't be done. ...
[Regarding Christ's human nature] Hudson asked Barnhouse: "They [Adventist trio] are taking the position, are they not, that Christ has the nature of Adam before he sinned, isn't that true?" Barnhouse replied: "I hope not! ... Adam was a created being subject to fall. Jesus Christ was the God-man, not subject to fall." Hudson answered: "And that's your understanding of the position of our leaders?" Barnhouse; "Of course! They have taken it so strongly and it is their book [QOD]. ... You see, if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal, sinless Son of God, that He could have not sinned, and ... we have eighteen quotations from Mrs. White saying the same thing ... and denying what you are telling me."
From this conversation, even this mere sampling, you can see how easy it is for Christian leaders to completely misunderstand each other, even when they use the same words! We cannot use the weasel excuse that it is all a matter of semantics! That would reveal outright ignorance of what is going on.
Chief Issue: Connection Between Christology and Eschatology
As all theologians can be measured by their linkage between their Christology and their eschatology, Andreasen was as clear as the noonday sun. However, the QOD trio, departed from a century of Adventist thinking. In their attempt to please the Evangelicals, they wandered away from copious biblical texts and forgot to read Ellen White's The Great Controversy, chapter by chapter, for example. Andreasen's careful connection between Christology and Eschatology was the chief issue separating him from the General Conference President and the QOD trio. Andreasen got his theological vector from statements such the following:
"Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ. Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself: 'The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." John 14:30. Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His father's commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble."
Reality Check
Andreasen thought it unfortunate to focus on topics such as "perfection" and "the nature of Christ" without equal or even greater focus on Christ Himself, who will be the agent of perfecting human character through His Holy Spirit. "The truth as it is in Jesus," a common Ellen White phrase, simply means that: the more focus on Jesus as our closest and best Friend, the more we let His words become our daily nourishment, the more "natural" and "habitual" we will be relentlessly pursuing moral perfection. Moral perfection is an attitude more than it is an attainment; even after 100,000 years into eternity, we will still be pursuing "perfection." But this attitude must be based on accepting truthful principles of who Jesus really is and why He came the way He did and why He died. Or else we will still be in Babylon and not know it!
Hancock's Research in 1962
Coming like the glow of Indian summer after some killer frosts, Robert Le Hancock's 1962 thesis entitled "The Humanity of Christ," at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary is perhaps the last to be written at the seminary on this subject from his and Andreasen's point of view. In his three-part conclusion, Hancock wrote:
"Regarding the specific question of Christ's humanity, this study has revealed that:
1) From its earliest days the Seventh-day Adventist Church has taught that when God partook of humanity He took, not the perfect, sinless nature of man before the Fall, but the fallen, sinful, offending, weakened, degenerate nature of man as it existed when He came to earth to help man. ...
2) That during the fifteen-year period between 1940 and 1955 the words 'sinful' and 'fallen' with reference to Christ's human nature were largely or completely eliminated from denominational published materials. ...
3) That since 1952, phrases such as 'sinless human nature,' 'nature of Adam before the fall,' and 'human nature undefiled,' have taken the place of the former terminology. ... The findings of this study warrant the conclusion that Seventh-day Adventist teachings regarding the human nature of Christ have changed and that these changes involve concepts and not merely semantics."