As might be expected, the new interpretation of Ellen White's statements on the subject of Christ's human nature provoked lively reaction. The more outspoken denounced what they saw as errors of interpretation, while others quietly confirmed the teaching of the church since its origin. These reactions to the book Questions on Doctrine deserve our close attention.
Traditional Christology Authenticated by The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
Between 1953 and 1957, while unofficial meetings between three or four Adventists and two or three evangelicals were taking place, about 40 theologians under the leadership of Francis D. Nichol were working on The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. We do not know what the individual position of the various commentators might have been concerning Christ's human nature. But we do know the two New Testament Epistles that deal most directly with Christology were assigned to theologians who were ardent defenders of the traditional position: M. L. Andreasen (Hebrews) and A. G. Maxwell (Romans).
Although the seven-volume commentary was published in 1957, the very same year as Questions on Doctrine, no trace of the new theology is found in it. On the contrary, many of the supplemental Ellen White statements found in the back of each volume tend to confirm the historical position. Here are several typical examples:
(Genesis 3:15): "The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity! He would place His feet in Adam's steps. He would take man's fallen nature, and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam."[1]
(Isaiah 53:2, 3): "Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. ... He endured all the temptations wherewith man is beset. ... 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,' because by doing so He could associate with the sinful, sorrowing sons and daughters of Adam."[2]
(Matthew 4:1-4): "The Redeemer, in whom was united both the human and the divine, stood in Adam's place, and endured a terrible fast of nearly six weeks. The length of this fast is the strongest evidence of the extent of the sinfulness and power of debased appetite upon the human family."[3]
(Matthew 4:1-11): "Here Christ overcame in the sinner's behalf four thousand years after Adam turned his back upon the light of his home. ... Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. 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. ... And in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He, who knew no sin, became sin for us."[4]
(Luke 22:44): "It was not a make-believe humanity that Christ took upon Himself. He took human nature and lived human nature. ... He took our infirmities. He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh."[5]
(John 1:1-3, 14): Under this text, five paragraphs of Ellen White's letter to Baker are quoted. We shall return to this letter later, because it is the principal document upon which the supporters of the new Christology rely. In addition, however, the following statement is cited: "He [Christ] took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. ... It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. ... He did humble Himself when He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset."[6]
(Romans 5:12-19): "In human flesh He went into the wilderness to be tempted by the enemy. ... He knows the weakness and the infirmities of the flesh. He was tempted in all points like as we are tempted."[7]
(Romans 8: 1-3): "Christ met, overcame, and condemned sin in the sphere in which it had previously exercised its dominion and mastery. The flesh, the scene of sin's former triumphs, now became the scene of its defeat and expulsion."[8]
(Philippians 2:5-8): "The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden linked chain which binds our souls to Christ and through Christ to God."[9]
(Hebrews 2:14-16): "In Christ were united the divine and the human--the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man."[10]
(Hebrews 4:15): "Christ's overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflict with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity."[11]
"Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human heart, and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness of the humanity which Christ had assumed in order to overcome his temptations on man's account."[12]
"We need not place the obedience of Christ by itself, as something for which He was specially adapted, by His particular divine nature, for He stood before God as man's representative and was tempted as man's substitute and surety. If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter."[13]
On the subject of the expression "without sin," Andreasen made the following comment: "Herein lies the unfathomable mystery of the perfect life of our saviour. For the first time human nature was led to victory over its natural tendency to sin, and because of Christ's victory over sin we too may triumph over it."[14]
These few examples, among others,[15] have the merit of confirming the traditional teaching in a work that is generally regarded as the official expression of church doctrine.
The Ellen G. White Estate Publishes Selected Messages
In 1958 the Ellen G. White Estate published the two books known as Selected Messages. These books contain some of Ellen White's clearest and most significant passages concerning the human nature assumed by Christ. Articles on the Incarnation, the nature of Christ, and the temptations of Jesus occupy a prominent place in the first book.[16] Found there is a statement that could not express the notion more clearly: "In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."[17] Or again: "Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. ... He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent."[18]
In book 2 is found the complete text of Ellen White's speech given at the close of the General Conference session in 1901, where she condemned the holy flesh movement,[19] whose theological position, according to Haskell, was that Christ "took Adam's nature before he fell."[20] Ellen White describes the noisy bedlam and sensuality associated with the movement and warns of "erroneous theories and methods," and "miserable inventions of men's theories, prepared by the father of lies."[21] The doctrine and practices of this movement were considered so dangerous for the future of the church that they were condemned by the delegates of the 1901 General Conference session, and its promoters were dismissed from the pastoral ministry.
M. L. Andreasen and His Letters to the Churches
The first and most vigorous reaction against the book Questions on Doctrine came from M. L. Andreasen. An eminent theologian and professor in various Adventist colleges in the United States, he ended his teaching career at the theological seminary at Washington, D.C., from 1938 to 1949. Author of numerous articles and several books, he enjoyed an undisputed authority.[22]
As early as 1948 Andreasen clearly affirmed his conviction on the subject of Christ's human nature in The Book of Hebrews.[23] The second chapter is entirely devoted to the humanity of Jesus.[24] His commentary on this same Epistle, in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary,[25] follows traditional Adventist Christology. His vigorous reaction can therefore be understood when Questions on Doctrine promoted an interpretation of Ellen White's Christology that differed radically from traditional church teaching.
Some claimed that Andreasen was offended for not having been invited to participate in the discussions that had taken place with Walter Martin and Donald G. Barnhouse. Andreasen was then in retirement. Perhaps this was one of the reasons he was not invited. But the primary reason was probably his well-known position with regard to the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Andreasen published his systematic and vigorous criticism in Letters to the Churches,[26] which was widely distributed among Adventists. A group of dissidents in France seized the opportunity to translate them and to accuse the church of apostasy in a way similar to that of the Brinsmead movement.[27]
Andreasen began by posing the fundamental question: Was Christ "exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam"?[28] He replied by quoting (Hebrews 2:10 and 2:17): "It is fit and right for God to make Christ 'perfect through suffering,'" and "for this reason it is necessary for Christ in all things to become like His brethren."[29] "It is Christ's partaking of men's afflictions and weaknesses which enables Him to be the sympathizing Saviour that He is."[30]
"If Christ was exempt from the passions of mankind, He was different from other men, none of whom is so exempt. Such teaching is tragic, and completely contrary to what Seventh-day Adventists have always taught and believed. Christ came as a man among men, asking no favors and receiving no special consideration. According to the terms of the covenant He was not to receive any help from God not available to any other man. This was a necessary condition if His demonstration was to be of any value and His work acceptable. The least deviation from this rule would invalidate the experiment, nullify the agreement, void the covenant, and effectively destroy all hope for man."[31]
Concerning (Romans 8:3) Andreasen stated that God did not send His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to condone sin in the flesh, but to condemn it.[32] In support for his statements he quoted several passages from Ellen White, affirming unequivocally that "the enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature," "relying upon God for power."[33] "If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptations, He could not be our helper."[34]
Sometimes Andreasen overstated his case. In reference to what he regarded as a dangerous heresy, he concluded: "A Saviour who has never been tempted, never has had to battle with passions, who has never 'offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him who was able to save him from death,' who 'though he were a son' never learned obedience by the things He suffered, but was 'exempt' from the very things that a true Saviour must experience: such a saviour is what this new theology offers us. It is not the kind of Saviour I need, nor the world. One who has never struggled with passions can have no understanding of their power, nor has he ever had the joy of overcoming them. If God extended special favors and exemptions to Christ, in that very act He disqualified Him for His work. There can be no heresy more harmful than that here discussed. It takes away the Saviour I have known and substitutes for Him a weak personality, not considered by God capable of resisting and conquering the passions which He asks men to overcome."[35]
It is, of course, patent to all that no one can claim to believe the Testimonies and also believe in the new theology that Christ was exempt from human passions. It is one thing or the other. The denomination is now called upon to decide. To accept the teaching of Questions on Doctrine necessitates giving up faith in the Gift God has given this people."[36]
Andreasen explained to his readers how this new doctrine had come into the church. He was astonished that 'it is certainly anomalous when a minister of another denomination has enough influence with our leaders to have them correct our theology, effect a change in the teaching of the denomination on a most vital doctrine of the church."[37]
Andreasen could not understand why a report was never published about the meetings. "We do not know, and are not supposed to know, just who wrote Questions on Doctrine. ... Even at the General Conference session last year (1958), the matter was not discussed."[38] Besides, he specifies: "It is a new doctrine that has never appeared in any Statement of Belief of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, and is in direct conflict with our former statements of doctrine. It has not been 'adopted by the General Conference in quadrennial session when accredited delegates from the whole field are present,' as Questions on Doctrine says it must be done if it is to become official. See page 9. It is therefore not approved or accepted doctrine."[39]
In one of his last letters, Andreasen returned to the problem of hereditary passions. He continued to refute the statement found on page 383 of Questions on Doctrine that Christ "was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam."[40] For one thing, he wrote, "this is not a quotation from the Spirit of Prophecy."[41] Also, passion and pollution "are two entirely different concepts," and should not be placed together as they are in Questions on Doctrine. "Passion can generally be equated with temptation, and as such is not sin. An impure thought may come unbidden even on a sacred occasion, but it will not defile; it is not sin unless it is dwelt upon and tolerated. An unholy desire may suddenly flash to mind at Satan's instigation; but it is not sin unless it is cherished. ... The law of heredity applies to passions and not to pollutions. If pollution is hereditary, then Christ would have been polluted when He came to this world and could not therefore be 'that holy thing.' (Luke 1:35). Even the children of an unbelieving husband are called holy, a statement that should be a comfort to the wives of such husbands. (1 Corinthians 7:14) As Adventists, however, we do not believe in original sin."[42]
Finally, in the two passages quoted in Testimonies,[43] "as proving that Christ was exempt from inherited passions," "both of ; these statements mention passions, neither mentions pollutions. The word exempt is not found."[44] Then Andreasen posed the question: "Does Sr. White's statement that Christ did not have or possess passions mean that He was exempt from them? No, for not to have passions is not equivalent to being exempt from them. They are two entirely different) concepts. ... Sr. White does not say that Christ was exempt from passions. She says He does not have passions, did not possess passions, not that He was immune from them. ... I am still puzzled how anyone can make Sr. White say that Christ was exempt, when she says just the opposite, and does not use the word exempt."[45]
After having copiously quoted Ellen White, Andreasen inquired: "In view of these and many other statements, how can any say that He was exempt? Far from being exempt or reluctantly submitting to these conditions, He accepted them. Twice this is stated in the quotations here made. He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity, and with 'such heredity He came to share our sorrows and temptations.'"[46]
"The choice of the devout Adventist is therefore between Questions on Doctrine and Desire of Ages, between falsehood and truth. ... The great law of heredity was decreed by God to make salvation possible, and is one of the elemental laws that has never been abrogated. Take that law away, and we have no Saviour that can be of help or example to us. Graciously Christ 'accepted' this law, and thus made salvation possible. To teach that Christ was exempt from this law negates Christianity and makes the Incarnation a pious hoax. May God deliver Seventh-day Adventists from such teaching and teachers!"[47]
Andreasen's protest was not without effect. A chorus of voices was raised almost everywhere against the book Questions on Doctrine. This was not only because of its teaching on Christ's human nature, but also out of concern over other points of doctrine. It should be noted that several proposals seeking a revision of this book were sent to the General Conference Committee.
Proposal for Revision to the Book Questions on Doctrine
In a letter addressed to the General Conference Committee intended to support Andreasen's reaction, A. L. Hudson accused the authors of Questions on Doctrine of lacking intellectual honesty, because of the way the editor of Ministry had presented Ellen White's quotations in the September 1956 issue, reproduced in the Appendix B of Questions on Doctrine.
On the one hand, observed Hudson, many important passages dealing with the fallen human nature assumed by Jesus had not been quoted;[48] on the other, many had not been quoted in their entirety. For example, he mentions one quotation from the Review and Herald of July 28, 1874, in which the essential part had been omitted, the portion specifying that "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. 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."[49]
Hudson therefore proposed that the delegates to the General Conference session of 1958 should authorize a revision of Questions on Doctrine.[50] However, as Andreasen observed, the subject was not even brought up.
At the same time, a group of church members in the Loma Linda, California, area formed a committee charged with revising the book Questions on Doctrine. Their report, presented to the General Conference Committee, claims that the book misrepresented "certain vital fundamentals and compromised other tenets of our faith.[51] "It is evident that certain statements and teachings of the book will never be accepted by a considerable number of our people. In fact, it is our conviction that not since the time of J. H. Kellogg's pantheistic controversy of more than half a century ago has anything arisen to cause such disquietude, dissension, and disunity among our people as the publication of this book."[52]
Despite the quotations from Ellen White published by the White Estate, and in spite of the numerous justified criticisms against the teaching contained in Ministry and Questions on Doctrine, the tenets of the new theology received an acceptance increasingly more favorable on the part of some theologians, professors, and church pastors.
A Revealing Opinion poll
In 1962 Robert Lee Hancock undertook a study of the teaching of the church concerning the human nature of Christ. In truth, the purpose of his study was intended to determine which position was most popular, "whether Christ took the nature of Adam as originally created perfect by God, or whether He had the 'sinful' flesh with its inherent weaknesses which every child normally inherits from his parents."[53]
Here are the conclusions reached by Hancock:
First, "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.
Second, "that during the 15-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.
Third, "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."[54]
The ultimate result of this study led Hancock to conclude: "The findings of this study warrant the conclusion that Seventh-day Adventists' teaching regarding the human nature of Christ have changed and that these changes involve concepts and not merely semantics."[55]
Indeed, throughout the year 1970 several publications served to popularize these new tenets. They were more readily accepted within the church because they were proclaimed as representing the official position of the General Conference.
Publication of Volume 7-A of The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
Volume 7-A of The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary [56] is a compilation of all the quotations from Ellen White previously published at the end of each of the seven main volumes of the set. As previously noted, these comments include some of her strongest statements in favor of the fallen human nature assumed by Christ.
The new theology was introduced into this volume in three appendices that were lifted from Questions on Doctrine. Appendix B in particular imparts a radically nontraditional view of Christ's human nature. The subtitles added by the editor tend to contradict some of the statements by Ellen White that appear elsewhere in the volume. On the one hand Ellen White is quoted as saying that "He [Christ] took upon Himself, fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin."[57] "the nature of Adam the transgressor","[58] that is to say, Adam's nature after the Fall. On the other hand, one subtitle indicates that Christ "took sinless human nature",[59] that is to say, Adam's nature before the Fall, which is something that Ellen White never wrote.
The problem did not escape the awareness of some members of the Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference, who reacted by recommending a serious revision of Appendix B.[60]
Roy Allan Anderson, The God-Man, His Nature and Work
In the same year, 1970, Roy Allan Anderson published The God-Man, His Nature and Work.[61] The title page called it "A Scriptural Presentation in the Area of Christology."[62] Anderson was at the time editor of Ministry, a journal for Adventist pastors. He had taken a very active part in the meetings with the evangelicals and was one of the authors of the book Questions on Doctrine.
In the prologue of his book, Anderson emphasized that it was necessary to build on "the unshakable Rock of the God-Man," on which "the Christian must ground his life in God."[63] "To better understand what Christ has done we need a clear definition of who Christ is."[64] The book explains the plan of salvation as a whole and shows with simplicity how it is realized in Jesus Christ.
As far as Christology is concerned, the book contains no controversial material in dealing with the delicate problem of Christ's human nature. In coming into the world, Anderson stated, "Christ became what we are, to make us what He is. Irenaeus expresses it beautifully as he says: 'He was made what we are that He might make us what He is Himself."[65]
In the chapter "The Incarnation--God's Supreme Revelation,"[66] Anderson states: "Christ's humanity and His deity are great twin truths. We must guard against making Jesus Christ merely a divine man, or thinking of Him as a human God. He is neither. He was, and is, the God-Man. In Jesus Christ is absolute humanity and absolute deity .[67] By His Incarnation "He did not cast off His divine nature, but He accepted human nature. ... He imposed on Himself the limitations and restrictions of our human nature. And nothing human remained alien to Him."[68]
Next Andersen explored the question of what distinguishes Christ's human nature from our human nature. "He 'emptied Himself' and 'took upon him the form of a servant.' He took it; it was not bequeathed to Him, as is our nature. When we were born, no one consulted us about our coming into the world. Moreover, our parents bequeathed to us the only nature they had, which was a fallen sinful nature. From all the generations of the past we inherited tendencies to sin. We were truly 'shapen in iniquity.' But from His first inbreathing our Lord was sinless. He was in the likeness of sinful flesh, but He was sinless in both His nature and His life."[69]
We find here the basic concept of the new Christology. On the one hand Anderson affirms "the absolute humanity" of Christ, while on the other he rejects the very essence of human nature in a fallen state, subservient to the power of sin. The fact that the Lord "was sinless ... in His life" no one disputes. But how does this harmonize with Paul's statement that it was "in the likeness of sinful flesh"?
Anderson was apparently reluctant to be overly polemical in a book intended for the general public,[70] Such is not the case of the monumental work by LeRoy E. Froom: Movement of Destiny. Published the same year as volume 7-A of The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and Anderson's book The God-Man, His Nature and Work, Froom's work was instrumental in fostering the tenets of the new theology, and deserves very special attention.
LeRoy Edwin Froom Confirms the New Christology
By the time LeRoy Edwin Froom published Movement of Destiny in 1970, he had secured undisputed recognition as a researcher, scholar, and historian. His four-volume Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers and two-volume Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers had contributed greatly to his reputation.[71] It is not surprising that his Movement of Destiny would receive official endorsement.
The project had approval from the highest levels of the church. Froom himself stated that "some sixty of the most competent denominational scholars, of a dozen specialties," had approved the contents.[72]
In Movement of Destiny Froom presented the principal Adventist doctrines in the setting of their historical development. It is evident that the topic of the person and work of Christ was very close to his heart. Above all, he wanted to reinstate the truth about Christ's human nature, which, according to him, a "minority" had falsely represented as the Adventist position. "As a result," Froom claimed, "Adventists had long been censured by theologians not of our faith for tolerating this erroneous minority position."[73]
Froom's main purpose was "changing the impaired image of Adventism."[74] First, by means of the discussions with evangelical representatives; then, through the publication of Questions on Doctrine."[75] Froom concluded that "above all, its clear declarations, in Questions on Doctrine, on the eternal pre-existence and complete deity of Christ, His sinless nature and life during the Incarnation, and the transcendent act of atonement consummated on the cross, are determining factors, many non-Adventist scholars frankly tell us, that have caused us to be recognized as truly Christian believers."
On the strength of typical expressions taken from statements by Ellen White, Froom considered that he was in a position to make an "amazing presentation of Christ's deity and humanity."[77] The demonstration was made in 10 points, including the following tendentious subtitles: Christ "took sinless nature of Adam before fall"; "assumed 'liabilities' of 'human nature"; "tempted in all points or principles"; "bore imputed sin and guilt of world"; "without 'passions' of fallen nature."[78]
As a matter of fact, Froom was only repeating the concepts contained in the Ministry of September 1956 and in the book Questions on Doctrine. But his aim consisted mainly in placing them in their historical setting,[79] by recalling the circumstances that allowed him to correct what he considered the "erroneous" image of Adventism.
The book was quite polemical. Upon the release of Movement of Destiny, one of Froom's critics wrote: "The reader must always be on the alert when studying Froom, asking himself whether he has been given a full account, or whether important aspects have been neglected or misrepresented."[80]
This is a harsh judgment, but the same is true in the way Froom dealt with the history of the doctrine of the Incarnation. To demonstrate that Jesus assumed a sinless nature similar to that of Adam before the Fall, he purposely omitted everything contrary to his thesis. References were sometimes presented out of context or under titles that distorted the meaning of the statements made by the author.
We do not have space to examine all the problems contained in Movement of Destiny. A few details must suffice. First, why did Froom systematically ignore the statements clearly in favor of Christ having assumed a sinful human nature? The historian's mission should be to report the facts as objectively as possible. Why then did he discard all of the unambiguous "sinful nature" statements by Ellen White?
Other omissions are just as inexplicable on the part of a historian who claims to retrace the development of a crucial doctrine such as justification by faith in the context of the pioneers who proclaimed it. Froom hardly mentioned A. T. Jones, who was the chief exponent of this doctrine, except to recall that he finally apostatized. The "holy flesh" movement was passed over in complete silence--with good reason, of course, for its supporters taught that Christ had holy flesh, and this led to antics which brought about their condemnation by Ellen White and the delegates of the 1901 session of the General Conference.
Out of all those who had written in the past on the person and work of Jesus, Prescott was the only one, according to Froom, who had made a noteworthy contribution.[81] His book The Doctrine of Christ, published in 1920, was, according to Froom, the first to place "the centrality of Christ in all His 'fullness' as the essence of the gospel, and righteousness by faith in Him as the sole hope of man."[82] Froom considered the book so important that he summarized the principal chapters.
Although Prescott devoted three lessons to the doctrine of the Incarnation, Froom mentioned not a word concerning his teaching on Christ's human nature, because it was in opposition to Froom's own teaching. Likewise, Froom passed over in silence Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh," given in Australia and widely published in official church periodicals,[83] even though Ellen White had enthusiastically approved Prescott's explanations.[84]
When at several points Froom could no longer ignore certain statements by Waggoner and Ellen White in opposition to his own thesis, he interpreted them "vicariously."[85] Froom introduced into the original the word "vicariously," as though it were from Waggoner's own pen. Having quoted the expression "he was made sin" from (2 Corinthians 5:21), Waggoner concluded: "Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature."[86] Froom repeated the statement by writing: "More than that, He was actually 'made'--vicariously--to 'be sin for us,' that we 'might be made the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Cor. 5:21)."[87]
In spite of its many faults, this book exerted considerable influence. Froom enjoyed a high level of authority among certain church leaders, many of whom did not understand the traditional teaching of the church.[88] At any rate, Movement of Destiny touched off an awakening and a new round of reactions on the part of several official organizations of the church, as well as on the part of individuals whose competence was unquestioned.
Notes: