In the April, 1957, issue of Ministry magazine the student will find an editorial announcing a "new milestone" in the history of our church. "Evangelical brethren in Christ" (read Calvinistic) had accepted our position regarding the human nature of Christ and had agreed to no longer classify us as a "cult."
In the same issue the student will find two articles on the nature of Christ. Both give great emphasis to the mysterious character of Christ's incarnation.[1] Both strongly affirm the divinity of Christ. Both strongly affirm the humanity of Christ. But the clear voice of Adventism in regard to Christ taking the fallen nature of man is no longer heard in either, and one firmly states that
When the incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race, it is our understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam was created in Eden.[2] (Emphasis mine.)
So the new milestone in the history of the Adventist Church turns out to be a direct repudiation of what had been the clear and consistent testimony of the church from 1852 until 1952, a full one hundred years, in regard to the humanity of Jesus.
One of the articles asks us to refer back to eight pages of Spirit of Prophecy statements about the nature of Christ to be found in the Ministry of September, 1956. Dutifully following this instruction, we turn to that issue, and find, to our astonishment, a paragraph heading which reads:
"III. Took sinless nature of Adam before fall"
The supporting statements will be analyzed in detail in the pages that follow. At this point we will observe the overall methodology used in these three presentations:
1. Quotations from her writings are carefully arranged, and emphasized, to make it appear that Ellen White believed that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam, although not one of them actually says that.
2. The statements from her writings that refer to "fallen nature" and "sinful nature" which are included are interpreted to mean only His physical nature, nothing else. The student who has read the material in Section Three is prepared to decide for himself whether this was the apparent purpose and intent of the writer. Compare: "He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh."[3]
3. Further explanation is made that Ellen White meant to say that Christ took our fallen nature vicariously, but not actually.
This proposal must be considered carefully. That which one does for another is done vicariously. The important points to remember are that when something has been done for you vicariously, that means you don't have to do it for yourself, provided it has been actually done, with no pretense.
If I pay a fine for you, vicariously, you do not have to pay it. If I meet an obligation of any kind for you, vicariously, you do not have to meet it. If Jesus pays the price for your sins, vicariously, you do not have to pay the price for your own sins. In all of these examples we see a proper use of the word vicarious. That which another does for you, vicariously, you do not have to do for yourself. This is the test of the right usage of the word. In no case may the word vicarious be properly used to describe a pretense of performance rather than a real performance.
Consider, then, the proposition that Jesus has taken your fallen nature, vicariously. Then, you should rejoice in your freedom from taking that fallen nature yourself. You should rejoice that it is your privilege to go through life with an unfallen nature, like that of Adam before his sin. But is this possible? Do you have an unfallen nature? Or do you find that your fallen nature is still with you, in spite of well-meaning assurances that Jesus has taken it for you, vicariously?
To ask the question is to answer it. What one of us can lay claim to an unfallen nature? How seriously, then, can we take this assurance that Christ has taken our fallen nature, not actually, but vicariously? And let us remember, too, that when it is properly stated that something has been done for us vicariously, the thing must be actually done, with no pretense. [4] And if Ellen White had meant that Christ took our fallen natures vicariously, why, in her many statements, did she never remember to say it?
In this same issue of Ministry (September, 1956) we find a lengthy editorial entitled, Human--Not Carnal. It is a strong supportive statement for the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall. The student should, if possible, study the entire article. We will have space here to comment on a few excerpts only. After emphasizing the mysterious character of the incarnation, the writer refers to the error, as he sees it, that a few of our brethren have fallen into regarding the nature of Christ. He proposes that they have mistakenly believed that Christ assumed the fallen nature of man because of a hasty reading of two or three statements by Ellen White: A hasty reading of the two or three statements from The Desire of Ages, without the repeated counterbalancing statements found in so many other places, has led some to conclude that Christ, during His incarnation, partook of our corrupt, carnal nature, and therefore was no different from any other human being. (Editorial)
We observe:
a. The student who examines the material in Section Three will find it to be much more extensive than is here implied. We have found no "counter-balancing" statements in all of our exhaustive examination of Ellen White's writings.
b. The student will observe that Ellen White and her companions used the words sinful, fallen nature rather than carnal, corrupt nature when speaking of the humanity of Christ.
c. The student will observe that Ellen White and her companions did believe that the humanity of Christ was like our own in all things except our sinning. The article continues:
In fact, a few have declared that such would have to be the case in order for Him to be "in all points tempted like as we are," that He would have to share our corrupt, sinful nature, in order to understand our needs and sympathize with lost mankind. On the surface such reasoning sounds somewhat plausible. (Editorial, emphasis mine.)
We observe:
a. The student will notice the continued use of the word corrupt in a way unlike Ellen White.
b. The student will find in Section Three abundant evidence that the "surface" reasoning referred to was strongly characteristic of Ellen White.
If He had been born with a carnal nature, with all its propensities to evil, as is the case with every natural son and daughter of Adam, then He Himself would have needed a Saviour, and under no circumstance could He have been our Redeemer ... in Him was no sin, either inherited or cultivated, as is common to all the natural descendants of Adam. (Editorial, emphasis his.)
We observe again that:
a. Adventist writers do not apply the word carnal to Jesus.
b. The crux of the writer's problem is now seen to be the doctrine of original sin defined as inherited guilt plus inherited weakness. Protestants have been divided on this point for centuries. Those of the Calvinistic persuasion insist that all humans inherit guilt from Adam, along with weakness. Those of the Armenian-Wesleyan persuasion reject the doctrine of inherited guilt and accept only the doctrine of inherited weakness. (For comments on the doctrine of original sin, see Appendix C at the back of this volume.) Seventh-day Adventists have never believed in the doctrine of inherited guilt. (See Ezekiel 18:20.)
Therefore, Seventh-day Adventists have never believed that Christ would have acquired guilt simply by being born into the human race, as Calvinists believe. And so Seventh-day Adventists have not been required, as were the Calvinists, to devise a doctrine whereby Christ could take the unfallen nature of Adam in order to escape that inherited guilt.
When He took upon Him sinless human nature. (Editorial, emphasis mine.)
We observe:
The firm, bold contradiction of the Ellen White statements that He took upon Him sinful nature is sobering.
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. (Editorial)
We observe:
a. It is far more than an expression; it is a lengthy, closely reasoned paragraph. (See page 154). It would indeed be difficult to imagine under what circumstances it could "slip into" a book.
b. The paragraph is in full harmony with the published statements of the church, as reported in Section Three.
But when the book was revised in 1946 this expression was eliminated, since it was recognized as being out of harmony with our true position.[5] (Editorial)
We observe:
It would be nice to know by whom our so-called "true position" was defined, and what evidence was used as the basis for that definition. Apparently Ellen White and her fellow writers had been out of harmony with our "true position" throughout the entire history of the church.
We dare not take an isolated expression and build a doctrine upon it. (Editorial)
We observe:
With this statement we may heartily agree. The student will wish to remember this statement as he observes the incessant use of interpretations of a few excerpts from a private letter to a Tasmanian pastor, the "Baker Letter," as the absolute authority to which any and all other statements of Ellen White are subordinated, both in the editorial before us, and in the other literature that promotes the view that Christ came to earth in the unfallen nature of Adam. (For a discussion of the Baker Letter, see Appendix B at the back of this volume.) We turn now to consider the material as presented in two books that were published in 1957.
Notes: