In the 1888 context, a correct understanding of the nature of Christ was basic to the contention that led up to the Minneapolis crisis. In 1886 the Review and Herald Publishing House produced Elder George I. Butler's book, The Law in the Book of Galatians, which had the avowed purpose to support "The Moral Law" in this epistle of Paul.
Elder Butler was sure that Christ was "exempt" from our true inheritance in His entry into this world. He proclaims:
"It is not true that our Saviour was born under the condemnation of the law of God. This would be manifestly absurd. That he did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon him in his great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but he was not born under its condemnation. Of him that was pure, and that had never committed a sin in his life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that he was born under the condemnation of God's law."[1]
Dr. E. J. Waggoner, on February 10, 1887, wrote a 71-page reply to Elder Butler's 85-page treatise. But he delayed for nearly two years from going public, waiting until the Minneapolis session to distribute his pamphlet into the hands of those who had received Elder Butler's work. His stated purpose was "to correct some erroneous views." His booklet in contrast to Butler's, was entitled, "The Gospel in the Book of Galatians." He protested against Butler's dependence upon the opinions of commentators to try and support his view of the law.
Dr. Waggoner forthrightly stated:
"If we are to quote the opinions of men as authority, on points of doctrine, we might as well turn Papists at once; for to pin one's faith on the opinions of man is the very essence of the Papacy. It matters not whether we adhere to the opinions of one man, or to the opinions of forty; whether we have one Pope or forty. ... Seventh-day Adventists, of all people in the world, ought to be free from dependence upon the mere opinion of men."[2]
This lay at the heart of the dialogue, rather confrontation, at Minneapolis. No amount of purported "advancing research" can change these facts. The human nature of Christ and the fruit of this true doctrine in perfecting the saints was crucial at that time, and remains so. After denying the authority of men in contrast to the validity of the Bible, Waggoner goes on and for four pages in his pamphlet quoting Scripture that shows the importance of the Word becoming flesh. It was not commentators he quoted, but the Bible was his foundation as he arrayed texts before the delegates: John 1:1, 14; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:5-7; Heb. 2:9; Rom. 1:3; Ps. 51:5; Heb. 2:16, 17.
His presentation leaves no doubt as he assures the church:
"One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on him the nature of man; to know that his ancestors according to the flesh were sinners. ... If Christ had not been made in all things like unto his brethren, then his sinless life would be no encouragement to us. ... You [Butler] are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because he never committed a sin in his life. But you admit that on the cross he was under the condemnation of the law. What! had he then committed sin? Not by any means. Well then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in his life, and be sinless, I see no reason why he could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. ... I simply accept the Scripture statement ... because ... he was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in him. ... He was made sin in order that we might be partakers of his righteousness."[3]
The prevailing current attempt to discount the importance of the teaching of the post-Fall human nature of Christ and the spiritual maturity of the remnant in the 1888 message is an attempt to re-write history. Those who claim there is "contrary evidence on Christ's nature from the writings of Ellen White" as well as the Bible are duty bound to tabulate such supposed evidence. To postulate there is "contrary evidence" and then try to build on this assumption is to ignore honest research.
The Adventist ministry of the world church is being immersed in the pre-Fall theory, and even more subtly is being asked to accept this view because the post-Fall teaching is not "absolutely essential orthodoxy." The theory urged upon the world field is explicit:
"In the light of contrary evidence, from the Bible and the writings of Ellen White, that appears problematic to the post-Fall position, would it be possible for one to hold a post-Fall view as a matter of processive opinion and not absolutely essential orthodoxy?"[4]
This artful insinuation that the Bible and Ellen White present "contrary evidence" is an affront to the Adventist conscience. It infers that perhaps such "contrary evidence" does not begin nor end with the human nature of Christ and perfection of the remnant people--maybe there are other teachings in this same limbo of uncertainty. What are we to believe constitutes "essential orthodoxy" in the end-time when the three angels are to give their final warning? If this theology is simply a matter of "opinion," "a cherished view"--what will enable the elect to distinguish between the true Christ and a false christ of which we have been warned by Jesus Himself? Mere opinion and assumptions will not suffice in the end-time.
Notes: