[Several months after the appearance of the three Martin articles in "Eternity" magazine, "Questions on Doctrine" was released.]

Its publication marked the termination of a lengthy spat of arguments among Seventh-day Adventist editors and a few leaders. (And it also marked the beginning of an even larger chorus of complaints that continues down to our own day.) Although many of the leading workers to whom the earlier copies of the manuscript were sent cared little for such things as checking out a new doctrinal book by Seventh-day Adventists, there were those who did care - cared enough to carefully read it and then write letters of protest to General Conference headquarters.

We have been told that perhaps the greatest amount of negative attention to the book came from editorial workers in our publishing houses. They were more accustomed to analyzing books before their publication. The worst furor over the pages of QD arose in the editorial offices of the Review and Herald Publishing Association in Washington D.C. Repeatedly the book was sent back across the alley-way to General Conference headquarters. And repeatedly, after touching it up a bit, they sent it back. The best emendations, however, came from the editorial staff at the Review. We were told recently by an individual, who wishes not to be named, that in every instance in which the book, "Questions on Doctrine," said something to the effect that the "atonement" was completed on the cross, the Review editorial office changed the noun to "atoning sacrifice," "sacrifice," or some such phrase.

This is somewhat similar to the changes made by the General Conference Sabbath School Department, in response to protests from the field, that were made on the First Quarter, 1983 Senior Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly (the notorious "Gulley Quarterly") prior to its release, in order to tone down its original statements- and the blatant Introduction that it contained.

But after going through the hassle of opposing this Quarterly, the present writer has come to the conclusion that watering down error just doesn't work. So many people are not sharp on the correct doctrinal positions of the Church, having studied so little in our historical positions and in the writings of Ellen G. White, that when error mingled with truth is then presented to them, they imagine that surely the error must be true for it lies alongside the truth!

Here is one example of the pre-publication changes: First, we shall quote a statement from the pre-release book, QD, as it was earlier banded to Martin and quoted by him in his November, 1956 article in "Eternity: "

"But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken by the great majority [of Adventists] on such doctrines as the Godhead, the deity and eternal preexistence of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear-cut views were established on righteousness by faith, the true relationship of law and grace, and on the death of Christ as the complete atonement for sin . .

"All of this has made it desirable and necessary for us to declare our position afresh upon the great fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second Person of the Godhead, was not One with the Father from all eternity, and that His sacrifice on the Cross was not a full and complete atonement. The present belief of Seventh-day Adventists on these great truths is clear and emphatic."-Walter Martin, in "Eternity" magazine, November, 1956, quoting a statement by our leaders.

Of course, all aside from theology, the above is untrue. Seventh-day Adventists did not at that time clearly and emphatically believe that the atonement was completed on the cross. In the above passage the italicized words were later changed in the final copy of the manuscript for QD when it was published. Here is the published form. Note the italicized changes:

"But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken by the great majority [of Adventists] on such doctrines as the Godhead, the deity and eternal preexistence of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear-cut views were established on righteousness by faith, the true relationship of law and grace, and on the death of Christ as the complete sacrificial atonement for sin . .

"All of this has made it desirable and necessary for us to declare our position anew upon the great fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second Person of the Godhead, was not One with the Father from all eternity, and that His sacrifice on the Cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement. The present belief of Seventh-day Adventists on these great truths is clear and emphatic."-"Questions on Doctrine," pages 30, 31.

One highly-placed individual told me that at the time that all this was taking place, the pressure upon Elder Arthur L. White, Secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate (and her grandson) was so great that he hardly knew what to do. Then the comment was made: "He told me that he feared for his life at that time." I assume that this is due to the emotional tension of seeing Spirit of Prophecy statements so terribly twisted by Froom and his associates in their zeal to bring us back to Babylon. Elder White probably was not threatened physically.

But the result of all this was a book that was a masterpiece of intermingled truth and error. The error by itself would have been more quickly rejected by our people. But the sincere, in their efforts to doctor it up so that there would be less error, only succeeded in making the book more plausible to many Adventists.

It was "Questions on Doctrine" on the theological level, and lowered standards on the everyday level, that laid the foundation for the "new theology" octopus that is now trying to enfold our Church in its tentacles.

Two years ago I spoke with one of the administrative leaders at Andrews University. He did not know that I was the editor of Pilgrims' Rest, but recognizing that I was an Adventist researcher of some kind, he took the time to try to win me over to the "new theology. " Some day I will print the conversation, for I took careful notes on it immediately afterward. I was told that there is no literal Sanctuary in heaven and that Ford was right after all. When I pressed him, be told me with an assured smile that be stood by "Questions on Doctrine" and "The Dallas Statement [of Beliefs]." With those two in his band, he well knew that be could quietly defy the most basic of our doctrinal beliefs: the Sanctuary Message and the necessity of obedience by faith to the Law of God.

"Questions on Doctrine" was finally published in 1957, on the Review and Herald presses. Copies were then mailed at General Conference expense, to the library of every Adventist secondary, college and graduate-level educational institution in the world. Here is the title page of this book:]

Seventh-day Adventists Answer
QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE

AN EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN MAJOR ASPECTS OF SEVENTH-DA Y ADVENTIST BELIEF
Prepared by a Representative Group of
Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers,
and Editors
REVIEW AND HERALD
PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.

[This 720-page book is arranged in three sections. The first is introductory, and is an attempt to explain to the Adventist and non-Adventist reader why the book was published.

The second section is the largest, and contains 607 pages of questions and answers (pp. 21-628). The questions were supplied by Walter R. Martin in collaboration with fellow evangelicals. Responses that attempt to satisfy these questions were prepared by certain of our leaders. The third section is composed of a bibliography (book listing) of "representative Adventist Doctrinal Literature," three appendixes, and a Scriptural and general index. In this third section of materials, the second and third appendix are the most significant.

The Introductory Section contains an "Introduction" from "The Editorial Committee. " You will note that nowhere in this book, or in any denominational advertisement or comment on it, is to be found the names of the individuals who authored it. At the heart of the whole problem is the fact that it is poor planning to write a major theological work for the specific purpose of deepening unity with non-Adventists. A theological work should seek to be an extremely clear and accurate statement of beliefs-written for the believers themselves. Such a major work, the first in Adventist history, should not be an effort to conciliate the questionings of non-Adventist theological positions-while at the same time trying through careful wording to keep our own people satisfied that nothing in our doctrines has been damaged in the process. It is simply not possible to pen an accurate statement of beliefs that will satisfy the minds of both believers and nonbelievers.

In this "Introduction," you will note several themes: (1) This new book is uniquely our first major theological production. (2) It is the result of two years of discussions in trying to meet the minds of the evangelicals. (3) It was not supposed to be a new statement of faith. (4) It represents the doctrinal position of our denomination. (We were repeatedly told in other denominational articles at the time that this book does not represent the official position of the church. But a ma' or doctrinal book released by the General Conference and published by the Review as "truly representative" and "the position" of Adventist doctrinal beliefs-IS equivalent to an official statement in the minds of all concerned. And Martin considered it an official doctrinal statement in his book, "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists. " That is the impression they had given him.). Continually we see in this book and in connection with this book-decided efforts to hedge on both issues and concepts.]

INTRODUCTION

This book came into being to meet a definite need. Interest concerning Seventh-day Adventist belief and work has increased as the movement has grown. But in recent years especially, there seems to be a desire on the part of many non-Adventists for a clearer understanding of our teachings and objectives. Uncertainty regarding our basic beliefs is abundantly evident in much of the literature published concerning us. There are already many books purporting to give the story of this people. [7:1]

Recently, however, one of the large Protestant publishing houses here in the United States planned the production of still another book. An author of several works dealing with the history and beliefs of certain religious groups was requested to produce this new book, the purpose of which was to present a general review of our history and belief. It was to be an objective analysis, with particular emphasis in those areas wherein Adventist teachings differ from some other Christian groups. [7:2]

In order to be factual in his treatment of the subject this author did what authors in general have failed to do: he visited our denominational headquarters in Washington, D.C., and obtained firsthand information. Moreover, he came not for just a single visit, but in company with other scholars made a number of trips to the General Conference covering a period of almost two years. Hundreds of hours went into this research, and hundreds of books and pamphlets, both Adventist and non-Adventist, were examined. In addition there were a large number of interviews. During these many months of study, the major aspects of Adventist teaching were carefully analyzed. The inquiries growing out of this investigation were ultimately couched in a series of searching questions to which comprehensive answers were requested. [7:38:0]

The replies were prepared by a group of recognized leaders, in close counsel with Bible teachers, editors, and administrators.

The goal was to set forth our basic beliefs in terminology currently used in theological circles. This was not to be a new statement of faith, but rather an answer to specific questions concerning our faith. It was natural that these answers would come within the framework of the official statement of Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists which appears in our "Church Manual" and is included in this volume, pages 11-18. In view of this fact, these answers represent the position of our denomination in the area of church doctrine and prophetic interpretation. [8:1]

As the work on the answers progressed, it was felt that our church members would be equally benefited by the material being prepared, and therefore it was decided to publish the completed work in book form. So this volume came into being. While the form of the work is rather unusual, it will, we trust, meet a definite need. [8:2]

The writers, counselors, and editors who produced the answers to these questions have labored conscientiously to state accurately the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. But because of the very nature of the Seventh-day Adventist Church organization no statement of Seventh-day Adventist belief can be considered official unless it is adopted by the General Conference in quadrennial session, when accredited delegates from the whole world field are present. The answers in this volume are an expansion of our doctrinal positions contained in the official statement of Fundamental Beliefs already referred to. Hence this volume can be viewed as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. [8:3-9:0]

The officers of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists felt that the material appearing in this volume would not only be helpful to the members of their own church but that it would also furnish reliable information on Adventist beliefs and teachings to the many inquiries that, in recent years, have arisen regarding Adventist doctrines. They have therefore requested that this book be published for general use with the fervent prayer and hope that it may be useful in making clearer the way of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. [10:2]

The Editorial Committee

[Then follows the 22 point Statement of "Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. " This was our official Statement for a number of decades and was replaced in 1980 by the Dallas Statement. In looking over the 22-point Statement we note that it, too, was something of an effort to please many minds. Perhaps that is the best that man can do in creedal statements- please as many theories as possible. For example.-, "He took upon Himself the nature of the human family. ' Everyone can be satisfied with such wording, for though it says that Christ took our nature, yet the sentence is generalized enough to satisfy both sides. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy do not do this. They were written to state truth clearly, not written to satisfy minds. The 1980 Dallas Statement carries this pattern (of careful wording that avoids our distinctive truths) even further. Fortunately, although this Statement omits several aspects of our historic beliefs (such as the existence of a two-apartment Sanctuary and ministry by Christ), yet it does show that the Investigative Judgment ministry of Christ in the Sanctuary in heaven is the antitypical "Day of Atonement," and that mankind must obey the Ten Commandments-both of which are weakened, if not denied, in some of the concepts given later in "Questions on Doctrine. " QD cannot be considered to be an "accurate" statement and "expansion " of the 22 point Statment (p. 8:3-9:0)].

FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS

Seventh-day Adventists hold certain fundamental beliefs, the principal features of which, together with a portion of the scriptural references upon which they are based, may be summarized as follows: [11:1]

3. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining His divine nature He took upon Himself the nature of the human family, lived on earth as a man, exemplified in His life as our example the principles of righteousness, attested His relationship to God .. [11:4]

6. That the will of God as it relates to moral conduct is comprehended in His law of ten commandments; that these are great moral, unchangeable precepts, binding upon all men, in every age (Ex. 20:1-17). [12:3]

7. That the fourth commandment of this unchangeable law requires the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. This holy institution is at the same time a memorial of creation and a sign of sanctification, a sign of the believer's rest from his own works of sin, and his entrance into the rest of soul which Jesus promises to those who come to Him. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; 31:12-17; Heb. 4:1-10.) [12:4]

Seventh-day Adventists believe that "all scripture," both Old and New Testament, from Genesis to Revelation, was "given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16), and constitutes the very word of God .. [26:11

Doctrines We Share With Other Christians
- QUESTION 1 -

What doctrines do Seventh-day Adventists hold in common with Christians in general, and in what aspects of Christian thought do they differ?

[This is the first of the 28 questions dealt with in this book. The reply is divided into three sections: (1) "In Common with Conservative Christians and the Historic Protestant Creeds, We believe-" Beneath this heading are listed 19 concepts that Adventists bold that other Christians believe. "The nature of Christ "doctrine is slipped in here, between phrases, in the sixth proposition. And the error of a finished atonement at the cross is carefully taken care of in the seventh. The heavenly ministry-without-atonement is touched on under the tenth (and the first proposition under the third category). (2) "On Certain Controverted Doctrines Among Conservative Christians, We Hold One of Two or More Alternate Views. We Believe-" Twelve concepts are listed here, such as free-choice, baptism by immersion, tithing, foot-washing, abstinence from tobacco and alcohol. Martin expressed his strong dislike for certain of our views under this beading (see TASDA)- such as obedience to the Ten Commandments, a brief hellfire, Sabbath-keeping, creation in six literal days, and the Adventist focus on the historist school of prophetic interpretation,-yet most of the doctrines in this second category did not constitute the battleground in the two-year conferences. You will note that we are not told that man must obey the Ten Commandments or keep the Sabbath. Required obedience to the Law of God-is not taught by QD, if you will read the sections carefully dealing with this topic. (3) The third category is entitled "In a Few Areas of Christian Thought, Our Doctrines Are Distinctive With Us. We Believe-" Five points are listed here, and we shall quote them all, below. Note the wording here: The heavenly ministration of the atonement is simply called "ministries in two phases. " The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast are merely "the symbols of the opposing forces of good and evil in the last great conflict. " Apostate Protestantism and Rome and all the other issues in Revelation 13 and 14 are omitted. Revelation 14 is the last message, but we are not told what it is. The Spirit of Prophecy is "one of the gifts. " Behind the scenes, this was a major area of challenge and compromise: The Spirit of Prophecy no longer has any doctrinal significance to Seventh-day Adventists.]

Seventh-day Adventist Relationship to Past Positions
- QUESTION 3 -

Have Seventh-day Adventists changed from some of the positions advocated by certain adherents of earlier years, from whom citations are still currently circulated? Do such citations misrepresent the present teachings of Adventist leadership?

[The point of this question and reply is to point out that Adventist leadership is right in repudiating some earlier positions found in the Church. Thus our minds are prepared to consider the fact that doctrinal revision in our day is a good thing.

As with various other religious groups, our early days were characterized by transition and adjustment. A church was being brought forth. As these men were already born-again believers the initial study and emphasis was placed upon the distinctive teachings of the movement. And they were similarly occupied it developing an effective organization. 129:3-30:0]

In those early years relatively little attention was paid to the respective merits of Arminianism in contrast with the Calvinist position. The historic differences of thought involved had reached back to Augustine and Chrysostom. They did not concern themselves with "absolute decrees," "divine sovereignty,' "particular election," or "limited atonement." Nor did they, at first, seek to define the nature of the Godhead, or the problem! of Christology, involving the deity of Christ and His nature during the incarnation; the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit; the nature, scope, and completeness of the atonement; the relationship of law to grace or the fullness of the doctrine of righteousness by faith; and the like. [30:1]

But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken by the great majority or such doctrines as the Godhead, the deity and eternal pre existence of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear cut views were established on righteousness by faith, the true relationship of law and grace, and on the death of Christ as the complete sacrificial atonement for sin. [30:3]

A few, however, held to some of their former views, and a - times these ideas got into print. However, for decades now the church has been practically at one on the basic truths of the Christian faith. [30:431:0]

The very fact that our positions were now clarified seemed to us to be sufficient. Our teachings, we felt, were clear. And no particular statement of change from those earlier ideas appeared necessary. Today the primary emphasis of all our leading denominational literature, as well as the continuous presentation over radio and television, emphasizes the historic fundamentals o the Christian faith. [31:1]

But the charges and attacks have persisted. Some continue to gather up quotations from some of our earlier literature ton since out of date, and print. [31:2]

Deity of Christ and Church Membership
- QUESTIONS -

Is it possible for an individual to remain in good and regular standing if he consistently refuses to submit to church authority regarding the historic doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ?

Seventh-day Adventist ministers are required thoroughly to instruct all candidates for membership preparatory to baptism. This period of instruction usually continues for some months If a candidate persists in holding erroneous views concerning our Lord and Saviour, who alone can save the sinner, then only one course could be followed: the applicant would have to be told frankly that he is totally unprepared for baptism, and could no, be received into our fellowship. He would be counseled to study further until he understood and had fully accepted the deity of Jesus Christ and His redemptive power. We could not permit one who denies what we believe, and believes what we deny, to become a member, for we could never dwell together in harmony Strife and disintegration would result. [42:2-43:0]

Ellen G. White's Writings and Their Relation to the Bible
- QUESTION 9 -

Do Seventh-day Adventists regard the writings of Ellen G. White as on an equal plane with the writings of the Bible? Do you place her in the prophetic class with such men as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel? Are her interpretations of Bible prophecy regarded as final authority, and is belief in these writings made a test of fellowship in the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

Whatever the intent of these questions may be, we would note, as is more fully developed later on in this chapter:

1. That we do not regard the writings of Ellen G. White a: an addition to the sacred canon of Scripture.

2. That we do not think of them as of universal application, as is the Bible, but particular!, for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (89:1-3]

The Relationship of Grace to Law and Works
- QUESTION 14 -

It is generally understood that Adventists teach that salvation is by the grace of God-but plus the works of the law. What is the actual Adventist concept of the relation of grace to law and to human works and obedience, rather than on the abounding saving grace of God?

There has been regrettable misunderstanding as to our teaching on grace, law and works, and their interrelationships. According to Seventh-day Adventist belief, there is, and can be, no salvation through the law, or by human works of the law, but only through the saving grace of God. [135:1]

And when Christ came, at His incarnation, He likewise observed the seventh day as the Sabbath (Mark 6:1, 2; Luke 4:16, 31), and was "Lord also of the sabbath" (Mark 2:28)-the Creator who had established the original seventh-day Sabbath of creation week. . He also fulfilled, in antitypical reality, the Old Testament types of redemption-dying as the "Lamb of God," a vicarious, completely efficacious, and atoning death for man, on the specified fourteenth (or Passover) day of the first month. [151:1-2]

Seventh-day Adventists do not rely upon their Sabbathkeeping as a means of salvation or of winning merit before God. We are saved by grace alone. Hence our Sabbath observance, as also our loyalty to every other command of God, is an expression of our love for our Creator and Redeemer. [153:3]

We believe that the moral law in its original form, though the wording has not been recorded, finds comprehensive expression in the principles set forth by Jesus-loving God supremely and loving our fellow men equally with ourselves. These primary principles are the foundation of God's throne, and the eternal law of His beneficent moral government. [155:1]

Who Constitute the "Remnant Church "?
- QUESTION 20 -

It is alleged that Seventh-day Adventists teach that they alone constitute the finally completed "remnant church" mentioned in the book of Revelation. Is this true, or do Seventh-day Adventists recognize by the "remnant" those in every denomination who remain faithful to the Scriptures and the faith once delivered unto the saints? Do Adventists maintain that they alone are the only true witnesses of the living God in our age and that their observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is one of the major marks that identify them as God's remnant church?

The answer to this threefold question will depend quite largely on the definition given to the word "remnant." If, as is implied in the second part, "remnant" is taken to mean the church invisible, our answer to the first part is an unqualified No. Seventh-day Adventists have never sought to equate their church with the church invisible-"those in every denomination who remain faithful to the Scriptures." [186:1]

We would re-emphasize what we have already stated on grace alone. Our Lord's sacrifice on Calvary is mankind's only hope. But having been saved, we rejoice that the righteous requirements of the law are fullfilled in the experience of the Christian "Who walks not after the flesh but after the spirit," and who by the grace of God lives in harmony with the revealed will of God. [189:2-190:0]

We believe that all who serve God in full sincerity, in terms of all the revealed will of God that they now understand, are presently potential members of that final "remnant" company as defined in Revelation 12:17. We believe it to be the solemn task and joyous privilege of the advent movement to make God's last testing truths so clear and so persuasive as to draw all of God's children into that prophetically foretold company making ready for the day of God. [196:1]

What Constitutes "Babylon "?

- QUESTION 21 -Do Seventh-day Adventists teach or believe, as a body, that the members of the various Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic, Greek, and Russian Orthodox churches, are to be identified with Babylon, the symbol of apostasy?

We fully recognize the heartening fact that a host of true followers of Christ are scattered all through the various churches of Christendom, including the Roman Catholic communion. These God clearly recognized as His own. Such do not form a part of the "Babylon" portrayed in the Apocalypse. The matter of loyalty or disloyalty to truth is, in the ultimate, a question of personal relationship to God and the fundamental principles of truth. What is denominated "Babylon," in Scripture, obviously embraces those who have broken with the spirit and essence of true Christianity, and have followed the way of apostasy. Such are under the censure of Heaven. [197:1]

Groups and organizations such as the Fundamentalists, the International Council of Christian Churches, and the National Association of Evangelicals have withdrawn from the older organizations because of what they believed to be modernist apostasty entrenched in the controlling leadership of various denominations. [201:2]

A Wider Concept of the Atonement
- QUESTION 29 -

Seventh-day Adventists have frequently been charged with teaching that the atonement was not completed on the cross. Is this charge true?

Quite generally those who teach that a completed atonement was made on the cross view the term in its popular theological sense, but really what is meant by them is that on Calvary, the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ was offered for our salvation. With this concept all true Christians readily and heartily agree. "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). Those who view this aspect of the work of Christ as a completed atonement, apply this term only to what Christ accomplished on the cross. They do not include in their definition the application of the benefits of the atonement made on the cross, to the individual sinner: [342:3]

There are those however, who believe the atonement has a much wider connotation. They fully agree with those who stress a completed atonement on the cross in the sense of an all-sufficient, once-for-all, atoning sacrifice for sin. They believe that nothing less than this took place on the cross of Calvary. [342:4343:0]

Some of our earlier Seventh-day Adventist writers, believing that the word "atonement" had a wider meaning than many of their fellow Christians attached to it, expressed themselves as indicating that the atonement was not made on the cross of Calvary, but was made rather by Christ after He entered upon His priestly ministry in heaven. They believed fully in the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ for the salvation of men, and they believed most assuredly that this sacrifice was made once for all and forever, but they preferred not to use the word "atonement" as relating only to the sacrificial work of Christ at Calvary. We repeat, they believed as fully as we do that the sacrificial work of our blessed Lord on Golgotha's hill was full and complete, never again to be offered, and that was done once and for all. Their concept was that the sacrifice of Jesus provided the means of the atonement, and that the atonement itself was made only when the priests ministered the sacrificial offering on behalf of the sinner. Viewed in this light, it will be seen that the question after all is a matter of definition of terms. Today, not meeting the same issues that our earlier writers had to meet, we believe that the sacrificial atonement was made on the cross and was provided for all men, but that in the heavenly priestly ministry of Christ our Lord, this sacrificial atonement is applied to the seeking soul. [347:5348:0]

Sacrificial Atonement Provided; Sacrificial Atonement Applied
- QUESTION 30 -

Seventh-day Adventists are frequently charged with minimizing the atoning sacrifice completed on the cross, reducing it to an incomplete or partial atonement that must be supplemented by Christ's priestly ministry; perhaps it might be called a dual atonement. Is this charge true? Does not Mrs. White state that Christ is now making atonement for us in the heavenly sanctuary? Please explain your position, and state wherein you differ from others on the atonement.

May we at the outset state most earnestly and explicitly that Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that Christ made but a partial or incomplete sacrificial atonement on the cross. The word "atonement," in the Scripture, has a wide connotation. While it involves basically the atoning sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, it also embraces other important aspects of the work of saving grace. [349:1]

Most decidedly the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Jesus our Lord was offered and completed on the cross of Calvary. This was done for all mankind, for "he is the propitiation .. for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). [350:2]

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. Our sins are forgiven and the peace of God dwells in our hearts. [350:3]

In the tabernacle days of old, when the mysteries of redemption were foreshadowed by many typical sacrifices and ordinances, the priest, after the death of the sacrificial victim, would place the blood on the horns of the altar. And the record states that in this act "the priest shall make an atonement for him [the sinner] as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him" (Lev. 4:26). Here the atoning sacrifice provided is followed by the benefits of the same atoning sacrifice applied. In Old Testament days both were recognized as aspects of the one great overall work of atonement. The one aspect provided the atoning sacrifice; the other, the application of its benefits. [350:4351:0]

Hence, the divine plan of redemption involves more than the vicarious atoning death of Christ though this is its very core; it also includes the ministry of our Lord as our heavenly High Priest. Having completed His sacrifice, He rose from the dead "for our justification" (Rom. 4:25) and then entered into the sanctuary above, there to perform His priestly service for needy man. "Having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12) on the cross, He now ministers the benefits of the atonement for those who accept of His mighty provision of grace. Thus the atoning sacrifice, having been completed on Calvary, must now be applied and appropriated to those who are heirs of salvation. Our Lord's ministry is thus involved in the great work of atonement. So as we think of the mighty sweep of the atonement, in its provisions and its efficacy, it is seen to be vastly more comprehensive than many have thought. [351:1]

In order to be saved, there must be individual repentance and turning to God. The sinner must lay hold of the provisions of the fully completed atoning sacrifice made by Christ on Calvary. And application of the atoning provision of the cross, to repentant sinners and supplicating saints, becomes effective only through Christ's priestly ministry-and this whether a man fully understands it theologically or not. [352:1]

The atonement therefore involves not only the transcendent act of the cross, but also the benefits of Christ's sacrifice which are continually being applied to needy man. And this will continue on to the close of human probation. [352:2]

In common with conservative Christians, Adventists teach an atonement that necessitated the incarnation of the eternal Word-the Son of God-in order that He might become the Son of man; and living His life among men as our kinsman in the flesh, might die in our stead to redeem us. We believe that the atonement provides an all-sufficient, perfect, substitutionary sacrifice for sin, which completely satisfies the justice of God and fulfills every requirement, so that mercy, grace, and forgiveness can be freely extended to the repentant sinner, without compromising the holiness of God or jeopardizing the equity of His rule." [352: 4-353:0]

We feel it to be most important that Christians sense the difference between the atoning act of Christ on the cross as a forever completed sacrifice, and His work in the sanctuary as officiating high priest, ministering the benefits of that sacrifice. (353:3]

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 in 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. [354:7-355:0]

Salvation Prefigured in the Sanctuary Service
- QUESTION 31 -

Does your teaching of the sanctuary service mean that the work of Christ on Calvary was not an all-sufficient, complete, once-for-all sacrifice-a sacrifice that obtained for us eternal redemption? OR WAS SOMETHING SUBSEQUENTLY NECESSARY TO MAKE THE SACRIFICIAL WORK OF CHRIST EFFECTIVE FOR THE SALVATION OF MAN?

To the first part of the question our answer is an unequivocal NO. The death of Christ on Calvary's cross provides the only sacrifice by which man can be saved. [356:1]

This sacrifice was completely efficacious. It provided complete atonement for all mankind, and will never be repeated, for it was all-sufficient and covered the needs of every soul. [357:0]

1. The Morning and Evening Sacrifices.-The morning and evening sacrifices were offered every morning and evening, every day of the year, irrespective of the day-even on the Feast of the Passover, Pentecost, the Day of Atonement, or any other special festival. These offerings were consequently called the "continual" sacrifices (Ex. 29:38, 42) and prefigured in a unique sense the sacrifice of Christ our Lord as always available and ever efficacious (Heb. 7:3, 24; 10:12). It is to be particularly observed that this offering was not provided by any individual. It was offered for the people as a whole. It was not the sinner's offering to God; it was, on the contrary, the Lord's offering for His people. It was offered irrespective of whether the individual Israelite took advantage of its provision or not. [358:0]

2. The Sinner's Daily Sacrifices.-There were certain offerings that the individual sinner and the congregation were instructed to bring-burnt offerings, peace offerings, meal offerings, sin offerings, and trespass offerings. These might be called the sinner's responsive offerings. [359:11

It is to be borne in mind that these individually and congregationally provided offerings differed markedly from the morning and evening sacrifices. With the provision of the morning and evening sacrifices the individual sinner had absolutely nothing to do. They were offered on his behalf, whether he sought their benefits or not. [360:2]

To us today, this procedure may have the appearance of human works, for every act thus far mentioned was performed by the person presenting the sacrifice. But this provision also was in the plan of God. These works on the part of the offerer were not as a means of salvation, but were an evidence of faith. These individual offerings, therefore, were not primary; they were secondary. In other words, the morning and evening sacrifice was fundamental; it was first and foremost. In a special sense this was the type of what was accomplished on Calvary's cross in antitype for all mankind. [360:3]

5. The Goat for the Sin Offering.-The goat for the sin offering on the Day of Atonement was a unique sacrificial offering. There was nothing like it in the whole round of sacrifices. It differed from all the other offerings in that it had a dual significance. In the first place, it provided atonement for the people "to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins" (Lev. 16:34). In the second place, it was used by the Lord in cleansing the very sanctuary that was the center of their worship throughout the year (verses 16, 20). [363:3]

Observe how complete the cleansing work of the atoning blood was represented to be. The precious blood provided cleansing-(a) for the high priest and his house; (b) for all the people; (c) for the sanctuary, its altar, et cetera. [363:41

6. The Grand Climax.-Now comes the climactic act of this great day. After full and complete atonement has been provided for the people, and they are safe and secure from the wiles of the great deceiver, God gives His people a preview of the way in which we is going to banish iniquity from His great universe. [363:5364:0]

The High-Priestly Ministry of Christ
- QUESTION 33 -

Since Adventists hold that complete sacrificial atonement was made on the cross, what do you teach concerning the ministry of our Lord as High Priest in Heaven? When did Christ assume His responsibilites as priest? What do you understand by the expression "he ever liveth to make intercession'"? How can Christ officiate as priest in a sanctuary, and at the same time occupy His Father's throne?

The priesthood of Christ is a cardinal doctrine in New Testament teaching. The atoning death of Christ, and His all-sufficient sacrifice for man's redemption, is for us, as for all evangelical Christians, the central truth of Christianity. Yet without our Lord's resurrection and ascension, the provisions of His atoning sacrifice would not be available to man (1 Cor. 15:17). [369:1f

Much study should be given to Christ's ministry in the sanctuary above, and especially to the concluding phase of that ministry, which we understand to be a work of judgment. And to understand the judgment, we must of necessity understand what is involved in His priestly ministry. [370:3]

As the perfect High Priest, who has made a perfect propitiation for the sins of His people, Christ is now at God's right hand, applying to our lives the benefits of His perfect atoning sacrifice. [375:1]

It is better to see and study the great realities of the sacrifice and priestly ministry of Christ than to dwell too much upon the details of the typical service, which gave but an inadequate portrayal of the sacrifice and ministry of Christ. Far better to interpret the earthly tabernacle in the light of the heavenly, rather than to circumscribe the antitypical realities by the limitations of too close an application of the type. (379:1]

While He is our High Priest ministering on our behalf, He is also co-executive with the Father in the government of the universe. How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus our surety entered the `holy places, "and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. (381:11

He could rightly be "chosen out of the people" because He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26). He came into humanity, not by natural generation, but by a miracle. His birth was supernatural; God was His Father. 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. He was "without sin," not only in His outward conduct, but in His very nature. He could truly say, "the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing (or "findeth no response") in me" (John 14:30). There was nothing in Him that responded to the evil one. And just such a priest we needed. Had He been defiled by even the taint of sin, He would have been disqualified from being either our sacrifice or our High Priest. But though sinless in His life and in His nature, He was nevertheless "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). And because of that, He is able to sympathize with us in every sorrow or trial. (383:1]

Adventists do not hold any theory of a dual atonement. "Christ hath redeemed us" (Gal. 3:13) "once for all" (Heb. 10). (390:1]

(You will note that part of the material under this section was typeset in the wrong line width. This is our error, for which we apologize. It seemed best not to take the time to retype those sections. Here are a few brief comments on Questions 5 and onward, which were quoted above (DH-108, page 2 over to DH-109, page 1):

Question 5: The implication here is that those not adhering to Adventist teachings, as given in "Questions on Doctrine" will be refused baptism and membership in the Adventist Church. This could later extend to disciplining and disfellowshippment.

Question 9: The teachings, doctrinal concepts and personal living standards given in the Spirit of Prophecy are only for Seventh-day Adventists. Others who may read those writings may disregard what they find, without sin. The Bible prophets wrote for all men, but Ellen White only wrote for a small number of earth's inhabitants before the final crisis.

Question 14: Obedience to the Law of God has nothing to do with salvation. Christ's death on Calvary was a complete atonement. Sabbath-keeping has nothing to do with the plan of redemption or man's salvation. "We are saved by grace alone." We cannot even know what the Ten Commandments are, in order to obey them, for we do not know what their original forth was.

-Note here that a key point of Anderson and Froom in "Questions on Doctrine" is that "grace" is "new theology" grace: Forgiving grace and not enabling grace. Ford and Froom say, We are saved by grace alone; therefore we do not need to keep the Law of God,-because they believe it to be only forgiving power. But historic Adventists can say, We are saved by grace alone, -because they believe "grace" empowers one to obey-fully-God's Law. And if anyone refuses to accept this aspect of grace into his life HE WILL BE LOST.

Question 20 and 21: It is no longer necessary to call men out of Babylon (via the Three Angel's Messages) for the other churches are not fallen; they are not the daughters of Babylon and partakers with her in her sins (of Sunday-keeping, rejection of full obedience to the Ten Commandments, etc.). AND the Adventist Church and its message is not the Church they must be brought to anyway for it is not the Remnant and has no more claim on the title than any other church in our world today!

Also note the point under Question 20: Obeying God's Law is a nice thing, but that all comes AFTER we have already been saved at initial conversion. (And therefore obedience is obviously not necessary.) This is clear-cut Fordism.

Questions 29, 30 and 31: The "questions" introducing each of these General Conference replies are "loaded." Each one assumes that Seventh-day Adventists accept the error of a finished atonement on the cross. It is obvious that Martin was pressing for denominational acceptance of this error, and, from the responses, it appears that Froom and Anderson were willing to accommodate him in this matter. And more-their replies are but a series of vigorous reassertions that the atonement WAS completed on the cross. (Recall the point we discovered earlier that in each instance in which "atoning sacrifice" is given as being concluded on the cross, it was supplied by the Review book editors; the original was "atonement." The above quotations from "Questions on Doctrines" clearly show that this was the intent of the General Conference authors of this volume.) The full caps in the question for number 31 are from QD.

[From nearly the very beginning of the Evangelical Conferences it was seen that both Martin and the Adventist Church should publish doctrinal books on Adventist beliefs. And the plan was that the two would be published simultaneously. This point was mentioned in print several times-even close to the publication date of QD ["Questions on Doctrine"]. But strangely enough, this it did not happen. Why, we do not know. QD made its appearance in 1957, but Walter Martin's book, "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism" [TA SDA] was not released until 1960. Why that three year delay? We are not told. It is very possible that so much commotion bad taken place in the Evangelical world about Barnhouse and Martin's apparent willingness to make peace with the Adventists, that they bad to retrench their positions and make the book even more thorough in its point-by-point doctrinal repudiation of Seventh-day Adventism than they had earlier planned on. And this possibility is even more likely when one considers the fact that most of Martin's books are in larger print and are more summary in their analysis. But TASDA went in deep. Small print, detailed comparisons and rebuttals mark it throughout.

Another fact, very closely related to the above, is the significant point that both sides had agreed not only to release the two books at the same time, but to sell both books in the book stores of both camps-Protestant book stores as well as Adventist book stores. But when TASDA was released in 1960, the Adventist Church refused to stock it in their bookstores. This also would indicate that Martin had done extensive reworking of TASDA in those three extra years. We were told at the Seminary that the manuscripts and galleys for both books were being examined and approved by both sides in preparation for publication.

(When was "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism" first published? We say it was first published in 1960. Froom says it was first published in 1957. Here is the evidence for a 1957 initial publication date for this book: "These interviews and discussions [in the Evangelical Conferences] eventuated [resulted] in our own volume "Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine" (1957), as well as Walter R. Martin's "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism" (1957, revised in 1960)."Froom, "Movement of Destiny," page 476: 1. Here is the evidence for a 1960 initial publication date: (1) My copy of the book, on the copyright page, says this: "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism - Copyright 1960 by - Walter R. Martin - Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 60-10154 - Printed in the United States of America." -If there was a 1957 edition of this book it would say so on the copyright page of the book that I have. (3) T.l: Unruh in his article "The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956" says this: "The Zondervan Publishing House had originally scheduled publication of Walter Martin': "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism" for January 1957, a, part of the series on cult apologetics. There were delays, . . As late as 1959, R.A. Anderson and W.E. Read, with H.W. Lowe, chairman of the Biblical Study and Research Group of the Gen era! Conference, were going over Martin's galleys [the pre-publication pages of his book], preparatory to writing a statement to be included in the book. "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism" was, and is, a notable book . . In retrospect, the publication of "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism". . improved relations between Evangelicals and Seventh-day Adventists. ""T.E. Unruh, "The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956," page 45. (3) The "Ministry" magazine first announced publication of TASDA in its April, 1960 issue. "Recently a book-'The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism,' by Walter Martin-has come out."- "President's Page" [article by R.R. Figuhr, General Conference President], "Ministry" magazine, April 7, 1960, page 3.

According to "Questions on Doctrines:" We Adventists have several ideas that are sort of nice, but not necessary. And some of them may not even be true:

1-The Law of God.

2-The Spirit of Prophecy.

3-Our Remnant Church concept.

4-The doctrinal apostasy of Rome and the Protestant Churches.

5-The call of the Second and Third Angel to come out of Babylon and its daughters.

6-The atoning work of Christ within the heavenly Sanctuary.

7-The Final Atonement during the Investigative Judgment in our time.

8-The Scapegoat Transaction as believed by Seventh-day Adventists.

Many fundamental Adventist doctrines have been carefully revamped to meet the critical eye of modern Protestant Evangelicals. One may say that many of our beliefs were not disturbed. But the significant fact is that those that were altered were the most basic of our doctrines.

For example: We were not asked to deny the Virgin Birth. Nearly all Protestants believe that. We were asked to accept the error that Jesus, though born of a virgin, really received His heredity direct from Adam rather than from Mary. We were not asked to deny the divine origin of the Spirit of Prophecy,- we were asked to espouse the new teaching that the Advent people received nothing new from it. It may bring comfort but no doctrinal concepts or standards that we need obey.

If "Questions on Doctrine" is correct, then there isn't much reason to join the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Even God doesn't consider Sabbath-keeping and obedience to the Ten Commandments as a necessary part of salvation. And you might as well give up trying to find the Remnant Church of Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 -for there isn't one!

The great objective of the innovators responsible for "Questions on Doctrine" was to bring us back to the daughters of Rome. Although it is true that they may not have realized the terrible implications of this objective, yet that was the purpose of the book A doctrinal togetherness with Protestants, to the degree that our people would be willing to go along with such togetherness,-this was the plan throughout the conferences, the framing of the questions and the replies written to them.

The following are points especially to be noted as one reads through TASDA: (1) That which Martin was told by our leaders (the majority of our people don't believe there is any atonement after the cross, etc.). (2) That which be urged upon them for over a year in those Conferences (either you come into line on the essential doctrinal points-or we Evangelicals will not have unity and fellowship with you, etc.). (3) The willingness of the Adventist Church to change its views in recent years (The current position should be considered, etc.). (4) The concern of responsible leadership within the Church to put the brakes on its erratic members who teach something different (taking steps to harmonize.. ).

Just prior to beginning the quotation excerpts from "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism" for this section, we shall here quote front a letter that we received last fall:

September 22, 1982

Dear Vance,

Just a short note about the reference in Walter Martin's book, "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism." The problem is on page 88, section 2, entitled "The Incomplete Atonement Concept." Here he writes:

"Current Adventist writings teach that the atonement was completed on the cross; and no less an Adventist than Ellen G. White, writing in the Review and Herald, September 21, 1901, stated: "Christ planted the cross between Heaven and earth and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of His perfection. `It is enough,' He said, 'The atonement is completed.' "

If you check this out in the big green books of the Review and Herald photocopies you will find that the last word is not completed' but complete' which is in harmony with historic Adventism. Notice how Martin makes a big issue out of this when he says, "no less an Adventist than Ellen G. White." Too bad he did not check this one out as this discredits the whole book. In the next sentence he says:

"In the same periodical, under the date of August 16, 1899. Mrs. White stated, "No language could convey the rejoicing of heaven or God's expression of satisfaction and delight in His only begotten Son that He saw the completion of the atonement.

There are, of course, still extant in certain Adventist publications not yet revised, unfortunate statements like those of Smith and Watson, but the Adventists are aware of this and are taking steps to harmonize all such writings with the true position of the denomination. Many more quotations could be cited, but critics usually overlook the greater number of statements relative to the completeness of the atonement which are readily available in past and present Seventh-day Adventist literature."

The above words, "In the same periodical" are not true as the quotation cited is taken from the Signs of the Times not the Review and Herald as Mr. Martin wrote. As to the difference between "complete" and "completed," Elder gave an excellent sermon on that at the Washington Conference Campmeeting two years ago. He said in effect that if the atonement were completed on the cross then probation would have closed then and there would be no hope for us who live after the cross.

Here now are some of the key points in the book, "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.'

The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism. Walter R. Martin contributing editor, Eternity Magazine

FORE WARD

As the result of our studies of Seventh-day Adventism, Walter Martin and I reached the conclusion that Seventh-day Adventists are a truly Christian group, rather than an antichristian cult. When we published our conclusion in "Eternity Magazine" (September 1956), we were greeted by a storm of protest from people who had not had our opportunity to consider the evidence. [7:1]

Let it be understood that we made only one claim; i.e., that those Seventh-day Adventists who follow the Lord in the same way as their leaders who have interpreted for us the doctrinal position of the church, are to be considered true members of the body of Christ. We did not, and do not, accept some of their theological positions which we consider to be extravagant, or others which we consider to be non-biblical. [7:2]

We celebrate the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and we keep no sabbath on any day of the week. We believe that every soul has eternal existence and that those who have been redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ also have eternal life. There is no suspension of consciousness after death . . I believe that the ideas of investigative judgment and a secondary sanctuary ministry have no basis in Scripture . . [7:3]

Although my knowledge of Seventh-day Adventism is not confined to the evidence presented in this study, I am indebted to Walter Martin for his thorough and painstaking research. We had the great joy and privilege of twice entertaining several representatives of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for two or three days of prayer and discussion. The Holy Spirit bore witness to our spirits that these men are godly, sincere, Christ centered, Bible-loving Christians. [7:5-8:0]

Out of these days of meditation, communion and discussion came their own volume, "Seventh-day Adventist Answer Questions On Doctrine" described by Mr. Martin in his introduction to this book .. [8:11

Since leaders of Adventism agree that this book fairly presents their theological position, this book is a milestone in Christian apologetics; for, during this study, brethren talked and prayed together, assessed each other's position and agreed to disagree while still obeying the Lord's command to love one another. [8:2]

In the present context, I am sure that Adventist leaders will not take it amiss if I express the hope that Mr. Martin's incisive refutation of Adventist doctrinal differences will keep wavering souls from embracing those errors! And they probably hope that their volume will have a corresponding effect! [8:3]

May the Lord draw all members of His body to each other in mutual respect and love, knowing that each of us is answerable to Him alone. [8:4]

Donald Grey Barnhouse

PREFACE

While an undergraduate student in New York City in 1949, the writer extensively studied Seventh-day Adventist history and theology, and concluded that "Adventists" were a cult of Christian extraction but with enough heretical error in their doctrine to exclude them from the Body of Christ. In the summer of 1955, however, the writer began a serious research project to discover just what comprises Seventh-day Adventist theology. As he burrowed under the surface of Adventist semantics and teaching, the number of doctrinal "heresies" markedly diminished. He read every major anti-Adventist publication, and was considerably disturbed because quotations from some Adventist books were at variance with statements made by the great majority of Adventist writers. This condition, however, is now being remedied by the Adventist church with a renewed effort toward consistency. [9:1]

"The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism", then, is based upon seven years of intensive reading of primary sources, and of every available anti- and pro-Adventist book and pamphlet. The writer has also had personal interviews with hundreds of Adventist leaders* and laymen, and has enjoyed the full cooperation of the General Conference (the central governing body) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The officials graciously gave whatever information was requested, even when findings did not favor their cause. The information in this book has also been checked and cross-checked with authoritative Adventist and non-Adventist sources, so that there can be little doubt of its validity. To eliminate misunderstanding of the true position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with regard to theology, history, and prophetic interpretation, the writer has drawn heavily from recognized Adventist writers and the latest and most authoritative volume on

Adventist theology entitled, "Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine". This definitive work, which presents the true position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was written to answer questions about their theology and doctrine. Its very title indicates willingness to meet evangelicals halfway, and nowhere is this better illustrated than in the following quotation from the Introduction where, speaking of this writer's questions and their answers, they state:

"The replies were prepared by a group of recognized leaders in close counsel with Bible teachers, editors and administrators. . This was not to be a new statement of faith, but rather an answer to specific questions concerning our faith. It was natural that these answers would come within the framework of the official statement of Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists which appears in the "Church Manual". In view of this fact, these answers represent the position of our denomination in the area of church doctrine and prophetic interpretation. .

"The writers, counselors and editors who produced the answers to these questions have labored conscientiously to state accurately the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. . The statement of Fundamental Beliefs as mentioned above is our only official statement. The answers in this volume are an expansion of doctrinal positions contained in that official statement of Fundamental Beliefs. Hence this volume can be viewed as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" ("Questions on Doctrine,", pp. 8, 9). [9:2-10:3]

The author has labored conscientiously to present accurately the history and theology of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. He has based his findings squarely upon what the leaders of Adventism have stated to be the true position of their church today. He has also assumed the basic honesty of the leaders whose Christian co-operation and fellowship he has enjoyed. Since the General Conference issued "Questions on Doctrine", and it is fully empowered to represent Adventist thought, this volume certainly is the primary source upon which to ground an evaluation of Adventist theology. [10:3]

Walter R. Martin

Philadelphia, Pa. March, 1959

(Footnote: *Including a mission field survey of some 2 months in Europe and Asia.]

A STATEMENT

For more than a century, Seventh-day Adventists have been proclaiming their beliefs to the world. During the years their motives and teachings have all too often been misunderstood and at times misrepresented. A number of books have been written in criticism of their doctrines, many of which books have been filled with inaccuracies, both historic and doctrinal.

The author of this present volume came directly to Seventh-day Adventists in a sincere desire to study fully at firsthand what they really do believe. This we wholeheartedly welcomed. We appreciate deeply the kindly Christian attitude displayed throughout this book, even in those areas where he is in marked disagreement with us. His presentation of our doctrines and prophetic interpretations as found on pages 47-86 is accurate and comprehensive.

There are places, however, in this book where we believe the author has erroneously criticized some features of our early history and our contemporary theological teaching. His interpretation and criticism of Ellen G. White in quite a few instances are we believe unfounded. We are naturally in disagreement with his critical arguments in certain areas of our theology and it is also incorrect when he says that Adventists equate eternal life with immortality, pages 118-122, 130. We emphatically teach that a true believer in Christ has eternal life abiding in him now, "and this life is in his Son," 1 John 5:11. We believe that immortality, or that quality of being that makes death impossible, is something bestowed on the believer at the resurrection when our Lord returns.

We trust that in studying the latter chapters of this volume, with which we naturally do not agree, where the author expresses his own beliefs and registers certain definite disagreements with Adventism, the reader will not overlook the fair and accurate statement of Adventist teachings so clearly set forth on pages mentioned above, 47-86 of The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism by W. R. Martin.

For one to be completely objective when stating the beliefs of another is perhaps impossible, especially in those areas where there is definite divergence of interpretation. But this author has earned our gratitude and respect by his earnest endeavor to set forth correctly our doctrinal positions and by his attitude of Christian brotherhood. [15:1-5] November 4, 1959

H. W. Lowe, Chairman

Biblical Study and Research Group

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Takoma Park, Washington 12, D.C.

CHAPTER ONE

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM

Footnote: 10" The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. IV, p. 881. An extremely literalistic concept, which is refuted by Hebrews 9:12, 24 and Acts 1, which show that at His ascension Christ entered into the "holy places" not the "second apartment" of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844. Seventh-day Adventists have re-defined their teaching in terms of "phases." See "Questions on Doctrine, p. 381.1 [footnote:32]

The three distinctive doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism -the Sabbath, the Sanctuary and the "Spirit of Prophecy"-will be discussed in later chapters. The Adventists had a definite theological platform, which for many years remained almost constant. In recent years, however, there has been a definite movement toward a more explicit declaration of belief in the principles of the Christian faith and the tenets of Christian theology. In short, "clarification" and "redefinition" have characterized recent Seventh-day Adventist theological activities. [35:31

Succeeding chapters will tell more of Seventh-day Adventist history as it is related to their theology. Although this chapter is but a background sketch, the reader can readily see that in Seventh-day Adventism, religious historians have an interesting subject for study, a subject from which many unusual theological speculations have emerged and continue to emerge. [37:11

CHAPTER THREE
THE HEART OF ADVENTIST THEOLOGY

Author's Note
1. The Concept of Christ's Sinful Human Nature

Since almost all critics of Seventh-day Adventism contend that Seventh-day Adventists believe Christ possessed a sinful human nature during the incarnation, a word should be said to clarify this point. These charges are often based on an article in "Signs of the Times," March 1927, and a statement in "Bible Readings for the Home Circle," edition of 1944. Regarding the first reference, a critical article states:

"My . . . quotation is from L. A. Wilcox, for many years an editor of 'The Signs of the Times, which according to the latest figures given by the Adventists has been published by them for 82 years. Certainly a statement by an editor of that publication may be considered official. I'm sure that anything that Mr. Wilcox wrote did not just happen to get in. In March 1927 he wrote, 'In His (Christ's) veins was the incubus of a tainted heredity like a caged lion ever seeking to break forth and destroy. Temptation attacked Him where by heredity He was weakest, attacked Him in unexpected times and ways. In spite of bad blood and an inherited meanness, He conquered.'

"And again in the December 1928 issue of 'Signs of the Times' this editor Mr. Wilcox stated: 'Jesus took humanity with all its liabilities, with all its dreadful risks of yielding to temptation.' "[86:1-3]

First, L. A. Wilcox was never on the editorial staff of "Signs of the Times." Moreover, Mr. L. A. Wilcox, who wrote the article, in the letter dated April 26, 1957 states:

"The writer of the 'Signs' article was a very young man in 1927 and not by any means always felicitous in his phraseology. I know, for I was the writer. The first sentence quoted is crude and shocking and theologically inaccurate, and I was properly spanked for it by Adventist officials, which proves that this article cannot be truly represented as 'official' or 'authoritative.' [86:4-5]

Virtually every critic of Seventh-day Adventism, including the authors quoted above, also uses a statement quoted from "Bible Readings for the Home Circle" (1944 edition, p. 174)even though in 1945 the statement was expunged by Adventists because it was not in line with official Adventist theology. 187:1]

We have already quoted at length from current official Seventh-day Adventist sources which deny the sinful-nature theory with which critics have relentlessly charged them. Would it not be fairer to consider their publication, "Questions on Doctrine," released in 1957 and endorsed by the denominational leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, than to cite statements from much older publications that have since been outdated or revised in these respects? [87:1-88:0]

2. The Incomplete Atonement Concept

It is also charged that inherent in SDA theology is the unbiblical teaching that "the atonement was not finished on the cross of Calvary." Certain Seventh-day Adventist sources are cited to bolster these charges. For instance, Uriah Smith, a prominent Adventist of the past, stated in his book "Looking Unto Jesus," 'Christ did not make the atonement when He shed His blood upon the cross.' Other earlier writers such as J. H. Waggoner have expressed the same thought. He said, 'There is a clear distinction between the death of Christ and the atonement" (f.n. "The Atonement in the Light of Nature and Revelation," p. 181). Even some later writers like C. H. Watson have been influenced by these early exponents of Adventism.

However, a little investigation of these writings would show that Smith and Waggoner wrote eighty years ago. As demonstrated elsewhere in this book this concept has been repudiated by the SDA denomination. The current position of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination-not the opinions of a few scattered writers over a hundred year period-should be considered in judging this charge of "incomplete atonement. " Current Adventist writings teach that the atonement was competed on the cross.

There are, of course, still extant in certain Adventist publications not yet revised, unfortunate statements like those of Smith and Watson, but the Adventists are aware of this and are taking steps to harmonize all such writings with the true position of the denomination. Many more quotations could be cited, but critics usually overlook the greater number of statements relative to the completeness of the atonement which are readily available in past and present Seventh-day Adventist literature. [88:4-89:0]

Nothing could be clearer than the Adventist declaration that "when one hears an Adventist say or reads in Adventist literature 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 is, He is making it efficacious for us individually according to our needs and request." [89: 1]

It may be seen from these quotations [from "Questions on Doctrine] that Seventh-day Adventists hold to the restoration of the "gift of prophecy" in the last days of the Christian Church, and that they believe this restoration occurred in the life and ministry of Ellen G. White. The Adventists differ from other churches, then, in that while they hold the Bible to be the unique, complete, infallible, inerrant Word of God, they maintain that in specific contexts Ellen White's writings are to be accepted by Adventists as "testimonies" from the Spirit of God to guide their denomination activities. [95:4]

This writer rejects this concept of inspiration but one should carefully note that, for Adventists, "inspiration" in connection with Mrs. White's writings has a rather different meaning from the inspiration of the Bible. Adventists freely admit that the Bible is objectively the Word of God, the final authority in all matters of faith and morals. But the writings of Mrs. White cannot be so regarded, and they are the first to say so. Apparently, they have adopted a qualified view of inspiration as related to her writings-"a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light"-which emphasizes subjective interpretation as the criterion for determining specifically where in Mrs. White's writings the "spirit of prophecy" has decisively spoken. There is no doubt in my mind that the Adventists are defending a situation which is at best paradoxical and at times contradictory. . They do not consider Mrs. White's teachings the source of their expositions of faith. [96:3-97:0, 97:1]

The Church Fathers provide a mass of evidence that the first day of the week, not the seventh, is the Lord's Day. Some of this evidence is here submitted for the reader's consideration. In company with the overwhelming majority of historians and scholars, we believe that not only the New Testament but the following citations refute Sabbatarianism.[152:1]

"The question is, what do the Scriptures teach in regard to the length of the creative days described in Genesis 1:1-2:4? This is primarily a question of hermeneutics and exegesis. . We hold that the word day is used here as elsewhere figuratively and represents a period of time of undesignated length." [159:3-4]

The founders of Seventh-day Adventism, and the one in whom Adventists believe the "spirit of prophecy" was manifested, Ellen G. White, all held this concept of creation. Thus their case rests very heavily upon a literal 24-hour-day creation theory which is contradicted by the findings of the majority of responsible scientists. (160:1-161:0]

Much; much more could be written concerning the Seventh-day Adventist concepts of the sanctuary, investigative judgment and the scapegoat since they are inseparably linked together. The saving grace of the entire situation is that the Adventists fortunately deny the logical conclusions to which their doctrines must lead them; i.e., a negation of the full validity of the atonement of Christ which validity they absolutely affirm, and embrace with considerable fervor-a paradoxical situation at best! [187:1]

By believing they are God's commandment-keeping church, Adventists have exposed themselves to the charge of Pharisaism. . (3) "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city" (Rev. 12:17, 14:12, 22:14). We admire the desire of our Adventist brethren to obey the commandments of God; but, we ask, what commandments? If they answer, "The Decalogue," we reject their effort to bring us under bondage, for we "are not under the law, but under grace". . Such people speak like "a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal," because they do not give supremacy to the "new" and "great commandment." 201:1-2]

As we saw in Chapter Three, Seventh-day Adventists believe in salvation by grace alone, and vehemently deny that "law" plays any part as a basis for redemption. In their own words, "Salvation is not now, and never has been, by law or by works; salvation is only by the grace of Christ. Moreover, there never was a time in the plan of God when salvation was by human works or effort. Nothing men can do or have done, can in anyway merit salvation. 1204:1 ]

One of the teachings of Seventh-day Adventist theology which has hindered fellowship with other denominations is that of the "Remnant Church." A survey of their literature from the early days of the movement indicates that Adventists consider themselves a "special people" called by God to perform a special mission which will culminate in the second coming of Christ. [212:11

Although it is possible to have fellowship with Seventh-day Adventists, we cannot accept the "remnant church" concept which is exclusivism, in the light of the Biblical teaching concerning the unity of the Body of Christ. The Adventists officially state: "We do not believe that we alone constitute the true children of God-that we are the only true Christians-on earth today." ["Questions on Doctrine," p. 187.] [212:2]

The "remnant church" concept is also linked inseparably to Adventists' belief that they alone constitute "God's commandment-keeping church." This expression occurs frequently in the writings of Ellen White and other Adventist authors. It has resulted in a spirit of pharisaism of which not a few Adventists appear to be guilty. This legalistic attitude says in effect, "We are keeping all the commandments of God because we keep the Fourth Commandment, the Seventh-day Sabbath, while Sunday keepers do not." As the result of interviews with a large number of Adventists, it is my conclusion that they firmly maintain this position. They hasten to add, however, that although Sundaykeepers are definitely transgressing the laws of God, He does not impute their sin to them because "they have not received light on the subject." In all kindness, I must say that such an attitude of condescension often discourages fellowship between -Adventists and non-Adventists. [214:2-215:10

In connection with this doctrine of the "remnant church," it is apparent that many present-day Adventists have somewhat mellowed in attitude. . In its current literature, however, the Adventist Church is attempting to harmonize all writing with the official position on this subject. [217:1]

We do not wish to belittle the accomplishments of the Adventists, for God has blessed and increased them in their comparatively short history. They have established many hospitals and publishing houses and have pioneered mission projects throughout the world. Nevertheless, it is obvious to the student of the Word of God that their success has resulted from their faithful preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, since God has promised to bless His Word despite whatever human interpretations and doctrines may be appended. It has not been due to the proclamation of their "special truths." [218:2]

The many inflammatory assertions which they have published about Sunday as the "mark of the Beast," the "remnant church," "144,000," and their unfortunately divisive presentation of "special truths," have caused Seventh-day Adventists not only to alienate their fellow Christians but to create hostility and prejudice against Adventism in general. [223:3]

The writer has assembled scores of volumes and hundreds of pamphlets, tracts and articles by Seventh-day Adventist writers which bear out these contentions, and many Adventists who have had wide association with other groups admit this. In a word, Seventh-day Adventists have discouraged fellowship with Christians of other communions because they have overemphasized their so-called "special truths." Also, they have assumed that their fellow Christians know what Seventh-day Adventists believe relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. Sad to say, this is not the case. Many Christians still are under the impression that the "special truths" of the Advent message are the principal doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism, and what they have seen they have disliked, because of the Adventists' lack of love and tolerance in the presentation of their beliefs. [223:4224:01

The principal problem facing us is how to achieve fellowship between Adventists and non-Adventists who recognize their common Christian faith but apparently cannot attain spiritual communion interdenominationally. They are separated by the wall of prejudice erected by the Orthodoxy vs. Adventism conflict of the last hundred years. We need only turn to the new Seventh-day Adventist volume, "Questions on Doctrine," which presents the current position of the denomination, to see that Seventh-day Adventists today eagerly desire and encourage fellowship with Christians of other communions who love the Lord Jesus Christ and are seeking a common basis of fellowship. [224:1]

Seventh-day Adventists have repudiated the concept that all who disagree with them are a part of apostate "Babylon" and that they are the only ones who "have a corner on Heaven." They have also stated in numerous places their desire for fellowship with Christians of other denominations. Leading Adventist periodicals ("The Ministry," "Signs of the Times," et al.) have devoted much space to this subject, over the last few years particularly. Seventh-day Adventists, far from opposing Christian fellowship, are apparently in favor of it and are willing to cooperate. [225:11

We conclude this section by quoting from Arthur E. Lickey's book, "God Speaks to Modern Man." The author therein doubtless gives the conclusion of many Seventh-day Adventists about the Sabbath:

"Not only is the Sabbath the memorial of the original creation but it is God's own appointed sign of redemption and sanctification. It is the symbol of the new birth, the spiritual creation. We read his words, `Verily my sabbath ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you. . that you may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you'(Exodus 31:12). . The cross of Jesus Christ cast a glorious rainbow of heaven's redeeming love around the Sabbath of God on that holy day of rest nearly 2,000 years ago. . The Sabbath emblem of creative power and the creator's gift of peace, unfurls its folds of sacred time over a rugged cross and a rock-bound tomb where-in lay the world's redeemer who died that men might live. The Lord of creation who made the Sabbath a memorial of his creative power says to us, 'My day, the Lord's Day, the Seventh Day, the Sabbath Day is the sign of my creative, redeeming, sanctifying power. It is at Calvary that you will find that saving power. The Sabbath and Calvary stand together for my creative reddening power. What I have joined together, let no man put asunder." [ 149:2-150:1 ]

Mr. Lickey's statement embodies what appears to be a mixture of law and grace. He goes beyond Ellen G. White and most other Adventists in making the Sabbath not only a memorial of creation but a "sign of redemption and sanctification.. the symbol of the new birth, the spiritual creation. ". . Then, in effect, he makes the Sabbath envelop the cross and the open tomb as the "emblem of creative power." This is peculiar language from the pen of one who claims to be "not under the law but under grace." . Mr. Lickey s position contradicts "Questions on Doctrine" and numerous other Adventist writings; his casual treatment of Scriptural context at this point is, we think, hazardous to the cause of Christian fellowship. It also provides fodder for certain critics of Adventism who, ignoring the majority position,

In many of their publications, Adventists reiterate their belief that 4004 B.C. is the date of the creation of the world. This is commonly known as Ussherism, after Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) who thought that by tracing the genealogy of individuals mentioned in Scripture, one arrives at 4004 B.C. as the date of creation. [157:2

The Adventists tenaciously hold the six-day creation concept; that is, six 24-hour days during which God created the earth. No doubt, one of the basic reasons for their tenacity is that their Sabbath theory would suffer a real setback if it could be shown Biblically and scientifically that the days of creation were actually eras or long periods of time during which the earth's great geological structures were formed. Of course we know that God could have created the earth in six literal days, but without contradicting Genesis, scientific evidence indicates that this was not the case. [157:31

In this connection, Ferguson and Bruun make the following statement: "Throughout the past century, each decade has seen fresh evidence uncovered by the geologists to substantiate their estimates of the all but incredible antiquity of this planet that we inhabit. It is not possible to enumerate here the eras, periods and epochs into which the scientists have divided the eons of geologic time, but only to analyze the methods by which they have calculated the ages required for the sedimentary deposits to form and harden into the rocks they study. Their reckonings have recently been checked by delicate measurements based upon the rate at which radioactive elements like uranium disintegrate to form lead, and the figures thus obtained indicate that the earth has been circling in its particular orbit for a period in excess of four thousand million years." [157:4-158:01

THE FOLLOWING LETTER
WAS SENT TO US RECENTLY

"I asked a worker what was the decision doctrinally and he said Elder Andreasen yielded his former doctrinal position [before his death]. Your statement does not seem to cover this and I would like to know if he [the worker] was right or wrong and what was the final view of Elder Andreasen. (The truth is that Andreasen stood solidly for historic Adventism and never retracted or soft-pedaled any part of it in order to make peace with leadership.]

"The tract by Elder Larson on Documentary Fraud [FF-26] was very interesting to me as we were involved in the cleaning up of the five heretical teachers of Walla Walla College some 47 years ago. We knew at that time that Elder Froom and a group of leaders in high office favored the same heretical doctrines as the five Walla Walla teachers. So / was not surprised at his (Elder Froom's) mishandling of evidence [as shown in FF261. My husband's notes reveal that the same points of doctrine that were fostered by those five teachers are now the very ones the Ford group are fostering, and the same threats are being used as the Australian group have had to contend with [as shown in FF-5-7], that were used then.

"At that time the evidence of false teaching was gathered from reliable students, workers and teachers, then presented, to the Board under the General Conference presidential assistant, and the five men were faced with the evidence and were then discharged. They were not allowed to continue their heretical program to spread it. "-Washington State.

This conviction is based on their particular interpretation of the Book of Revelation, not on systematic theology or textual values. . The historicist school, however, is but one of several methods of interpreting apocalyptic literature, and it is disheartening to note that our Adventist brethren build their teaching about the "remnant church," "which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ," upon this particular school of interpretation and do not recognize the claims of other schools on interpretation. [213:0-11

The "remnant church" concept is also linked inseparably to Adventists' belief that they alone constitute "God's commandment keeping church." This expression occurs frequently in the writings of Ellen White and other Adventist authors. It has resulted in a spirit of pharisaism of which not a few Adventists appear to be guilty. This legalistic attitude says in effect, "We are keeping all the commandments of God because we keep the Fourth Commandment, the Seventh-day Sabbath, while Sunday keepers do not." As the result of interviews with a large number of Adventists, it is my conclusion that they firmly maintain this position. They hasten to add, however, that although Sundaykeepers are definitely transgressing the laws of God, He does not impute their sin to them because "they have not received light on the subject." In all kindness, I must say that such an attitude of condescension often discourages fellowship between Adventists and non-Adventists. [214:2-215:01

To see the result of what is exclusivism in Seventh-day Adventist theology, one need only study the following quotations from Course 2, Lesson 9, of the Twentieth Century Bible Course of the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Takoma Park, Washington, D.C.:

"The New Testament Church was called to come out and be separate (Il Cor. 6:17). The apostate church united with the world, and state, and paganism. Protestant churches separated partially from apostasy. Today God is calling for complete separation from Babylon. Babylon means confusion. From the Papal confusion and mixture of truth and error, her mixture of the church and the world and the church and state, God says come out. From apostatizing Protestantism, clinging to unbiblical doctrines, uniting with the world, federating with false systems and beliefs, seeking to reform the world by civil law, God says come out" (p. 2).

Such an attitude toward fellow Protestants and members of the Body of Christ helps to explain why there are often unhappy relationships between Seventh-day Adventists and other Christians. Those who indict fellow believers as "apostates" should realize that they are causing offense and weakening the possibilities of unity and fellowship in the Body of Christ. [215:3-216:21

The issues are plain for anyone to honestly evaluate. We would understand our responsibility to fellowship with Christians of all denominations whether they be Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or Seventh-day Adventist. No one has suggested organizational union and, in the light of Dr. Hodge's statement, this would be impossible where Adventism and Orthodoxy is concerned. On the other side of the picture, however, the Adventists are not "wolves" who deny the foundations of the faith, rather, at the very worst they might at times be classed as "disobedient sheep" who have from time to time sown schism within the Body of Christ. But in this they are not alone as other groups in reputable denominations have been guilty of the same. Today, Seventh-day Adventists are happy to fellowship with Christians of other denominations. By and large they are not eager to emphasize areas of disagreement which cause schism, but rather to fellowship upon the large majority of truths which all Evangelicals hold in common. [233:1]

Whatever it might be that causes Christians to become divisive and unloving must be dealt with by the church as a whole. None must be allowed to "overturn" the faith of other sheep. . I t is in this area alone, where valid objection to fellowship with Seventh-day Adventists could be raised, and it is our conviction that the Seventh-day Adventists on the whole do not qualify for such judgment in our day! [233:2-3]

During the course of the preparation of this book, the author delivered a series of lectures in the field of comparative religion in a well-attended Baptist church in upper New York State. The closing lecture of the series was on Seventh-day Adventism, and the pastor of the local Adventist church and his parishioners were invited 'to attend the service. Throughout the lecture we contrasted the teachings of Adventism with those of historic orthodoxy, pointing out our areas of agreement and disagreement; and concluded, as is our custom, with a question and answer period during which questions from the floor were presented and answered. At the close of the period, the Adventist minister rose and stated that for the first time in his ministry he had heard an objective presentation and critique of Seventh-day Adventism, and further stated that he was delighted to be in Christian fellowship with a church which would present so objective a study. The result was that both Adventists and Baptists realized for the first time their oneness in the Christian faith. At the close of the meeting, they joined in a profitable half hour of true fellowship. [234:1]

This writer, a Baptist minister, in no sense endorses the "special truths" of the Adventist message. But in order to be objective and in the light of certain selected passages of Scripture which definitely deal with these problems (especially the Sabbath), we must not allow these aberrations to blind us to the facts that clearly reveal Seventh-day Adventists to be sincere Christians. [236:2]

We urge those who have further questions about Adventism to read "Questions on Doctrine," the recent comprehensive volume of Adventist theology which has been prepared and published in full collaboration with the General Conference leadership of Seventh-day Adventists. [239:4]