In the recent history of our denomination, there have only been two instances In which our church has published a full-size doctrinal book for the Instruction of the church members. We have had doctrinal books for non-Adventists and doctrinal books for academy and college students, but Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine in 1957, and the new book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. . A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines, released this summer (1988), are the only two full-size doctrinal books In my memory for the instruction of our entire church membership people in all of our doctrinal beliefs.

The first of these two doctrinal volumes was published in order to satisfy the demands of Walter R. Martin and Donald G. Barnhouse for a public doctrinal statement that would reconcile apparent differences in belief between Protestant Evangelicals and Seventh-day Adventists. This was a difficult task, but, fortunately, our leaders in Washington D.C. who’ wrote Questions on Doctrine (primarily Leroy Edwin Froom and Roy Allen Anderson) had over a year of special conferences with Walter Martin, during which time he explained to them the doctrinal differences that needed to be eliminated.

Thus, for the first time in our history, certain concepts, such as the "finished atonement at the cross," were put into print by a denominational publishing house (the Review and Herald), and placed in our Adventist Book Centers (at that time called "Adventist Book and Bible Houses") for our people to study, read, and accept. And it was all termed "truly representative" of our historic teachings.

‘The writers, counselors, and editors who produced the answers to these questions have labored conscientiously to state accurately the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists.. Hence this volume can be viewed as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.’ ‘—OD, 8.3-9:0 [Questions on Doctrine, page 8, paragraph 3 to page 9, paragraph 0].

The entire history of this sorrowful experience in doctrinal accommodation—and the years that followed it—is given in unusual detail in our 120-page tractbook, The Evangelical Conferences, available from this publisher. If you are not acquainted with the background of this problem, which in our time has blossomed into a full-scale doctrinal apostasy, you need to read this in-depth study.

But, for a moment, let us review a very small part of that experience back in the 1950’s, so that you can see how very crucial it was in altering the doctrinal beliefs of our church:

The Evangelical Conferences were held at our General Conference headquarters in 1955 and 1956 (Questions on Doctrine came off the Review presses in 1957). No mention of any kind was made to our people in regard to these meetings while they were in progress, or for nearly a year afterward,—much less inform them of the doctrinal decisions that were hammered out at those sessions.

The first real indication of what was taking place came in an article by Donald Barnhouse in his Eternity magazine in September 1956. But, for the most part, only non-Adventists read that article. Of course, news of that article quickly leaked down from the Seminary faculty to some of the students. (At that time, the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary was located next door to the General Conference building in Takoma Park.) Several of the students, including this writer, immediately ordered copies of that issue directly from Eternity magazine. Here are some quotations from that initial article, which Barnhouse himself at the time called a "bombshell article," knowing that, in general, the Adventists knew nothing up to that time about what their leaders had done. (See our tractbook, The Evangelical Conferences for reprints of this and other major articles and documents.)

As background to the first paragraph, below, at the first of the year-long Evangelical Conferences at our world headquarters, Walter Martin had given Anderson and Froom a collection of doctrinal questions, and told them that if these could be properly answered, then we could make peace with the Evangelicals and he, Martin, would not write against us as a non Christian cult. In the face of such a glorious opportunity to be accepted by modern Protestant theologians, Froom was assigned the task of preparing replies that would equivocate our position enough to make the Evangelicals happy, without arousing the ire of the faithful In our own church. It was a difficult assignment, but Froom was a master verbal and logical manipulation, as you will note in his book, Movement of Destiny. (For more on this, see Documentary Fraud FF-26), now In our 84-page tractbook, The Nature of Christ.

Here is Barnhouse speaking in that first "bombshell" article. (All emphasis in this study is ours, unless otherwise indicated.)

On a second visit [to General Conference headquarters in Washington D.C.] he [Martin] was presented with scores of pages of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed to them. As Mr. Martin read their answers he came, for example, upon a statement that they repudiated absolutely the thought that seventh-day Sabbath keeping was a basis for salvation. . He [Martin] pointed out to them that in their book store adjoining the building [the Potomac Book and Bible House was at that time just across the street, on the other side of the Takoma Park Church] in which these meetings were taking place a certain volume published by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of the General Conference Officers, that this situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected.

‘‘This same procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh.

They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their ‘lunatic fringe’ even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsible in every field of fundamental Christianity. This action of the Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently.

‘‘We also disagree on the question of the seventh-day Sabbath. A great amount of time was spent in our early meetings to spell out the fact that Adventists do not believe in legalism [their term for what they consider to be the false teaching that God requires everyone—or anyone—in this world to keep His law; in contrast, Adventists historically define legalism as an effort to save oneself by efforts to keep the law of God, quite apart from the enabling grace of Christ] as a part of salvation though everything in their practice seems to indicate that they do. They recognize that some of their teachers have taught the contrary, but they take a position (to us very illogical) that the Ten Commandments are to be obeyed, but that their teaching has no part whatsoever as a down payment or a part payment toward salvation which they and we in common confess to be by Christ alone on the basis of His expiatory death on Calvary

"Now the time has come to make known to the general public the results of the hundreds of hours of labor that have been expended by Mr. Martin and the similar time that has been put forth by many Adventist leaders.

‘Mr. Martin’s book on Seventh-day Adventism will appear in print within a few months. It will carry a forward by responsible leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church to the effect that they have not been misquoted in the volume and the areas of agreement and disagreement as set forth by Mr. Martin are accurate from their point of view. All of Mr. Martin’s references to a new Adventist volume on their doctrines will be from the page proof of their book, which will appear in print simultaneously with his work. Henceforth any fair criticism of the Adventist movement must refer to these simultaneous publications.

"The position of the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination.

"(1) Notably, the Adventist leadership proclaims that the writings of Ellen G. White, the great counselor of the Adventist movement, are not on a parity with the scripture:..

"(2) While the Adventists keep Saturday as the Sabbath, they specifically repudiate the Idea that Sabbath-keeping Ii In any way a means of [ha: any relation to salvation..

"Further, they do not believe, as some of their earlier teachers taught, that Jesus’ atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844. This idea is also totally repudiated. They believe that since His ascension Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary. Since the sanctuary doctrine [of the Adventists] is based on the type of the Jewish high priest going into the Holy of Holies to complete his atoning work, it can be seen that what [now] remains [of their sanctuary teaching after this new changeover] is most certainly exegetical untenable and theological speculation of a highly imaginative order.’ ‘Donald Grey Barnhouse, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?"in Eternity, September 1956, pp. 6-7, 43-45.

As a result of the series of this and the series of articles that followed by Walter Martin in Eternity, over half of its subscribers canceled their subscriptions! But within a year most of them re-subscribed when it was seen that Barnhouse and Martin had yielded nothing, but rather were converting the Adventist leaders to Evangelical teachings.

 Questions on Doctrine made Its appearance In 1957, but had been changed enough by editors that when it came off the Review presses It was a conglomeration of truth and error in regard to each of the vital truths that Barnhouse, in the above quoted article, had said that Adventists had fully changed positions in regard to. As this writer was personally told by an individual who was in the Review back in the mid-1950’s, its editors really struggled with this book and managed to substitute "atoning sacrifice" for every instance in which "atonement" was stated In the book as being completed on the cross. The same pattern ("atoning sacrifice" instead of "atonement") is used repeatedly in the 1988 doctrinal book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe.

Because QD had been revamped somewhat, Martin was slow in bringing out his parallel book, which Barnhouse, quoted above, said would come off the press within a few months after September 1956. In fact, Martin’s book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists, was not released until 1960.

When the new General Conference book, Questions on Doctrine, was first advertised in the pages of Ministry magazine, it was touted as being "Prepared at the General Conference by a group of our ablest scholars and approved by Adventist leaders throughout the world, to clarify to the world the true evangelical nature of Adventist beliefs and teachings.’ ‘—Ministry, December 1957, p. 33 (italics theirs).

In the preface to his own book, Waiter Martin made these revealing statements:

"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 then in the following quotation from the Introduction [to QD] where, speaking of this writer’s questions and their answers, they state:

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 author [Martin] 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. "—Walter Martin The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists, Preface, 9-10.

Immediately several Evangelical publications came out In attacks on Adventist doctrines, and said that Martin and Barnhouse could not possibly have gotten the General Conference to make this doctrinal changeover. (But the critics later became silent when the hard evidence of Questions on Doctrine was released—proving that Martin and Barnhouse were right.)

While both the secular and Christian magazines of America were publishing articles about the controversy over whether the Adventists should be accepted by the Evangelicals, a small but vigorous controversy erupted within our own church over the doctrinal deviations that had been agreed upon at the Evangelical Conferences in Takoma Park. Leading the opposition was none other than our leading Sanctuary writer of a decade earlier, Elder M.L. Andreasen, who, by the mid-1950’s was retired and living in Southern California. Few men in our ranks had the respect and doctrinal solidity that Andreasen had. He it was that had been selected over 15 years earlier to be the first doctrinal instructor at the fledgling Adventist Seminary.

When all his efforts to discuss with and appeal to our General Conference leaders failed, he went public and wrote up his concerns and printed them for the entire church to read. His articles have been reprinted and are presently available In our 120-page tractbook, The Evangelical Conferences. He was kicked out of the ministry for his efforts.

Another individual who opposed QD was a young church elder In Oregon by the name of Al Hudson. Here are several quotations from a telephone conversation he had with Donald Barnhouse In May 1958. As you read the following, keep In mind that it occurred after months and months of conversations by Barnhouse with Martin and our leaders, learning the new, revised Adventist teachings. Among other things, Barnhouse had this to say:

"(B) Now, I don’t know; I don’t think there is any doubt of the fact that Seventh-day Adventists, that is the top leaders, understand that it is a very important thing for Seventh-day Adventists to be recognized as evangelical..

"(B) Well, let’s face it, in a very nice way the leaders who have written this book [QD] have moved from the traditional position of the SDA movement. They’ve come toward the Bible. (H) But they insist that they haven’t [changed Adventist beliefs]. Now, that’s the controversy,

you see. (B) But what you fellows ought to do—; now, I don’t know what your position is, but if you want to strike a blow for the truth, write an article and come right out and say something like this: ‘Let’s face the fact that we have error in our fundamental positions. Let’s abandon them and go forward with truth.’

(H) Now, you and Mr. Martin have made certain representations as to Adventist beliefs, etc. in your magazine. I have been in correspondence with our men in Washington. I have on my desk now a letter I received from the Secretary of the General Conference just yesterday. there is quite a wide discrepancy between your interpretation of our belief and what has been and is still current in our midst. I’m just trying to iron out the facts.

"(B) Look, we have written and signed by the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist movement that we have not misrepresented Seventh-day Adventist position. . . Everything I have published was read by Seventh-day Adventist leaders before we published. Not one line have I ever printed that was not previously read by Froom, for instance

"(B) Let me tell you this, if you don’t want— mean if you try to write a book or anything that there has been no change in Adventism [that you haven’t really changed your beliefs to the positions we have said you have changed them to]; then we’re going to have to go back and say, ‘You are anti-Christ!’ I will have to make a public retraction, and send it to Time magazine and say, ‘Your article—did you read it when it came out in Time? (H) No.

"(B) Well, you see Time magazine wrote a big article about my article on Seventh-day Adventism and called it Peace with the Adventists. Well, I’ll have to write Time magazine and publish in Eternity, and write an apology to Talbot for@g’s Business, Moody Monthly, and say, ‘I was wrong. These people are still anti Christ. Put them back with Jehovah’s Witnesses where they belong,’ if you start writing the way you’re contemplating. (H) You actually believe, then, that our book, Questions en doctrine, supports the attitude that you have put forth in your magazine, Eternity, and which you have just set forth here to me. You actually believe that that book supports that?

"(B) I say this, I have a copy of it within three feet of me at the present moment, and what you have done beyond any question in that book, is taking the position, for example, that everybody that ever said that it was necessary to keep Saturday in order to be saved, was wrong. Your book states this. Now, for instance, you don’t hold that Sunday is the mark of the beast, do you?

[Sunday is now the mark of the beast (GC 448:1), but no one will receive the mark in their forehead or hand until the crisis (GC 449:0-1; 7BC 976-977).]

"(H) Yes. (B) You do! (H) Yes. (B) Well, then we might as well hang up. You belong to the anti-Christ party! I’ll tell you this, brother, and you—; I doubt if you’re saved.. . (B) You do not believe that salvation is by grace alone, do you? (H) Not in the same sense that you use it, no. (B) yea, in other words you believe that a man has to add something to the work of Christ in order to be saved. (H) Yes, that’s right. (B)Then, I say, that is of the devil, beyond any question..

"(B) You really believe then, that everybody who is not a Seventh-day Adventist is lost? (H) Oh, no. l didn’t say that. (B) Well, this what you say, because the people who are not Adventists don’t keep Saturday, and won’t—. I HATE Saturday as a Sabbath religious day. I hate it because Christ hates it!..

"(B) But wait a minute. Let’s ask a question. that’s up to God, but do you think that I— CURSING Saturday as the Sabbath, CURSING everything that is of the law, and wanting grace alone, and wanting to live in holiness, believing that all sin is removed by the blood of Jesus Christ alone;—do you believe that therefore l am a lost soul? (H) I believe that are a disobedient follower of Christ, and that disobedience, if continued in, will ultimate cause the loss of your soul, yes.

(B)‘‘Yeah, well, you see there’s no use in your talking. You don’t even believe that I’m saved. (H) Now, I think that you will find if you will investigate the matter a little more closely that— (B) Thank God, the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism do not hold your position. (H) You don’t think they do. (B) I KNOW they don’t! I know they don’t!

"(H) And you don’t think that Seventh-day Adventist leaders believe that you are a disobedient follower of Jesus. (B)I didn’t say that. They believe that l am a born again person; that l am saved and have eternal life. They know that I hold the Calvinistic position that I am saved forever and can never be lost

"(H) What is their position as you understand it [in regard to the human nature of Christ]? (B) That Christ had, that He was the God-man. Adam was created a being subject to fall. Jesus Christ was the God-man, not subject to fall [it was not possible for Christ to fall into sin during His earthly life]. (H) And that’s your understanding of the position of our leaders? (B) Of course I They have taken it so strongly and it is in their book [QD]

"You know she [Ellen White] wrote about 25 million words. that’s quite a lot for a man to read. (B) that’s too much, you know. She was running off at the mouth, and the Holy Spirit certainly was not doing it. (H) Do you think that Anderson and Froom agree with you on that position? (B) Look, I know that these men are intelligent enough to know that she was a fallible human being, and that she said so herself. You don‘t believe that she was infallible, do you? Do you? (H) You get into the matter of the various concepts of inspiration. (B) Do you believe she was infallible? (H) Well, I say that she was a prophet the same as any other true prophet. (B) Do you believe that she was in error ever? (H) As a human being? (B) In her writing. Do you believe that in some of her writing that you have to point to certain sentences and say, ‘Boy, she sure pulled a blooper That’s for the birds! It is not true!’ (H) I haven’t encountered any of those quotations, no. (B) You haven’t? (H) No. (B) Oh, brother, are you a dupe. You are not as honest as the people at Takoma Park.

(H) They feel that she has written error? (B) Of course they do! Every one of these men have said this to me. Every man. Every man! They believe that she was raised up of God to be a great blessing, and that the spirit of prophecy was upon her, but they all agree that she wrote error in some places. (H) You gather from your association with those men that they believe that she was a prophet though. (B) They believe that God came upon her in a special way, and for a message to His people at a special time.

(H) Would you gather the impression in your talking with them that they feel that she was a prophet in the same sense that Isaiah and Jeremiah were? (B) Of course not! Certainly not! They’re intelligent men . . If you take this position, Seventh-day Adventism will have to go back into the same position as Mormonism with their Book of Mormon. A guest has just arrived for lunch, and I’ve got to go.

(H) I appreciate your time.. My position is this: the Bible mentions two kinds of prophets, a true prophet and a false prophet. I believe Mrs. White was a true prophet. (B) Yeah, I know that’s your position. She was just a good woman who was greatly blessed and greatly mistaken, frequently. (H) And you don’t think Elder Froom and the others take my position? That she was a true prophet? (B) Of course they don’t! (H) l see. (B) None of them do. (H) Well, I appreciate your time. [End of conversation.]"

—Telephone conversation between Al Hudson and Donald Barn house, May 1958.

The above conversation, reprinted more fully in our tractbook, The Evangelical Conferences, took place a year after the release of Questions on Doctrine and a year-and-a-half after the last of the Eternity magazine bombshell" articles were Issued.

With the passing of the years, many of our Bible teachers gradually adapted to the new concepts as they recognized that this was what was expected of them by upper leadership.

Although Barnhouse died in 1960, Walter Martin remained faithful to his mid-1950’s promise to our leaders that he would not write against us if we would publish a book that effectually rescinded our earlier positions on certain doctrines. And he kept that promise all through the remainder of the 1950’s and the two decades that followed It. Since Martin has emerged as the most influential Protestant "anti-cult" writer in America, such an agreement was valued by our leaders who, because of his silence, could more effectually make friends with high-placed leaders of other denominations.

In fact, it was only after our successful" Evangelical Conferences with Barnhouse and Martin that our General Conference was able to reach their hands across the gulf and began sending "personal representatives" to sit In on various committee meetings of the National Council of Churches headquarters in New York City, and the World Council of Churches headquarters in Geneva. In addition, unofficial representatives from our church began attending their major International councils which convene every six or seven years. (One of the men selected for this interdenominational bridgework had been my New Testament teacher at the Seminary in the late 1950’s: Dr. Earle Hilgert. In those Ecumenical meetings it was his responsibility to weld new friendships for our leaders with top-ranking officials of other denominations. His success led to his downfall, for after several years of it, he resigned from the faculty of Andrews University, united with another denomination and accepted a position on the staff of one of their universities. When I knew him, he was a faithful student and defender of the Spirit of Prophecy.)

Details on how our involvement with the NCC and WCC began over 25 years ago, gradually grew, and is today bearing fruit in Adventist denominational connections on the local and national level in a number of nations around the world, will be found documented In our 123-page tractbook, Our Ecumenical Involvement.

Twenty-three years after the publication of Questions on Doctrine, Walter Martin was becoming increasingly upset with the ongoing furor in Adventism to try to set aside that book and declare that Martin and Barnhouse’s statements in the mid-fifties about the Evangelical Conferences and its doctrinal accomplishments were merely their own interpretation, and not the facts in the case. Here is how he expressed it in 1980:

‘‘I am sorry for a late reply to your letter of last January, but my schedule has been horrendous. As! stated in my Eternity articles and Dr. Barnhouse stated in his editorial [the "bombshell" article, partially quoted earlier in this present study], and as! have further stated in The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism and The Kingdom of the Cults" [a book published in the mid-1960’s which contained an exact reprint of part of Martin’s material in Truth About], representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination with the full approval of Reuben Figuhr, then [General Conference] president, entered into lengthy dialogue with myself, Dr. Barn-house, and Dr. George Cannon for the purpose of ascertaining Seventh-day Adventism’s agreement or disagreement with historic Christianity. Dr. Roy Allan Anderson, Dr. W. E. Read, Dr. Leroy Edwin Froom, and Dr. Unruh [all of which were Adventists] referred our dialogues to selected members of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Washington and to Reuben Figuhr.

"When the book, Questions on Doctrine was published, it was stated that it represented historic Adventism as understood by the leaders of the church at that time. The book was in response to the questions! addressed to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. The current editor of The Ministry, who is maintaining that what went on in those dialogues and the material that was printed was merely the interpretation Eternity magazine placed upon it is not only woefully ignorant, but he apparently can’t read. "Barnhouse and Martin" didn’t say what your leaders said. Barnhouse and Martin reproduced exactly what they said; and after they had read it, as the book Questions on Doctrine and my book accurately represents it all.

‘‘It is sorry to see after such a short period of time that some leaders of Adventism have not only short memories, but are now attempting to say things which are blatantly erroneous.

If this dialogue must be public once more, I shall be happy to produce the documentation. This is a matter of documentation. The was a matter of very thorough documentation and the editor of The Ministry had better start doing his homework or his attitude will further what is now a growing schism within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

One cannot simply have his cake and eat it too. Either the Seventh-day Adventist denomination stood behind the book Questions on Doctrine, or they printed it under false pretenses. I do not accept the latter; and all the evidence is in favor of the former.. If we have to get down to the area of factual data, the editor of The Ministry will not be very successful in defending this double talk.’ Walter Martin, letter dated December 9, 1980.

But the final showdown over this matter came in 1983. Walter Martin has spent much of his time over the years traveling around the country speaking to various Protestant groups about the cults, and warning against the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and various other religious bodies.

But at a meeting in Napa, California, on the evening of February 22, 1983, he delivered his ultimatum to the Adventists. The Napa Valley is well known for its collection of Adventists, especially since the St. Helena Hospital, and Pacific Union College with its large number of Ford sympathizers, are in the western hills just above it. Knowing that many Adventists would be in attendance at this particular meeting, Martin spoke appropriately on the subject of Seventh-day Adventism.

We recently reprinted that night’s lecture a second time (in Our New Doctrinal Book: What Seventh-day Adventists Believe !DH-309 D.

That evening, Walter Martin, for perhaps the first time, revealed to the public that he had recently entered a SECOND round of negotiations with our leaders in Takoma Park! The first time had been back in the mid-1950’s when the Evangelical Conferences hammered out new doctrinal directions for our church; this second time it was going to be done primarily by mail. As Martin expressed it in 1983, the issues were plain:

 (1) Martin had learned that the General Conference had let Questions on Doctrine go out of print. (2) He wanted it brought back into print, or else. (3) If the Adventist church leaders refused to satisfy his demands on this point, he would, after a silence of over twenty years, set to work and produce a new book on Seventh-day Adventists—and this one would hold them up to Protestantism as being definitely a non Christian, out-of-Christ cult, little better than the lowest of the low which had already castigated in other of his anti-cult books.

Here are a few excerpts from that February 22, 1983 lecture:

"It was agreed that my book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism, would be released in Seventh-day Adventist bookstores. [Interestingly enough, even though he was promised that this would be done, Martin’s book was never placed in Adventist bookstores.] It was agreed that we would push their volume in Evangelical bookstores. . It was not a tiny project; it was a great project. It had the support of the president of the General Conference and the committee he personally appointed

"Now we learned early on in our discussions that there was a division in Seventh-day Adventism that had to be recognized. There was a lunatic fringe that believed doctrines that appalled even the Adventists [context: even the Adventist leaders]. And I came in one day with a suitcase—literally a suitcase—full of publications from Adventist publishing houses. Before I opened that suitcase, I said to my brothers on the committee: ‘Do you know that your denomination teaches these things?’ And I listed them, and they were appalled. I said ‘I have the mark of the beast!’ And they looked at each other and said, ‘Impossible!’ I said, ‘Well, I have.’ I said, ‘I have been told that by three Adventist publishing houses.’ ‘NO’ [they replied]. I said. ‘Yes.’

‘‘It gets even worse, brothers. It says here in your publications that Jesus didn’t complete the atonement on the cross. It says here in your publication—and I went down the line on the subject. ‘‘Impossible; all right,’ said, ‘Look in the suitcase.’’ ‘—Walter Martin, Lecture delivered in Napa, California, February 22, 1983.

At this point, Martin relates how he brought out over 200 documents and the Adventists scholars spent two days going through these historic Adventist writings, determined to rid our book stores from them and satisfy Martin.

"When they came back, they said, ‘Who would ever have believed that all of this was in print!’ and ‘We certainly have to do something about it immediately.’ I said, ‘Good! But this is what is confusing the whole Evangelical world and it is what is confusing the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. You’ve got to speak with ONE VOICE on the great foundations of the gospel.’ ‘—Ibid.

Then, in this lecture, Martin came to his main point: The Adventist church was in a crisis in the 1980s, and only a return to that single voice of imposed uniformity, such as was attempted in Questions on Doctrine, could save them from disaster. Here are the kind of church members and the kind of teachings that, according to Martin, need to be irradiated:

"There are some important representatives of Seventh-day Adventism who are at this point beginning to move the denomination back from where they came in 1957. This group believes that Jesus Christ had a sinful human nature [that Christ inherited a fallen nature such as we have, without ever yielding to sin]. This group believes that the atonement was not completed on the cross. This group believes that Ellen G. White is not only a prophetess of God, but that Ellen G. White was an infallible interpreter of the Bible.. The core of the entire problem is the role of Ellen G. White In Seventh-day Adventism and [also] the Sanctuary doctrine, which has generated enormous controversy.’ ‘—Ibid.

After eliminating the above kind of people, here is the "one voice" that Walter Martin is anxious that the entire Seventh-day Adventist church should now speak with:

"The claim was made for Mrs. White in Questions on Doctrine and in Adventist publications, that she is not a canonical writer of scripture [that Ellen White is not fully inspired of God in her writings] . . There is no remnant church, there is only the body of Christ. You can talk about a remnant to the book of Revelation under the tribulation conditions, but we’re not in the tribulation. The Adventist Church in the clearest possible terms stated in 1956 that the atonement of Christ was completed on the cross; that it was over with, no continuation.. The Adventist church told us in 1956 that Jesus Christ had an absolutely sinless nature [Jesus had a human nature unlike ours; a nature unable to be tempted and sin], and they repudiated publications—even by their own magazines—that said that Christ had a sinful human nature [that Christ took a human nature like ours, and could be tempted and sin, although He never did].’ ‘—Ibid.

"Questions on Doctrine said the atonement was finished on the cross. Questions on Doctrine said salvation Is solely by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. That’s what it said, and that’s good solid Christian theology. Today we are hearing voices within the Adventist denomination that are not teaching good, solid Christian theology. They are teaching heresies which the church originally repudiated.’ ‘—Ibid.

Martin then sets the stage for what may have been his first public announcement of the initiation of his second round of discussions with our General Conference leaders, with these words:

"Now the great threat is that it may go back again. This cannot be permitted to happen if at all possible in the body of Christ! We must FIGHT for the integrity of our Seventh-day Adventist brothers to believe what they their church says they believed. That’s the REAL QUESTION:whether they will stay with Questions on Doctrine and back it. —WILL THEY REPUBLISH IT?"—ibid.

In the question-and-answer period that concluded this lecture, Martin revealed that he was in contact with the General Conference,—and that he was even then awaiting their reply. If they did not meet his demands, he would then write against the Adventist church, denouncing it as the antichrist.

And what were his demands? In this lecture, as quoted above, he explains that he wants Questions on Doctrine put back into regular publication.

BUT he also said that there were ALTERNATIVES that could be effected by the General Conference that could take the place of the republication of that book:

"I have not taken positions publicly against the General Conference. That is why I have not published lots and lots and lots of material in Christian magazines when I’ve been asked to. Because the Adventist denomination deserves the chance to look squarely in the face of questions and answer them, If they answer so [that] they repudiate Questions on Doctrine, they deserve what happens. And If they will affirm what they said they historically believed, [and] that the people who are now in positions of power, who are propagating these false teachings should be removed from the denomination immediately. But godly Adventists should not be discriminated against, when they are definitely trying to solve the problems [by bringing us back to the teachings of Questions on Doctrine.]—ibid.

An affirmation by the Adventist church in the 1980s that matches what they wrote in QD in the 1950’s what Martin was asking for. Ominously, he also asks that our leaders suppress those In the church that oppose the type of teachings found in QD. What those "special teachings" were, he explained in the above-quoted paragraphs.

Ever the man of action, Martin waves before our leaders the threat of wide publicity to any publication he brings out about us.

"What I publish, on tape and in book form, will be available In over 6,000 Christian bookstores within 90 days after It Is released. So we are going to get a good response from the Christian public, and now you know why I am concerned, and why I feel this Is a matter of great importance for the Adventists and their fellow Christians.’ ‘—Ibid.

Again, Martin comes back to his basic request, and that is for a new clarification by Adventist leadership that they stand with the teachings in QD. But he wants something in written form. Obviously, he wants either a reprinting of QD or something just as solid.

"I’m Interested in only one thing: I’m interested in the official position of your denomination, and what it says. I’m willing to accept what they say is their position as I did in 1956, provided it is backed up with documentation. And I think that’s fair.’ ‘—Ibid.

In 1956 he was quite satisfied with the prospect of the soon publication of Questions on Doctrine. Martin would not be satisfied led with a private endorsement of his teachings today, any more than he was satisfied with private endorsements back in 1956.

He wants us to publish a book of doctrine the approximate equal to that of QD, or bring QD back into print.

And what he writes in any forthcoming book of his on Adventism will be determined by the type of public written response—a book—the General Conference makes to this second round of communications between him and them.

"[Question from the audience] You will be having a book come out very soon, and is it Seventh-day Adventism as you presented tonight, and is it [General] Conference-supported?

"[Answer by Martin] Wait for the book. Wait for the book. And that will tell you exactly. As I said at the beginning of the lecture, that I don’t prejudice [or prejudge?; this was transcribed from an audio tape] the General Conference. I’m giving them every chance to respond as brothers.

"[Different questioner] You’re saying that in your book, you’re going to classify this church as a cult—?

"[Martin interjecting] I didn’t say that.

"[Questioner] Okay, I mean, are you? That’s my question.

"[Reply by Martin] I’m not answering that question tonight—.

"[Questioner interjecting] Oh, you’re not answering it tonight?—present experience; (3) and the final result that the believer experiences at Christ’s return. As to the believer’s past, at the moment of justification the believer is also sanctified ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.’ He or she becomes a ‘saint.’ At that point the new believer Is redeemed ["redeemed" means "saved" throughout Scripture], and belongs fully to God. "—SDAB, 123/2:1-2.

That Is the kind of teaching we would expect from Martin or Barn-house, not from an Adventist—or from an Adventist doctrinal book. (1) This "accomplished act" of sanctification In the believer’s past Is declared to be instantaneous and accompanies redemption at the moment when, years before, he first came to God. But such a concept of instantaneous, completed sanctification in our past experience is foreign to our Bible-Spirit of Prophecy teachings. (2) We are then told that a second species of sanctification also occurs in our life—right now. Now, we know that in reality, this Is the ONLY true sanctification there is. But elsewhere in this book, we learn that this present sanctification is really something that Christ does quite apart from any effort on our part. —But that makes this second type an untrue sanctification also. (3) The third type of sanctification is as imaginary as was the first:

The book tells us that we receive some new infilling of "sanctification" when Jesus returns. The truth is that at the Second Advent of Christ, the faithful are translated; they are not sanctified. Please note that the basic error here is that we were saved at conversion, and afterward we just cruise along in present "sanctification" awaiting heaven to come.

"Our sinful past has been cared for; through the indwelling Spirit we can enjoy the blessings of salvation."—SDAB, 124/1:4.

OBEDIENCE—The new theology teaching regarding obedience to God’s law came into our church through two avenues: (1) from Questions on Doctrine (and partially reproduced in this new doctrinal book), and (2) from the Protestant universities, where our college Bible teachers received their Ph.D. degrees—and had to parrot Protestant theology on their exam papers in order to earn them. This Protestant view is squarely apostate. It teaches that we are not to obey God’s law (because Christ obeys it for us), we cannot obey God’s law (because we are bound in Original Sin), and He does not want us to try to obey His law (because the law has been done away). Obedience Is simply "fruit" that will grow by Itself on the Christian tree, quite apart from any effort on our part. Here is how the new doctrinal book says it:

"Salvation is a gift that comes by grace through faith, not by works of the law.’ SDAB, 24 1/2:2.

"People cannot earn salvation by their good works. Obedience is the fruitage of salvation in Christ. Through His amazing grace, especially displayed at the cross, God has liberated His people from the penalty and curse of sin.— SDAB, 244/2:4.

"Christians do not keep the law to obtain salvation—those who try to do so will only find a deeper enslavement to sin.’ SDAB, 24411:3.

The Sabbath School Quarterly that was written as a companion piece for this new book agrees with these sentiments that downgrade the crucial importance of obedience to God’s Word:

"The good news is that Christ has paid our debt without any work or action on our part. He only asks that we reach out by faith and accept it."—355Q, 70:1 I Third Quarter, 1988, Sabbath School Quarterly, page 70, paragraph 1).

"Recognizing that He alone could pay the price for our redemption, our part is to accept redemption by reaching out the hand of faith."—355Q, 70:4.

"However good In themselves, works do not make us righteous, nor do they earn merit in the sight of God. Righteousness and salvation are Christ’s free gifts. Works of faith are the result and evidence of our relation with Him.’ ‘—3SSQ, 74:1.

The new theology only considers obedience to be a result of salvation, with no causal relationship. But this is NOT the teaching of the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy. We have an entire tract on this. Ask for a copy of The Nature of Obedience FF-506). The new theology always places SALVATION FIRST in point of time (at the moment of conversion) and GOOD WORKS AFTERWARD as something that, to one degree or another, might follow. Here is what Questions on Doctrine said on this subject:

"Seventh-day Adventists do not rely upon their Sabbath keeping as a means of salvation or of winning merit before God. We are saved by grace alone."—QD, 153:3.

"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 fulfilled in the experience of the Christian.’QD, 189:2-190.0.

PERFECTION—Perfection of character is perfect obedience to the law of God. That is the goal we are continually to strive for. But the definition of perfection you will find among the modernists is merely maturity of personality and youthful vigor. No mention Is made about its relation to the necessity of obedience to the law of God.

"What is Biblical perfection? How can it be received?.. In the New Testament perfect often describes mature persons who have lived up to the best available light and attained the potential of their spiritual, mental, and physical powers. "—SDAB. 127/2:1,4.

"Full perfection in Christ: How can we become perfect? The Holy Spirit brings to us the perfection of Christ. By faith Christ’s perfect character becomes ours. People can never claim that perfection independently, as if it were their innate possession, or theirs by right. Perfection is a gift of God.’ ‘—SDAB, 12712:512811:0.

We quite agree that none can have perfection apart from Christ, but perfection is NOT something that Is just given us as a gift apart from any effort on our own, other than faithful acceptance. 

SALVATION—We have already noted that the new theology teaches that salvation comes automatically at conversion, and that obedience may come as a gift afterward. In the following passage in the new doctrinal book, the reader is Instructed that salvation has two phases: First, salvation at the cross, and second, salvation when Jesus returns in the clouds of heaven. Obviously, all the time in-between those two events professed Christians stand FULLY SAVED. Read the following carefully. Context indicates that the "heavenly ministry" phrase apparently applies only to our conversion, at which point we accepted what Christ did by His death and resurrection. As it says below, it was all done "once and for all."

"The scriptural view that in one sense adoption and redemption—or salvation—have already’ been accomplished and that in another sense they have not yet been accomplished has confused some. A study of the full scope of Christ’s work as Saviour provides the answer. [An Adventist Seminary teacher is then quoted:] ‘Paul related our present salvation to the first coming of Christ. In the historic cross, resurrection, and heavenly ministry of Christ our justification and sanctification are secured once and for all. Our future salvation, the glorification of our bodies, Paul related, however, to the second coming of Christ.

‘For this reason Paul can say simultaneously: "We are saved," in view of the cross and resurrection of Christ in the past; and "we are not saved "in view of the future return of Christ to redeem our bodies.’ "—SDAB, 13011:2-3.

Is this what they are teaching at our Seminary! The authors of the new doctrinal book then add this emphasis regarding the "future salvation" at Christ’s second advent: 

"To emphasize our present salvation to the exclusion of our future salvation creates an incorrect, unfortunate understanding of Christ’s complete salvation. "—SDAB. 130/1:4-1 3012:0.

Preterism and Futurism applies all Bible prophecies to Christ’s first advent or to His second. We have quoted here a kind of preterism and futurism applied to the salvation of mankind: it was all done at the cross and at the second advent.

According to statements in this book, all we need do now is to let the Holy Spirit fulfill obedience and an "in Christ" experience in our lives. But our salvation Is solely based on our acceptance of Christ’s "finished work"—His finished atonement—at Calvary.

"The Holy Spirit brings the ‘It is finished’ of Calvary within, applying-the only experience of God’s acceptance of humanity to us. This ‘It is finished’ of the cross calls in question all other human attempts to gain acceptance. In bringing the Crucified within, the Spirit brings the only ground of our acceptance with God, providing the only genuine title to and fitness for salvation available to us.’ ‘—SDAB, 13 1/2:1.

According to the above paragraph, man need not seek, through Christ, to obey any of God’s commandments. If he does, that may be well; but it is totally unnecessary In Heaven’s plan for his salvation.

CONTINUE- PART 2