In October, 2007 a historic conference convened at Andrews University. It was the 50th anniversary of the printing of Questions on Doctrine. The purpose of this conference was to evaluate the impact of QOD on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The invitees included both Adventist and non-Adventist scholars. However, this was more than just a historical analysis, because QOD had recently been republished with editorial notes. The reality is that this book and the issues it raised will not go away because they are directly related to the Adventist Church's reason for existence.
Perhaps it is important to note that this conference did not take place with the blessing of the current General Conference president. At the Annual Council meeting on October 13, 2007 Jan Paulsen said that the issue that has the most potential of dividing the church is theology. He said that he did not support another restudy of theological issues originally presented fifty years ago in Questions on Doctrine, particularly regarding the nature of Christ. "I just cannot imagine a post-modern person in Europe, a businessman in Asia or Latin America, any more than a farmer in Africa will care one iota whether Christ had the nature of man before the fall. The realities of the world in which we live have other concerns and other priorities which occupy us."
Elder Paulsen accurately understands that what has the most potential to divide Adventism is theology, not organizational issues or women's ordination or even differing worship services, because our theology determines who we are and what constitutes our reason for existence. The reason he did not encourage this restudy is because QOD began a shift in our theology which has produced a widening chasm between differing theologies in Adventism, and he is aware that it is virtually impossible to bring those theologies into harmony any more. He would rather let sleeping dogs lie to preserve the illusion of unity in the church.
Elder Paulsen is absolutely right that people in Europe or Africa won't care one iota about the nature of Christ, but neither will they care one iota about which day to go to church or whether there is a sanctuary in heaven. Because people don't understand certain issues doesn't mean that those issues are irrelevant. In fact, they may be hugely significant for future developments on planet earth. I believe that this was a very, very shortsighted and careless statement from the world leader of the Adventist Church.
Background to Conference
Late in 2003 Questions on Doctrine was republished by the Andrews University Press with historical notes and a theological introduction by George Knight. Originally published in 1957, this book, as Knight wrote, "easily qualifies as the most divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist history."
It all began when T. E. Unruh, the president of the East Pennsylvania Conference, wrote a letter to Donald Grey Barnhouse complimenting Barnhouse's radio program on righteousness by faith. This letter led Walter Martin, a young specialist in Christian cults, to visit Washington in March, 1955, so he could hear from Adventist leaders exactly what they believed regarding certain doctrines that Martin had said were cultic.
There were four basic issues which concerned Martin. He understood Adventists to teach that 1) the atonement of Christ was not completed on the cross, 2) salvation is the result of grace plus the works of the law, 3) Jesus was a created being, and 4) He partook of man's sinful fallen nature in His Incarnation.
Unfortunately, M. L. Andreasen, noted by George Knight as "the denomination's most influential theologian and theological writer in the late 1930's and throughout the 1940's, had been left out of the process in both the formulation of the answers and the critiquing of them, even though he had been generally viewed as an authority on several of the disputed points... Looking back, one can only speculate on the different course of Adventist history in Andreasen had been consulted regarding the wording of the Adventist position on the atonement."
The next event was a crescendo of Ministry editorials and articles that joined with a remarkably orchestrated public relations program in minister's meetings throughout North America from 1957 on. QOD was portrayed as a magnificent achievement, heading off Walter Martin from again including Adventists in his next book on cults in America.
When it seemed to Andreasen that the QOD authors and the General Conference president were not interested in recognizing his concerns, Andreasen wrote open letters to church members. The fact is that Andreasen agreed that most of QOD was solid Adventist thinking. He was primarily concerned with the issues of the atonement and the human nature of Christ.
We must recognize the presuppositions of Barnhouse and Martin. The human Jesus was for them "impeccable," that is, incapable of sinning. One of their theologians wrote that the possibility of Jesus "sinning and falling is an atrocious idea... For then God Himself must have been able to sin-which it is blasphemy to think." Therefore Adventist authors appeared cultic to Barnhouse and Martin.
Hovering over the theological fog that QOD generated was the denominational imprimatur that the book was getting around the Adventist world. Andreasen declared QOD to be "a betrayal in order to gain recognition from the evangelicals." George Knight observed, "Unfortunately, there does appear to be elements of a betrayal in the manipulation of the data and in the untruths that were passed on to Barnhouse and Martin... The result would spell disaster in the Adventist ranks in the years to come. Official Adventism may have gained recognition as being Christian from the evangelical world, but in the process a breach had been opened which has not healed in the last 50 years and may never heal."
Reactions to Questions on Doctrine
What seems to be an unspoken, deeper problem with QOD is what was left unsaid. Martin and Barnhouse were recognized scholars. What a perfect opportunity it would have been for Adventists to use equally trained minds to show why Adventists have a distinctive understanding of soteriology, Christology, and eschatology. Like Hezekiah, who failed to show the Babylonians his rich treasure of truth, we missed the opportunity to give inquiring men our understanding of the great controversy between Christ and Satan.
The fundamental problem in 1955-1957 was that the participants tried to merge two different theological systems that were incompatible. When Adventists try to overlay their theology on the Evangelical grid many areas simply won't fit. Reflecting on this period of Adventist history, Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart wrote, "Questions on Doctrine raised uncertainties about what Adventists actually believed that made the evangelical era that followed the most destabilizing in the church's history." (Seeking a Sanctuary, p. 106)
A group of prominent leaders in Loma Linda, CA, signed a statement charging that QOD misrepresented "certain vital fundamentals and compromised other tenets of our faith" and that "certain statements and teachings of the book will never be accepted by a considerable number of our people. In fact, it is our conviction that not since the time of J. H. Kellogg's pantheistic controversy of more than a half century ago has anything arisen to cause such disquietude, dissension and disunity among our people as the publication of this book." (Quoted in J. R. Zurcher, Touched With Our Feelings, p. 175)
Raymond Cottrell wrote an evaluation of QOD for General Conference leaders in 1956. He predicted, "Almost certainly, there will also arise a storm of opposition when our ministry and laity discover the real meaning of the actual terms on which we have achieved a rapproachment with Martin and other evangelicals." (Quoted in Julius Nam, Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrine 1955-1971, p. 245)
North American leaders, such as R. R. Bietz, predicted a great disaster ahead, saying that "a tornado was yet to come." Theodore Carcich, president of the Central Union Conference, called QOD "a clever and subtle attempt to undermine the foundational doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists." Raymond Cottrell warned, "Let us be certain that nothing gets into the proposed book that will take us the next 50 years to live down." (Quoted in Nam, pp. 352, 347, 255)
It should have been obvious that Seventh-day Adventists would have great difficulty trying to harmonize their understanding of salvation with their Calvinist friends, no matter how much linguistic gymnastics they could muster.
Walter Martin's Four Issues
Let us look back at the four issues that concerned Martin. How should we have responded to his questions?
1) The atonement was not completed at the cross
For the evangelical mind, everything important to the plan of salvation was completed with the death of Christ. The Old Testament was largely about a failed system of salvation by works. Christ inaugurated a new covenant of salvation by grace, and nothing more needs to be accomplished except fulfilling certain Old Testament prophecies.
The Adventist answer that satisfied Martin was that the atonement was completed at the cross, and Christ has been ministering the benefits of that atonement ever since from the heavenly sanctuary. However, this is not the Adventist position at all.
Adventists have always believed that the new covenant of grace began, not at the cross, but in Eden with the promise of Christ's defeat of Satan in Genesis 3:15. This promise was ratified or made legal at Christ's death. At this time the sacrificial aspect of the atonement was completed, but the plan of atonement will not be fully completed until sin is not only forgiven but removed from the lives of Christians and from the universe.
The earthly sanctuary shows this clearly. The altar of burnt offerings was the central aspect of the daily rituals, pointing clearly to the death of Christ, but these rituals were incomplete until the Day of Atonement cleansed all sin from the sanctuary. Both aspects were necessary to complete the plan of atonement.
Adventists have always believed that the death of Christ was the first step of the atoning process, which will be completed in the last generation with the sealing of the 144,000 and the close of probation. We have called this the final atonement or the cleansing of the sanctuary. This belief is unique to Seventh-day Adventists, and it was totally unacceptable to Martin and the evangelical world. Unfortunately, we hid this emphasis from Barnhouse and Martin so that they would accept us as fellow Christians.
This progression is even seen in the three castings down of Satan. He was first cast out of heaven, which only meant exile until final determination could be made. He was then cast out at the death of Christ because he lost all credibility with unfallen beings. However, he will only be bound, which means totally defeated, at the second coming of Christ.
The issue is not about Christ ministering benefits in the Holy Place, but it is about completing the plan of atonement in the Most Holy Place. Today there is even disagreement among Adventists on this point, largely because, since the 1950's, we have deemphasized this final aspect of the atonement.
2) Salvation is grace plus works
This is quite easy to answer by showing that works never merit or earn salvation. Salvation is always the free gift of grace, but grace always works. This means that obedient acts are always the natural result of transforming grace.
This is still difficult for the evangelical mindset, for which obedient acts are not a condition of salvation and are not necessary for salvation. The conclusion is that we can be saved even while we are knowingly disobedient to God's commands.
3) Jesus was a created being
This is easy to answer by showing clear statements from Ellen White and Adventist scholars that Jesus is fully God, existing from all eternity.
The problem was that some of our early pioneers did believe that Jesus had a beginning at some point, when He was brought into existence by the Father. This position was rejected around the turn of the 20th century.
4) Jesus took man's fallen, sinful nature at the Incarnation
This was and is the single biggest point of conflict with the evangelical world and within Adventism. There is one aspect of this subject which is not often discussed. It is the simple word "grace."
Ellen White has two significant comments on this word. "We would never have learned the meaning of this word 'grace' had we not fallen. God loves the sinless angels who do His service and are obedient to all His commands, but He does not give them grace. These heavenly beings know naught of grace; they have never needed it, for they have never sinned. Grace is an attribute of God shown to undeserving human beings... God rejoices to bestow this grace on everyone who hungers for it." (My Life Today, p. 100) "It was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will." (God's Amazing Grace, p. 129)
Here we have learned that grace was not needed by the angels or by Adam and Eve, because they had inherent power in their natures to be obedient. Grace is needed, and in fact is our only hope, by fallen men and women because they have no power to obey in fallen nature. Grace is only necessary and is given only to those who can obey in no other way.
Two interesting letters were printed in Ministry regarding Christ and grace. The first said, "A... sinless spiritual nature that Christ possessed enabled Him to perfectly obey His Father's law,... whereas every other human being, being sinful in both natures, lives under the new covenant, being in need of grace to be saved." In other words, Christ did not need grace, because He had power in His sinless nature to be obedient, just like the angels.
The second letter said, "I have one question: Did not Jesus have to depend on grace to resist sin as do we? If He had within Him the innate power to resist sin then He would not have conquered Satan on the same ground where we live!" So the question is, did Christ need or receive grace, or not? Let us examine several statements from Ellen White.
"To the consecrated worker there is wonderful consolation in the knowledge that even Christ during His life on earth sought His Father daily for fresh supplies of needed grace;... Behold the Son of God, He strengthens His faith by prayer, and by communion with heaven gathers to Himself power to resist evil." (AA 56)
"Jesus, considered as a man, was perfect, yet He grew in grace. Luke 2:52: 'And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.'" (1 T 339-340) A better translation of the word "favor" is "grace."
"Daily He received a fresh baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the early hours of the new day the Lord awakened Him from His slumbers, and His soul and His lips were anointed with grace." (COL 139)
"He sought for strength to meet the foe, for the assurance that He would receive grace to carry out all that He had undertaken in behalf of humanity." (Letter 159, 1903) The evidence is clear that Jesus both needed and received grace.
"He has made abundant provision for every soul to have such grace and strength that he will be more than a conqueror in the warfare against sin... He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in His power His people might also live lives of sinlessness. He desires them by practicing the principles of truth to show to the world that God's grace has power to sanctify the heart." (RH 4-1-1902)
"He expects nothing of His disciples that He is not willing to give them grace and strength to perform. He would not call upon them to be perfect if He had not at His command every perfection of grace to bestows on the ones upon whom He would confer so high and holy a privilege... Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him." (GAG 230)
From these statements, we can draw some obvious conclusions. Grace is our only hope of obeying in our fallen natures because there is no power in fallen nature to obey. Jesus exercised no powers that fallen man may not have, which means that He did not have the power of angels or Adam. The evidence is conclusive, with no possibility of misinterpretation, that Jesus needed and received grace. Since the only ones who need grace are fallen human beings, is it not crystal clear that it was Jesus' fallen, sinful nature that needed daily supplies of grace?
The Doctrine of Sin
There is one aspect of the QOD story that has never been discussed before. QOD attempted to bring original sin into the theology of Adventism. Original sin teaches that we are in a lost, condemned state because we inherit fallen nature and are the children of fallen Adam. Thus we are born in a state of sin, separated from God. I am indebted to Larry Kirkpatrick for unearthing some prepublication drafts of QOD.
The prepublication draft is very direct. "Adam's sin involved the whole human race. 'By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' declares the apostle Paul (Rom. 5:12). The expression 'by sin' shows clearly that he is referring, not to actual individual sins, but rather to original sin-the sinful nature that we have all inherited from Adam. 'In Adam all die' (1 Cor. 15:22). By that original sin, 'death passed upon all men' (Rom. 5:12)." (Prepublication draft of QOD, pp. 406, 407)
The prepublication draft shows that the authors of QOD equated sinful nature with original sin. In one of the responses returned to the prepublication draft that had been sent out, Raymond Cottrell complained, "This is the first I knew that Adventists believe in 'original sin.'... This term... would require sacramental practices such as infant baptism."
Two paragraphs later in the printed book are these sentences: "From Adam we all have inherited a sinful nature. We all are 'by nature the children of wrath' (Eph. 2:3)...
Consequently, all are guilty before God." (QOD 407, 408) It is evident that the authors of QOD viewed man as guilty or condemned on the basis of his inherited birth-nature. Adam's sin, according to the QOD authors, brought not only death, but condemnation to the race, a condemnation existing apart from any personal decision to sin.
This QOD teaching had never been Adventist doctrine. The sin for which we are considered guilty or condemned had previously been viewed by Adventists in the context of free will-personal choice exercised in rebellion. Nevertheless, the new doctrine of sin was now being portrayed to evangelicals as that believed by Adventists.
If sin is built into one's inherited human nature, as taught in QOD, then there is no means for its eradication but to wait for God to change that nature at the moment of glorification.
In addition, the QOD introduction of the doctrine of original sin makes it necessary to protect the humanity of Jesus from having the same fallen nature as all other men. If we are condemned and lost because of our birth-natures, then Jesus cannot have the same nature. The doctrine of original sin destroys the brotherhood between Jesus and fallen man. So we see the imperative reason why the authors of QOD felt it so needful to bend Adventist teaching on the humanity of Christ.
Now we begin to see the reason for the major attempt in QOD and in the Ministry articles to change our position on the nature of Christ. Some of our leaders had accepted the Augustinian/Calvinist doctrine of original sin in a modified form. Thus our positions on the nature of Christ and the possibility of sinlessness in the last generation because of the final atonement had to be radically revised. Significantly, the battle over these issues has not gone away or lessened over the last fifty year period.
Some Results of QOD Conflict
An informal survey was undertaken in 1989 of pastors in the Southeastern California Conference of the church, in an attempt to learn if doctrinal positions had significantly changed at the grass roots level of church leadership. One statement read: "Some of the recently expressed objections to the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 ('then shall the sanctuary be cleansed') are valid." Only 34% of the pastors disagreed with this statement. This means that 66% did not affirm the Adventist interpretation of this text.
Another statement read: "A loyal Adventist has no reason to doubt the accuracy of Ellen White statements." Only 36% agreed with this statement. A third statement read: "A person should accept the prophetic role of Ellen White before being baptized as a Seventh-day Adventist." Only 31% agreed with this statement. Most of the ministers surveyed didn't believe that a person should have to accept Mrs. White's prophetic role before becoming a Seventh-day Adventists.
The survey results convinced the survey takers that pre-QOD Adventism was not very popular among these ministers. They concluded that the majority of the answers, at least 60%, would comport well with "evangelical Adventism." ("Survey of Attitudes and Opinions," September 25, 1989, Survey Research Service, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California)
In the January/February, 1994 Adventist Today appeared an article entitled "Evangelical Adventism: Clinging to the Old Rugged Cross." The following link between evangelical Adventism and QOD was expressed: "In 1957, with the publication of Questions on Doctrine, denominational leaders clarified which theological stream represented official Seventh-day Adventism. Among the theological positions taken in Questions on Doctrine are the following:... Jesus Christ is eternally God and sinless in His human nature; the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners was finished at the cross... Evangelical Adventists consider the positions taken in Questions on Doctrine to be an expression of both authentic and evangelical Adventism."
The term "evangelical Adventism" first appeared with reference to Seventh-day Adventism with the first issue of Evangelica-A Publication for Evangelical Adventists in October, 1980. This movement was articulated by Alan Crandall, the editor. In the May, 1982 edition of Evangelica he stated that the roots of evangelical Adventism extended back to Questions on Doctrine, and that this movement had been advanced by gospel preachers during the 1960's and 1970's.
Concluding Thoughts
In a report of the 2007 QOD conference, Larry Kirkpatrick offered these significant reflections. ("Here Are They," available on www.greatcontroversy.org)
Should Adventists try to be identified with Evangelicals?
What value would there be for Adventists being identified as evangelicals?...The label comes... with a troubling set of negatives. These include a teaching of forever burning hell, a teaching of the natural immortality of the soul,... the idea of an American empire, the USA as planetary policeman, and the initiation of wars such as the invasion of Iraq by the United States. That war, whatever you think of it, is seen as an evangelically-supported war... The closer that we are identified with evangelicals, the more we would be identified with their politics. When evangelicals mix church and state, and we seek to identify ourselves as being evangelical, we lose our high ground of apolitical neutrality.
There may have been some value to us in being perceived as evangelicals in the 1950's... Be that as it may, the value of our being perceived as "evangelical" in 2008 is highly questionable. Just a small sampling of books currently available on Amazon: The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience... The Great Evangelical Disaster... The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind... The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism... Being an evangelical in 2008 is not exactly felt to put one into the best company... Therefore, some Adventists question the value of being too closely identified with evangelicalism.
Interestingly enough, Donald Dayton, an evangelical scholar at the 2007 conference wrote: "I would then call Adventism to explore its own sources for insights... This is certainly a higher calling than the efforts to 'assimilate' to the evangelical tradition that seem to dominate such discussions as the Questions on Doctrines. I fear that Adventism may sell its heritage for a mess of pottage."
QOD was a mistake because it erected a new Adventism when the current one had already been supplied by God... QOD was a mistake because it did not tell the truth about what Seventh-day Adventists believed. By the mid-1950's, but few in-the-pew Adventists believed as QOD claimed... Martin and Barnhouse knew that QOD did not square with the Adventism that had gone before it.
The power of Adventism is found in its two "T's"-in "termination" and "transformation."... The Seventh-day Adventist message is all about "termination"--the end of sin and sinning, the end of suffering and evil... Our message is also about the other "T," "transformation." This too is an attack on sin. The status quo is unacceptable. Strengthened by the helping grace of God, we are changed here and now... The universe sees that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation... Transformation and termination are the strengths of pre-QOD Adventism. But QOD undermined the very things it was claimed to help.
Be all that as it may be, the future of Seventh-day Adventist mission and message is bright. Although QOD obscured crucial distinctives, a vigorous, fresh wave of young people are thriving in the grass roots... Many of these energetic Adventists are motivated by an understanding very similar to that which illumined the writings of M. L. Andreasen. It is very much pre-QOD Adventism. It is alive and well... An army of young people with faith in God and a trust in the Scriptures are evangelistically primed. What's more, they uphold the full inspiration and authority of the Ellen G. White writings. They are learning. They are growing. They are formidable...
One day soon God will say, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus... In the end God wins, and the Third Angel's Message, which so many have thrown overboard as a quaint relic foisted upon an ignorant church by Ellen White, turns out to be true. Victory over sin was just what the Bible said it was. The mission Heaven assigned to this community of faith was right after all... Pre-QOD Adventism today is bright with energy.
There are some subjects that people just don't like to talk about. Even when they are appropriate for discussion, they are carefully avoided. Often we are told that these subjects are not important to understand, that they really don't make any difference. During the last twenty-five years the human nature of Christ has been one of these subjects. How many speakers are willing to speak publicly about it? Yet, strangely, this subject seems to keep on appearing in our publications. A recent example of this comes from Ministry magazine.
Old Issues Ongoing
"While there is a profound fatigue within the Adventist soul when it comes to such discussions and the tensions and divisions they tend to bring, there is also a compelling significance to aspects of the dialogue. [The reason for the compelling significance is because the subject is so tightly intertwined with issues in the great controversy and the plan of salvation.] The publication of two articles in this journal have and will inevitably raise questions about these things among some of our readers.
"First, there is Roy Naden's doctrinal study, 'The Nature of Christ: Four Measures of a Mystery.' Then there is Woodrow Whidden's important article in this issue, reporting and commenting on the republication of the book Questions on Doctrine.
"Given these articles, we felt it would be both helpful and interesting to republish an insert...that Ministry first presented 33 years ago in its October 1970 issue.
"While volumes of water have passed under the theological bridge of our Church since 1970, we at Ministry find ourselves in basic agreement with the positions that were taken on the issues discussed by the three essayists in this insert....
"It is clear that Jesus was born and came to this earth under entirely unique circumstances, different from ours, and therefore received a one-of-a-kind nature....His nature is and was completely sinless." Ministry, August, 2003, p. 4, brackets supplied by present author
Evidently the editors felt that the issue of Christ's human nature was sufficiently important to dedicate several articles to prove that Christ's nature was substantially different from ours.
Four Basic Issues
The following statements are taken from Roy Naden's article. ( Ministry , June, 2003, pp. 8-11)
"Unlike us in our sinful state, Jesus had not the slightest inclination or desire to sin." The first point is that Christ had not the slightest inclination to selfishness, pride, impatience, doubt, discouragement, or avoiding of trials.
"He had accepted our humanity with the physical limitations which thousands of years of sinful disintegration had imposed, but He took human nature without in any way inheriting the sinfulness of being human. Mystery!" The second point is that Christ had a partial human inheritance, because He inherited no sinful inclinations. "He inherited our human nature, but not the sinfulness of this exceedingly sinful human heritage. Mystery!"
Eric Webster supported this viewpoint in a letter to the editor. ( Ministry , October, 2004, p. 30)
"In speaking of the birth of Seth, Ellen White writes: 'Seth...inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin' ( Signs of the Times , Feb. 20, 1879)....If Christ possessed a sinful nature as Seth did He would have needed a Saviour." The third point is that a sinful nature is sin, and in need of forgiving grace.
"Was Christ like Adam before the Fall or after the Fall? I would say both. He was like Adam before the Fall in His sinlessness, purity, and holiness of mind and character. He was like Adam after the Fall in the frailties, infirmities, and weaknesses of the flesh. As Naden says, ' Jesus was affected by sin but not infected.'" Once again we are being told that Jesus accepted a partial heredity of the human race.
The following statements are taken from a "Supplement to THE MINISTRY," (October, 1970, reprinted August, 2003).
"Adam's posterity has ever come into the world inheriting fallen, sinful natures, evil propensities, and apart from the Saviour, condemnation to eternal death." (p. 7) It is of some interest that there is no mention of automatic condemnation in our official statement of belief #7. "Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil." ( Ministry , June, 2003, p. 8)
In the Ministry Supplement we are told that "Christ did not inherit at birth the fallen nature inherited by Adam's posterity....If Christ had inherited the evil nature earned by Adam's fall He too would have been born in sin, under condemnation, and, therefore, Himself in need of a Saviour....He did not have that within His nature that predisposed Him toward sinning. He did not possess the passions and inner promptings which we are daily obliged to subject by the grace of God."
God's people are limited by "their inability to equal in a positive way the infinite character perfection of Christ because their natures, faculties, mental and moral powers or capacities are still imperfect and remain so until the second coming of Jesus....As long as we retain these imperfect faculties, as long as our powers are inferior, as long as our basic human natures show such evident results of the Fall, we cannot claim to be sinless."
"He did not inherit the type of nature that we inherit at birth. If this were so He inherited the type of human nature which...is to be the possession of God's people at the Second Advent." Again we are told that Christ did not inherit normal human nature, but received a special, created nature.
"It is not possible for them in this life to achieve perfect equality with the human nature of Christ because of their possession, until the Second Advent, of faculties, powers, and capacities which result from man's fall into sin." (pp. 7-16)
"To teach from the Bible uses of this word (perfect) that ultimate sinless perfection is possible to inherently sinful man here on earth is not supported by the Word of God, and is denied by the very nature of man himself." The fourth point is that as long as we possess fallen nature we can never be sinless.
"Salvation by grace and the merits of Christ's atonement still avails for the saints after probation closes." Saving grace is "available at any time in the Christian life until the day of our Lord's coming....Sinners are the only persons with whom saving grace is concerned....There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture or in the Spirit of Prophecy that indicates the slightest change in salvation by grace ministered daily to the saints." We need to grasp "the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace beyond the close of probation....If he is under grace, then it is because he is not yet sinless." (pp. 18-22) If we will always be sinners and never sinless, then we will always need saving or forgiving grace until Jesus comes.
"Note the results of Adam's sin insofar as it pertains to us: we were made sinners,...we are born in a state of guilt inherited from Adam....We inherit guilt from Adam so that even a baby that dies a day after birth needs a Saviour though the child never committed a sin of its own." (p. 27)
Those who believe that Christ did not take our fallen nature hold these four points as central to their position. It is precisely these four points that are at issue in any discussion of Christ's human nature, and it is for these reasons that the issue of Christ's nature is not likely to go away any time soon.
Some Recent History
In the early 1980's there were rather lengthy debates in our church papers over these very issues. Norman Gulley wrote about the pre-Fall and post-Fall views that "both views are found within Scripture and in the writings of Ellen White....Jesus came from the hands of the Creator Holy Spirit--'that Holy thing'--just as much the result of the creative work of God as was the first Adam." This means that Christ's human nature was created, not inherited. "He was like the first Adam, or like that which the redeemed will be when changed at the Second Advent....He took that weakened, deteriorated sin-affected nature--but, without taking its propensities or taint of sin, predisposing to a leaning to sin....He had a pre-Fall and a post-Fall human nature combined in a unique way....Sin is not so much a breaking of the law as it is a broken relationship that leads to lawbreaking. Did Christ have a broken relationship with either God or man in coming into history?" ( Adventist Review , June 30, 1983, pp. 4-8)
"The Bible opposes a sinless birth for all humans. It indicates that all men are 'constituted sinners by Adam's transgression.'...Only the two Adams entered Planet Earth sinless. All others are born sinners....The entire human race is born in that land of estrangement from God." ( Ministry , August, 1985, p. 11)
Now these strongly expressed positions on the nature of Christ, both recent and two decades ago, did not go unnoticed by the readers of our papers. Following are some excerpts from letters to the editors responding to these issues.
"The author has Jesus speaking to Satan: 'I stand here like the first Adam before you tempted him. I, too, have never sinned. And I have a sinless nature like the first Adam at his creation.'...Christ was born a descendent of Abraham. What nature did Abraham and Isaac and Jacob have? A sinful nature, a fallen nature. Jesus took on the nature of man as it was after the Fall....The only nature we have is a sinful nature. It was the only nature available to Jesus when He clad Himself in humanity....It is not the sinful nature that condemns us, but sin. We are all born with a sinful nature. But we are not sinners at birth."
" I was disappointed and bewildered over the confusion that exists because of this and other articles that have come during the last 50 years. When God is leading us out onto a platform of eternal truth, how come we have to step off the one He gave us during the first 100 years? Why do we as a church support teachings which come from those who have not been blessed with the light from the throne of God? Our aim, since the books Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny came out, seems to be to try to satisfy the fears of those who want to follow the papacy's teachings. At the 1901 General Conference, Dr. Waggoner said, 'Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary?' George Knight says, 'Christ's nature created no controversy in the Adventism of the 1890's. It was a generally accepted theological nonissue.'...Why did it in the 1950's? We sought the fame of not being called a 'sect' at the expense of compromising the truth." ( Ministry , June, 2004, p. 3)
"If sin is a state of being inherent within our natures,...then Christ could not have been born with our nature or He would have been a sinner, and He could not be our example except idealistically (unless He is going to give us unfallen natures too), and therefore we cannot overcome as He did and must continue sinning, and therefore Jesus' primary ministry in the heavenly sanctuary is to administer justification."
"SDA theology does not present two alternative views concerning the human nature of Jesus our Lord....It's as if we as a people have decided to believe that Sundaykeeping and Sabbathkeeping are justified in the eyes of God. Obviously, there has been a change in our historic position."
"Is every baby born with the sentence of the second death hanging over it? Does God ascribe guilt to the newborn baby, making it worthy of the second death even before it has a chance to commit any personal sins?...No one will be cast into the lake of fire because of Adam's sin, but only because of his or her own personal sins....He not only confuses sin with the effects of sin, but moves into the area of making a sinful nature equivalent to sin itself....Since the fallen nature is the same as guilt and sin, every baby born is in need of redemption before it can think or speak or act. This means that Jesus would be guilty by just being born, unless His nature was different from all other babies....How did he establish this inherited 'broken relationship' for infants? By recounting Eve's visit to the tree and speculating that she sinned in her mind by doubting God even before she took the fruit. So the relationship was broken before any act of sin was committed. On this basis, he claims that every baby is born with a broken relationship and in a lost condition, without committing any act of sin. We can only assume that he believes Eve would have been lost whether she ate the fruit or not....
"Please take note that there is a big difference between 'separation from God' and 'the result of separation from God.' Adam's children did not inherit 'separation from God.'...They inherited only the 'result' of Adam's separation from God, which involved a weakened, fallen nature, and the inevitability of the first death....In the same way that he confuses sin with the sinful nature, the results of sin with sin itself, and separation from God with the fallen nature, the author confuses evil propensities with natural propensities....I don't know a single person who believes that Jesus sinned or was born a sinner. Neither do I know anyone who believes that Jesus had 'sinful propensities.' But I do know many who believe that He had 'natural propensities,' just as all of us do, as a result of being born like us, with a fallen nature. Evil propensities are those leanings toward sin that have been cultivated and strengthened by indulgence in sin. Natural propensities are those leanings that have been inherited. Guilt is involved in one, but not the other. It is not sinful unless one yields to the propensity."
"The question of the nature of Christ is not a debate over certain theological fine points....Either the cleansing of the sanctuary that began in 1844 is to purify and perfect a people to stand without sin or our denomination is the result of the inability of a group of disoriented fanatics to admit that their prophetic understandings of Daniel were wrong. The real issue is upon the point of overcoming sin. If Jesus could not enter the conflict and overcome in our flesh, then we cannot."
The author "claims that the Bible gives two definitions of sin--behavior and relationship. Contrary to his assertion, there is only one Biblical definition. First John 3:4 is that one....And further, it has not been proved that a broken relationship with God comes before the act of sinful choice. Isaiah 59:2 states unequivocally that active sin separates man from God. Any discussion to the contrary takes us out of the arena of Biblical exegesis into the quagmire of interpretive philosophy." ( Ministry , December, 1985, pp. 26-27)
It is readily apparent that the reactions to the pre-Fall view of Christ's human nature were very strong, both recently and two decades ago. This issue is not going away or dying down, because the surrounding conclusions are so vital to the mission of the Adventist Church. I will close this section on our recent history with some thoughts from Herbert Douglass, a prominent participant in the debates of the 1980's.
"The view that Jesus assumed Adam's pre-Fall nature appeared only recently within our church. This position emerged in the 1950's during a series of events that saw basic Adventist concepts reformulated. The consequences of these changes have had much to do with the trauma and theological divisions the church has experienced....The study of our Lord's humanity is not 'merely academic hairsplitting.'...Why Jesus became man...can be understood only from the standpoint of the great controversy--a perspective largely missing in 'orthodox' Protestantism as well as in Catholicism....There were several issues, but none more important than Satan's charge that sons and daughters of Adam could not keep God's laws, that such laws were unrealistic and not in the best interest of created beings. Such primary issues determined the kind of humanity our Lord would assume in order to satisfy justice and silence Satan." ( Ministry , August, 1985, pp. 10-11)
No Inclination to Sin
The first of the four major issues surrounding the human nature of Christ is whether Christ had any normal human inclinations toward sinning. In the Ministry editorial of August, 2003, it is stated that Jesus faced "all the temptations common to humans." Right here we need to consider two New Testament texts together. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." James 1:14 tells us that "every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Was Jesus really tempted like "every man is tempted," or not? The word "lust" certainly includes every man's desire for pleasure, profit, and honor. Were not the wilderness temptations of Christ designed by Satan to fulfill these basic human desires or lusts?
But we are being told today that Jesus had not the slightest desire or inclination to pride, impatience, doubt, or discouragement. If we are tempted when our inclinations or desires draw us to these things, and Jesus did not have these inclinations, then Jesus was not tempted in any of these areas as "every man is tempted."
It is often said that Christ's temptations were to use His divine powers or to abandon His mission of saving man. This is very true, but is this a sufficient reason for ignoring Hebrews 4:15? Was Jesus really tempted like we are tempted?
Let us check some inspired evidence here. In John 5:30 Jesus said, "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." Why did Jesus say that He did not seek His own will? "The human will of Christ would not have led him to the wilderness of temptation....It would not have led him to endure humiliation, scorn, reproach, suffering, and death. His human nature shrank from all these things as decidedly as ours shrinks from them." ( Signs of the Times , October 29, 1894) If Christ would have followed the natural desires of His human will He would have abandoned His mission and God's plan for Him. In other words, His human will would have disobeyed God, and He had to deny His own will to do the will of His Father. Isn't this exactly like our situation? Our will and desires are naturally in opposition to the will of God, and we must surrender the exercise of our own will in order to obey God.
One inspired sentence has a wealth of meaning in it. "By experiencing in Himself the strength of Satan's temptation." ( Review and Herald , March 18, 1875) Now just where does the strength of Satan's temptations reside? "His (our) strongest temptations will come from within, for he must battle against the inclinations of the natural heart." ( Christ Tempted As We Are , p. 11) If our strongest temptations come from our battle against the inclinations of the natural heart, and if Christ experienced within Himself the strength of Satan's temptations, then obviously those inclinations were within Christ also. "If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us....He endured every trial to which we are subject." ( Desire of Ages , p. 24) Is the power of God really sufficient to overcome the inclinations of the natural heart? If Jesus did not have these inclinations, then Satan's accusations have never been answered, and our salvation is very uncertain.
"Even doubts assailed the dying Son of God." ( Testimonies , vol. 2, 209) Christ was tempted by His own thoughts not to believe His Father's promises.
"He blessed children that were possessed of passions like His own." ( Signs of the Times , April 9, 1896) Do all children have inherited desires toward selfishness? Christ had the same "passions."
"The Son of God in His humanity wrestled with the very same fierce, apparently overwhelming temptations that assail man--temptations to indulgence of appetite, to presumptuous venturing where God has not led them, and to the worship of the god of this world, to sacrifice an eternity of bliss for the fascinating pleasures of this life." ( Selected Messages , vol. 1, p. 95) Are we not drawn to these things by our own desires? What makes them fierce and overwhelming is our desire for them, and here we are clearly told that Christ had the same temptations.
"He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart." ( Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 177) Just how does He know this? "He knows by experience...where lies the strength of our temptations." ( Ministry of Healing , p. 71) Without question, Jesus has experienced the strength of the inclinations of the natural heart.
In Gethsemane "His depression and discouragement left Him." ( Desire of Ages , p. 694) Was not Jesus drawn to discouragement by His own thoughts and natural inclinations?
"He had the same nature as the sinner." ( Manuscript Releases , vol. 10, p. 176) The question must be addressed --Was Adam in Eden a sinner? Is a nature partly like Adam and partly like us the same nature as sinners? The reality is that all sinners have fallen natures and are drawn strongly by them.
The difference between Christ and us is not in His being exempt from natural fallen inclinations to sin. The difference is that He did not cherish these inclinations and incorporate them into His character as we do. The temptations of the natural heart were as strong for Christ as they are for us.
No matter what words are used by pre-Fall advocates, if Christ had no natural inclinations to sin, He could not be tempted like us , and one of the major links of Christ with the fallen human race has been destroyed.
Partial Heredity
The second issue at stake in considering Christ's humanity is the nature of His inheritance, through Mary, of human nature. The only way that Jesus could take human nature without inheriting the "sinfulness of our sinful human heritage" is by His being exempted from some aspects of human heredity. The Holy Spirit would have to block some human genes from reaching Jesus in the normal way. In other words, Mary's genetic deficiencies were altered by the Holy Spirit so that she would pass on a totally unique heredity to Christ, completely unlike the heredity we receive from our parents.
In Romans 1:3 Paul says that Jesus "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." But we are being told that Christ was made partially but not completely of the seed of David. Ellen White is even more specific. "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity." ( Desire of Ages , p. 49)
One of Christ's ancestors was Seth. "Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents." ( Patriarchs and Prophets , p. 80) Whatever Seth received through heredity, Jesus received through heredity. This is the only possible conclusion that can be reached from these passages, and it is due only to a preconceived assumption about the nature of sin that these statements are not accepted at face value.
Harry Johnson, in his book The Humanity of the Saviour , says it most simply and pointedly. "There is no evidence to suggest that the chain of heredity was broken between Mary and Jesus." (London, The Epworth Press, 1962, p. 44)
Protestants have historically rejected the doctrine of the immaculate conception on the basis that it is not found in Scripture. But today many Adventists teach that in the womb of Mary a special miracle was performed so that no sinful tendencies or drives would be passed from Mary to Jesus. We as a church profess to repudiate the doctrine of the immaculate conception, but at the most critical point we fall back on its explanation for Jesus' birth. While we reject Mary's sinlessness, and we reject the teaching that Mary passed nothing on to Jesus through heredity, we eagerly accept a partial blockage of the hereditary line when it comes to desires and tendencies. This is simply a modified and more subtle version of the immaculate conception. Are we really sure that we are out of the Church of Rome? Our current teaching is a direct descendant in the theological line of the immaculate conception.
Sinful Nature Equals Sin
The third issue is the real problem at the heart of all discussions of the human nature of Christ. Does having a sinful nature make one a sinner and in need of a Saviour? If this issue could be resolved, we would have no more disagreements over the humanity of Christ.
The editor of the Adventist Review , William Johnsson , expressed his view very clearly. "Some arguments go on and on because the antagonists never get to the real issue--the underlying concern behind the surface debate....The issue behind the issue is the concept of sin. Those who want to understand more clearly Jesus' human nature would get further if they stopped debating whether Jesus came in humanity's pre-Fall or post-Fall nature and spent time looking at what the Bible says about sin itself....Not only are our acts sinful; our very nature is at war with God. Did Jesus have such a nature? No. If He had, He would Himself need a Saviour. He had...no warping of His moral nature that predisposed Him to temptation." (August 26, 1993, p. 4)
Richard Taylor put it very well in his book, A Right Conception of Sin . "One who does not have correct views of sin is not apt to have correct views of any other fundamental question. This will especially be manifest in regard to his theory of the atonement and God's method of redeeming man." (Beacon Hill Press, 1945, pp. 9-11)
The doctrine of original sin, held by Johnsson and many others in Adventism, twists every aspect of the gospel and the atonement, so that nothing survives intact. It is gradually becoming the dominant view among Adventists, even among those faithful to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. It is now believed by some who are trusted by loyal, careful Adventist laypeople.
One of the reasons that this subject has seemed so confusing is because of a lack of simple definitions. There is a crucial difference between the effects of sin and sin itself. Although the effects of sin are far-reaching and ultimately lethal, no one ascribes personal guilt or condemnation to the effects of sin. On the other hand, the concept of sin is associated with guilt, condemnation, separation from God, judgment, and the second death. Our focus, as we discuss righteousness by faith or the nature of Christ, must be on sin itself rather than the effects of sin. Our basic question here is simple. Is fallen nature part of sin itself, or is it one of the effects of sin? Our conclusions regarding the nature of Christ will be determined by the answer we give to this simple question.
To say that all babies need a Saviour has become one of the most misleading clichés in current thinking on righteousness by faith. Yes, a baby needs a Saviour, a suffering planet needs a Saviour, blind men and lame men need a Saviour, but not in the sense of personal forgiveness for personal sin and guilt. Once again, we are confusing the effects of sin and sin itself.
James 4:17 tells us that "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The clearest texts describing sin say nothing of fallen nature being an inevitable, ongoing state of sin. To say that sin is nature is to say that we are sinning even when we are choosing not to sin. Could it be that this understanding of sin as something inevitable and ongoing has greatly dulled our sensitivity to real sin (transgression of God's law) so that now we have come to accept specific transgressions as simply expressions of the greater sin of having a fallen nature? In other words, we have come to accept sinning as a normal part of life and even Christian life. We have even started calling fallen nature SIN and acts of sin "sins."
Isaiah 59:2 tells us that "your iniquities have separated between you and your God." It is sin that separates us from God, that breaks our relationship with Him, rather than the other way around. Yes, sin is indeed a state, but it follows the decision to sin against God, and it continues as long as the heart remains unrepentant.
Those who want to prove that fallen nature is sin itself rather than an effect of sin have simply not proved their case. Being born into this world means that we are subject to hunger and thirst, weariness and pain, suffering and death. It means that the planet we live on may try to destroy us. It means being born by sinful parents, receiving a sinful nature, and living in a sinful environment. But it does not mean being born guilty of sin or condemned. Although we receive all of the effects of sin, including a fallen nature, we are not automatically guilty of sin.
The conclusion that a man is a sinner by nature does not come from the Bible or Adventism. Its roots reach back to Augustine in the Roman Catholic Church, and it has been transmitted to mainline Protestantism through the writings of Luther and Calvin. Today evangelical Protestants champion this view of sin, and they have been quite eager to see this view become part of Adventism. The evangelical view of sin is accepted within the highest levels of Adventist scholarship today. One wonders, when will we go back to infant baptism, which is the only logical solution for being born in need of a Saviour?
The evangelical position on sin makes it impossible to accept the long-standing Adventist position that Christ took our very nature of sin, triumphing over sin in that dangerous nature. Because of the evangelical position on sin, we are being told that Christ could not be our Substitute if He really took our fallen nature from birth, and we are now forced to devise rather complicated devices to allow Christ to take part of human heredity while being exempted from certain hereditary traits.
It might be well to note one point in regard to being born "in sin." In Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, page 60, Seth was "born in sin." When Ellen White developed this more fully in Patriarchs and Prophets , p. 80, Seth "inherited fallen nature." This parallel passage shows what Ellen White meant by being "born in sin."
No Sinless Perfection
The fourth issue may be the underlying motivation for all the emphasis in recent years on Christ's unfallen or partly fallen nature. In the Ministry editorial at the beginning of this paper are these thoughts. "The soul mate of the 'nature of Christ' issue...is the question, of course, of the role of Christ's imparted sinless perfection, worked out in the heart and behavior of the Christian believer by faith....These particular issues...are particularly potent in the Adventist mind and heart when coupled with the close of 'probation,' the final judgment, and the second coming of Christ." (August, 2003, p. 4)
We quoted statements earlier in this paper that sinless perfection is impossible because of our sinful nature, and that saving grace must be available until Jesus comes because we will never be sinless. Woodrow Whidden put it this way. "Will our nature and performance ever become so sinless this side of glorification (even after the close of probation) that we will cease to need the constant justifying merits of Jesus? Do we really take Ellen White seriously when she says the believers' 'unavoidable deficiencies' are made up for them by the 'imputed' righteousness of Christ and that 'Jesus loves His children, even if they err'?...Isn't perfection primarily an attitude rather than a performance?" ( Ministry , October, 1993)
Might it not be relevant right here to take another look at 1 Peter 2:21,22? "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth."
Ellen White presses home the same theme. "If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper....His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern." ( Review and Herald , February 18, 1890)
By accepting the evangelical doctrine that the atonement was completed at the cross and that Jesus was born with the sinless human nature of Adam before the Fall, most of our church pulpits no longer tell us that Jesus is our Example in overcoming all temptation and sin. Therefore, the sanctuary message is no longer relevant, and the warning message of the three angels' messages of Revelation 14 is no longer relevant to God's plan of salvation. We can then be saved in our sins, character development is no longer necessary, the commandments of God cannot be kept perfectly by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Prophecy is considered an irrelevant antique of the nineteenth century, and the seventh-day Sabbath is not kept according to Isaiah 58:13.
William Johnsson shared a powerful story in one of his editorials. "Dr. Paul Brand, who pioneered restorative surgery for lepers, tells of an epidemic of measles that struck Vellore in south India, where the Brand family was then living. The Brands had an infant daughter, Estelle, and because of her age she was exposed to high risk. The pediatrician explained that convalescent serum--serum from a person who had contracted measles and had overcome it--would protect the little girl. Word went around Vellore that the Brands needed the 'blood of an overcomer.' 'It was no use finding somebody who had conquered chicken pox or had recovered from a broken leg. Such people, albeit healthy, could not give the specific help we needed to overcome measles. We needed someone who had experienced measles and had defeated that disease,' writes Brand in his book In His image . The Brands located such a person, took out some of his blood, and injected their daughter with the convalescent serum. Armed with the 'borrowed' antibodies, their daughter fought off the invading disease. The injected serum gave her body time to manufacture her own antibodies. Estelle overcame measles--not by her own body's strength, but as the result of a battle that had taken place previously within someone else." ( Adventist Review , April 13, 1989)
I don't think that I have ever seen a better illustration of why Jesus had to come in our fallen nature. Because He has experienced fallen nature and defeated it, we can borrow His antibodies and defeat our fallen nature. And this from an editor who believes that Christ had an unfallen nature!!
Let us take a brief look at some of the inspired evidence that Christ's example proves that the final generation will actually live sinless lives, contrary to what our "experts" are telling us.
"He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life." ( Desire of Ages , p. 49)
"He sent His Son to this world to bear the penalty of sin, and to show man how to live a sinless life." ( Reflecting Christ , p. 37)
"He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in His power His people might also live lives of sinlessness." ( Review and Herald , April 1, 1902)
"He placed us on vantage ground, where we could live pure, sinless lives." ( Signs of the Times , June 17, 1903)
"Every one who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." ( Signs of the Times , July 23, 1902)
"Christ has left us a perfect, sinless example. His followers are to walk in His footsteps." ( Sons and Daughters of God , p. 294)
"Christ's life is a revelation of what fallen human beings may become through union and fellowship with the divine nature." ( Manuscript Releases , vol. 18, p. 331)
"The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome....His life declares that humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin." ( Ministry of Healing , p. 180)
"God did for us the very best thing that He could do when He sent from heaven a sinless Being to manifest to this world of sin what those who are saved must be in character--pure, holy, and undefiled." ( Manuscript Releases , vol. 9, p. 125)
"Christ came to the earth...to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement." ( Signs of the Times , June 9, 1898)
"Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it might become." ( Selected Messages , vol. 3, p. 134)
"Brethren and sisters, we need the reformation that all who are redeemed must have, through the cleansing of mind and heart from every taint of sin." ( Counsels on Health , p. 633)
"We are cleansed from all sin, all defects of character. We need not retain one sinful propensity." ( Review and Herald , April 24, 1900)
"Every hereditary and cultivated tendency to sin must be seen, subdued, and cleansed." ( Signs of the Times , July 18, 1895)
"They will hate sin and iniquity, even as Christ hated sin." ( Faith and Works , p. 115)
"When we know God as it is our privilege to know Him, our life will be a life of continual obedience. Through an appreciation of the character of Christ, through communion with God, sin will become hateful to us." ( Desire of Ages , p. 668)
"They would hate sin with a perfect hatred." ( Fundamentals of Christian Education , p. 291)
Conclusion
The issue of Christ's human nature is not going away any time soon, because the whole plan of salvation is at stake. Hebrews 1:14, 15 tells us that "through death" Jesus would "destroy him that had the power of death" and would "deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Verse 17 tells us that the only way Christ could do this was "to be made like unto his brethren," not in some things but "in all things." Inspiration further tells us, "The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam." ( Review and Herald , February 24, 1874) It could not be accomplished if Christ took unfallen Adam's place, or if He took no one's place (partially like Adam and partially like us). To be our sinless Substitute, He had to overcome the liabilities of our fallen nature. What had become an irresistible force to man, Christ must make a conquered power.
Even though this statement from the SDA Bible Commentary is not inspired, it shows a deep understanding of Christ's redemptive act. "Christ met, overcame, and condemned sin in the sphere in which it had previously exercised its dominion and mastery. The flesh, the scene of sin's former triumphs, now became the scene of its defeat and expulsion." (Vol. 6, p. 562)
The issue of the Incarnation was, Could God really overcome sin in Satan's ultimate stronghold, the fallen human heart? If human weaknesses and desires could be subject to God's law, then Satan would lose his greatest battle, and the great controversy would be truly decided. But if God would exempt His Son from some human tendencies, then would the great controversy be any closer to its conclusion then when Satan was expelled from heaven?
When Jesus prevailed on the cross, a loud voice was heard in heaven proclaiming, "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down." (Revelation 12:10) Do we really want to rob Jesus of His great victory under the guise of making Him our "sinless Substitute"? Will we continue to deny Him the full salvation that He wrought not only over acts of sin, but over fallen, weak, sinful human nature, in which Satan thought he reigned supreme since the fall of Adam? Let us allow Christ to be truly our sinless Substitute as well as our holy Example. Only the real Christ, providing a real atonement, can lead His church through to final victory.
I have become convinced, during the past fifteen years of disagreement and even controversy on the subject of righteousness by faith, that most of the erroneous views of the gospel stem from a faulty understanding of sin. Specifically, the crucial issue is why human beings stand condemned as sinners in the sight of God. Are we condemned sinners because we are born with fallen natures in a sinful world, or are we condemned sinners because we have chosen to exercise our fallen natures in a rebellious way against God's will? Depending on the answer given to this question, two quite different versions of the gospel are taught. The meanings of justification, the new birth, and sanctification are different depending on the answer to this question. Differing beliefs are held about our relation to God while we are involved in personal sins and about whether we can have victory over those sins.
I do not believe that we are condemned, lost sinners because we are born with fallen natures in a sinful world. However, this is the standard, orthodox belief about sin in the Christian world. In this article I wish to examine some of the inspired evidence which is used to support the belief that we are born into this world as lost sinners. Some of this evidence seems quite compelling, but I believe that there is a bigger picture from inspiration which is often overlooked.
The First Adam
Perhaps the text most often used to prove that we are sinners from birth is Psalm 51:5. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Notice that David does not say that he was a sinner from birth. Some Bible versions say this, but that is a theological interpretation rather than a correct translation. Where else could David have been born except in iniquity and sin? His mother and father were sinners, and he was born in pain because of the sin of Adam and Eve. David was born in a sinful world to sinful parents. If a child would happen to be born in a family of thieves, where thievery was practiced and taught by the parents, he would be born in thievery. Would this in itself make him a thief? Likewise, to be born in sin does not automatically constitute one a lost and condemned sinner. It does mean that one's circumstances from birth are extremely undesirable, and that one is most likely to end up a sinner.
Then there is Romans 5:12-19, which contrasts what we receive from the first and second Adam. It could hardly be clearer than in verse 18. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation." This text states rather unequivocally that all men came under condemnation because of Adam's sin. I believe that this is exactly what the text means. Paul is too clear to be misunderstood.
There are several statements from the Spirit of Prophecy which say just about the same thing. "Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences." (Faith and Work, p. 88) "The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God... As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death." (Manuscript Releases, vol. 9, p. 236) "Fallen human beings... were heirs of guilt, under sentence of eternal death." (Ibid., vol. 12, p. 61) "These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death." (Ibid., vol. 13, p. 14)
These statements are also quite clear. Those who are born into this sinful world receive from Adam guilt, sin, separation, and eternal death. Many have concluded that the evidence is clear that we stand under condemnation from our birth, and that we are sinners by inheritance from Adam. I believe that these statements mean exactly what they seem to say, that this whole world justly deserves nothing but condemnation.
But has the whole story been told? Or is this only half of the total picture? Do we need to look a little further before coming to final conclusions on this subject?
The Second Adam
There are some rather unique texts in the New Testament which speak of Christ's work for the whole race of mankind. Normally we read of how the atonement applies to the individual sinner, but sometimes the focus is broadened to include all mankind. One of these texts is 2 Corinthians 5:14. "If one died for all, then were all dead." In some very important sense Christ's death affected all human beings. That includes Adam and Eve, and it even includes Cain and Hitler. In some way all were dead because of the atonement of Christ.
Another text is 1 Timothy 4:10, which says that God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." God's work for mankind reaches deeper than saving those who believe in Christ. 1 John 2:2 drives the point home. "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Christ’s redeeming work includes not only the sins of those who have repented and believed in Christ, but He has done something for all the sins that have ever been committed.
One of the clearest texts is 2 Corinthians 5:19. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." The work of the atonement was a work of reconciliation--a removing of barriers to fellowship and love. Because of Christ's death there were no hindrances on God's part to the restoration of Edenic unity and harmony. Now the only barrier would be on man's part, if he refused to accept what Christ had done for him.
Now we will return to the text which speaks most clearly of the damage Adam did to the human race--Romans 5:18. This time we must read all of the verse. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." How many were condemned automatically because of Adam's sin? All men. What about those who have never even heard of Adam and who have never heard of the Biblical record of creation and the fall? All men--the human race--were given a second chance by Christ's life and death. Irrespective of knowledge or choice, every human being was doomed by Adam's rebellion before they were even born.
But is that the whole story? Right in one verse we have the complete picture. Not only were all men affected by Adam's sin, but all men were affected by Christ's life and death. The same "all men" who were doomed by Adam's sin were freed from automatic condemnation by Christ's righteousness. To put it simply, what Adam did to the human race, Christ undid for the same human race. But what about those who have never heard of Christ and the Biblical record of the atonement? Do they still receive the free gift? All men--the human race--were given a second chance by Christ's life and death. Irrespective of knowledge or choice, every human being was affected by Christ's atonement.
Some are confused about the word "justification" which is given to all men. One of the meanings of the word is "acquittal," which means being cleared of charges brought against one. Justification is used in this sense in Romans 3:4, where God is justified when He is judged. Obviously God does not need forgiveness, but He does need to be acquitted--cleared of the false charges Satan has brought against Him. In Romans 5 all mankind is acquitted of the correct charge of rebellion which has been brought against the human race. In other words, the race--and all individuals in the race--are not under condemnation.
There are some significant statements from the Spirit of Prophecy on this point. "He restored the whole race of men to favor with God." (1SM 343) "The fallen race uplifted from the pit of ruin into which sin had plunged them, and brought again into connection with the infinite God." (ST 745) "Though earth was struck off from the continent of heaven and alienated from its communion, Jesus has connected it again with the sphere of glory." (ST Nov. 24, 1887) "Christ has thrown His divine arm around the human race." (RH June 11, 1889)
These statements all address the situation of the human race as a whole, just as the Biblical text does. The whole race had been cut off from heaven and separated from God by the sin of Adam, but Jesus restored the same human race to favor with God. All men are brought again into connection with God. Clearly we are not born separated from God, as is claimed by those who believe we are born lost and condemned. Because of Adam's sin, we suffer' under many of the curses of sin, one of which is inheriting a fallen nature, but this in itself does not constitute separation, condemnation, or lostness. While these inspired statements do not say that we are born in a righteous or holy state, they do say that we begin life connected in some important way to God. At the very least they mean that we do not stand condemned from birth for the sin of Adam or for our sinful inheritance. Corporate condemnation through Adam is cancelled by corporate acquittal through Christ.
We have even more specific information about how and when this acquittal entered the picture for humanity. In Genesis 2:17, God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the forbidden tree they would die. "Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case? Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race." (1BC 1082) Why didn't Adam, and thus every future member of the human race, die immediately'? Because, that very day, the plan of redemption was put into effect.
"The instant man accepted the temptations of Satan, and did the very things God had said he should not do, Christ. the Son of God, stood between the living and the dead, saying, 'Let the punishment fall on Me. I will stand in man's place. He shall have another chance.' (1BC 1085) At the instant of Adam's sin, before he knew anything about the horrible future of mankind due to his decision, and most importantly, before he repented of his sin, Christ stepped into the picture. He stood between the living (the heavenly universe) and the dead (the human race), and He took the punishment of death upon Himself. Now this act of Christ was not about personal salvation for Adam and Eve--that would come after their repentance and the offering of a personal sacrifice for their sin. Christ was dealing with the condemnation that had just come upon the human race. Jesus freed the race from the condemnation brought upon it by Adam's sin, just as we read in Romans 6:18. No human being would ever bear the condemnation brought upon the race by Adam, for when Christ paid the penalty for sin, it was paid for all eternity. Yet countless Christians today believe that we are born under condemnation because of Adam's sin, in effect, denying the power of Christ's atoning blood to adequately deal with Adam's sin. When Christ stepped into the Garden of Eden that day, He gave Adam and the human race a second chance to decide for or against God. Adam and the human race were given temporary life in order to make a decision about eternal life.
"As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour... .As soon as Adam sinned, the Son of God presented Himself as surety for the human race, with just as much power to avert the doom pronounced upon the guilty as when He died upon the cross of Calvary." (1BC 1064) Once again we see that there is a Saviour before repentance, which means that we are not dealing with salvation and eternal life. Jesus stepped in here on behalf of the human race. As soon as there was sin (condemnation for all men), there was a Saviour (justification of life for all men). This means that every baby born into this world already has a Saviour, who has dealt with the problem of Adam's guilt and condemnation, so that the baby does not come into the world bearing that condemnation. Adam and the human race were not left for even one second all alone under the penalty of sin and its condemnation. At the moment of Adam's sin, Christ was there to save the race from destruction.
It may be well to note here that we are not talking about justification by faith or believing in Jesus or repentance or the new birth. If Adam was to have any chance for eternal life, he would have to go through all these steps, as will any child after the age of accountability. These are steps in personal salvation. What we are dealing with in the inspired statements we have read is how God solved the problem of a race under condemnation and in dire threat of total destruction.
Now we can look at the total picture. Did all men receive guilt and condemnation and the sentence of death from Adam? Is that the inheritance of all children? Absolutely. All the statements quoted under "The First Adam" are literally true. Adam can give us only condemnation and death. He has no life or hope to offer us. The question of the ages is, Were all men really freed from that condemnation 'in Jesus Christ? Most Christian theology, including the current Evangelical gospel, says no to that question. In spite of what Christ did on the cross; in spite of what He did in the Garden for Adam and Eve, most Christians believe that we come into the world bearing Adam's condemnation--that we are lost sinners from birth. An entire gospel system is based on this false belief, which should make us rightly suspicious of the teachings of this gospel, as they relate to justification, sanctification, and the assurance of personal salvation.
But if it is true that we were all condemned through Adam, it is far more importantly true that we were all freed from that condemnation through Christ. If the first part is true, than the glorious truth is that the second part is just as true. Just as Adam condemned all men, Jesus freed all men from condemnation, both without personal involvement or choice, and both at the same instant of time. All human beings were given a second chance to make up their own minds about the gift of personal salvation.
Some would like to suggest that we must divide Romans 5:18 into two chronological parts. First we are under condemnation through Adam, and then later we are freed from that condemnation. That is a little like asking whether the front of a coin comes before the back of a coin. If we could slice the coin in half and separate them in time, that might be a possibility. But the reality is that when we cut the front of a coin from the back of a coin, the coin no longer exists. The only way the coin has value as money is when the front and back are Joined together, both in time and space. The only way the plan of redemption can have any value is when the front of the coin--Adam's coin--is inseparably connected with the back of the coin--Christ's atonement. It is impossible to speak of a time in the history of sin on this planet when the atonement did not alter' what sin had done to us. Therefore we cannot speak of condemnation through Adam without immediately speaking of how Christ altered that condemnation. It is false theology to split corporate condemnation and corporate acquittal into two separate compartments, first analyzing one part and then examining the other part. Christ's entrance into the Garden of Eden forever altered, for all men, the guilt and condemnation that Adam handed to the human race.
Some believe that the inspired statements under "The First Adam" are enough to prove that we are all born under condemnation because of Adam's sin. But, as shown above, those statements alone are not enough. What we must have, if it really is true that we are born into this world as lost sinners, is a clear inspired statement that we stand condemned because of Adam's sin. Without this statement, there is no support for the belief that we are born lost sinners. It is not enough to prove that we receive guilt from Adam or that our inheritance 'is separation from God. All these statements can tell us is what we have rightly received from the first head of the race. What is far more important is what we have received from the second and real Head of the race, and how that has altered forever what the first head would have given us.
Conclusion
The practical reality of all of this is that while we are born in a sinful world with a fallen nature, we are not born lost sinners. We become lost sinners later by wilfully choosing to sin when we know the difference between right and wrong. E. J. Waggoner summarized it well in these words: "Not that men are born into the world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy, they have no knowledge of right and wrong and are incapable of doing either, but they are born with sinful tendencies, owing to the sins of their ancestors." (ST Jan. 21, 1889)
Another way of saying it is that we inherit character traits, not all of which are positive. Then character is developed 'in the very young child by the interaction of parents and the child together. Up to this point there are sinful habits being formed to some degree, but there is no personal guilt or condemnation. At some point character is chosen by the individual, which is the point of personal accountability and guilt for wrong choices. Here is where personal sin enters the picture. "The thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character." (ST 310) It is the character that determines our condemnation or salvation, not our inherited nature. If we are saved, we will take our character to heaven exactly as we developed it on earth, while our nature will be totally recreated. In the matter of the gospel, the focus must always be on character development, which is the result of many personal choices. Sin and salvation always have to do with the character, not with inherited nature.