Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary
Conference
October 24-27, 2007
THE QOD EARTHQUAKE—ATTEMPTED MERGER OF TWO THEOLOGICAL TECTONIC PLATES
By
Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D.
October 24, 2007
THE QOD EARTHQUAKE—ATTEMPTED MERGER OF TWO THEOLOGICAL TECTONIC PLATES
I.
Early
Warning Signs 4
Began
with a friendly letter 4
“Eternal
Verities” 6
Double
Challenge 7
“Lunatic
Fringe 7
If only . . . 7
II.
Basis Flaw on the Part of Both Parties 8
Tectonic Plates Colliding 8
Calvinism Rooted in Augustine 9
“Five
Points” 9
Forensic-only
Salvation 10
Adventist Trio’s Fatal Flaw
10
Principle
Issues
11
Adventist
Trio Were Highly Respected Leaders 11
Personal
Friends
11
III.
Analysis
of a Theological Impasse 12
More
What Ifs 13
Group
Think 14
Loma Linda Professionals
15
Mythical Mantra
16
Cottrell’s Sixteen-page Warning 16
Nichol’s Warning 17
Washing of Hands
17
Unknown to Commentary
Editors 18
Why Commentary Editors Did Not Speak
Louder 18
Missed the
IV.
Time to
See the Big Picture 19
Major Issues in Great Controversy 19
Adventist Template and Calvinistic
Template Incompatible 20
Obviously, Andreasen and Others Aroused 21
Biblical
Sanctuary Doctrine 21
V.
When
Theological Clarity Becomes Fog 21
180 Degree Turn—Nature of Christ’s
Humanity 22
Two Trigger Words 22
Another Subheading Flaw 23
Nichol’s Editorials 23
Branson’s 1954, Drama of the Ages 24
Strange Act of 1949 25
Scholarly Fraud 26
Ellen White Consistency 27
Not a Mere Theological Exercise 28
Another Ministry Editorial 29
Strange Hermeneutics 29
Misrepresentation Worked Both Ways 29
An Attempted Compromise 30
Henry Melvill 30
Melvill’s Federal Theology 32
Ellen White, No Calvinist 32
Adventists Not Alone 33
Andreasen’s Second Concern 33
QOD Trio’s Defense to Andreasen’s Charge 34
Misapplication of One Statement 35
Again, the Larger View 36
Missing the
Why Was Andreasen Upset? 37
February 15, 1957 Letter 37
October 15, 1957 Letter 38
November 4, 1957 Letter 39
November 14, 1957 Letter 39
December 2, 1957 Letter 40
January 5, 1958 Letter 40
January 19, 1958 Letter 41
January 31, 1958 Letter 41
September 1960 Letter 41
“Outright Deceit” 42
“The Highest Infamy” 43
Flash Points in Later Eternity Editorials 43
Barnhouse’s Eternity, September 1957 Editorial 44
Martin’s Eternity, September 1957 Article 44
Barnhouse’s Eternity, November 1957 Editorial 44
What If Barnhouse and Martin Read
Annotated QOD? 44
Adventist Professionals Not Asleep 45
Telephone Conversation 45
Chief Issue: Connection Between Christology and Eschatology 46
Reality Check 46
Hancock’s Research 46
VI.
Fifty Years of Muddle 47
Quick Overview of Adventist Disarray Since 1960 47
Bull and Lockhart’s Analysis 48
Edward Heppenstall, Chair, Systematic
Theology 48
Change of Emphasis in Nearness of Advent 49
Unity and Coherence in Andreasen’s
Theological Paradigm 50
Theological Liberalism 50
QOD Magisterium 51
Opportunity of the Century, What ifs 51
The QOD earthquake—Attempted merger of
two theological tectonic plates
I.
Early
Warning Signs
George Knight spoke for many in his usual fresh way when he wrote that QOD became the most divisive book
in the Adventist world over the last 50 years.[1] Many believe that denomination confusion
ever since has been a devastating price to pay for the theological detour.[2] Those who think
other wise have been in a historic/theologic coma.
My limited assignment was to answer two
questions: What happened and Why!
The fundamental problem in 1955-7 was that the participants unwittingly tried to merge two
different theological systems without realizing all of its ramifications. When Adventists try to
overlay their theology on the Evangelical grid, warning lights, buzzers, etc., should be
going off—many areas simply won’t fit. Neither the Evangelicals nor the Adventists
seemed to
see some of the basic doctrines that created this
and the Adventist form of Arminianism.[3]
From another perspective, Adventists did not realize that they had certain aspects of their tectonic plate that couldn’t merge with the Calvinist tectonic plate. In the attempt to close that difference, a theological earthquake jarred both worlds—and the debris of the resulting volcano is still settling down today.[4]
In discussing the far-reaching effect of Questions on Doctrine with a Union committee recently, I was not surprised, just sad. Some of the reaction was, “That was long ago, Herb. We are more interested in today and the future.” Or, “That was decided by our brethren years ago, why try to go over it again.” When I suggested that most independent ministries that thrive in our churches today exist because of what happened in 1957, I got more blank looks. But also a new interest to hear more. Every cause has an effect and nothing is without cause. And that is why we are here this week on the 50th anniversary of the publication of QOD, to look at cause and effect of probably the most “divisive” book in Adventist history.
Began With a Friendly Letter
The whole QOD dance began with a letter of special appreciation (November 28, 1949) from T.E. Unruh, the president of the East Pennsylvania Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, to Dr. Donald Barnhouse, editor of the influential Eternity magazine, after hearing his radio address on “righteousness by faith” in 1949. Barnhouse was astonished that an Adventist leader would commend him when Barnhouse was convinced that Adventists believed in “righteousness by works.” Barnhouse also noted that Adventists had a “satanic and dangerous” Christology.[5]
But Unruh hung in with several exchanges of letters. In one of them he enclosed Steps to Christ, “affirming the evangelical character of Adventist doctrine.” And Barnhouse fired back, in an Eternity article on “How to Read Religious Books,” stating that Steps was “false in all its parts.” bearing the “mark of the counterfeit” from the first page. He also charged that Steps to Christ promoted “universalism. . . half-truths and Satanic error. . . so much emphasis on God’s love to unregenerate men smacked of universalism.”[6] Unruh decided there was no point of continuing the correspondence. No further communication took place between Unruh and Barnhouse from June 1950 until 1955.
Another thread was also being weaved into the big picture when E. Schuyler English, chairman of the Revision Committee of the Scofield Reference Bible, wrote a January editorial in his Our Hope magazine. He stated erroneously that Seventh-day Adventists “deny Christ’s Deity” and that we “disparage the Person and work of Christ.” He based the latter expression on the fact that some of our literature used the expression, “partook of our sinful, fallen nature.”
Froom wrote immediately to English contending that “the old Colcord minority-view note in Bible Readings—contending for an inherent sinful, fallen nature for Christ—had years before been expunged because of its error, and again furnishing incontrovertible evidence to sustain these statements.”[7]
English subsequently acknowledged that he had made “mistakes through the columns of Our Hope” regarding Adventists. When he still contended that Christ “did not partake of the fallen sinful nature of other men,” Froom assured him that “is precisely what we likewise believe.” Then Froom footnoted this sentence with a typical misuse of Ellen White comments allegedly supporting his viewpoint.[8]
Now enters Walter Martin, a young researcher with a reputation in the evangelical world as a specialist in non-Christian cults and one of Barnhouse’s consulting editors on Eternity. He was finishing up his next book on The Rise of the Cults in which he categorized Seventh-day Adventists as one of “The Big Five”—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormonism, Unity, and Seventh-day Adventists.[9] But it seems that the Holy Spirit was urging him to check his facts once more regarding the Adventists because he wanted to treat them fairly. Martin turned to Elder Unruh because he had been reading the correspondence between Unruh and Barnhouse of five years before.[10]
Martin knew of LeRoy Froom for his
impressive major work on the history of prophetical interpretation.[11]
He asked Unruh for a meeting in
The rest is history. The stage was set for a frank, open discussion on the vital issues that troubled Martin and Barnhouse. Unruh and Froom asked Walter Read, a field secretary of the General Conference and biblical linguist, believing that this was a dramatic moment in Adventist history to improve the Adventist image with Evangelicals. A short time later, Roy Allan Anderson, editor of Ministry, was asked to join the study group.[12] These conferences began in March 1955 and ended in May 1956
“Eternal Verities”
The Adventist trio responded to Martin’s questions with a list that Froom called “the eternal verities”—eternal pre-existence and complete Deity of Christ, His miraculous conception and virgin birth and sinless life during the Incarnation, His vicarious atoning death on the Cross—once for all and all-sufficient—His literal resurrection and ascension, His Mediation before the Father, applying the benefits of the completed Act of Atonement He had made on the Cross and climaxing with His personal, premillennial Second Advent, which we firmly believe to be near, but without setting a time.[13]
In a further presentation he listed certain doctrines that only some of the evangelical churches would agree with, such as: “baptism by immersion, the seventh-day Sabbath, free will, conditional immortality, and the complete annihilation of the wicked in the end-time.
Then the Adventist trio presented a third group of five doctrines that appeared to be unique to Adventism, such as: the heavenly sanctuary and Christ’s two-phase ministry in it, the investigative judgment, the Spirit of prophecy as manifested in Ellen G. White’s ministry, the seal of God and mark of the beast, and the three angels’ messages of Revelation 13. These five were designated to be distinguishing characteristics of Seventh-day Adventists.
While saying all this, Martin soon saw that what he was now hearing was “a totally different picture from what [he] had fancied and expected.”[14] It seemed to deny many teachings that he had ascribed to Adventists “because of his reading of Adventist literature.” Not many hours went by before Martin told the Adventists that “you folks are not heretics as we thought but rather redeemed brethren in Christ.” He, of course, was focusing on Froom’s list of “eternal verities while recognizing that some of the second list were also believed by some evangelical churches.[15]
Double Challenge.
For Martin, his challenge was that he
had been commissioned by Zondervan Publishing to finish his book on the cults
that was to include Adventists.[16]
For the Adventist trio, they had the burden of explaining to the
At that point began the attempt to merge two theological tectonic plates. Froom, Read and Anderson convinced Martin and Barnhouse that the troublesome issues such as the human nature of Christ and the larger view of the atonement were, as Barnhouse wrote, the products of “the lunatic fringe as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity.”[17]
The fat was in the fire! At least M. L. Andreasen, long-time Adventism’s leading theologian, read Barnhouse’s article and found himself among the “lunatic fringe” along with most other Adventist writers who emphasized the human experience of Jesus and His two-phased atonement.
The “Lunatic Fringe”
Obviously, after Barnhouse had made this charge, whatever else the Adventist trio would write would be suspect and would have to be “met” with Adventist vigor. This accusation of a “lunatic fringe” was incredible when we take a quick look at those who did believe that Jesus took on Himself sinful flesh to live a sinless life. Think about the following list of prominent “lunatic” Adventist leaders: Francis Nichol, W. H. Branson, Ray Cottrell, Don Neufeld (all living in Washington, D.C. during the 1950s) as well as a century of Adventist leadership, such as E. J. Waggoner, A. T. Jones, S. N. Haskell, W. W. Prescott, Uriah Smith, M. C. Wilcox, G. W. Reaser, G. B. Thompson, M. E. Kern, C. M. Snow, C. P. Bollman, Mead MacGuire, C. B.Haynes, I. H. Evans, L. A. Wilcox. William Wirth, E. F. Hackman, A. G. Daniells, Oscar Tait, Allen Walker, Merlin Neff, W. E. Howell, Gwynne Dalrymple, T. M French, J. L. McElhany, C. Lester Bond, E. K. Slade, J. E. Fulton, D. H. Kress, Frederick Lee, L. H. Wood, A. V. Olson, Christian Edwardson, J. C. Stevens, F. M. Wilcox, A. W. Truman, F. G. Clifford, Varner Johns, Dallas Young, J. B. Conley, Fenton Edwin Froom, W. E. Read, J. A. McMillan, Benjamin Hoffman, H. L. Rudy, including the writings of M. L. Andreasen and hundreds of times that Ellen White unambiguously wrote that Jesus “accepted the results of the great law of heredity . . . to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.”[18]
If only. . .
If only both sides had stepped back
for a quiet moment, they would have realized that they were both shooting at
moving targets. They stood on two separate tectonic plates attempting to merge,
setting up earthquakes that would reverberate for at least fifty years. If
Froom had not had a short fuse and a driving premise that obscured his normal
historical nose for truth, and if
Strange as it now appears, if Froom had not early on so quickly dismissed the results of his own informal poll among Adventist leaders regarding their understanding of Christ’s human nature, he may have avoided the developing earthquake. In the answers to his poll he discovered that “nearly all of them had that idea” [that Christ had a “sinful nature”][19] In Froom’s letter to R. R. Figuhr, president of the General Conference, he blamed this unfortunate situation of these leaders being “too weak in theology and in giving the right impression to others.”[20] Friend Froom was simply wearing blinders caused by personal assumptions while Figuhr was intimidated by Froom’s august stature as the long-time editor of Ministry magazine.[21]
II.
Basis Flaw on the Part of Both Parties
Tectonic
Plates Colliding
Calvinism and Arminianism, two tectonic plates, were about to collide. Even as earth scientists have warning systems in the ground that can help predict the collision of moving plates, so keen theologians should have warning systems in place. When Adventists try to impose their theological structure on Evangelical Calvinism, warning lights in computers should be going off before huge, unintended consequences develop for both parties. And vice versa. Many contemporary Evangelicals tried to warn Barnhouse and Martin of what was happening but only time would have to tell the full story.[22]
Evangelical Calvinism is the theological tree of most Evangelicals although some Evangelicals try to graft some branches to the Arminian tree.[23] The Calvinism tree has its roots in a partial picture of God—God only as Sovereign. But sovereign in such a way that all that happens in this world is fore-ordained or predestinated. Thus, only some men and women are elected to be saved; others are not, they go to an eternally burning hell. The idea of human responsibility is eliminated—God wills the future for everyone because no one can possibly thwart God’s will.
Calvinism rooted in Augustine
Calvinism’s roots are nurtured by Augustine, considered by many as antiquity’s greatest theologian to whom Roman Catholics are also greatly indebted.[24]Augustine’s logical but ill-conceived presuppositions began with his huge major premise of the Sovereignty of God, which led to his innovative notions concerning original sin and man’s total depravity, which infused those who followed him from the sixth century A. D., through Aquinas and into the Reformation, to our day.[25]
“Five Points”
Calvinists reduce their theology to the famous Five Points, all emanating from the core doctrine of the sovereignty of God.
1. Total depravity of man (all men and women are born sinners)
2. Unconditional election (some are elected to be saved; others are not)
3. Limited atonement (Christ died for only the elect)
4. Irresistible grace (men and women who are elected are given the “gift” of faith)
5. Perseverance of the saints (“once saved, always saved”)
Arminians begin with their roots in the soil of freedom out of which develops all aspects of the Great Controversy between God and Satan. Because God made men and women out of love, for love and to live in love, Arminians clash with Calvinists on every main issue concerning salvation. However, most Arminians, lacking the integrity of a coherent theology, have many viewpoints in common with Calvinists such as Sunday being the Sabbath of the fourth commandment and the soul being immortal, leading to an ever-burning hell.
But the concept of human responsibility in response to the love of God became the fundamental, core truth for Arminians in their 16th century response to Roman Catholics and Calvinism. And Calvinists repaid their response with incredible cruelty! Predestination was, for the Arminians, unbiblical. They accepted the biblical message that Jesus indeed died for sinners, all sinners, not just for the selected few. For them, the decision to be a follower of Christ was the response of a thoughtful man or woman, thus leading to the rejection of infant baptism among other differences.
Further, those
finally lost or unsaved are those who reject 1) God’s invitation to forgive
them and 2) God’s power to live a transformed life. Thus, for most Arminians sanctification was
as important as justification—a point rejected by Calvinists because it didn’t
fit their rigid straitjacket of predestination—human performance for them didn’t
matter. Even further, Arminians were not forced into Calvinism’s straitjacket
that assumed Christ’s work on
Forensic-only Salvation
Calvinism’s
straitjacket led to “forensic-only salvation,” which has riddled the Christian
church for 400 hundred years. This unbiblical notion has confused the works of
grace and the meaning of “righteousness by faith.”[26]
This confusion has been at the bottom of divisions in the
Adventist Trio’s Fatal Flaw
One of the major issues that seemed to elude Froom, Anderson, and Read was that Adventists do not fit into either the Calvinist tectonic plate or Arminian tectonic plate. Here was their fatal flaw—they were unprepared to portray the gestalt of classic Adventism!
For instance, Adventists differ with Calvinists and many Arminians in regard to the nature of mankind; that is, we do not believe that we possess an immortal soul, which immediately involves one’s concept of original sin and/or the kind of body/mind human beings are born with.
Again, because we have a more complete understanding of why Jesus is our High Priest, Adventists think carefully about how His High Priestly work directly affects one’s salvation and one’s preparation to be entrusted with eternal life. That is, the QOD trio did not make clear to Martin and Barnhouse how our Lord’s Cross and High Priestly ministries are two equal parts of His atonement that directly affect our human responsibility in the redemption process. More about this later.
Further, because Adventists, almost unanimously, for a century prior to 1955, accepted the biblical counsel that Jesus was born a human being, “in every respect,” and “that He was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15), they had believed that Jesus met and defeated Satan’s fiery darts in the same way He asks us to—by trusting in the Holy Spirit’s intervention in our lives. He showed us how to live and die so that we can eventually be entrusted with eternal life. This too was under-emphasized with Martin and Barnhouse—an unfortunate failure on the part of the Adventist trio.
Principle Issues
In other words: the principal issues in the 1955-1957 tectonic earthquake were clear-cut 1) differences regarding sin, original sin and its implications and 2) free will—all of which affected (a) one’s understanding of Christ’s humanity, (b) the multiple aspects of His atonement, and c) the consequences of all this on one’s eschatology. Above all, one’s understanding of sin and the nature of man is the “issue underneath all other issues”—the key to Adventist theological taxonomy.
Adventist Trio Were Highly Respected
Leaders
How could all this happen? We say this with complete respect for our Adventist friends:
R. A. Anderson was a revered homiletician and public evangelist. His preaching became a mountaintop experience for large audiences on several continents. During the 1950s he was editor of Ministry, the monthly magazine that all Adventist leaders and pastors would avidly read. But he was not a trained theologian.
W. E. Read knew his biblical languages and was a highly respected and valued church administrator— but not trained in systematic theology. Framed by his white goatee, we enjoyed his slight whistle when he softly spoke. And he and Froom labored with less than mutual trust.[27]
Leroy Froom was well known in Christian circles as an indefatigable researcher. His major contributions, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers and The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, became benchmarks for scholars in many denominations. His productive capacity was enormous; his towering energy made him a leader in any conversation. But, he too was over his head in systematic theology.
Personal
Friends
These were
remarkable men, highly respected. Anderson and Froom became my strong, lifelong
friends. In the 1970s, while I was
associate editor of the Review and Herald, Froom would visit me
periodically to discuss current events in the world and in the church. He knew
exactly where I stood theologically because of my editorials that deliberately
focused on the flaws in QOD—but theological positions did not interfere with
our friendship. Froom aged gracefully. When he was dying at the age of 84, in
the Sligo Nursing Home (
Anderson and I
had a father/son relationship. He ate in
our home, our children were impressed. In his retirement, especially after his
move to Loma Linda, he would call periodically, at least every month. With his
famous voice now weak and raspy, he would invariably ask, “Herb, what is
happening to our church?” I never did
have the courage to suggest that most of the problems he was troubled with
started with the publishing of QOD. Elder
But the facts
are that our Adventist trio, untrained as theologians, was no match for Martin
and Barnhouse, specialists in Calvinistic-Evangelicalism. What made the
situation in 1955 even thornier was the deliberate decision to ignore M. L.
Andreasen, the senior Adventist theologian for decades.[28]
Andreasen had been head of the Systematic Theology department of the Adventist
Seminary for years, retiring in 1949. He
had written numerous articles and at least 13 books, some of which have never
been surpassed. Well-known as an authority on the sanctuary doctrine, he was
the author of the section on the book of Hebrews in the Seventh-day
Adventist Commentary.
I can heartily affirm Dr. Knight’s penetrating statement in his “Introduction to the Annotated Edition” of QOD: “Looking back, one can only speculate on the different course of Adventist history if Andreasen had been consulted regarding the wording of the Adventist position on the atonement, if Froom and his colleagues hadn’t been divisive in the handling of issues related to the human nature of Christ, if both Froom and Andreasen would have had softer personalities.”[29] I surely could not have said it any better!
III.
Analysis
of a Theological Impasse
Nevertheless, we now work with what happened. We now realize, after 50 years, that the nuclear fallout of the 1957 QOD needs to be thoughtfully and fairly addressed. Why is this seminar on QOD more than mere history lectures? Because:
1)