THE BEGINNING OF THE END: 

[The following statement is from a Seventh-day Adventist who was a leader in our denominational work at the time that the Martin-Barnhouse sessions (the 'Evangelical Conferences') were being conducted in Washington D.C. and elsewhere. He is now retired and living in North America. His comments are the result of personal observation and many private interviews and discussions that he had, at the time and in succeeding years, with Froom, Anderson and other fellow workers and leaders in our Church. He was a General Conference leader in Takoma Park at the time that the Martin-Barn ho use affair took place.]

Before publishing "Questions on Doctrines," typed copies of the manuscript were first sent to all of our top leaders throughout the world field. But although those copies went to our leading executives and editors, they were all very busy men. Most did not have time to personally examine all those papers. They just sent them back. Then too, the return address of the papers was Washington D.C. This was another deterrent. Many did not wish to be found opposing the General Conference.

One of our workers was at that time in an overseas division when the papers started coming in. [I was told the name of this individual. He is today very well known and now, as then, is very faithful to historic Adventism.] His president handed the sheets to him to look over. "I'm too busy for all this. See what you can make of it," he commented. Later he [the president's worker] told me, "If you think that book is bad, -you should have seen the originals! My president handed them to me. He was too busy to read it, so gave them to me to read. But when I told him what was in it, he wouldn't do anything about it. He just sent them back as they were."

When those copies of the "Questions on Doctrine" manuscripts went out, the Bible teacher at Avondale [College in Australia], told his reader [the one who corrected his class papers], "I've got a manuscript from the G.C. I'm busy. Read it and see what you think of it." When news of that went around the campus it created a furor.

But there were those who did object. And some very strongly. And when those original copies came back to Anderson and Froom, a lot of toning down had to be made. But then the revised copies were sent over to the Review for typesetting into the book. But the book editors at the Review and Herald couldn't swallow it. And so back it went to the G.C. for further revisions. This is why the book is so mixed up. Part of it is heresy and part of it is okay. The heresy was then more carefully worded to slip by the Review book editors.

Later, Martin held a meeting of Evangelicals that I attended. In his talk he told several things that the Adventists were going to do differently now because of his and Barnhouse' meeting with them. One of these was that the VOP [Voice of Prophecy] and Faith for Today would now be identifying themselves publicly for what they were. When the question period came afterward, I stood up and asked, "Is Charles Fuller going to identify the fact that he is a Baptist on his radio programs now?" Martin didn't answer it. [Charles Fuller was a well-known religious radio speaker back in the mid-fifties. Walter R. Martin is a Baptist]

R.A. Anderson told me personally that Froom didn't want to get into it. He said Froom wanted to stand for the landmarks, but we told him that for the sake of fellowship with the Protestants, we must do this. This will bring a new day for Adventists. He backed down so we could agree with the Evangelicals.

That is what I was told by Elder Anderson.

Barnhouse regularly blasted Adventists in his magazine. I was told that Martin found that Barnhouse would only quote from Adventist enemies in his article attacks on us. Martin has a lot of push to him. He told Barnhouse that if he wrote one more article against Adventists "without my okay, you can have my resignation." He told his wife about his decision, and that it may cost him his job. She said to go ahead. "Do what you have to; I am with you."

Martin was more willing to talk to both sides than Barnhouse was.

When they had those conferences, Martin was in the pilot's seat. He is smart. Some think he has a photographic memory. Froom would say something in a conference, and Martin would quote from his [Froom's] books where he had said it differently. Several times Froom had to eat humble pie. All this kept Martin one step ahead of the others.

One of the reasons they sent copies of the manuscript out to the top leaders was to implicate them in the responsibility for the publication. For the fact was that nobody would take responsibility for it at all. Here, a major book on Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, and under G.C. sponsorship-and no one would take the responsibility for writing it! To this day, few people have any idea who really wrote it. The by-line on the book just says "representative group of leaders, teachers and editors." (On the title Page of the book, beneath the book title, we are only told: "Prepared by a representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers, and Editors."] In a Review article, Figuhr [ the General Conference President at that time] did back it up in an article. But that couldn't prove genuineness of doctrine, for he was the one who said in a Review article: "There was apostasy in Israel, but there is no apostasy today." And in another: "When Jesus comes, Seventh-day Adventists will be in the midst of the biggest building boom in their history." - And we had thought that the Adventists would be hiding in the woods before He came back!

You ought to read the R.A. Anderson letter to Grieve in Australia. Grieve [President of the Queensland Conference at that time] was more alert than many, but liberal at the same time. When he received copies of the "Questions on Doctrine" manuscript, he wrote Anderson and asked him what was going on. They both knew each other well, since Anderson was from Australia too. Anderson wrote him back and said, "Yes, we are trying to change the doctrines, but we want to take it to the ministry before we go to the people with it." Grieve later began teaching another error- instantaneous sanctification,- then was called to New Zealand, and then went out entirely and joined a Protestant Church. He had kept that letter on file, and still later, he showed it to an Adventist who Photostatted and printed it.

M.L Andreasen was our foremost theologian in the 40s and early 50s. When he learned about "Questions on Doctrine," he violently opposed it. But it did him no good. He was living in the Loma Linda area at the time, retired. The brethren cut off his sustentation [denominational retirement pay] for opposing that book. Finally things became so tight that he was forced to go to the welfare office for help. [Back at that time, ministers on denominational sustentation did not receive Social Security benefits.] The poor guy asked if they would let him get on welfare. They asked him, "Aren't you an Adventist minister?" He was well-known among Adventists generally, and among non-Adventists in the Loma Linda area. "Yes, but they cut me off." So the welfare people got their lawyer to check what was going on, and pretty soon Andreasen was back on denominational sustentation again.

The whole thing was a mess. It got started and then grew like Topsy. Pretty soon the whole church was enmeshed in it. And we are still living with the problem today. No one has been able to get those errors out, once they got in.

It was Unruh, Anderson, Froom and Read that got it started, from the best I can tell. But Anderson and Froom did most of the writing. Anderson was the real leader on our side in the conferences. Martin and Barnhouse on the other side. And the two sides got together. All of them are dead now except Anderson and Martin. And we're still living with the problems they left us with.

The following statement, made by the editor of Pilgrims' Rest, will provide background information on the Martin-Barnhouse episode, from one who was a student at our Theological Seminary (then located in Washington D.C) during the time that the Evangelical Conferences were taking place, and when the "new views" began to be taught in the Seminary.

In June of 1955 I graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Theology and Biblical Languages from Pacific Union College and packed for a plane flight to the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary to begin work on a Master's degree in the same two subjects. (The morning I was to board the plane in San Francisco, Cherie phoned and gave me her answer- she would marry me.) I flew on the cloud's to D.C. The following June, after four quarters of required work, I received the Masters' degree, and then drove west for our marriage in California. Two additional years and the Bachelor of Divinity degree was obtained, and we began denominational work as a pastor in the Adventist ministry.

Thus, I was in Washington D.C. and in attendance at the Seminary from June, 1955 to June, 1958. The conferences between Seventh-day Adventist and Evangelical leaders took place between the spring of 1955 and the summer of 1956. The effect of this did not filter down to the Seminary until the spring of 1956. And it did not reach the workers in the field until later in the year. Carefully placed articles in the "Ministry" magazine prepared the workers for the publication of "Questions on Doctrine." But relatively little was said about the matter in the regular church papers, and so the appearance of QD, itself, in our conference Book and Bible Houses (now called Adventist Book Centers) excited relatively little attention. It was just another book, although this one was released under the auspices of the General Conference and seemed to have helpful doctrinal information.

My major field throughout my Seminary work was in Systematic Theology, and with this focus I had the opportunity to be well aware of what was being taught at this important educational institution, located as it was, just next door to the General Conference Building and the Review and Herald Publishing Association. Until the spring of 1956, there was no word or hint in the Seminary classrooms of a "completed atonement" ("completed," not "complete") and "finished atonement" on the cross (with but merely an application later in the Sanctuary of the atonement ended at Calvary). I shall mention this "new view" and the controversies it generated in the Seminary classrooms, below.

Seminary students had to support themselves back in those days. In the late winter of 1955-1956, I was hired by the General Conference to work as a janitor in the General Conference Building. This was fortunate, for I badly needed the employment just then. A friend who was completing his B.D. was leaving the position, and he helped me slip into the job when he terminated it. The work assignment was night janitor and watchman. The several men working at this, dusted, stripped and waxed floors, emptied wastebaskets, and kept watch over the premises during the night hours.

Although not there during the day, I yet had the opportunity to observe and speak with many of our leaders who, with their many duties, came in after hours to keep up with all that needed to be done. I was decidedly impressed with the fact that a very few men directed the activities of the entire building. These were the General Conference President, Treasurer, Secretary (I do not mean the field secretaries), Lay Activities Secretary, and Ministerial Association Secretary. They alone carried about with them an atmosphere of authority that could speak and it would be done. The other officers seemed more subservient, cautious, and frequently, less secure in their hold on their position.

Each night janitor was assigned a different floor (1st, 2nd, and 3rd), and my job was to take care of the basement and to rotate with each of the other men so they could have a night off. In this way, week by week, I alone worked on all of the floors and cleaned all of the rooms. I was thankful for the work, although it was difficult to carry Seminary studies during the day while working in the General Conference Building at night. But my mind was quick and active and I had little difficulty in studying and memorizing. My work varied. Sometimes it began thirty minutes before closing time, and then went on through the night. At other times it began later and continued until the General Conference leaders and their secretaries came into the building the following morning.

One of the rooms that I cleaned was somewhat different than the others. This was the office of LeRoy Edwin Froom. It seemed more like a mimeograph processing center than a formal office. Entering it, one would find stacks of stapled 8 1/2x11 sheets ready to be sent off. These were usually stacked in two fairly equal piles on two wooden office chairs that were set on the entrance side of the single desk in the room. Around the room were files of various kinds. I would not know whether or not they were locked, for I never opened a drawer or file of any kind all the while I worked at the General Conference.

However, occasionally something out in the open would attract my attention. It was my assignment to clean the room, and here these stacks of papers were laying about, in my way. And worse, they were all about theology and I was a theology student. I would estimate that each of the two stacks of paper, resting on top of the office chairs, was about 30 inches high. Examining one, you would find that it was stapled in the upper left corner and was composed of several pages of typewritten material, on one side only of each sheet. As I recall, I believe they were printed rather than mimeographed. This was probably done on one of the small Multiliths in the General Conference Print Shop, located in the basement. The print shop was off-limits for the night janitors; they were never permitted to clean it) At the top of each stapled set of sheets was a question number. This was followed by a question, and then by an extended answer.

I was looking at the prototypes of single chapters of "Questions on Doctrine," immediately before they were sent out throughout the world field to the leaders of our various conferences, unions, divisions, institutions and publishing houses. (An interesting question: Was there only one mailout to the field, or in response to replies, was there a second revised one? From all the information I can obtain, only one edition of 'these questions and replies was sent out to those selected men in the field.)

By the late spring of 1956, talk about the Martin-Barnhouse conferences was beginning to make itself known in the corridors and classrooms of the Seminary. So I was no stranger to what was taking place. But I separated my janitorial duties from my Seminary work, in that I did not discuss that which I saw in Elder Froom's office with others.

I might mention at this point that there were no stacks of QD papers in anyone else's office in the General Conference. And this included that of Elder Anderson, Read, and Lowe, and all of the rooms of the office secretaries. At the time, my impression of the situation was that Elder Froom was primarily doing his actual writing and research work at his residence in the Takoma Park area, not far from the General Conference headquarters, and that he was only using his office in the General Conference as a distribution center, and for miscellaneous correspondence that he had not tended to at home. Perhaps this might have included dictation. The office definitely did not look as if it were used very much. And there were few, if any, books in it. (Whether there were any books in it, I do not now recall. Froom probably had one of the largest libraries of any man working in the General Conference at that time. He had been doing research for the Church for many years.)

Those stacks of paper on the chairs would frequently change. For each week there were new numbered items; usually the next in sequence.

In the spring of 1956, the full impact of the Martin-Barnhouse conferences was being felt. At this time, the great majority of the students in attendance at the Seminary were older and more mature men- ministers and overseas missionaries. Very few were young men, fresh out of college. Because of this, when the changes came in, there was a much stronger reaction than would have occurred if the conferences and subsequent changes had taken place in our own day. Here is the theological picture, as it emerged at that time in the Adventist Theological Seminary:

The Nature of Christ theological cluster did not become a prominent issue. But this would be understandable. The Seminary at that time reflected General Conference thought far more than it does today. And the leadership had expurgated the old view of the Nature of Christ nearly a decade earlier from denominational books and magazines. The Adventist ministry was already partially acquainted with the new view. Although there was some comment and disputation over this area, it was much less noticeable than the errors regarding the Finished Atonement and the Spirit of Prophecy relationship to our doctrinal beliefs.

In regard to the error of the Finished Atonement, it was quite obvious that the Seminary faculty had been carefully briefed by somebody that Spring in the new view. And it came with such authority that they either solidly stood by the new dictum or they avoided the subject. Definitely, no one opposed it. For example, Earle Hilgert and Edward Heppenstall presented it in their classes, while W.G.C. Murdoch was more careful to side step discussion of it:

But some of the men sitting in the classes would speak up and quietly mention that this was something new to Adventism that had never been heard among our people before. After some discussion, they would quiet down, and gradually their conplaints would subside. But they never appeared convinced that the new view was the correct one.

Then there was the issue of how the Spirit of Prophecy was involved in the formation of our doctrinal beliefs. At exactly the same time that the Finished Atonement began to be presented, we began to be summarily told that Ellen White had nothing to do in any way with the formation or development of Seventh-day Adventist doctrines. We were told that all of our doctrinal positions, without exception, were given to us by men in the Church who developed them independently of Ellen White and her writings. No doctrinal beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists comes to us from or through the Spirit of Prophecy. - Do you believe that? I do not. And with some others, and more than most, I vigorously protested at this innovation. Exchanging the Spirit of Prophecy for fellowship with the Evangelicals seemed a poor trade.

What was the proof for their contention? One passage from the Spirit of Prophecy, and only one, was cited: 1SM 206:4207:1. We were told that in this passage Ellen White clearly showed that as our doctrines were developed [in the 1840s, and especially at the "Sabbath Conferences" of 1848], her mind was locked to an understanding of doctrines until all of the men in attendance at those "Sabbath Conferences" were fully in harmony and settled on each and every doctrinal point. But a careful reading of this passage (1SM 206-207) reveals something different: Her mind was locked so that the brethren would have confidence in knowing that what she then gave them in answer to their confusion was direct light from God, rather than from her own thinking. In their prayer and study they could only go so far, and they would reach an impasse. At this point, she would be taken off in vision-and then give them the correct interpretation of the matter being discussed. This happened time after time. -It was the God of heaven through the Spirit of Prophecy that gave us our doctrines, not men- this man or that man or any group of men- and not Ellen White by herself. The teaching was Heaven born. Why are some of us so anxious to exchange the heavenly origin of our teachings for majority votes based on the varied thinkings and speculations of His creatures? We have here a striking parallel to the concern of the evolutionists to trace their physical origins to the creature rather than to the Creator.

This theme of "no Spirit of Prophecy involvement in our doctrinal development" is not as clearly shown in QD or Martin's book, TASDA, but it was very prominent at the Seminary at that time, and from what I was told, was prominent in workers' meetings in various places. (After the changes were crystallized, they were presented to Adventist workers in special meetings all over North America and overseas. It seemed that the primary concern was to take the message to the workers, rather than to the laymen. Apparently it was felt that if the workers were brought into line, the laymen would soon follow along. In 1956 the new message was that no doctrinal messages came to Adventism through the Spirit of Prophecy. In the 1980s the message coming to us is but a variant: The Spirit of Prophecy has no doctrinal authority in the Church. This was clearly implied in QD, and for twenty-five years we have been reaping the effects of that teaching.

At the Seminary at that time, there was also some talk about obedience to the Law of God as being only "the fruit of salvation," rather than the Bible-Spirit of Prophecy truth in the matter. (Obedience is the fruit of conversion. Our salvation is not assured at conversion, and salvation is not imparted to us irrespective of obedience to the written will of God. Any man, who knowingly disobeys God, will not be saved while continuing in that disobedience.)

It requires only a cursory examination of the issues developed in "Questions on Doctrine," and in Martin's reply, "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism," as well as the many accompanying magazine articles issuing from both camps, to see that the above four were the primary issues in the Martin-Barnhouse doctrinal sell-out. [1. Christ inherited the nature of Adam and not the nature of His human forbears. 2. The Atonement was completed on the cross. All that followed it, in Christ's heavenly ministration, was post-atonement in nature. 3. Doctrinal authority in our Church lies with men and with their interpretation of Scripture, not with the Spirit of Prophecy. We know this to be true because no doctrinal position or knowledge of any kind came to us through the Spirit of Prophecy. The visions always followed human speculation and merely confirmed them. 4. Obedience to the Laws of God are merely something nice to do. It is "fruit" of salvation and follows salvation. But it is never necessary to salvation.]

After classes during the day, I would study and rest a little and then go to my evening work assignment at the General Conference Building. But there was one evening that I shall never forget. Here is the story.

Opening Elder Froom's office door in order to clean his room, I was by now quite used to the stacks of papers. Hurriedly, I dusted into every corner of the floor, strode over to the wastebasket and began to take it out, so I could get on to the next room,- when I noticed a letter resting open and neatly placed, squarely in the center of what was always an otherwise barren desk top. Now, I am not the type to read other people's mail. But it seemed that I should stop just then and read that letter. I did not copy the letter, nor did I take it, but I have often recalled its contents over the years. On a very few occasions I have mentioned a little of the experience. Here is the information given in that letter:

A girl had fairly recently accepted the Adventist message and had been baptized. Her father and mother upon learning of this were deeply upset. In reaction, they wrote to a well-known defender of Evangelical Protestantism of the - dayDr. Donald Grey Barnhouse,- a widely-known speaker and editor of "Eternity" magazine. They told him of the terrible thing that was happening to their daughter and then pled with him for help. Their daughter was defecting from Christianity to Adventism and they felt terrible about the matter. Dr. Barnhouse wrote them a letter in reply. In it, he said that he and his associate, Walter R. Martin, had been carrying on a deepening series of consultations with the Adventist leaders in Washington D.C. for about a year. He then told the girl's parents that he and Dr. Martin were working to bring Seventh-day Adventists into harmony with Evangelical Protestantism- by actually changing their doctrines. And he encouraged the couple with the assurance that he and Mr. Martin were succeeding.

The point was clearly made in the letter that he and Martin were working to change Adventist doctrines and that they were succeeding.

The letter then went on to explain that when the parents received the letter, they felt somewhat relieved. But they also saw it as proof that the Adventist message was so bad that even its leaders were being talked into forsaking it. They then showed the letter to their daughter, hoping that it would convince her to come back to the religion and church of her parents. But they did not merely let her read it; they gave it to her. Greatly upset, she took it to church and showed it to her Adventist pastor. Someone got in contact with someone, and as a result, this letter from a denominational worker was addressed to Elder L.E. Froom.

And enclosed with it, was the original typewritten letter that Barnhouse had sent to the girl's parents. I read that letter also. The letterhead was entitled "Eternity Magazine," with "The Evangelical Foundation, Inc." beneath it. Below that, to one side in smaller print, was Dr. Barnhouse' full name. It was the originally typed letter, and was signed by Barnhouse, with indication beneath that a secretary had done the actual typing.

The Barnhouse letter had been neatly placed below the cover letter on the desk in a very precise manner that squared and centered it with the larger rectangle of the desk edges. Somehow, in the florescent light from overhead, I had thought that there was but one letter there. I probably wouldn't have stopped to read the first one if I had thought that there was more beneath it.

But then below it- I found the Barnhouse letter. But in picking up the single-page letter by Barnhouse, I noticed that another typed letter was directly beneath that one. Having completed the Barnhouse letter, I turned my attention to what was beneath it, and found it to be a letter on General Conference stationery. Written and signed by Froom, it was addressed to Barnhouse.

In reading it, I had the impression that Froom, having read what I had just read, was so upset that he had written this letter to try to obtain some renewed confidence from Barnhouse that all was all right after all, and that Barnhouse was not really trying to pull something over on the Church. The thought of the letter was essentially this: I have not heard from you for so many weeks [a number given], and I do not understand. I have written you several letters and you have not replied. Brother Barnhouse, I do not understand. You have not replied to certain things I have asked. And there are problems that I am hearing of. I have never had reason to question your motives. But the fact that you do not reply is causing me to wonder.

Now, that may not seem like a very clear letter. But I give it as I recall it. Froom did not intend that it be clear, but rather to prompt a reply. One would think that Froom would have just telephoned Barnhouse. That is what you would expect of busy executives. Why he wrote the letter instead of phoning him, and why he wrote it in that way, and what he may have had in mind,

I cannot say. It was known that Barnhouse was often on the road traveling and lecturing. One issue of "Eternity" mentioned the difficulty they had in contacting him, themselves, for executive editorial decisions in regard to the magazine. But one would still think that Froom could have reached him by phone, with the help of someone in the "Eternity" headquarters in Philadelphia.

But it was the cover letter from an Adventist denominational worker, with the information it contained, and the enclosed letter by Barnhouse that was important. For it revealed a primary reason why Martin and Barnhouse were involved in the conferences. Their concern was not merely to write a book; Martin could have tended to that very well without embroiling Barnhouse and several top Adventist leaders in discussions that lasted over a year. Their concern was to convert an entire church!

But the Froom letter was nonetheless significant. For it revealed that, even at this late date, he was not yet clear as to the real objectives of Martin and Barnhouse. If Froom had been fully a party to what they were trying to do, I would not expect him to pen such a letter in reply.

I recall very distinctly (it came almost as a shock to my mind) that it was not over a week after reading this letter, that I sat in the chapel at the Seminary with students and faculty and listened to a half-hour up-to-date summery by Elder Froom of events in the Evangelical conferences with Martin and Barnhouse. In this talk he said this: "In all the time that I have known Dr. Barnhouse, I have never had reason to doubt his motives." He then went on to say that he had always found the integrity of Dr. Barnhouse to be unimpeachable. I was stunned as I listened to this. For I had read those letters only a few days earlier. And there was no doubt in my mind that Dr. Froom had read the top two letters on his desk also, and that he had penned the pleading one beneath them that had his signature on it. I shall never forget what I have just told you. I have shared it with few people over the years, but it is graven on my mind. I have often thought about it.

In the providence of God, those letters were laying on that table that night. And, truly, I do not think I should keep quiet about it now, 26 years later, as I prepare this lengthy study about the Martin-Barnhouse incident.

Among our various Church articles, later published to describe the conversations with Martin and Barnhouse, one of our leaders mentioned that in connection with them Walter R. Martin gave three major talks before Adventist assemblies. These were in the Takoma Park Church, the Adventist Seminary, and the Loma Linda [Hill] Church. I heard the two of these lectures that were given on the East Coast. And it was a revelation to hear Mr. Martin in person. When he speaks, the words come out as overpowering bullets. Powerful and convincing is his personality. And those who met with him for a full year did well if they resisted the dynamic force of his convictions and personality. I still recall his sermon in the 11 o'clock hour that Sabbath morning at the Takoma Park Church. Significantly, his text was Acts 17:23. With powerful rhetoric he told us that morning about the Athenians who were ignorantly worshipping an unknown God. They were being "too religious," he pointed out (citing the original Greek of "too superstitious" in verse 22). And then, in a strong and powerful voice he cried, "Him whom ye worship ignorantly; -Him declare I unto you!" And he went into a decisive presentation of salvation by grace alone, while at the same time avoiding a direct attack on our beliefs.

Recently I listened to tapes of a February, 1983 lecture by Dr. Martin. (Since I heard him in Takoma Park he has obtained a doctorate.) Seventeen years have passed and he now exhibits a calm intensity. But the Walter Martin of the mid-fifties that molded the course of those Evangelical Conferences was a powerfully persuasive and forceful individual. Urging "unity" he pled for conformity. And with strong feeling and words he obtained it. This was the man who led out in the conferences with Seventh day Adventist leaders from the Spring of 1955 to the Summer of 1956. This was the man that "Questions on Doctrine" was written to please.

-Vance Ferrell