[The following manuscript is of anonymous origin, although I believe I know the one who authored it. As a result of the "Questions on Doctrine" furor, not only Andreasen but others arose and strongly objected to this flagrant setting aside of our historic teachings. Among those that objected in print was a group of over two-dozen medical doctors who funded the publication and wide distribution of a number of small booklets and tracts that were issues in the early 60's (primarily from 1960 to 1962). They titled themselves the "True Medical Missionary Association" and mailed these publications from a Loma Linda address. One who was a principal in this project personally told me in a letter recently that it was because of his acquaintance with Andreasen that he urged the organizing of the TMMA and the writing and publishing of its little booklets. The TMMA ceased operations about the year 1962.

The following is a reprint of most of a twelve-page booklet entitled "Satan's Last Deception.] "

"The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "-S.M., 1, p. 48.

Many members of the Seventh-day Adventist church are prone to interpret this testimony by the Servant of the Lord to mean that the final Great Apostasy in these closing days of this earth's history, will be the open denunciation, by leading members of our church of the teachings and truths contained in the Spirit of Prophecy. However, closer analysis of this statement by Sister White, reveals that what she actually says is something entirely different. The phrase 'to make of none effect' does not imply an attitude of open and avowed defiance to the Lord's instructions, but rather the adoption of an outward appearance of compliance to them, while actually adhering and engaging in beliefs and practices directly contrary to the plain, unmistakable meaning of the Lord's word as given by His Servant.

If the teachings of the Spirit of Prophecy were openly discredited and denounced by our leading church officials, it would be a simple matter for any of our church members to detect the falsity of such and not be deceived. But Sister White, referring to the final, Great Apostasy that will be experienced by our church before the end, explains how subtly it will take place-how she fears that many of God's people will be deceived thereby:

"I knew that the Omega would follow in a little while, and l trembled for our people."-Special Testimonies, Series B; Mimeographed Edition, p. 49.

After denouncing the Alpha of Apostasy which shook the very foundations of our church, Sister White predicted:

"The Omega will follow, and it will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given. "-ldem, p. 47. "The Omega will be of a most startling nature.'=Idem, p. 29. cf 1 SM 48, 19Z

In writing to a leading church member whom Satan influenced to bring on the Alpha of Apostasy, and which statement seems particularly applicable today in regard to the Omega, the Servant of the Lord delivered the following scathing comment:

"You were professedly believing the Testimonies, and yet walking and working contrary to them, following your own impulses, turning from the plain 'Thus saith the Lord,' to carry out your own plans and devisings." -Letters and Manuscripts Relating to Medical Missionary Work and Going to Battle Creek, p. 119.

The late Elder M. L. Andreasen, who for many years was considered the dean of Seventh-day Adventist theologians, in his forceful series of booklets entitled "Letters to the Churches" pinpoints the areas in which Satan has succeeded in his efforts to make the Omega of Apostasy a reality. As we read through Elder Andreasen's letters, we realize anew how the hellish technique that Satan used with Dr. Kellogg, has succeeded in bringing on this last great Apostasy within our church. Brother Andreasen makes a summation of the crisis we are facing today, as follows:

"We have reached a crisis in this denomination when leaders are attempting to enforce false doctrine and threaten those who object. The whole program is unbelievable. Men are now attempting to remove the foundations of many generations, and think they can succeed. If we did not have the Spirit of Prophecy we would not know of the departure from sound doctrine which is now threatening us, and the coming of the Omega which will decimate our ranks and cause grievous wounds."-Letters to the Churches, No. 3, p. 9.

As Elder Andreasen so ably brings out, the Omega of Apostasy consists of an open downgrading of the teachings of the Spirit of Prophecy, along with an attempt to alter our doctrinal beliefs concerning the Nature of Christ, and the Atonement, so that these will be in line with worldly doctrines. In his "Letters to the Churches," Elder Andreasen gives a number of examples of how some of our leaders have downgraded the teachings of the Spirit of Prophecy.

In 1957, the General Conference released a book entitled, "Questions on Doctrine." It was published as the outcome of a series of conferences between certain of our leaders with evangelical representatives Martin, Barnhouse and Cannon. The book was supposed to answer some pertinent questions raised by Mr. Martin, as spokesman for the evangelicals, but it seriously compromised and apostasized on some of the fundamental doctrines of our church.

The late Elder Andreasen, whom we mentioned earlier in this study, was the first prominent Adventist theologian that 'made himself a man of no reputation' by calling attention to this apostasy which he identified as the Omega.

Now, let us consider briefly, some of the points of apostasy which crop up in the book "Questions on Doctrine." One of the most important and far-reaching of these is the position taken by our G. C. representatives that negates our church's fundamental belief that Christ inherited fallen human nature. "Questions on Doctrine" states flatly that Christ possessed the same sinless nature that Adam had before he succumbed to temptation in Eden. (See Q. D., pp. 50-66; 647-660) It is disconcerting and disturbing in the extreme to note that this position is in complete agreement with the views of Catholic and apostate Protestant sects. In fact, the book takes the identical position on this important subject that our leading theologians and leaders of the past unhesitatingly branded as being the teachings of the anti-Christ. (A new book, released in September 1962, entitled, "Another

Look At Seventh-day Adventism" by Norman F. Douty, calls attention to the historic Adventist position on the Nature of Christ and other Foundations of our Faith. A host of Adventist writers are quoted to show that our position in the past is not what we are teaching today. While he attacks all our distinctive doctrines in a brotherly way, he conclusively makes the point that "Questions on Doctrine" distorts our true and historic Adventism. Mr. Douty is a Baptist minister, former president of Hephzibah House, New York City, and of the Grand Rapids Theological Seminary and Bible College.)

It should be noted also that the book "Questions on Doctrine" rarely uses texts of Scripture to support its untenable new view on the Nature of Christ. Instead, it bases its stand on an erroneous and misleading use of quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy, many taken out of context.

For instance, on page 650 of the book, the section headed "Took Sinless Human Nature" is not only misleading, but also lends a false aura to all the subsequent statements made in it. The initial statement under this false heading is taken out of context and utterly fails in its attempt to prove that Christ took sinless human nature. Three paragraphs prior to the appearance of this statement, Sister White declares unequivocally that Christ "took our nature in its deteriorated condition." 1 S.M., p. 253. This last statement has been disconnected from the first part and placed under another section heading entitled "Bore the Imputed Sin and Guilt of the World" (See Q.D., pp. 655, 657). One of our basic Adventists doctrines is, as most S.D.A.'s should know, THAT WHEN CHRIST TOOK OUR NATURE IN ITS SINFUL DETERIORATED CONDITION, HE TOOK IT THROUGH INHERITANCE AND NOT BY IMPUTATION AS "QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE" MISREPRESENTS.

On page 652, at the top of the page, we find another garbled and distorted instance which purports to prove that "Christ took sinless human nature." If we consider this statement in its entirety it serves to prove just the opposite, i.e. that He actually partook of our fallen nature. (See 1 S.M., pp. 267, 268).

Statements made by Sister White in which she refers to Christ's sinless life, have been distorted to prove that He actually took sinless human nature. Thus there is created in the reader's mind unnecessary confusion between the human nature He took by His inheritance and birth into the human family, and the sinless life He led on earth. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), and thus was able, through the Grace of His Father, to tread the weaknesses of His human flesh under foot. AND THUS IF WE ARE BORN AGAIN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WE TOO CAN OVERCOME THE EVIL OF OUR HUMAN NATURE AND TREAD IT UNDER FOOT.

"Questions on Doctrine" also quotes statements which show that Christ did not have evil propensities and passions, but uses these as evidence that He did not take fallen human nature. This is an extremely fallacious line of reasoning because we all share in a fallen human nature, yet need not retain one sinful propensity, and through Grace need not have any sinful passions. (See "The Faith I Live By," p. 23).

Under the section heading "Bore the Imputed Sin and Guilt of the World," (p. 655 of Q.D.), we find several statements which would more appropriately be found under some heading such as "Took Fallen Human Nature," but as the authors profess not to believe this doctrine, the statements referring to Christ's taking our fallen nature are speciously explained away by saying that His fallen nature is merely imputed and not inherited.

The Spirit of God, through His Servant, has told us what the damaging effect of this type of reasoning does to our concept of the completness of Christ's humanity.

"When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity.'=7 B. C., p. 929.

Elder Andreasen, in his "Letter to the Churches," states this same truth very plainly: "A Savior who has never been tempted, never has had to battle with passions, who has never 'offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him who was able to save him from death,' who 'though he were a son' never learned obedience by the things He suffered, but was 'exempt' from the very things that a true Savior must experience: such a savior is what this new theology (as given in 'Questions on Doctrine') offers us. It is not the kind of Savior I need, nor the world. One who has never struggled with passions can have no understanding of. their power, nor has he ever had the joy of overcoming them. If God extended special favors and exemptions to Christ, in that very act He disqualified Him for His work. There can be no heresy more harmful than that here discussed. It takes away the Savior I have known and substitutes for Him a weak personality, not considered by God capable of resisting and conquering the passions which He asks men to overcome."-Letters to the Churches, No. 1, p. 7.

"That God exempted Christ from the passions that corrupt men, is the acme of all heresy. It is destruction of all true religion and completely nullifies the plan of redemption, and makes God a deceiver and Christ His accomplice. Great responsibility rests upon those who teach such false doctrine to the destruction of souls. The truth, of course, is that God 'spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us' (Romans 8:32); rather, -because His nature was sensitive to the least slight or disrespect or contempt, His tests were harder and His temptations stronger than any we have to endure."-Idem, p. 8.

"It is, of course, patent to all, that no one can claim to believe the Testimonies and also believe in the new theology (as expounded in Q.D.) that Christ was exempt from human passions. It is one thing or the other. The denomination is now called upon to decide. To accept the teaching of 'Questions on Doctrine' necessitates giving up faith in the Gift God has given this people."-Idem, p. 7. "The question of the nature of Christ while in the flesh is one of the foundation pillars of Christianity. On this doctrine hangs the salvation of man."-Idem, p. 8.

Just before Elder Andreasen went to sleep to await the call of the Life Giver, he expressed a desire to see Elder Figuhr to express his regret that during the heat of their controversy over doctrinal matters, words were passed that might better have been left unsaid. However, it should be made plain that at no time did Elder Andreasen depart from the theological position he takes in his "Letters to the Churches."

Elders Wieland and Short quote the same thought as Elder Andreasen in these words: "This is just what the religious world generally does deny. For while admitting in words that Christ took upon Himself our flesh, they assert that He had a sinless nature; that, unlike the Christian, in whose flesh 'dwells no good thing,' His flesh was without sinful desires and infirmities, and therefore not the same flesh as that of other men. Thus they deny the explicit statements of the apostolic writers that He really and truly took our flesh upon Him. . It is to make His conflict an unmeaning abstraction, a conflict and yet no conflict, tempted and yet not being tempted, a being wholly without relation to man, and incapable of attracting his sympathy.'-1888 Re-Examined, p. 189.

A.L. Hudson, well-known true Sabbath-keeper, has this to say on the subject at hand:

"The officers of the General Conference give evidence that either they have largely lost the spiritual eyesight to distinguish clearly the difference between Christ and Satan, or having the requisite eyesight are unwilling to shoulder the cross of Christ and bear the shame.

"This basic spiritual malady (incidentally charged by Christ Himself in the message to Laodicea) has resulted in an inordinate love of the world, compromise with sin and illicit relationship with Babylon .. We wish to make our position clear that we hold the book (Questions on Doctrine) to be the illegitimate child of gross spiritual adultery."-Preliminary Memorandum, pp. 13, 29.

It is made abundantly clear that Christ, while He was on earth, was not given any divine advantage that is not freely offered to man, if he will but seek it as Christ sought it.

"He withstood the temptation through the power that man may command. He laid hold upon the throne of God, and there is not a man or woman who may not have access to the same help through faith in God." -5 B.C., p. 1082. "And he exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God . . His life testifies that it is possible for us also to obey the law of God. "-D. A., p. 24.

"..He met man as man, and testified by His connection with God that divine power- was not given to Him in a different way to what it will be given to us. . "-7 B.C., p. 925. "He was wholly dependent upon God, and in the secret place of prayer He sought divine strength, that He might go forth braced for duty and trial. As a man He supplicated the throne of God till His humanity was charged with a heavenly current that should connect humanity with divinity .. His experience is to be ours. "-D.A, p. 363.

We are told clearly and specifically that angels do not need Grace, and that Adam did not need Grace to keep the law before his fall. (T.M., p. 519; 1 S.M., pp 331-332; S.C., p. 62). But now, let us give you more evidence to show that Christ, because of His human heredity through Mary, His mother, required God's Grace to live a sinless life.

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the Grace of God was upon Him." Luke 2:40. "And the Grace He received is for us "-D.A., p. 73. ".. His soul and His lips were anointed with Grace that He might impart to others"- C.O.L, p. 139. "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,. . His own example is an assurance that earnest, persevering supplication to God in faith-faith that leads to entire dependence upon God, and unreserved consecration to His work-will avail to bring to men the Holy Spirit's aid in the battle against sin. "-A.A., p. 56.

The Inspired writers give us the reason why the Lord received the Holy Spirit without measure:

"He emptied Himself." Phil. 2:6, R. V. Because (He) `hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity . "Heb. 1:9. 'To Jesus, who emptied Himself for the salvation of lost humanity, the Holy Spirit was given without measure."-M. B. p. 19, "But the Son of God was surrendered to the Father's will, and dependent upon His power. So utterly was Christ emptied of self that He made no plans for Himself. He accepted God's plans for Him, and day by day the Father unfolded His plans. So should we depend upon God, that our lives may be the simple outworking of His will. "-D.A., p. 208.

As true followers of Christ, we too are called upon to empty ourselves completely of self before we will be able to receive a full measure of Heaven's light. In Christ, we are told 'dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in Him ye are made full.' Col. 2:9, 10, R.V. But we must remember that of our own selves it is impossible to empty ourselves of self. This can only be done by us in the same way in which Jesus did it.

"When we place our will in unison with the will of God, the holy obedience that was exemplified in the life of Christ will be seen in our lives."-O.H.C., p. 107.

Christ while He was on earth, received the Holy Spirit by daily supplication and prayer:

"Daily He received a fresh baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the early hours of the new day the Lord awakened Him from His slumber and His soul and His lips were anointed with grace, that He might impart to others."-C.O.L., p. 139. "It was by faith and prayer that He wrought His miracles "D. A., p. 536. "He came not to our world to give the obedience o f a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God's Holy Law, and in this way He is our example. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do. "-7 B. C., p. 929.

Because many quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy have been taken out of context to support the new theology on the Nature of Christ, we would like at this point in our study, to give some quotations from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy which will give the reader a true concept of what the Inspired Writers actually teach on this subject: Galatians 4:4 tells us that Christ was made of a woman. Romans 1:3 says He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 8:3 says He was made 'in the likeness of sinful flesh.' (Likeness here is 'homoioma' which signifies not just 'resemblance,' but likeness in actuality. See Rom. 9:29; 1 John 3:2; Rev. 1:13; Phil. 2:7). We are also told in Hebrews 2:14, R.S.V. that He partook of the 'same nature' as the children He came to redeem. All this being true, Hebrews 2:17, 4:15, and 2:18, agree that 'Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to made like unto His brethren,' 'was in all points tempted like as we are,' and He 'suffered being tempted.'

We are told that He took our heredity: [D.A., p. 49 quoted]

No make-believe: [Q.D., p. 653 quoted]

Took weakened physical mental and moral powers: [D.A. p. 117 quoted]

Took degenerate nature: (1 S.M., p. 268 quoted] Took fallen human nature: E.W., p. 152 quoted]

Took sinful nature: [M.M. p. 181 quoted]

Christ's humanity reached lowest depths: 11 S.M., p. 272, 273 quoted]

Took nature of Adam the transgressor. [7 B.C., p. 926 quoted] Bore humanity we bear: [7 B.C., p. 925 quoted]

He knew what was in man: (D.A., p. 329 quoted) No evil propensity: [F.C.E., p. 385 quoted]

No sinful passions: "He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature . . "-2 T., p.202. ".. He. . suffered in proportion to the perfection of His Holiness.. "-5 T., p. 422. ("We are to have our tastes, inclinations, ambitions, and passions all subdued, and brought into harmony with the mind and spirit of Christ. ")-M. L, p. 252.

Coming to dwell in humanity, received no pollution: [D.A., p. 266 quoted]

There are several other areas in which the book "Questions on Doctrine" compromises and distorts our church's true position, such as to what is meant by the terms 'The Remnant Church,' and 'Babylon,' as these are defined and applied by the Servant of the Lord.

We would like to conclude this study by considering for a few moments the shameful apostasy by some of our leaders on the subject of the Atonement. (See Q.D., pp. 341-402, 661-692). We have mentioned earlier in this study, the series of meetings between General Conference representatives of the Evangelicals. As a result of these conferences, the book

"Questions on Doctrine" bent over backward in its efforts to modify the Adventist concept of the Atonement to bring it more nearly into harmony with the beliefs of Protestantism in general. We have no serious objection to "Questions on Doctrine" emphasizing that there was a perfect, final, and complete Atonement on Calvary, provided it is clearly understood that this applies only to the sacrificial phase of the Atonement. But when we examine the book's position on the mediatorial phase of the Atonement, we find a glaring evasion of our church's historic position. This consists of an absolute silence on the subject of the special phase of the Atonement, which we have always believed, commenced in 1844. In the earthly sanctuary service there were two divisions: the daily and the yearly (Heb. 9:6, 7). The priest went every day into the first apartment to make Atonement (Lev. 6:30), but the special yearly Atonement was made in the second apartment, or the most holy place. (See Lev. 16:17 & 1 S.M., p. 344).

At Christ's Ascension, He 'shed upon His disciples the benefits of His Atonement.'-E.W., p. 260. This mediatorial work of Atonement by the Lord began at His Ascension to the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven, and will continue daily until the close of human probation. This mediatorial Atonement has been carried on since 1844 in the second apartment or most holy place. In "Questions on Doctrine," the authors have found it expedient to discuss only the mediatorial ministrations of Christ in the first apartment and made it clear to the Evangelical representatives already mentioned that they do not believe in any distinct, special, and final work of Atonement that is taking place in the most holy place.

The Evangelicals summarized what the General Conference representatives had told them about the Atonement in the following statement which appeared in the magazine "Eternity" for September, 1956:

"Further, they (the Adventists), do not believe, as some of their earlier teachers taught, that Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844. This idea is also totally repudiated. They believe that since His ascension Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which He completed on Calvary. Since the sanctuary doctrine is based on the type of the Jewish high priest going into the Holy of Holies to complete his atoning work, it can be seen that what remains is most certainly exegetically untenable and theological speculation of a highly imaginative order. What Christ is now doing, since 1844 'according to this version,' is going over the records of all human beings and deciding what rewards are going to be given to individual Christians."

The above statement was never denied by any of our church leaders while Dr. Barnhouse was alive, but since his recent death there seems to be a tendency to infer that he was mistaken in some of the statements he made in "Eternity" magazine. It is significant that no one had the temerity to make these insinuations while Dr. Barnhouse was alive. But now they are coming forward with the flimsy excuse that the reason they didn't contradict Dr. Barnhouse's statement was that they had already effectively answered it in the book "Questions on Doctrine." The only weakness in this argument that causes it to fall apart at the seams is that these answers closely parallel the "Eternity" magazine report. This will become increasingly apparent to all as this study is concluded.

The General Conference representatives who met with Dr. Barnhouse and his associates told the latter the only work that began in 1844 was a talk of 'going over the records of all human beings.' In this manner the special Atonement is completely glossed over and left out, although it is a fundamental, historic Adventist belief. By way of contrast, note what the Spirit of Prophecy has to say regarding the two-fold nature of the special work of Atonement which began in 1844:

"Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the Holy of Holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man-to perform the work of investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits. "-G. C., p. 480.

In examining the appendix in "Questions on Doctrine," the reader will find a flagrant example of 'intellectual dishonesty' which we have little choice but to feel is a deliberate attempt to evade the facts. Here is an excerpt from the Appendix of "Questions on Doctrine":

"Because the writings of Ellen G. White have often been garbled when allegedly 'quoted' by critics or detractors, we here give a comprehensive assemblage of her teachings on the deity and eternal pre-existence of Christ, and His place in the Godhead, or Trinity; His nature during the incarnation; and His atoning sacrifice and priestly ministry."-Q.D. p. 641.

Now, when the authors state that the appendix contains a 'comprehensive assemblage' of Sister White's statements about Christ's 'priestly ministry,' this is just plain untruth. Every statement from the Spirit of Prophecy which refers to the final, special, closing atonement in the most holy place, has been completely omitted. By no stretching of the imagination could this have been done inadvertently or by oversight, because Sister White has written voluminously on this topic and has made many statements in which she has systematically outlined the basic Adventist doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary.

It is significant to note that the Servant of the Lord foresaw that this very situation would arise which Elder Andreasen terms the Omega of Apostasy.

"I was told that men will employ every policy to make less prominent the difference between the faith of Seventh-day Adventists and those who observe the first day of the week.. This is no time to haul down our colors. A company was presented before me under the name of Seventh-day Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign which makes us a distinct people should not be held out so strikingly,- for they claimed it was not the best policy in securing success to our institutions. This distinctive banner is to be borne through the world to the close of probation . . The world and the churches are uniting in transgressing the law of God, in tearing away God's memorial, and in exalting a sabbath that bears the signature of the man of sin.

Satan realized only too well, because of his profound knowledge of sign to show the difference between the obedient and the disobedient. l saw some reaching out their hands to remove the banner, and to obscure its significance . . Shall anyone then choose to hide this banner, to relax his devotion? Shall the people whom God has honored, blessed and prospered, refuse to bear testimony in behalf of God's memorial at the very time when such a testimony should be borne? Shall not the commandments of God be more highly esteemed when men pour contempt upon the law of God?"-2 S.M., p. 385.

Satan realizes only too well, because of his profound knowledge of Inspired Writings, that it is the general study and acceptance of the great Sanctuary Message that will bring about the final revival, reformation and shaking in the church of God. He also realizes that this Sanctuary truth is to prepare it to stand in the time of trouble without a mediator. Thus the Enemy of Souls is frantically engaged in seeking to create confusion and division in our church by the introduction of false doctrines and fallacious theories that will cause the unwary to stumble. We must earnestly pray for these souls through whom Satan has succeeded in introducing the Omega of Apostasy and for those who are now being deceived by it.

"One thing is certain: those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God's spirit."- Spalding-Magan Collection, p. 305.

(The first individual to reprint Andreasen's mimeographed collection of papers was Al Hudson in Baker, Oregon. A concerned Seventh-day Adventist, be was another who dared to stand up and speak. And it cost him dearly also. He was stripped of his church offices and later his church membership. A small town printer, be was in an admirable position to speak up, and speak up he did.

The following is a reprint of most of a telephone conversation that Brother Hudson had with Donald Grey Barnhouse on May 16, 1958. This a year and a half after the conclusion of the "bombshell" articles in "Eternity" and a little less than a year after QD was released and created its own bombshell among our people.

-The information given in this telephone conversation is devastating. Barnhouse repeatedly tells his caller that the Seventh-day Adventist leaders who took part in these Evangelical Conferences were totally repudiating certain earlier teachings of their Church. He knew it and they knew it. But whereas our people had been told by Froom and Anderson, both in articles and in the pages of QD, that these changed teachings had always been the belief of the majority of sane Adventists, -Barnhouse bad been told that although this was indeed an outright repudiation of earlier Adventist "errors," yet the membership of the Church fully went along with the repudiation. The very idea that some of the members might now be in disagreement with the repudiation seemed to come as a shock to Barnhouse.

In addition, we also here see a hint of the fury of Barnhouse's feelings about the utter stupidity of the crazy Adventist doctrines.

In the following conversation, "(H) " indicates that Hudson is speaking and "(B)" that Barnhouse is speaking.

A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

(H) Good morning. (B) Good morning. (H) This is Al Hudson, Baker, Oregon. (B) Bob Hudson? (H) Al Hudson. (B) Al Hudson. (H) Yes. (B) Yes? (H) On the 28th of last month I wrote to you and Mr. Martin and Mr. Bryant a letter relative to some of the articles which have appeared in your magazine on Seventh day Adventists, etc.

(B) [to secretary] Have we a letter from a Mr. Al Hudson, Baker, Oregon, concerning articles on subject Adventists? All right, go ahead. (H) The reason I mentioned that was to try to identify myself. (B) Yes. (H) Now, I'm, in this letter-. (B) What church are you connected with? (H) I'm a Seventh-day Adventist. (B) Yes.

(H) In my letter I stated what I'm calling you about. That's the reason I mentioned the letter. I thought if you might have caught it, why then you would know what--. (B) Well, we get so many thousands of letters that it takes generally a long time to filter up to me.

(H) Sure, I appreciate that. Well, then I can give you just a brief resume of the situation. I'm writing a paper dealing with certain phases of developments in the Adventist church, particularly in the last decade. Of course this matter of our relationship to the Evangelicals has come along as part of the picture. And I've read your articles in "Eternity", also Mr. Martin's articles, and other articles that other Evangelicals have written. Now, some time ago, I talked to Mr. Martin, oh, I guess it's been about a month ago. I was interested in when his book was coming out, and so on. I had talked to Mr. Bryant of Zondervan publishing, and Mr. Martin. Then I wrote up the result of our conversation as I understood it, and sent it to Mr. Martin, asking him to confirm it, or correct it as fee might see fit, and I haven't heard from him. In fact, he seems unwilling to either confirm or deny the facts that we discussed in our conversation.

(B) Well, I tell you, I know this, that I know that his book has been cleared by our office, and it is on the way. (H) I see. (B) That's the situation. The book proposition. They don't want to, (H) I see. It's a matter of financial--. (B) I don't know. It's a matter of, (H) I see. (B) But what can I do for you?

(H) Well, now the question: there's quite a bit of controversy over this matter in the Evangelical press, and of course it is also appearing in our press. Now, there seems to be one angle of the thing that I would like to get cleared up. Have, to your knowledge, either you or Mr. Martin, or anyone else, have Seventh-day Adventist leaders indicated formally or informally that they desire fellowship in the National Association of Evangelicals?

(B) I don't know anything about these things. My staff keeps me protected from all controversy so that I can sit here at my desk and write, etc. (H) I see.

(B) Now, I don't know, I don't think there is any doubt of the fact that Seventh-day Adventists, that is the top leaders, understand that it is a very important thing for Seventh-day Adventists to be recognized as evangelical. But you see, the difficulty lies in the fact, that--the one thing that I stated about Seventh-day Adventists, namely that they are believers, has been totally overlooked by Talbot, and "King's Business", and these people. The fact that I have said, and I've said to thousands of people, I said, "All I'm saying is that the Adventists are Christians." I still think their doctrines are about the screwiest of any group of Christians in the world. I believe this beyond any question. In fact, the doctrine of the investigative judgment is the most blatant, face-saving proposition that ever existed to cover up the debacle of the failure of Christ to come in 1844 as they said. When the two men walked through the cornfield, and suddenly one of them struck his head and said, "Why, Christ did come." Why, this is ridiculous, asinine nonsense. The whole of the investigative judgment is a face-saving thing, and now that a hundred years have gone by, if the Adventists had the courage--because now the Adventists are becoming educated. A hundred years ago, the Adventists were practically illiterate. And now they are becoming educated, and they know that their doctrines will not hold the light of exegesis. Just simply cannot stand. There is no Greek, no Greek scholar in the world, that will fail to accept the fact that Christ died once and for all. And that He didn't go in and out, and that He wasn't wandering around in the tabernacle. He was seated, and that He has never gotten up to walk anywhere in 1844, or anyplace else. Now, failure to understand this is intellectual, ah, laziness or fear. Now, you see, [the] Seventh-day Adventist group was formed by three groups that came together, each one holding a pet doctrine that was false. One group held Sabbatarianism, the others didn't at all. The second group held the investigative judgment, the other groups didn't at all. And the third group held the doctrine of conditional immortality, and the other groups didn't hold it at all. They were all united on the great truth of the second coming of Christ. And so, in order to come together in one union, they effected what is a compromise. Each accepted the folly of the other in order to get their own folly accepted. Because--. Now, if you'll drop a post card to my office, they'll send you my booklet, "The Christian and the Sabbath", which has just been published about a week ago. You can get it free.

(H) "The Christian and the Sabbath"? (B) Yes, Box 2000, Philadelphia. I have just made an exhaustive study of the folly of Sabbatarianism preaching on "one man esteemeth one day above another, and another man esteems every day alike." And I have just published this, and it's on--in fact if you listen next Sunday morning on National Broadcasting system, I'm on this subject, the Christian and the Sabbath, right now. I'm preaching six sermons on the Sabbath coast to coast on NBC, pointing out that the Adventists are wrong in keeping Saturday, the Protestants are wrong in keeping Sunday, and that that the only thing to keep is, to have the attitude that every day is alike and that God not only is not entering into this day, but He hates the Sabbath today. You see. (H) Well, now, in your contact with Adventist leaders, which you mention in your magazine, and also Mr. Martin, do you feel that our top ranking leaders, who have as you say, become educated, are tending away from this concept of the investigative judgment as you have mentioned it? (B) You see, what we know is this. I cannot speak for any of these men, Roy Anderson and Froom, etc. these are intelligent men. They'll speak for themselves. They'll tell you what they're believing and what they are doing. You wouldn't want anybody to call you up, or call somebody else up, and ask what the inside of your thinking was.

(H) No, except that you have had association with them, have talked with them. (B) We have had great association; in fact I have a letter on my desk this minute. When I asked my secretary she just handed me a letter from L.E. Froom, and we are in correspondence right along, with the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist movement

(H) Well, then, that was the basis of my question. Now, you have mentioned in your articles in "Eternity" that it seems to you that there is a sort of a transition period, or a--. (B) There has to be. (H) Or a metamorphosis as it were out of the--.

(B) I mean there has to be . . Now, I recognize clearly that Mrs. White very frequently wrote some very spiritual things, but God Almighty never spoke through a woman. Let's face it. You can't justify a woman preaching and usurping authority over a man. It can't be done. Now, this is the position, psychologically we can understand the Seventh-day Adventists very well, and the fact that I took the lead in clearing them, in fact, I picked the Seventh-day Adventists out of the association of Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses, and have said, "These people are Christians." Seventh-day Adventists are immature Christians. I don't think there is any doubt of the fact that Seventh-day Adventists have a tremendous immaturity. And this immaturity rises from the psychological complex of their background. Because, I mean, have you read Froom's history? (H) I have it here. I use it as a reference book. I haven't read it through, no.

(B) All right, well, if you go to the last volume of it and let him describe for you the whole Millerite proposition, he puts in capital letters, THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT, capital G, capital R, capital E, all capitals, THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT! Well, the great disappointment was that Jesus didn't come back on that day. Well, all of the people that were in that movement, were Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, -it was an evangelical movement in all the great churches, looking for the second coming of Christ. Miller was a Baptist, Miller wasn't a Seventh-day Adventist. He didn't believe in Saturday the Sabbath; he didn't believe in the investigative judgment; he didn't believe in conditional immortality. Now, you see, those men, as I say, I forgot the name of the man who went by the back way through the cornfield, you know who I mean. Well, let's face it. What happened to him that day was a great and terrible sin for what he was doing instead of getting down on his knees and saying, "Lord God, I've been a fool, and the Bible says that if any man make a prophecy and it does not come to pass, you will know that I have not sent him." And there, I don't believe the Seventh-day Adventists are ever going to be any real witness unless the Seventh-day Adventist gets down on his knees and says, "Lord God, in the beginning we were founded on a lie", because you were founded on a lie.

(H) Well, of course those are moot points that, (B) Why, they're not even moot. I mean, if you take anybody that is not a Seventh-day Adventist, the five most honest men in the world, in fact if you take a Jew who is not a Christian, even, or a Roman Catholic, and put the thing up to them and say, "Now, historically, judge!" why, they're all going to say, "This is a face-saving proposition, at most; certainly it has nothing to do with the Bible." (H) Well, I can see your line of reasoning.

(B) Now, I love all Christians. I love, and I have found-why, when these men came to my home-I happen to have a nice place in the country-and these men came to my home for days. And we were down on our knees together; we prayed together; we walked in the garden together. And let me tell you, Roy Anderson is one of the finest men I have ever met in my life and Unruh. We've prayed together. I know these men are brothers in Christ, you see, all that Talbot and the rest of them say-- I mean, you take this last copy of the magazine "Evangelical Action," the organ of the National Association of Evangelicals. Brother, they came out in a big blast of Talbot and DeHaan against me and against the Seventh-day Adventists, on the basis of the SDA book, but anybody who reads, have you read the big SDA book? (H) Yes, I have a copy here.

(B) Well, let's face It, in a very nice way, the leaders who have written this book, have moved from the traditional position of the SDA movement. They've come back toward the Bible. (H) But they insist that they haven't. Now, that's the controversy, you see.

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

(H) Now, you feel that Anderson and Froom are more or less of that disposition? (B) No, I don't say that at all. (H) You don't think so? (B) No, I don't say that at all. They should be, but I think there are a lot of fellows that are holding sticks over them, and they don't dare advance as much as they should. (H) You think they would advance more if they weren't being held back.

(B) Look, I think you would advance more if you weren't being held back. If you follow the Holy Spirit, you would abandon the investigative judgment in one minute. (H) Well, on the, of course, there is a lot of doctrinal controversy there, but on the practical end, as I said before, it seems to me this matter of fellowship--. Now, if Adventist leaders made overtures to the Association for recognition-. (B) I don't think they have. (H) You don't think they have. Well, then the controversy in the Evangelical press to the effect that we are asking for fellowship has no foundation.

(B) I don't think it has any foundation. You see, in a large measure, let's face it, Mr. Hudson, in a large measure--. You see, I was a University professor, and have had a great education, and they know that if I say something that I have background for it. And they know what I've done in coming out and saying that Seventh-day Adventists are Christians. You see, one guy has earned half his living giving lectures against the cults, Christian Science, etc. Now, this is the reason why he's attacking, and he's attacking me as much as he's attacking Seventh-day Adventists. You see this we know.

(H) Well, now what is the basis of Mr. Martin's statement that there is no question, I think I have it here. "There is no doubt that Seventh-day Adventists desire to receive and extend the hand of fellowships to all truly within the body of Christ," meaning, at least in part, the members of the National Association of Evangelicals.

(B) Well, I would put it this way: There is no doubt of the fact that any man who is a truly born-again man wants to extend the hand to everybody else who is born again. If he doesn't, he is out of the will of God. Now, I know that some of the men at Takoma Park are not only saved, but they want to be led by the Holy Spirit. Now, any man who wants to be led by the Holy Spirit-. Now, this year, the year 1958, I have already spoken in a Seventh-day Adventist meeting; I held a week of meetings in the Pentecost Assembly in Missouri; last week I was in the Episcopal cathedral in Cleveland under the great Cleveland Federation of Churches, and I have already preached this year in Northern and Southern Baptist, Northern and Southern Presbyterian, (?) Methodist church in Kansas City, and I want to work with the whole body of Christ. If you were born again, and you are going to be in heaven, then you are my brother. But if you are a sectarian-I don't know what your attitude is. You called me up on the telephone and I'm speaking to you plainly although I don't know who you are at all. But if you are a person trying to stir up trouble, if you are a person trying to find out if you can sharpen your knife using me as a whetstone in order that you may try to sink it in some of the leaders who are trying to be godly men, then I tell you that you are being led by the antichrist, and not led by the Holy Spirit.

(H) No, I'm not. Now what I had, I don't mean No to that last question. I'm not trying to fly under any false colors. That's the reason I mentioned my letter which if it had reached you, you would have known exactly what my position is. Now, you and Mr. Martin have made certain representations as to Adventist beliefs, etc. in your magazine. I have been in correspondence with our men in Washington. I have on my desk now a letter I received from the secretary of the general conference just yesterday. There is quite a wide discrepancy between your interpretation of our belief and what has been and is still current in our midst. I'm just trying to iron out the facts.

(B) Look, we have written and signed by the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist movement that we have not misrepresented Seventh-day Adventist positions.

(H) Now, that's what Mr. Martin told me as we talked this matter informally more than a month ago. Now, I have asked our men in Washington about this purported, not recommendation, but I think it is called a forward, which was to be signed by an officer of the General Conference stating that you had not misrepresented doctrine. I can't get any satisfaction out of our men in Washington as to just what they agreed to and didn't agree to do, but it doesn't agree with what you wrote in "Eternity." Now, I'm just trying to get at the facts, that's all I'm trying to do, because I'm writing a paper myself, and I think later on, will be incorporated into a book.

(B) Now, what is your position? Are you trying to keep Seventh-day Adventism as it has been for the last 100 years or so? (H) Frankly, my personal position, I am not convinced of the necessity of a change, no.

(B) I mean, you know that Christ didn't come back in 1844; you know if you know anything at all, that Jesus hasn't been wandering around in heaven since 1844. He did not get up off the throne to go into any inner sanctuary. You know that this was a face-saving device of men who were so scaredy cat that they were walking through a cornfield in order to keep off the main road. You know this wasn't the Holy Spirit. You know it in your heart, and if you ever take the position, God is going to nullify your ministry, and at the judgement seat of Christ, you are going to answer for it.

(H) Now, I appreciate your franknesss. I wish our men would be just as frank as to their relationship to you and Mr. Martin, and also the doctrinal positions they are taking. Frankly, there is a considerable difference between what you have published and what our men are telling us. I'm just trying to find out if we have changed, if we should change, just what the status of the thing is.

(B) Everything I have published was read by Seventh-day Adventist leaders before we published. Not one line have I ever printed that was not previously read by Froom, for instance.

(H) Well, I'm not trying to stir up any trouble. I'm a Seventh-day Adventist, and I'm not convinced even from what you say, that I should change, but I'm willing to consider it provided it is brought out in the open and handled in a business-like way. Now, if our leaders in Washington feel that we should modify our position, my position is that they should come out to us as Seventh-day Adventists in the field, and say, "Brethren, we have been in error on this. We'd better change to so and so and so and so." Now, they're not doing that. They're telling us that we have not changed, and yet apparently they are giving you and Mr. Martin the idea that we are at least in the process of changing or are willing to change. Now, I'm just trying to get the facts.

(B) I think they're doing, as I say, I think these men are educated men, and some of them know Greek. We sat here with their Greek professor, some of these men know Greek, and Walter Martin pointed out, "By one offering he had perfected forever them that are sanctified." That is the aorist tense. And one man of the top leaders said, "Now, I don't know Greek," he said, "myself, but three of us have had a lot of Greek." And all of the wonderful part of fellowship with Anderson and Froom and Unruh, and I forget the other men that came up from Washington, the top men, and we spent two days one time and two and a half another, here in my home. We entertained these men, and fed them vegetarian meals, and had a nice time together. We had a wonderful time together.

(B) I spoke for Richards in a Seventh-day Adventist group to all his people, etc. and I'm going to preach in the Seventh-day Adventist church in Takoma Park, Washington. And we had Dr. Roy Anderson come to my pulpit in the Presbyterian church and my people heard him with great profit. He is a godly man. Now this is a whole lot better than having everybody taking Talbot's position and saying that you are all antichrist. (H) Well, that is a complicated proposition.

(B) Let me tell you this, if you don't want, I mean if you try to write a book or anything that there has been no change in Adventism, then we're going to have to go back and say, "You are anti-Christ." I will have to make a public retraction, and send it to "Time" magazine, and say, "Your article,"-did you read it when it came out in "Time?" (H) No.

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

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

(H) Yes. (B) You do? (H) Yes. (B) Well, then we might as well hang up. You belong to the anti-Christ party. I'll tell you this, brother, and you, I doubt if you're saved. (H) Well. (B) You don't know what salvation is. Hudson, you don't know what salvation is. (H) Well, perhaps that's right, Mr. Barnhouse, but the Adventists believe that, too.

(B) They, now, that's the point, the Adventists do not believe this. This is the point I'm making. And everywhere we said, for instance, a man in the Presbyterian Church, wrote an article and he said they believe that there is no hell, and that they don't believe. That's what a screwball on the fringe believes. Now, in the believe. That's what a scewball on the fringe believes. Now, in the Seventh-day Adventist movement you've got screwballs and people on the fringe. (H) Yeah, that's apparently where I am.

(B) Well, if you believe that keeping any day but Saturday is the mark of the beast then you are of the party of anti-Christ because you deny salvation by grace alone. You do not believe that salvation is by grace alone, do you?

(H) Not in the same sense that you use it, no. (B) Yeah, in other words you believe that a man has to add something to the work of Christ in order to be saved. (H) Yes, that's right. (B) Then, I say that is of the devil, beyond any question, and you see, you're the one that's making the difficulty, and I will print this in our magazine. Are you the pastor of a church there in Oregon? (H) No, I'm a layman. (B) You're a layman? (H) I'm an officer of the church, but I'm not an ordained minister. I studied for the ministry, however, in the Adventists Church, and I think I know what Adventists believe.

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

(B) Do you feel that you are the remnant church? (H) That is Adventist teaching. (B) Well, if you believe that, then you are a megalomaniac. Now, let's face it. I'm not going to pull words. You just are not following the Bible. (H) I appreciate your position. Now, of course, over the telephone here I couldn't defend that position, but, friend, that is Adventist teaching. (B) Well, it isn't Adventist teaching. Excuse me, but it is not. (H) Well, that's the point. What makes you think it isn't? (B) Well, their book, their statement, and even Ellen G. White. I can show you in Ellen G. White that she doesn't believe this. (H) She doesn't believe that the Adventist church is the remnant church?

(B) She does not believe, she believes that God gave some vital truth, some latter day truth, but she does not take the position that anybody that is not a Seventh-day Adventist is not a believer in Christ (H) No, She doesn't. Neither do we. (B) Oh, yes you do. (H) No. (B) That's it. You just said that not keeping Saturday, keeping Sunday, was the mark of the beast. Your trouble is that you don't realize what you say. (H) Yes, I do realize what I say. (B) Well, if you say for instance, let me ask you this. Do you think I'm a lost soul? (H) Friend, that is up to God.

(B) No, No, No. But you wait a minute. Let's ask a question; that's up to God but do you think that I cursing Saturday as the Sabbath, cursing everything that is of the law, and wanting grace alone, and wanting to live in holiness, believing that all sin is removed by the blood of Jesus Christ alone, do you believe that therefore I am a lost soul? (H) I believe that you are a disobedient follower of Christ, and that disobedience, if continued in, will ultimately cause the loss of your soul, yes. (B) Yeah, well, you see there's no use in your talking. You don't even believe that I'm saved. (H) Now, I think that you will find if you will investigate the matter a little more closely that --

(B) Thank God the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism do not hold your position. (H) You don't think they do. (B) I know they don't. I know they don't. We've gone on our knees together, and have gotten up from our knees together, and they say, "Brother, this is wonderful. We are redeemed and fellows in Christ." (H) And you don't think that Seventh-day Adventist leaders believe that you are a disobedient follower of Jesus.

(B) I didn't say that. They believe that I am a born again person. That I am saved and have eternal life. They know that I hold the Calvinistic position that I am saved forever and can never be lost. They say to me, they hold the Armenian position, but nevertheless, they definitely believe that I am a born-again believer and a brother in Christ.

(H) Well, now here, I had one of these very men who have been foremost in this relationship tell me when I was in Washington D.C. last November; I went back for some conferences and study. He told me--. (B) Which man? (H) I'd rather not give his name. (B) Oh, come on now. If you're not honest enough to talk, what did you call me for? (H) Well, you accuse me, didn't accuse me, but wondered if I was trying to stir up personal trouble. I'm not. But I am trying to arrive at some facts. Now, if I tell you this man's name personally, that is a personal thing. If I tell you the position he took, then it becomes--. (B) You said one of the men who came to my house. (H) Well, let's put it this way. One of the men that has been--. (B) You said one of the men that came to my house. (H) You've got me on the spot. (B) Sure I do. It's either Froom or Anderson or Richards. (H) Unruh? (B) No, Unruh is from Pennsylvania. You said Washington. That's Froom and Anderson and the fourth man, what's his name? (H) I don't know. (B) You don't know. Well, that leaves it, it's Froom or Anderson who told you this.

(H) All right, I'll tell you, it was Froom. He told me that he had you men right where you were going to have to admit the seventh day is the Sabbath. (B) Oh, he never said anything of the kind. (H) Well, that's what he told me. (B) We know that the seventh day is not the Sabbath. (H) That's what he told me, and he told me in the offices of the General Conference in Washington.

(B) Well, you listen to the National Broadcasting System coast to coast next Sunday morning at 8:30. I'm preaching against the Sabbath right now. (H) My point is this. As near as I can get the information together, here, our men have been representing one thing to you and they are representing another thing to us. (B) Well, put that down in so many words. (H) Well, now, I'll put it in writing, and will you prove to the contrary? In other words, you say you have in your files stuff that will support everything that you have written in "Eternity" magazine. Well, now, will you come out with that? (B) Well, uh--

(H) Our men are denying that. Now let's get the thing straight. I have a stack of correspondence here from our officials in Washington I'm trying to get at the basis of this thing, and I don't know what is in your files. I know what Martin told me, and I know that he will not answer my letters in confirming what he told me, but our men are representing --. (B) Possibly he believes that you are just a trouble maker. (H) I think that's entirely possible. I appreciate his position. I'm not trying to cause trouble to anybody, but I want to know what our men are teaching and if we should change, I want to change with them, provided that they can convince me that I should change, but to try to give the idea to you and Mr. Martin that we have changed, and to give the idea to us that we haven't changed, I don't go for that. Now, I think our men ought to come out and be honest on the proposition.

(B) Well, look, the important thing is this, where the great change has come, they have absolutely denied, and in the book, 700-page book which you have, they have denied beyond question that they hold any position which makes Christ anything other than the eternal second Person of the Godhead. (H) I grant that. (B) Do you believe that Jesus is the Lord Jehovah? (H) Yes, if I understand what you mean by the Lord Jehovah. I believe that He is the second Person of the Godhead, eternally existent, He became incarnate and became a man. Now, on that point, however, there is a great controversy.

(B) Exactly. Now, you see there were Seventh-day Adventists who held that He was sinful, that He did not have a sinless nature, and they took the Docetism principle from back in the early church history. Now your leaders have come out in the strongest possible repudiation of that phase of Seventh-day Adventist teaching.

(H) They are taking the position, are they not, that Christ has the nature of Adam before he sinned, isn't that true? (B) I hope not! (H) What is their position as you understand it? (B) That Christ had, that He was the God-man. Adam was created a being subject to fall. Jesus Christ was the God-man, not subject to fall.

(H) And that's your understanding of the position of our leaders? (B) Of course! They have taken it so strongly and it is in their book. We hold, they say, with the church of all the centuries that Jesus Christ was the eternal sinless Son of God, etc. etc.

(H) Well, I don't want to take longer of your time. I was trying to clear up specifically the item of whether our leaders had made overtures to the National Association of Evangelicals for fellowship. (B) I don't think they have. (H) Now, that is what I am trying to get at. That puts it in a different category. (B) This would precipitate a fight that might break the National Association in pieces. (H) In other words, it still is a matter of a theological discussion in comparative religions. It's not a practical matter of determining whether or not Adventists should be admitted to the National Association of Evangelicals. (B) Why, that has never been under our discussion. I never heard about it until you told me, this morning.

(H) It has come out in the Evangelical press. We have been represented as standing before the door of the National Association of Evangelicals asking for entrance. Now, I'm just trying to run that down and see if it is nothing but rumor. (B) I'll tell you what was said was this. The Seventh-day Baptists are already in. You see the Seventh-day Baptists have been a member of the National Association of Evangelicals for years. And someone stated, I believe, I wasn't at the convention, that Seventh-day Adventists had as much right in it as the Seventh-day Baptists. But I do not believe that anybody in the Seventh-day Adventist group applied or made overtures. If it had been done it would have been done through us because, brother, I came out and said that Seventhday Adventists were Christians. But I'm going to have to say that a man called me up from Oregon and spent half an hour on the telephone telling me that he was not a Christian. For that's what you've told me this morning. (H) Well, of course, that is a matter of opinion.

(B) No, it isn't. Excuse me, but this is the matter. It says, if anybody come and bring not the gospel of Christ, this is the spirit of anti-Christ. Now you see, if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal, sinless Son of God, that He could not have sinned, and goodness, we have 18 quotations from Mrs. White saying the same thing, 18 quotations from Ellen G. White stating exactly this position, and denying what you are telling me.

(H) On the other hand I have quotations that state just the opposite. (B) One quotation. (H) We have more than that. (B) No. (H) You don't have them all.

(B) Oh yes we do. Look, Froom and the rest of them say that Walter Martin knows more about Seventh-day Adventists than any professor in Takoma Park, Washington,-. (H) Well, that again is a matter of opinion.

(H) You know she wrote about 25 million words. That's quite a lot for a man to read. (B) That's too much, you know. She was running off at the mouth, and the Holy Spirit certainly was not doing it. (H) Do you think that Anderson and Froom agree with you on that position?

(B) Look, I know that these men are intelligent enough to know that she was a fallible human being, and that she said so herself. You don't believe that she was infallible, do you? Do you? (H) You get into the matter of the various concepts of inspiration. You asked me a question. I'll answer it. I believe she was a prophet. (B) Do you believe she was infallible? (H) Well, I say that she was a prophet the same as any other true prophet. (B) Do you believe that she was in error ever? (H) As a human being? (B) In her writing. Do you believe that in some of her writing that you have to point to certain sentences and say, "Boy, she sure pulled a blooper! That's for the birds! It is not true!" (H) I haven't encountered any of those quotations, no. (B) You haven't? (H) No. (B) Oh, brother, are you a dupe. You are not as honest as the people at Takoma Park.

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

(B) Of course not. Certainly not. They're intelligent men, and they are Christians. I mean, anybody who would say that Ellen G. White was a prophet in the same sense as Isaiah-- in the first place, they are denying the Bible's word about prophecy concerning a woman. You see you simply have to put all that out of your mind before you ever accept such a thing, and you see, I mean, if you take this position, Seventh-day Adventism will have to go back into the same position as Mormonism with their Book of Mormon. A guest has just arrived for lunch, and I've got to go.

(H) I appreciate your time. Now, I'll tell you my position on Mrs. White, just for the record. I don't know what you're going to publish that I have said. I hope that you have it accurately. My position is this-- the Bible mentions two kinds of prophets, a true prophet and a false prophet I believe Mrs. White was a true prophet. Now that is my position.

(B) Yeah, I know that's your position. She was just a good woman who was greatly blessed and greatly mistaken, frequently. (H) And you don't think Elder Froom and Richards and the others take my position? That she was a true prophet?

(B) Of course they don't. (H) I see. (B) None of them do. (H) Well, I appreciate your time.

[As you will recall, we have chosen in this lengthy documentary to lump certain items together instead of keeping everything strictly chronological. We shall now provide you with three letters. The first two were written by Roy Allan Anderson, Secretary of the Ministerial Association of the General Conference, to R.A. Greive, at that tine President of the North New Zealand Conference.

Greive was an original thinker who liked to come up with new ideas. He bad already developed a peculiar concept of "instantaneous sanctification" while be was president of the Queensland Conference in Australia. We are told that as soon as be presented it, nearly all of the ministers in the conference immediately began preaching t, even though inherent in it was the idea that at the moment of conversion one is "instantaneously sanctified and therefore need not concern oneself with obedience to the Law of God, for he is already fully prepared for heaven. (Ford's heresy is but a variant of this. Greive taught a sanctification that is a momentary act that is in reality a denial of its existence; Ford and the "new theology " teach that sanctification (obedience by faith in Christ) may exist but has no significance in the plan of salvation; justification (forgiveness by God of one's past record) is all that is needed.) When Grieve went from Queensland to the presidency of the North New Zealand Conference, be took the teaching with him and upon presenting it to the pastors and church workers in workers' meetings, they accepted it as wonderful new light and began teaching it to their church members. It doesn't take long to ruin a church: All that is required is one man who likes to dream up new theologies-and a majority of hirelings beneath him.

Then, a year before the publication of "Questions on Doctrine, " Greive learned about Anderson and Froom's attempt back in Washington D.C. to change still other doctrines. Greive was a forceful man, so be twice wrote to find out what was taking place. Anderson's two replies are low-key but of interest. Here they are.

Within a few years, Greive left Adventism entirely, joined a Protestant church and became one of their ministers. His reason or leaving: He no longer believed that Moses and Paul were right when they said there is a literal Sanctuary in heaven. This is the identical point that Ford now rejects. But Ford continues on as a member of the Pacific Union College Church. It is our understanding that this is because a majority of its members agree with his thinking and therefore refuse to disfelowship him.

Ministerial Assoc. Gen. Conf. of S.D.A.
Washington 12, D.C.
January 19, 1956

Pastor R. A. Greive

North N. Z. Conference

Box 8541, Upper Symonds St., P.O.

Auckland, N. Z.

My dear Brother Greive:

This letter is long, long overdue and it carries sincerest apologies for what is an unpardonable neglect. At the time of your accident in New Guinea I was under a terrific pressure with appointments away from the office, and as you know when you get back things pile high, and somehow this was overlooked. I wrote to Stan Gander and it somehow was in the back of my mind that I had written you as well. How thankful we are that the Lord spared your lives, although it was a terrible experience.

Well now, brother, we are in the midst of a most interesting study. For your sake I wish you could be here in Washington right now. You remember the things we discussed in both Australia and Auckland, especially concerning the nature of Christ. Well, at that time some things that Sister White wrote more than half a century ago were kind of in the background. Practically nobody knew of their existence although they were published in the Review and also in personal letters and counsels, etc. The pity of it is that these statements which throw a great deal of light on the subject had not been made available to our workers generally long before now.

As soon as I returned from Australia I was plunged into the thick of a very important series of counsels with some outstanding theologians belonging to several different groups, but remarkable Christians, each of them. They had been given the task of writing against us, and when they came down here to get first handed material they discovered that instead of our being a cult we were sound evangelical Christians. This discovery was a shock to them and after some days of study they openly and joyfully received us as brethren in Christ, gripping our hands in the spirit of fellowship. Their eyes filled with tears as they told of their remarkable change of concept and of how thrilled they were to discover that on the great fundamentals of Christianity we rang absolutely true.

Now this is just a wee note to tell you that while we have not yet finished our research and our work with these men, yet the present situation is very encouraging. What I am saying is not for publication right now, although doubtless within a few months we will be able to share. these things with all our workers; and they should be shared. Brethren L. Froom and W. E. Read and I have been a trio working very closely with these men and it has demanded much of our time, for we have been studying to state our beliefs in terms that could not be misunderstood by the theologians.

You may remember drawing my attention to a book you were reading just as we were going into a meeting on the Sabbath morning there in Auckland. You read a fine paragraph from it; but I failed to take the name of the book or even the name of the author. We discussed Campbell Morgan and others, but this man I think was an English theologian and his statements seemed so clear. I would appreciate it if you could let me know the title of the book and the author for I would like a copy.

You are absolutely right in the contention that Jesus did not partake of our sinful nature. If I could put it simply it would be in these words: He partook of human nature but not carnal nature. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not just sinful flesh, so that He could say to His apostles, "The Prince of this world cometh and hath nothing (findeth no response) in Ale."

Well, this opens up a very big question and in a very little while I will send you some things that I know will delight your heart. This is just a friendly letter to tell you how much I appreciated the many kindnesses you showed us and to express the hope that the Lord is giving you success in the leader of that important field.

If I could drop one little sentence of friendly counsel it would be: Don't stress theology among your workers for the time being. Your best intentions can be and often are misunderstood. But be assured that some of these very points of discussion will be brought into the open, and then maybe you can give them the emphasis they will need.

Well God bless you. Give my greetings to all the workers there.

Sincerely your brother, (Signed)

R. Allan Anderson

Ministerial Assoc. Gen Conf. of S.D.A.

Washington 12, D.C.

April 23, 1956

Pastor R. A. Greive

Box 8541, Auckland Dear Brother Greive:

It would seem from your letter that there are some out there in the Australasian field who have the impression that these questions and answers have been prepared by just a small group and because the General Conf. Committee has not passed action upon them that they are not authoritative. Actually, the General Conf. Committee does not rule on matters of faith and doctrine or church policy. All such matters must be dealt with at a General Conf. in session. Between such sessions, however, the General Conf. officers who represent the administration of the cause of God serve as a body of counsel on all such matters, but of course these brethren have no authority to change any teaching. It was to this group that these questions and answers were presented. A number of the leading officers with certain selected individuals have given much time to the study of these answers. In fact very careful attention has been given to every particular word. These answers therefore represent responsible leaders of the denomination, the General Conf. President being the chairman at every such meeting. .

One thing should be made clear; we are not trying to harmonize our beliefs with those of other Christian groups. In fact the ministers with whom we have been working represent different denominations, and are therefore in disagreement among themselves on minor points of faith, such as the mode of baptism, church organization, etc. But on the essentials of the gospel, as they relate to the person and work of Jesus Christ, they stand together. And when they have discovered that we stand with them on these vital issues, it has brought them a great joy and satisfaction. Some of these men have been among the most able opponents of Adventism but that was because they did not know what we actually believe, having received their concepts from some of our older books. And of course, believing that Sister White had also taught these things, they regarded her as a false prophet and branded the whole denomination as a cult, eaten through and through with heresy. Their discovery of our understanding of real New Testament truth has made them our friends and has led them to a very deep and thorough study of our other points of faith which, as they point out, are not at the heart of the gospel but rather on the periphery; they are works of righteousness which grow out of our relationship to Christ and not the basis of that relationship. Such doctrines are the Sabbath, tithing, health reform, etc.

You have asked concerning the nature of Christ during the incarnation. This is a point on which many of our writers and preachers have not been clear. . It is a point of faith in which our preachers and writers have expressed themselves very emphatically at times but usually on the wrong side of the truth. .

If you would suffer me this little word of counsel as a friend, I would suggest that you hold these thoughts in your heart and not make an issue of them until we as a people have come to the place where we understand this doctrine as clearly as we should, and as clearly as we do other points of faith. The fellowship of the brethren and the communion of saints is too precious an experience to have destroyed by the spirit of controversy. I am confident that the time is near when this great mystery of godliness will be understood better by us as a people. But until then it would seem wise if we could confine ourselves to a prayerful discussion of it between us as workers. While it is truth, we should be very careful not to set it before the laity until we are prepared to speak with a united voice. I think you will recall a suggestion I made to you on this point before and will not misunderstand my mentioning it again. .

In closing let me declare as my personal conviction that we have come to the time in our history and the history of the evangelical Christian church in general that we are moving into the experience of the Pentecostal outpouring of power. . (signed)

R. Allan Anderson

(Roy F. Cottrell was an editor at the Review and Herald Publishing Association from 1952 till 1980. Back in the late 50s be wrote a personal letter of protest to Roy Allen Anderson. As a Review editor, just across the alley from the General Conference in Washington D.C:, he bad witnessed the storm of protest that bad arisen in the Review over the galleys of "Questions on Doctrine" as they were gradually sent over from the General Conference to check over. Then, following complaints from the world field and a limited amount of redoing,-the entire manuscript was sent over to the Review for publication! Upon arrival it was met by men who were shocked that the errors were still in the thing-even after having been "checked over" by enough men around the globe so that the title page of the book could give as the "author" of the book: `Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers, and Editors. "And they were still more shocked that Anderson on behalf of the General Conference now wanted them to go ahead and print it!

We have already mentioned the fact that at this point the Review editorial staff took the liberty to tone down some of the errors and to substitute "atoning sacrifice" for "atonement" as that which was completed at the cross, in a number of passages in the book manuscript.

But then in 1957 this mingling of good and evil came off the presses and went out to Adventism at large. And a surge of protest poured in to the Review offices from laity and workers out in the field. Half a year of this passes, and then Raymond F. Cottrell wrote a letter to Roy Allen Anderson. I believe that you will be impressed with the clarity of the letter: 1

February 23, 1958

Elder R. A. Anderson

Seventh-day Adventist Ministerial Association

Takoma Park, Washington 12, D.C.

My dear Brother Anderson:

Along the years I have held you in highest esteem, and recalling the past, I have considered your series of evening sermons at Lynwood some years ago to be the most uplifting and outstanding series of campmeeting messages, I have ever been privileged to hear.

A few days ago, an outline of your address presented to the Southeastern Conference workers, was placed in my hands, and I have been surprised and pained as I read its contents. I am writing to you as a beloved brother in the Lord, and trust you will receive it in the same spirit as it is written.

Now I am persuaded that all who wholeheartedly accept the Spirit of Prophecy, will stand solidly on the platform of truth that has stood unshaken for over a century; and no one should attempt to change our fundamental beliefs concerning the atonement. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy teach that there are two important phases to the atonement; that Christ's work of atonement was begun, rather than completed, on Calvary; and that the final phase of the atonement is now being carried forward in the heavenly sanctuary.

In the ancient sanctuary service, the atonement was not made by the victim that was slain, but by the priest who carried the blood into the tabernacle, sprinkling it before the veil, and in this way making the atonement. See Leviticus 4, and "Patriarchs and Prophets," p. 354.

Concerning the latter phase of Christ's atoning work, we read: "As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ's work for the redemption of men is completed, there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary." G.C., p. 421.

"At the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement."-id., p. 422.

"it is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of atonement who receive the benefits of His mediation in their behalf."-id., p. 430.

"So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment, the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God."-id., p. 480.

"The sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work in behalf of men. It concerns every soul living upon the earth. .

"The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven. . We are now living in the great day of atonement."-id. pp. 488, 489.

"The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement . . Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven." -P.P., pp. 357, 358."

Many similar quotations could be given, but this will suffice to present the undeviating testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy on this question. We also note the quotations that you present stating that Christ's sacrifice was "a perfect atonement;" that the atoning sacrifice was all-sufficient; and that it need never be repeated. This is in perfect harmony with Hebrews 9:24-26.

Your presentation, however, carries the thought that the cross is central in the work of atonement. The same thought is emphasized again and again in the new book, "Questions on Doctrine;" but I am confident, dear Brother Anderson, that the emphasis is in the wrong place. Paul stated that the central feature in the work of atonement and the plan of salvation is seen in our High Priest ministering in the sanctuary above. Hebrews 8:1-5. Again note the words from Great Controversy: "The sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work in behalf of men." It appears most unfortunate that in the portions of the book, "Questions on Doctrine." dealing with Christ's ministry in the sanctuary, the word "atonement" appears to be scrupulously avoided. A crucified and risen Saviour was present truth in New Testament times, but in this the time of the end, Christ's ministry in the final phase of the atonement, is present truth today for this remnant people.

We therefore must utterly deplore any attempt at downgrading and belittling the atoning work of our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. And at this late date to attempt to change the terminology regarding this great pillar of our faith, can only result in bringing in confusion and disruption.

Long years ago, the servant of the Lord declared: "Satan h striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions regarding sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representation of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind. He removes its presiding theories invented to make void the truths of the atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held sacred since the Third Angel's Message was first given"'-Series B, No. 7, p. 17.

It would appear that in your numerous conversations with Dr. Walter Martin, you have been insidiously led to compromise the truth, so as to state it in terms acceptable to the popular evangelical churches. You have evidently endeavored to give the doctrine of the atonement "a new look;" but it appears as a doubtful, dubious look, and one of which our heavenly Father cannot approve.

During my more than a half century in the ministry, I havoc seen quite a number of good men, and some of them General Conference men, slip off on a tangent. Some of them returned to the full acceptance of the message, but others did not. And now, deal brother, I appeal to you to study again the great fundamental truth of the atonement. Study the counsel given on page 63 of Early Writings; and with the rest of us present those themes that will "establish the faith of the doubting, and give certainty to the glorious future."

The Lord has mightily blessed your ministry in the past and I pray He will grant to you clear vision, and the unction of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the three-fold message with soul winning vigor and effectiveness in the days to come.

Cordially your brother,

Roy F. Cottrell