- 6 -

IN THE 19TH CENTURY

This great truth about the human nature of Christ was shared by the pioneer writers in the Advent movement. Here are a few examples, penned by some of the leading men in our church:

"[Jesus] was made in all things like unto those whom He came to save. . In all points He was made like His brethren. . And what the Law could not do, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh to do . . By His life He has shown that sin in the flesh is condemned, and He has destroyed it, for in Him the body of sin is destroyed . . He has taken away this sinful nature, taken it upon Himself that we might be delivered from !t." E. J. Waggoner. General Conference Bulletin, 1891.

"The garment was woven in Jesus, in the same flesh that you and I have, for He took part of the same flesh and blood that we have. . In my flesh; it was my flesh that He had, It was your flesh that He had, . The Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I stand, in the flesh in which I live," A. T. Jones, General Conference-Bulletin 1893

"Christ came the first time, clothed with humanity, taking not upon Himself the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham, that He might be made, like ourselves, subject to temptation, pain, and death, that by His connection with humanity He might sympathize with His fallen creatures," S, H. Haskell. Bible Echo, March 15, 1889.

"Very few of us realize how nearly the Divine nature approached the human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. More properly speaking, it is impossible for us even to conceive of the infinite condescension that was necessary in order that the Son of God, the associate of the Father, should appear in mortal flesh and participate in human experiences, with all their trials and weaknesses. . But 'He was tempted in all points like as we are': consequently He must have partaken of our nature. Should any think this expression too strong, let them read verse 16 of Hebrews 2: 'For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but. He took on Him the seed of Abraham' . . His faultless life under those circumstances becomes a constant reprover of our sins as well as an encouragement to our weakness." G. C. Tenney, editorial, Bible Echo, April 15, 1889.

"By partaking of our nature, His human arm encircles the fallen race." Stephen Haskell, Bible Echo, February 15, 1892.

"He took upon Him sinful flesh to suffer and die for guilty man. "A. W. Semmens, Bible Echo, April 15, 1892.

"But if He [Christ] comes no nearer to us than in sinless nature, that is a long way off . . It is true He is holy; He is altogether holy. But His holiness is not that kind that makes Him afraid to be in company with people who are not holy, for fear He will get His holiness spoiled." A. T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1895.

"The second Adam came not at the point where the first Adam stood when he failed, but at the point at which mankind stood at the end of four thousand years of degeneracy. "A. T. Jones, Review, February 18, 1896.

"So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear—flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin; flesh, however, in which He did not sin. But He bore our sins in that flesh of sin. And what flesh could He take but the flesh of the time? Not only that, but it was the very flesh He designed to take; because, you see, the problem was to help man out of the difficulty into which he had fallen, and man is a free moral agent. He must be helped as a free moral agent. Christ's work must be, not to destroy him, not to create a new race, but...to recreate man, to.. restore him in the image of God." W. W. Prescott, Bible Echo, January 6, 1896.

In the section, just below, we will quote more extensively from that sermon by W. W. Prescott.

 "He did not come to this world and take upon Himself Adam's condition, but He stepped down lower, to meet man as he is, weakened by sin, polluted in his own iniquity. " Stephen Haskell, Signs, April 2, 1896.

"Infinitely superior in every respect to Boaz, yet He stooped to marry the lost race. " E. Farnsworth, Signs, May 6, 1897.

"[Waggoner:] We begin with the ninth verse:

'We see Jesus.' Where are we looking?

"[Voice:] To man in his fallen state.

"[Waggoner:] Yes, our gaze is directed to man's first dominion; as we look, we see him fail, and still looking, we see Jesus taking man's fallen condition. " E. J. Waggoner, General Conference Bulletin, 1897.

"He brought divinity from the courts of glory into fallen humanity. "S. N. Haskell, Signs, January 17, 1900.

And that this is likeness to man as He is in His flesh, sinful nature, and not as He was in His original [heavenly] sinless nature, is made certain by the Word: 'We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death.' Therefore, as man is since he became subject to death; this is what we see Jesus to be, in His place, as man." A. T. Jones, Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection.

"Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful man; that is, the flesh which He assumed and all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He 'was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.' " E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 27.

Many, many more examples could be cited! (Later in this present book, we will document the change that later occurred in Bible Readings.)

PRESCOTT'S SERMON

   On the next two pages (pages 68-69) (In printed book only) will be found documentary reprints of four pages from Bible Readings for the Home Circle. Here is a brief overview of the printing history of that book: In 1888, the first edition of Bible Readings came off the Review presses. Those who have read the present writer's book, Editions of Great Controversy, will know that the Review managers pushed that book ahead of the 1888 edition of Great Controversy, because the several authors of Bible Readings relinquished royalty payments, whereas Ellen White refused to do so. She had been instructed that she should receive that money, so it could be used to help Advent work in various areas where needed. For this reason, the "1888 edition" of Great Controversy did not come off the presses at the Review until 1889, and at Pacific Press until 1890. (See the author's book, Editions of Great Controversy for the full story of the history of that most important book—in all its editions.)

On page 174 of the 1915 edition of Bible Readings, a note was added to the chapter, A Sinless Life." which clearly stated that Christ took our nature.

But in the late 1940s, the decision was made to revise Bible Readings. On pages 143-144 of the 1949 edition, that note was changed to a different one which downplayed the idea that Christ took our nature. It questioned "how far that 'likeness' (to sinful flesh) goes."

So, in this new edition the statement, which had circulated with the book for thirty years, was omitted because "it was recognized as being out of harmony with our true position" (Roy A. Anderson. "Human- Not Carnal"; The Ministry, September. 14, 1946). It was replaced by the following statement:

"Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of man. As a member of the human family 'it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren' in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Just how far that 'likeness' goes is a mystery of the incarnation which men have never been able to solve. . "Bible Readings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1949). 143.

In that same September 1956, Ministry magazine article. Anderson discussed the revision in Bible Readings, and gave the reason why the change had been made—because non-Adventists did not like it!

"In fact, this particular point in Adventist theology had drawn severe censure from many outstanding Biblical scholars both inside and outside our ranks. "Ibid.

R. A. Anderson went on to state that the idea that on His human side Christ partook of man's sinful, fallen nature was eliminated because it did not represent our "true position" (see Ministry. September 1956. 12-14).

Although that statement had first appeared in Bible Readings in 1915. we have observed that it correctly represented our "true position," held down through the years from the time of our earliest pioneers. In addition, the terms "sinful nature" and "fallen nature" were repeatedly in the writings of Ellen G. White.

(For your information, in our own edition of Bible Readings, initially released in the late 1980s, we included that 1915 note in the chapter. "A Sinless Life." This happens to be the lowest-cost Bible Readings available anywhere. And is also the first Bible Readings in history to include a Scripture Index—which the book has always obviously needed. The main print size is also slightly larger than the $50 colporteur edition!)  

STEP TWO: THE EVANGELICAL CONFERENCES

The present author's review of the Evangelical Conferences and their aftermath (The Beginning of the End-Part 1-18 [DH-101-118]) is the most extensive analysis of the subject available anywhere. (At the present time, it is included as Section 2 in our Doctrinal History Tractbook.)

As Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse later wrote in Evangelical magazines. the conferences (many of which were held at our General Conference building in Washington. D.C.) began when Martin, a Baptist writer, approached our leaders and told them he was going to write an in-depth book, exposing the doctrinal errors of our denomination.

As he later wrote, they entered into a series of discussions with him that lasted two years, during which they vigorously denied that the Adventist denomination still held to earlier doctrines which the Evangelicals did not like. It was obvious that the men on the other side of the table were determined to gain acceptance by Protestants!

"There were eighteen conferences, lasting one to three days and usually with three sessions a day. These were held periodically, in Washington, D.C., Reading [Pa.]. Philadelphia, and New York City over a period of eighteen months.," L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny. 477.

The two men in charge of what became a doctrinal sellout were Leroy Edwin Froom and Roy Allen Anderson. Martin would come to the meetings with questions to be answered; and. in collaboration with Anderson. Froom would write those answers. Anderson's key work was keeping Reuben Figuhr, the General Conference president, contented with the progress of the conferences.

Froom later described the first conference: "The first conference with Martin and Cannon [Dr. George Cannon. Greek professor at a college in the Hudson Valley of New York], followed by others, took place in an available office at our General Conference headquarters, in Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. Martin came armed with a formidable list of definitely hostile and slanted questions, most of them drawn from well-known critics of Seventh-day Adventists among them the inevitable Canright, on down to the late defector, E. B. Jones." Op. cit, 479.

The outcome of the Evangelical Conferences and the book which, in agreement with Martin, the Review published radically altered church doctrine for all time to come.

That book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (commonly referred to as Questions on Doctrine), undermined our historic teaching on the atonement, the nature of Christ, and several other points.

(For an in-depth analysis of these matters, we refer you to our two books, Doctrine Tractbook and Doctrinal History Tractbook, which contain all the relevant material.)

"On a [Martin's] second visit [to the General Conference], he was presented with scores of pages of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed to them. .

"He pointed out to them that in their bookstore adjoining the building [The ABC on Carroll Avenue] in which these meetings were taking place, a certain volume published by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of the General conference officers, that this situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected.

"This same procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh which the majority of the denomination has always held to be sinless. holy, and perfect despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the church at large. They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity. This action of the Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently." Donald Grey Barnhouse, Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians? A New Look at Seventh-day Adventists, Eternity magazine. September. 1956.

Barnhouse had founded Eternity magazine, which had proven to be a very successful interdenominational publishing venture. His organization had sponsored Martin's talks with the Adventists. In September 1956, this (in their own words) "bombshell article" came off the presses. Fortunately for our leaders, few of our people ever heard about it. Both Barnhouse and Martin wrote articles in it, exposing the Adventist doctrinal sellout, and promising that the Adventists planned to publish a book, which would discuss their new doctrinal positions.

In the above quoted statement, you will note that our leaders used a confusion of terms to get their point across. They told Martin that our people always believed Christ was sinless, which is true. But they said it in such a way that Martin believed they said that Christ had a sinless nature. Martin, who had a powerful mind, was a fast reader, had something of a photographic memory, and had scanned through many of our books, including those by Ellen White.

Our men assured him that statements about a "sinful nature" or "fallen nature" would henceforth not be found in our new publications.

And this was done. In the years since the mid-1950s, "sinful nature" has seldom if ever appeared in our journals and new books. At the same time, terms such as Adam's nature" and "sinless nature" have appeared more frequently.  

STEP THREE: THE MINISTRY MAGAZINE ARTICLES  

As head of the Ministerial Association, R. A. Anderson was editorin—chief of Ministry magazine, which is published for our ministers and workers, worldwide.

In 1956 and 1957. a series of articles, intended to soften the blow for the changeover, were released. Here are some examples:

"Christ did indeed partake of our nature, our human nature with all its physical limitations, but not of our carnal nature with all its lustful corruptions.

"His was not a corrupt, carnal nature. When He took upon Him sinless human nature. He did not cease to be God, for He was God manifest in the flesh! "Roy A. Anderson, "Human. Not Carnal." Ministry magazine, September 1956.

"He was indeed a man, but withal He was God manifested in the flesh. True, He took our human nature, that is, our physical form, but He did not possess our sinful propensities." R. A. Anderson, "God With Us." Ministry. April, 1957.

"When God became man He partook of the same moral nature that Adam possessed before the fall. Adam was created holy, and so was Christ. for He became the second Adam. "R. A. Anderson. "Human. Not Carnal." ibid.

"When the incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race. it is our understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam was created in Eden. "R. A. Anderson. "God with Us, " ibid,

These quotations, illustrating a comparatively recent emphasis upon the perfection and "sinlessness" of Christ's human nature, present a striking contrast to earlier statements on this subject. For example, the Sabbath School lesson for May 17, 1913, entitled, "God Manifest in the Flesh," quoted a Roman Catholic statement; and, then, stated unequivocally that it was erroneous:

"God the Son. by assuming this perfect human nature, which He took from the blessed virgin. was born in the flesh , "Catholic Belief, 208.

"Thus by shutting Christ away from the same flesh and blood which we have (compare Heb. 2: 14), modern Babylon really denies the vital truth of Christianity. although pretending to teach it. Such is the mystery of iniquity," International Sabbath School Quarterly, "God Manifested in the Flesh" (Senior Division, No. 72, Second Quarter, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1913), 26.

"By its dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, the Roman Catholic Church gives to the Son of God in the incarnation a 'perfect human nature: and thereby separates Him from those He came to save.

"This denial of the perfect union of Christ with sinful flesh opens the way for a series of subsidiary mediators whose duty it is to bring the sinner into saving touch with Christ." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Incarnation and the Priesthood" (Senior Division. No. 71, First Quarter, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1913), 14.

The belief that Christ had the "sinless" human nature of Adam before the fall rather than the "sinful" nature of fallen man is clearly expressed in an article in a Ministry magazine article, entitled, "The Immaculate Christ. "

"Before Adam fell, he was pure and clean, without taint of sin. He possessed human nature, undefiled, as God created it. When Jesus, 'the second man: 'the last Adam' (1 Cor. 15:4547), came. in addition to His divine nature. He also possessed human nature. undefiled, as God originally created it." Eamest W. Cox. "The Immaculate Christ," Ministry, December, 1957. 10,

From 1955 to 1958, the present writer attended our Seminary which at that time was next door to the General Conference building. where many of the Evangelical Conferences were held. We were beginning to hear hints of the doctrinal changeover in the classes; and, outside of class, students were quietly discussing the matter.

When the "bombshell" Eternity article came out. as well as the 1956 and 1957 Ministry magazine articles, everyone—students and faculty were quietly sending for copies, The present writer argued many times with Edward Heppenstall in various classes over some of these changes, but to no avail.

STEP FOUR: QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE

Leroy Edwin Froom (18901974) was held in the highest respect at the General Conference. As their in-house theologian and church historian, he had produced the 4-volume Faith of Our Fathers and the 2-volume Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers. During and following the Evangelical Conferences, which on the Adventist side Froom led out in, Walter Martin also viewed him with the highest respect. especially since it was obvious that Froom, the pivotal Adventist leader in the talks, went out of his way to doctor our teachings so they would be received by the Evangelicals.

As part of the agreement. Martin's forthcoming book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists, exonerating us as "Christians," was to be released at the same time as a book published by the Review, titled Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine.

When Questions on Doctrine was released in 1957, Roy Anderson, who was extremely influential, arranged for thousands of free copies to be mailed to every Christian college and seminary in the world. Multiplied thousands of free copies were also mailed to various denominational headquarters, leaders, and local pastors. The cost of all this (Questions on Doctrine was a full-size, cloth-bound book) was immense, For many more details, see the author's documentary on the Evangelical Conferences, The Beginning of the End, now in our Doctrinal History Tractbook.

"Many thousands of copies have been placed with clergymen and theology teachers not of our faith in a few instances thousands in a single conference. And they have had their wholesome effect. Its total circulation by 1970 had exceeded 138,OOO."L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 489.

In Questions on Doctrine, Froom (the author of the book) very skillfully explained away the fact that Ellen White used the words, "sinful," "fallen," and "deteriorated" human nature" in referring to Christ:

"It could hardly be construed, however, from the record of either Isaiah or Matthew, that Jesus was diseased or that He experienced frailties to which our fallen human nature is heir. But He did bear all this. Could it not be that He bore this vicariously also, just as He bore the sins of the whole world?

"These weaknesses, frailties, infirmities. failings are things which we, with our sinful, fallen natures, have to bear. To us they are natural, inherent; but when He bore them, He took them not as something innately His, but He bore them as our substitute. He bore them in His perfect, sinless nature. Again, we remark, Christ bore all this vicariously, just as vicariously He bore the iniquities of us all.

"It is in this sense that all should understand the writings of Ellen G. White when she refers occasionally to sinful, fallen, and deteriorated human nature." Op. cit.. 59-60..

Froom here puts words in the mouth of Ellen White, trying to make her say that Christ did not take our nature, but that He only took it "vicariously" as our "substitute." The dictionary defines vicarious as "experienced or enjoyed by imaginary sharing in the experience of another."

Anyone acquainted with L. E. Froom's writings knew he was a master of vocabulary. Here is a companion statement in that book:

':All that Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature all was taken and borne vicariously. Just as bearing vicariously the sins of the whole world did not taint His perfect, sinless soul, neither did bearing the diseases and frailties of our fallen nature taint Him in the slightest degree with the corrupting influences of sin." Op. cit.. 61-62.

The following passage from the book clearly teaches the error that Christ took an immaculate nature rather than the nature you and I inherit:

"Although born in the flesh. He was nevertheless God. and was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam. He was 'without sin,' not only in His outward conduct, but in His very nature. [He was] sinless in His life and in His nature," Op. cit.. 383.

Of course, we all believe that Christ never sinned. But, in the above passage, Froom says that Christ inherited none of the negative factors which we inherit.

From the beginning, the two books (Martin's and ours) were to be released simultaneously, and to be sold in each other's bookstores. But this did not happen. After ours was released, extensive revisions were on Martin's book; it was not published until three years later ( 1960). Because it contained so many attacks on Adventists, our ABCs refused to carry it.  

STEP FIVE: FROOM'S MOVEMENT OF DESTINY  

As Leroy Edwin Froom neared the end of his life, he wrote a book reviewing doctrinal changes in our denomination. In view of the very serious changes which have occurred, the book, Movement of Destiny, could well have been called "Destiny of a Movement."

Published in 1971 (Froom died in 1974, at the age of 84), the book uses the same wordy style found in Questions on Doctrine and his Faith of our Fathers books.

The first chapter of Movement of Destiny is remarkable in the way it hints at so much. Froom was obviously quite pleased with his central role, and he wanted the reader to recognize the pivotal nature of his activities. He said he could not write the book until enough people had died off. The book culminated in a defense of the Evangelical Conferences, the "grand results" they produced.

Froom said he was thankful that all his research resulted in opportunities to lecture before various Protestant and Catholic groups; so they could recognize that we were, indeed, Christians, sharing similar beliefs.

"The church groups included Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Reformed, Congregationist, United Brethren, and even Pentecostal and Unitarian faiths as well as an organization of converted Roman Catholic priests. So I write from personal knowledge, for I spoke to each of these groups.

"Universities such as Marburg (Germany), Rutgers (N.J.), and Pittsburg (Pa.) extended unusual invitations, with gratifying results from the presentation opportunities, with question periods. And following these came various dialogues with Roman Catholic student priests but groups and individual which were highly fruitful and refreshingly frank. In one instance the contact was with thirty-eight student priests-in-training for the Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C.an hour for presentation, and an hour for questions. Out of this, smaller follow-up groups of five to eight. Later, I was privileged to address a class of graduate students at the same 'Catholic .': on the same theme. "L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 466.

Elsewhere in the book, Froom says that Martin initially complained about four heretical notions; and Froom set to work to clarify these: "According to Martin, the four leading charges commonly brought against Adventism, dealt with in his article [in a Protestant journal], were: "( 1) that the atonement of Christ was not completed upon the cross; (2) that salvation is the result of grace plus the works of the law; (3) that the Lord Jesus Christ was not a created being, not from all eternity; (4) and that He partook of man's sinful fallen nature at the incarnation.' "Op. cit., 473.

It is true that a few of our 19th century writers advocated Arianism (point 3, above), but the other positions are solid Adventism! Yet Froom set to work to change our historic beliefs on each and every one of them.

He succeeded so well, that Martin later wrote, in an Evangelical journal, as quoted below by Froom in his book:

"Since there is no conceivable doctrinal ground, in the light of verifiable evidence where the fundamental tenets of the historic Gospel are concerned for refusing that outstretched hand. I for one encourage the extension of our hand which will usher in an new era of understanding and spiritual growth among the Church which is Christ's body. "Walter Martin, quoted in L. E. Froom, Movement oj Destiny. 475.

Froom's book, Movement of Destiny. gave added respectability to the doctrinal changes. in the eyes of many of our church leaders and pastors. Yet he chopped up and twisted Spirit of Prophecy quotations, in order to support his contention that Ellen White agreed with his version of the human nature of Christ. See Doctrinal Fraud (FF-26. now in our Doctrinal History Tractbook) for more on this. Here is a sample:

" 'The reader has now observed that the paragraph [in Movement of Destiny] opens with a title line: 'Took Sinless Nature of Adam before Fall. ' This heading is followed by nineteen statements purporting to support its conclusion. Within each statement is a tiny quotation fragment from Ellen White.

" 'But as Ellen White wrote these quotations, not a single one of them says that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall, and some of them say exactly the opposite! . . Three fragments are all taken from the same paragraph in Ellen White's writings. . [which] opens with the unequivocal statement that Christ took the fallen nature of man!' "Ralph Larson, Documentary Fraud, FF-26. p. 2, now in Doctrinal History Tractbook.

So much for the scholarship of Dr. Froom.  

STEP SIX: JOHNSSON AND THE REVIEW  

When, in the early 1980s, William Johnsson began as editor-in-chief of the Adventist Review, major changeovers began to occur in our denominational paper.

Among other changes, articles began appearing which recommended erroneous doctrines and lowered standards. Photographs and drawings were printed which would never have been seen in the Review in earlier decades.

Among the changes which occurred were articles advocating the pre-fall nature of Christ. One example of this was an article in the June 30, 1983, issue, authored by Norman Gulley.

Gulley stated that "the church has never taken a stand for or against one or the other" of the two positions on the human nature of Christ. You will recall, earlier in this present book, we quoted Morris Venden's statement in Insight. that the fallen nature of Christ concept dovetailed with that of the idea that sin was transgression of the law, and that we can overcome sin in our lives now. Venden said that he believed that sin is only a broken relationship with God.

In his Review article, Gulley took this same position, saying that the definition of sin "is not so much a breaking of the law as it is a broken relationship that leads to lawbreaking."

Thus both men switch cause and effect. The Bible says that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). That is the cause. The Bible also says that the effect of sin is the broken relationship.

"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear. "Isaiah 59:2.

It is bad enough that doctrinal errors are printed in the pages of "the good old Review." But, to make matters worse, no articles advocating the truth were printed!

STEP SEVEN: THE 1983 GULLEY QUARTERLY AND BOOK

 The senior Sabbath School Quarterly for the First Quarter of 1983 was entitled Christ's All-atoning Sacrifice. The lesson-help book which accompanied it bore the name, Christ Our Substitute.

Both were written by Norman R. Gulley, a religion teacher at Southern College (now Southern University), in Collegedale, Tennessee.

In an attempt to placate both sides while insidiously instilling error, Gulley taught that Christ had Adam's pre-fall nature, combined with our post-fall physical infirmities.

"Christ took the spiritual nature of man before the fall, and the physical nature of man after the fall. "N. R. Gulley, Christ Our Substitute, 33.

If that is true, then He did not really take our nature. Repeatedly, the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy said that Christ took our nature, and that it was a "fallen" nature; yet, in that nature, He resisted temptation and sin. When the nature of Christ is referred to in Scripture, it is moral issues which are dwelt upon, not physical flaws.

Then Gulley uses another new theology argument: If Christ had really taken our nature, He would have fallen into sin, since it is impossible for mankind to stop sinning even with God's help!

"He [Christ] had to identify Himself with us as far as His saving mission made it necessary. But He could not go beyond the requirements of His mission or He would have needed a Saviour Himself, and therefore His mission would have been a failure." Op. cit, 38.

The idea here was to "somehow save us," without Himself being caught by Satan.

Of course, the truth is that, if it is impossible to stop sinning, even with God's help, then the law of God cannot be kept and Satan is right in the great controversy after all!

In support of his position, Gulley quotes a long (long!) list of pagans (Ovid, Euripides, Senaeca,  Epictetus, etc.), Catholics (Augustine, Methodius, etc.), and Protestants (Hort, Moule, Barth, Barclay, Schweitzer, etc. (see pages 4851).

Then Gulley uses still another "proof," that Christ could only save us by not taking our nature; he says that Christ lived 2,000 years before our time, and human nature then would not have been adequate to save us today!

"If Jesus lived four thousand years after Adam, we live two thousand years farther down the line. Surely we have a much harder time than Jesus." Op. cit. 52.

Can you imagine such trite being printed on the presses of the Review & Herald and sold through Adventist bookstores as truth!

Gulley caps his arguments for error, by declaring that we have Original Sin and Christ did not!

"In fact, we do not have to do anything wrong to become sinners. We are born that way. But Jesus was born sinless." Op. cit. 53.

Original Sin is the error invented by the licentious "Saint" Augustine. He was so vile, that, by his own admission, he could not stop living with women he was not married to. So he devised the "Original Sin" teaching, to explain why he could still go to heaven. (Because he taught strict submission to Rome, the Vatican later made him a saint.)  

STEP EIGHT: THE BOOK, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELIEVE  

The book, Questions on Doctrine, went out of print in 1980. In March 1983. Walter Martin gave a lecture at Napa, California. in which he announced that he had written letters to our leaders in Takoma Park, threatening to negatively revise his book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventists, if we did not reprint Questions on Doctrine or issue a new book, to take its place, which also had the same doctrinal changes. Martin was very blunt and forceful about this. The present writer reprinted sizeable portions of that lecture, and also noted this:

" 'He [Martin] said that if Seventh-day Adventists continued to believe they are 'the remnant church,' that Christ did not have a sinless nature. and that the atonement was not finished at the cross. . they will be classed with the cults. "[He said] that Reuben Figuhr and the Holy Spirit had transformed the church. . they will have so much to lose if they do not take the correct position. as stated in Questions on Doctrine.

" '[He said,] 'We must fight for our Seventh day Adventist brethren, that the church will take the right position. Questions on Doctrine has been suppressed, and now voices are teaching heresy which the church originally repudiated. This must be remedied. Adventism is answerable to the authority of the Word of God, not to those who would perpetuate heresy' . .

" 'He stated that he had submitted a list of questions to the General Conference, to be answered by the hierarchy, and not the 'lunatic fringe,' so that he will know what information to put in his forthcoming book and tapes,' "The Beginning of the End, Part 18, and Doctrinal History Tractbook.

The brethren at world headquarters set to work to please Martin; and, in 1988, a new Adventist doctrinal book. entitled Seventh-day Adventists Believe, rolled off the presses,

It is highly unfortunate that we have had only two official doctrinal books in our history and both were written to please Walter Martin and the evangelicals!

Chapter 4, in this new doctrinal book, dealt with the human nature of Christ. A strong attempt was made to please all sides, but the erroneous view was still stated.

This is understandable, since its primary author was Norman Gulley, who wrote the infamous 1983 Gulley Quarterly and the accompanying book. Christ Our Substitute, By his own admission, he believes in a pre-fall nature of Christ.

"Jesus Christ took upon Himself our nature with all its liabilities, but He was free from hereditary corruption. "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 49/1:4 (page 49, column 1, paragraph 4).

"He possessed the essential characteristics of human nature," Op. cit., 46/1:3.

"Christ's humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is. the humanity of Adam before the fall, nor fallen humanity; that is. in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen, It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was. therefore. most literally our humanity, but without sin," Op. cit., 47/1:4-47/ 2:0.

The above statement cleverly sidesteps the key issue in the nature of Christ controversy. It does this by equating "fallen nature" with actual sinning.

Two pages later, another clever statement is made. which says that Christ took our "fallen" nature but then denies that He did:

  "The Bible portrays Jesus' humanity as sinless. His birth was supernatural He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. As a newborn baby He was described as 'that Holy One,' He took the nature of man in its fallen state [that is. He took our fallen nature], bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness [that is, He did not take our fallen nature]. He was one with the human race, except in sin. "Op. cit., 49/ 1:1-2.

The new theology can be subtle in the extreme. They will not come out and say the truth about the human nature of Christ, but they fear to pronounce the error. They talk about the actions of Jesus as though they were the nature of Jesus.  

STEP NINE: THE BOOK, ISSUES  

The November 5, 1992, issue of Adventist Review contained a 16-page booklet, entitled Issues: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries.

Within a few months, a full-sized purple-cover book, with the same title, was printed and widely sold. (We will here refer to it simply as Issues.)

Having changed our doctrinal beliefs nearly 30 years before, during the Evangelical Conferences, leadership now asked that those pleading for a return to historic beliefs should be tolerant. The reason given was that the denomination has never decided what it believes on those points!

"In other words, be tolerant on those points that the church has left open. "Issues, 16. "Neither has the church ever 'formally' adopted a position on perfection and the precise nature of human obedience." Issues, 47. "One side stresses Jesus' role as our sinless substitute, arguing that His nature was like Adam's before the fall. The other stresses Jesus' role as our example, arguing that He came in the 'likeness of sinful flesh' with a nature like Adam's after the fall..

"But the significant point for the discussion here is: Adventists have never 'formally' adopted a position on the question of just how Jesus' nature compared with Adam's and with ours. Neither has the church ever 'formally' adopted a position on perfection and the precise nature of human obedience," Op. cit., 46-47.

"[The independent group] holds certain views on the human nature of Christ, the nature of sin, and sanctification, These issues have never been settled among Christians, much less among Seventh-day Adventists. .

"There is no way that the SDA Church can work with such an independent group. if it cannot lay aside these positions that they have made so central to their work and mission.

"Over-specificity in the content of faith [ie., consistently adhering to our historic beliefs] and a rigid church structure [i.e.. asking that only beliefs and not errors be presented to our people] reduce the possibility for healthy dissent and for creative innovation." Op. cit.. 45. "[The church should] resist any attempt by one segment of the church to impose its views on the rest."Op. cit.. 50.

Yet, at the same time, only erroneous portrayals of these controverted doctrines are presented in our denominational papers and at camp meetings.

As to what these disputed teachings might be, the full-size Issues book made very clear. The book reproved Independent Ministries for teaching the truth about the nature of Christ, the continuing atonement, etc. And the book did more; it boldly proclaimed error as orthodox! What have we come to, when our leaders dare to do this?

On pages 114-130 we find the only explanatory in-depth doctrinal studies in the entire book, Issues. It is a reprint form of what our leaders considered to be a landmark series of doctrinal studies printed the year before in the Adventist Review.

Since they consider it important, and since it is the single doctrinal series in Issues, it deserves our careful attention. And when we do so, we find it is almost entirely focused on denying one special doctrine: the great truth that Christ took our nature.

Why is this done? Because they realize that this is the foundation upon which all the others are built: the nature of sin, the nature of man, the nature of the atonement, and the nature of salvation,

This series, consisting of six articles originally printed in the Review between January 18 to February 22, 1990, was reprinted in Issues.

  Part I, entitled "Pressing Together," is an appeal for all sides to unite in one position doctrinally.

"A meeting of minds on this question can bring us together as a church." Norman Gulley, "Pressing Together," Adventist Review, January 18, 1990, 8-10; reprinted in Issues, 114.

  Part 2 is on the nature of sin. It teaches Augustine's Original Sin heresy, and defines the nature of sin as being separation from God, Gulley states our historic position on the nature of man, in regard to sin:

"Early Adventists considered the first death as being a result of Adam's sin, and the second death the result of personal sin. In other words, the first death is merely the consequence of not the penalty for Adam's sin." Norman Gulley, "In Every Way but One, " Review, January 25, 1990, quoted in Issues, 117.

Then Gulley goes on to expound Augustine's horrible theory: that everyone is born an evil criminal, to be condemned to hellfire because of something he did not do:

"Are infants sinners at birth because of their inheritance from Adam?". . We are born sinful and subject to death prior to lawbreaking. If a baby dies a few hours or days after birth, it is still subject to the second death the condemnation death even though it has never broken any commandment." Op. cit.. 117-118.

In the above passage, Gulley says that what we inherit at birth will cause us to burn in hellfire. That is not true! It is what we think, speak, and do that results in sin.

"It is the disobedience of Adam that constitutes a person a sinner, and not merely his own acts of sin (disobedience)." Op. cit., 118 [parenthesis his).

But God's Word says it differently:

"Our only definition of sin is that given in the Word of God; it is 'the transgression of the law: "Great Controversy, 493. 

Gulley's concept, which is Augustine's Original Sin theory, is cited as the basis for the theory that Christ could not have taken our nature. Instead, Christ is said to have had an alternate type of immaculate conception.

"So if every man is born a sinner (i.e.., a fallen being, separated from God needing salvation) as the result of Adam's sin, how then could Christ enter the race through a human mother and yet be sinless? The immaculate conception of Catholicism sidesteps this question by making Mary unaffected by Adam's sin. Rather than this immaculate conception. it is the miraculous conception:' Op. cit., 119 [italics his].

As do most new theologians, Gulley plays with words in order to confuse. What he is obviously saying, in the above paragraph, is that the Catholic teaching is that Christ's mother had an immaculate conception, whereas Gulley is teaching that Christ had His own immaculate conception. Of course, the end result would be the same: Both Gulley and Rome teach that Christ had an immaculate conception [i.e., He had a sinless nature].

Both concepts are based on the same error: Christ could not be born with our nature, but had to be different than us. As Gulley explains it:

  "He [Christ] did not have 'sinful flesh.' Thus He neither was a sinner by nature nor a sinner by acts. He was a total Substitute." Ibid.

Thus, by the early 1990s, we find this totally erroneous, Catholic-based article featured in the Adventist Review and, later, in the book, Issues. But, through it all, not one article was printed on denominational presses, advocating the other, the true side that Christ took our very nature; and, in it, He overcame the devil and now gives us power to do the same.

Gulley is quite unashamed that he is teaching Original Sin in this article, for he uses those words several times.  

In Part 3 in the Review series, also reprinted in Issues, Gulley began by reiterating the conclusion of his previous article.

"Thus far we have seen that His unique sinless human nature made it possible for Him to be our substitute. We shall see that the same unique nature qualified Him to be our example." Norman Gulley, ':Jesus Our Example," Review, February 1,1990,19, quoted in Issues, 120.

In this article, Gulley attempts to show that Christ could still be our example, even though He was not like us; that is, did not take our nature. One cannot but wonder how Gulley intends to do that. Here is the strange logic he uses:

"Clearly Jesus did not have a sinful nature; He had no sinful passions or any taint of sin. By contrast, all the rest of us are born into the world with these liabilities. On the surface, at least, this looks like a huge advantage for Christ, and calls into question His ability to be our example. "Ibid.

First, Gulley explains that Christ did not come into this world to overcome in our place, but in unfallen Adam's place! How is that for original thinking!

"Satan had charged God with Adam's sin. . The Creator became a created being. Jesus came as the second Adam sinless, to show that Satan's charge was false. Adam need not have sinned. Like Adam, He had nothing sinful within to respond to Satan's temptations, but He could be tempted from an appeal to use His sinless passions and drives in an unlawful way. He withstood the tempter." Op. cit., 120-121.

In other words, Christ did not come to be our "substitute," but unfallen Adam's "substitute"! Such foolish logic is all the more remarkable, in view of the fact that Gulley's key phrase, which in 1983 he used as the title of his book, is "Christ Our Substitute." But, following Gulley's logic, Christ is not our substitute! Christ is only unfallen Adam's substitute.

Even worse is Gulley's effort to twist the charges of Satan against God as only concerning the fall of Adam!

Following this, Gulley declares that the immaculately born Christ, with His pre-fall nature, is our example, because He kept the law. Obviously, his statement is pointless. How would Christ's sinless obedience, wrought out in a nature which supposedly cannot sin, be an example to us in natures which can? And this Gulley admits:

"Because His humanity was sinless, Jesus could not experience the inner sinful urgings of sinful humans. But it was necessary that He, as our example, experience an equivalency in intensity while remaining a sinless human. "Op. cit., 121.

Gulley then claims that Christ reached "the lowest depths" and suffered as we do at one time in His life: during the last part of the 40day fast in the wilderness! According to Gulley, at that one time, and no other, Christ suffered as we do.

But Scripture says it differently: (1) Christ took our nature, the nature of Abraham's descendants; (2) and in our nature was tempted "in all points like as we"; (3) yet without ever yielding to sin; (4) so we can come to Him for help in every time of need (Heb. 2:10-18; 4:15-16).

In these words, Gulley describes the one time Christ suffered "equivalent" to us:

"To be hungry was not a sin; it was a proper desire. But through a 40-day intensification, His gnawing hunger became equivalent to the worst sinful drives ever experienced by humans. "Ibid.

"The human became so emaciated and stressed out, through a nearly six-week fast, that His consuming passion to eat became equivalent to sinful passions of men." Op. cit., 122.

Second, Gulley uses the shop-worn argument History of the Changeover that. throughout His earthly life. the only real temptation He faced was to use His divine power to help Himself! What kind of useful example is that to us? None at all.

"He had received honor in the heavenly courts. and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for Him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures. and be partakers of the divine nature." Op. cit.. 122.

"Can we understand His supreme struggle? Never! But we must try to grasp its depths. He had exercised absolute power from eternity! This power He had by nature; it was inherent. If we grumble about our inheritance by nature. think of His. If we say we have habits that bind us. think of His a habit with eternal use back of it! Can you get any greater urge than that? Our habits, measured by His, are but drops of water compared to a shore-less sea. He knows the human struggle in temptations because His were infinitely greater. and precisely because of His unique divine nature rather than from an identical human nature." Ibid.

Gulley summarizes the terrible "weight" that was on Christ:

"What an inexplicable intensification this staggering load brought to the agonizing struggle of the emaciated One! In view of this unparalleled experience, can anyone question the genuineness of His example? No! His temptations were infinitely harder than man's!" Ibid.

  In Part 4 of this Review series, Gulley once again reiterates that Christ had a sinless nature. "Sin. whether in His nature or in act. would have disqualified Him from being our substitute. For He would have needed a substitute Himself." Norman Gulley, "Jesus Our Substitute," Review, February 8. 1990.8; in Issues. 123.

The primary objective of this entire series of articles has been to prove that Christ had a sinless human nature. He recognizes it to be the foundation stone. under-girding the entire plan of salvation.

Yet, shrewdly. Gulley, speaking directly to those who maintain the other (the Scriptural) view, declares that they should not be concerned about what nature Christ had, It really does not matter.

"Nowhere do inspired sources make the birth of Christ as prominent as His death. . Should not those who are preoccupied with His birth take pause and look beyond to the cross?" Ibid.

  But. having said that, Gulley himself keeps coming back to the nature of Christ.

"Some believe that Jesus had to be exactly like us in fallen nature in order to span the gulf gouged out by sin. Yet even that identity has a qualification for none other comes into the world 'born of God: "Ibid.

Gulley next twists the meaning of Romans 8:3.

"Just as that brazen serpent only looked like a serpent. so the sinless Jesus only took the 'likeness of sinful flesh: "Op. cit., 124 [italics his].

Yet both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy clearly support the position that Christ took our nature; He did not just make-believe take it. Jesus was not a mirage while in the flesh! He was a real flesh-and-blood man. He became like us, is what God's Word says.

  The final two articles in this doctrinal series mention the error of "the finished work at the cross; but, in general, they are more inspirational than doctrinal.  

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION  

  The evidence presented in this study indicates that, from its earliest years until the late 1940s, the Seventh-day Adventist Church: (1) has always upheld the Deity of God in human flesh fully God and fully man, (2) has always been in close agreement in regard to the sinlessness of Christ, and (3) has consistently taught that Christ was in every sense sinless.

Under threats and strong duress from Walter Martin. from 1954 to 1957. our leaders agreed to make definite changes. These changes were printed in the first official doctrinal book in our history.

The 1960s and 1970s constituted a time of adaptation to the changes. The work of retraining our pastors in retreats went on quietly. Our future leaders were being initiated into new teachings in the colleges.

During the 1980s as the apostasy grew, strong pleas for patience and toleration for other views were frequently heard.

During the 1990s, those advocating the errors about sin, the nature of Christ, the atonement. and salvation were solidly in control; and there is intolerance for those pleading for a return to historic beliefs.

Only God can change the situation, and He will do it when it becomes illegal to be a Sabbath keeper. Then the faithful, gathered in little companies here and there, will go out and preach the identifying truth of Revelation 14:6-12 (the Third Angel's Message) everywhere. May we be faithful to the end. Obedience by faith, in Christ, to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy is what we need today. May we not forsake our post of duty. In His strength, we can remain true to the end.

TOC