The first big shaking was definitely felt when 'Questions on Doctrines' came out. We find a good description of the division it caused in many articles withing the church and caused many to leave at that time.
"Perhaps no other book has aroused so much controversy in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the 1957 publication of Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine.1 The book was published as both a direct result of and a representative response to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, involving Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse2 on the evangelical side and a number of General Conference leaders on the Adventist side. Questions on Doctrine was to be the apology par excellence of Adventism.
However, when the book came out, it created a great uproar within and without the church. Evangelical Protestants found themselves divided
on the issue of the acceptability of Seventh-day Adventists as Christians. Adventists, on the other hand, saw within their ranks an even greater
division. Although the book received a de facto imprimatur from the General Conference, it generated a passionate dissent concerning the book’s treatment of Christ’s human nature and the atonement. Single-handedly spearheading this protest was M. L. Andreasen, a retired theologian. Determined to have Questions on Doctrine censured and withdrawn, Andreasen campaigned against it, denounced it as “the most subtle and dangerous error”3 and “a most dangerous heresy.”4...https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/2008/2008-2/2008-2-05.pdf
Many Adventist left the church saying it had departed from its belief in what human nature Christ came with, which had been that of after the Fall as we see in SOP.
"Whatever Jesus took was not His intrinsically or innately. His taking the burden of our inherited weakness and failings, even after four thousand years of accumulated infirmities and degeneracy" (The Desire of Ages, pp. 49, 117)
'It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life..... Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of hu[bless and do not curse]manity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss." The Desire of Ages, p. 49.
"He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. ["Medical Ministry, p. 181]
But what many Adventists did not understand which they would have with deeper study,, is that Jesus took on Adams "spiritual nature" before the fall with no taint of sin, which is also clear Adventist doctrine. Which we also find in SOP...
"In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God, . . . "That holy thing which shall be born of thee [Mary] shall be called the Son of God." . . . Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet he without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be." [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, pp. 1128, 1129.]
"We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. " [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 113]
"I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell on the humanity of the Son of the infinite God. He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset. . . . On not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him any advantage. Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances." [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129.]
"The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him." [The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.]
He took "the nature but not the sinfulness of man." [Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.]
"He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions." [Testimonies, vol.2, p.202.]
The Son of God "became like one of us, except in sin." [The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 20, 1886.]
Now after Ellen White passed from the scene Adventist started to drift away from what she had written and was true Adventist belief that Christ had no taint of sin, and began to hold that "sinful flesh" meant Christ had desires of sin such as lust and covet. So lets start with a verse that speaks directly to that about the nature of Christ:
Romans 8:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
I was listening to a program with Adventist theologian Herbert Douglass, who knew many of those involved including M. L. Andersean, on Amazing Facts, and he in went in depth over the Adventist book Questions on Doctrine, but to my surprise did not make one quote from the book that he had a issue with. Instead he quoted others who said it had an effect on how Adventist looked at the nature of Christ and the Atonement. We all know how it shook the Adventist at the time, and the droves that left the church because of it. This was the first major shaking of the church even though there had been other issues such the one with Jones and Waggoner in 1888.
"Perhaps no other book has aroused so much controversy in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the 1957 publication of Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine.1 The book was published as both a direct result of and a representative response to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, involving Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse2 on the evangelical side and a number of General Conference leaders on the Adventist side. Questions on Doctrine was to be the apology par excellence of Adventism.
However, when the book came out, it created a great uproar within and without the church. Evangelical Protestants found themselves divided
on the issue of the acceptability of Seventh-day Adventists as Christians. Adventists, on the other hand, saw within their ranks an even greater
division. Although the book received a de facto imprimatur from the General Conference, it generated a passionate dissent concerning the book’s treatment of Christ’s human nature and the atonement. Single-handedly spearheading this protest was M. L. Andreasen, a retired theologian. Determined to have Questions on Doctrine censured and withdrawn, Andreasen campaigned against it, denounced it as “the most subtle and dangerous error”3 and “a most dangerous heresy.”4...https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/2008/2008-2/2008-2-05.pdf
Many Adventist left the church saying it had departed from its belief in what human nature Christ came with, which had been that of after the Fall as we see in SOP.
"Whatever Jesus took was not His intrinsically or innately. His taking the burden of our inherited weakness and failings, even after four thousand years of accumulated infirmities and degeneracy" (The Desire of Ages, pp. 49, 117)
'It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life..... Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of hu[bless and do not curse]manity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss." The Desire of Ages, p. 49.
"He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. ["Medical Ministry, p. 181]
But what many Adventists did not understand which they would have with deeper study,, is that Jesus took on Adams "spiritual nature" before the fall with no taint of sin, which is also clear Adventist doctrine. Which we also find in SOP...
"In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God, . . . "That holy thing which shall be born of thee [Mary] shall be called the Son of God." . . . Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet he without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be." [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, pp. 1128, 1129.]
"We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. " [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 113]
"I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell on the humanity of the Son of the infinite God. He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset. . . . On not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him any advantage. Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances." [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129.]
"The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him." [The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.]
He took "the nature but not the sinfulness of man." [Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.]
"He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions." [Testimonies, vol.2, p.202.]
The Son of God "became like one of us, except in sin." [The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 20, 1886.]
Now after Ellen White passed from the scene Adventist started to drift away from what she had written and was true Adventist belief that Christ had no taint of sin, and began to hold that "sinful flesh" meant Christ had desires of sin such as lust and covet. So lets start with a verse that speaks directly to that about the nature of Christ:
Romans 8:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
I was listening to a program with Adventist theologian Herbert Douglass, who knew many of those involved including M. L. Andersean, on Amazing Facts, and he in went in depth over the Adventist book Questions on Doctrine, but to my surprise did not make one quote from the book that he had a issue with. Instead he quoted others who said it had an effect on how Adventist looked at the nature of Christ and the Atonement. We all know how it shook the Adventist at the time, and the droves that left the church because of it. This was the first major shaking of the church even though there had been other issues such the one with Jones and Waggoner in 1888.
Last edited:
