"In his book, Touched With Our Feelings: A Historical Survey of Adventist Thought on the Human Nature of Christ (translated from the original title in French), the late Jean R. Zurcher, French-speaking Swiss scholar and church administrator, provided a unique and exhaustive record, from 1844 to 1994, a century and a half of official Adventist church documents and position statements on the human nature of Christ. During 100 years, 1852-1952, Adventists taught the postfall human nature of Jesus Christ as the undisputed official Adventist position.
Zurcher then revealed how the change took place, and the utter
chaos and theological confusion that have crept into the SDA Church from 1952 to the present day through the changed, anti-biblical and essentially Roman Catholic teaching. Today, a majority of Protestants, and increasingly (for the most part, unwittingly) in the SDA Church today, have accepted that Christ took the human nature of Adam before the fall.
Consistent with the official Adventist position, the “holy flesh movement,” established between 1898 and 1899 in Adventist churches in the Indiana Conference and founded by Pastor/Evangelist S. S. Davis (and favoured by the entire Indiana Conference Committee), was rightly condemned by the General Conference leaders and Ellen G. White, as it wrongly “asserted that Christ had taken Adam’s pre-fall nature and that He therefore possessed ‘holy flesh.’”
In 1957, the events that led to open propagation of the Questions on Doctrine (QOD), the counter-Adventist interpretation on Christ’s human nature, are clearly stated but not so widely known in Adventism today. They had remained somewhat secluded in a few historic, yet revealing Adventist books of 1957 and 1970.
Herbert Douglass, eye witness to the events and experienced theologian calls it, the colliding of “two Tectonic Plates,” and, an attempt to merge two theologies (Calvinism and the Adventist form of Arminianism) that had a “Grand Canyon between” them. The impossible was being attempted.
One of the strongest and most active proponents of this “theological earthquake,” of the new anti-Adventist interpretation, proposing the pre-fall human nature of Christ, was LeRoy Edwin Froom. Froom has recorded these leading events in some detail. Indeed, he admits these initial movements “led the way in corrective undertaking,” in an attempt lift from us the handicap “of certain early published and unrepudiated statements concerning the Eternal Verities.” Froom was referring to statements in Adventist literature such as Bible Readings for the Home, which taught the official Adventist position on the fallen human nature of Christ. This position, Froom refers to as a “misconception,” a “last standing vestige of Arianism,” something “regrettable” and that needed “expunging.” As if the truth, which was gained at high cost and held so long, should now be squashed under foot as if it were some loathsome insect!
In January 1955, in an editorial note in Our Hope, Dr. E. Schuyler English stated that Seventh-day Adventists are a church that “disparages the work and person of Christ.” The basis for this “misconception,” Froom stated, was that Dr. English understood Adventists to hold that Christ, during his incarnation, “‘partook of our sinful fallen nature.’ In this expression he was clearly alluding to the then oft-cited note in the old edition of Bible Readings.”
This supposedly “infamous” note quoted in Bible Readings for the Home Circle, I can read from my own, 1915 Stanborough Press, Limited, Watford, Hertfordshire, (England) edition. Under the heading, “A Sinless Life,” on pages 173, and 174. The first four questions establish that Christ committed no sin though He was tempted just as we are as indicated in the following questions and answers:
The official Adventist position on the human nature of Christ, presented above, and in other Adventist literature, does not rely on “regrettable statements still lingering in a few of our books” as Froom and others would have us believe. But it was, and is based, as has always been the case, upon solid biblical evidence and sound Christian doctrine. Nevertheless, this beautiful section of Bible Readings came under the knife to remove “Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature,” and even the key Bible reference of the “sinful flesh” in Romans 8:3.
Froom conducted a poll of where Adventist leaders stood on the human nature of Christ; “nearly all of them” agreed with the biblical and Spirit of Prophecy teaching that Jesus took on fallen, sinful flesh at the incarnation, but Froom ignored the poll and pressed ahead.
The “Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders and Bible Teachers and Editors,” by which QOD was claimed to be prepared, comprised,
In seeking to constrain (in one swoop) the meaning of hundreds of Ellen G. White statements on the human nature of Jesus, R. A. Anderson declared, “In only three or four places in all these inspired counsels have we found such expressions as ‘fallen nature’ and ‘sinful nature.’” But he seems to ignore the fact there are copious statements, which clearly convey the meaning he denies, in just one book, The Desire of Ages!
The Bible teaches that we inherited the effect, and not the guilt of, Adam’s sin. Adam transmitted “sinful flesh” to us, a weakened, fallen, human nature, with an inclination to sin. In this we had no choice, but sinning is our own choice. Rightly understanding these elements of sin will help us understand the nature of Christ’s humanity, which will then give us the biblical understanding of what salvation from sin really is and the workings of conversion.
AdventistAffirm/DanielFerraz
Zurcher then revealed how the change took place, and the utter
Consistent with the official Adventist position, the “holy flesh movement,” established between 1898 and 1899 in Adventist churches in the Indiana Conference and founded by Pastor/Evangelist S. S. Davis (and favoured by the entire Indiana Conference Committee), was rightly condemned by the General Conference leaders and Ellen G. White, as it wrongly “asserted that Christ had taken Adam’s pre-fall nature and that He therefore possessed ‘holy flesh.’”
In 1957, the events that led to open propagation of the Questions on Doctrine (QOD), the counter-Adventist interpretation on Christ’s human nature, are clearly stated but not so widely known in Adventism today. They had remained somewhat secluded in a few historic, yet revealing Adventist books of 1957 and 1970.
Herbert Douglass, eye witness to the events and experienced theologian calls it, the colliding of “two Tectonic Plates,” and, an attempt to merge two theologies (Calvinism and the Adventist form of Arminianism) that had a “Grand Canyon between” them. The impossible was being attempted.
One of the strongest and most active proponents of this “theological earthquake,” of the new anti-Adventist interpretation, proposing the pre-fall human nature of Christ, was LeRoy Edwin Froom. Froom has recorded these leading events in some detail. Indeed, he admits these initial movements “led the way in corrective undertaking,” in an attempt lift from us the handicap “of certain early published and unrepudiated statements concerning the Eternal Verities.” Froom was referring to statements in Adventist literature such as Bible Readings for the Home, which taught the official Adventist position on the fallen human nature of Christ. This position, Froom refers to as a “misconception,” a “last standing vestige of Arianism,” something “regrettable” and that needed “expunging.” As if the truth, which was gained at high cost and held so long, should now be squashed under foot as if it were some loathsome insect!
This supposedly “infamous” note quoted in Bible Readings for the Home Circle, I can read from my own, 1915 Stanborough Press, Limited, Watford, Hertfordshire, (England) edition. Under the heading, “A Sinless Life,” on pages 173, and 174. The first four questions establish that Christ committed no sin though He was tempted just as we are as indicated in the following questions and answers:
Where did God, in Christ, condemn sin, and gain the victory for us over temptation and sin?
“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.” Rom. 8:3. NOTE.—God, in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgement-seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in sinful flesh. |
The official Adventist position on the human nature of Christ, presented above, and in other Adventist literature, does not rely on “regrettable statements still lingering in a few of our books” as Froom and others would have us believe. But it was, and is based, as has always been the case, upon solid biblical evidence and sound Christian doctrine. Nevertheless, this beautiful section of Bible Readings came under the knife to remove “Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature,” and even the key Bible reference of the “sinful flesh” in Romans 8:3.
Froom conducted a poll of where Adventist leaders stood on the human nature of Christ; “nearly all of them” agreed with the biblical and Spirit of Prophecy teaching that Jesus took on fallen, sinful flesh at the incarnation, but Froom ignored the poll and pressed ahead.
The “Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders and Bible Teachers and Editors,” by which QOD was claimed to be prepared, comprised,
“the QOD trio”:
L. E. Froom,
W. E. Reed,
R. A. Anderson.
Though respected and capable men, they were not trained theologians, and M. L. Andreasen was excluded. Although retired, he was one of Adventism’s leading systematic theologians and experts on the book of Hebrews and biblical atonement.In seeking to constrain (in one swoop) the meaning of hundreds of Ellen G. White statements on the human nature of Jesus, R. A. Anderson declared, “In only three or four places in all these inspired counsels have we found such expressions as ‘fallen nature’ and ‘sinful nature.’” But he seems to ignore the fact there are copious statements, which clearly convey the meaning he denies, in just one book, The Desire of Ages!
The Bible teaches that we inherited the effect, and not the guilt of, Adam’s sin. Adam transmitted “sinful flesh” to us, a weakened, fallen, human nature, with an inclination to sin. In this we had no choice, but sinning is our own choice. Rightly understanding these elements of sin will help us understand the nature of Christ’s humanity, which will then give us the biblical understanding of what salvation from sin really is and the workings of conversion.
To find the truth to these questions, we have fundamentally,
two basic theological systems upon which to build.
There is the Roman Catholic/Calvinistic/Evangelical grid, whose predominant claims are: the Augustinian sovereignty of God, we are all born sinners, need infant baptism, will continue sinning until the Lord returns, and never gain complete victory over our sins. Romans 7 describes a converted man; Jesus is only our substitute; salvation is not really our choice but God’s; Jesus was born with a sinless human nature like Adam’s before the fall; His human nature was not like ours; He had an advantage over us; Mary, the mother of Jesus, had to be immaculately conceived.
Then there is the Adventist form of Arminianism, which maintains that we were all born with a tendency toward sin; however, if we live completely surrendered and dependent on God as Christ was, we can experience salvation “from” our sins now. Romans 7 describes a legalist and, therefore, an unconverted man, “Christ in you, [is] the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). Jesus is our substitute and our example of victorious living. Salvation depends on our choice; Jesus was born with a fallen human nature like Adam’s after the fall; His human nature was like ours; He had no advantages over us; Mary was not immaculately conceived.
QOD was the ultimate Trojan horse that “officially” opened the floodgates of Catholic and Calvinistic theology into the divinely established Seventh-day Adventist belief system."
Wherefore in all things it behoved him
to be made like unto his brethren,
This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses,
for he faced all of the same testings we do,
yet he did not sin.
Hebrews 2:17/4:15 NLT
|