|
XXXVIII - 9(05) “Watchman, what of the night?” "The
hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you, Incarnation Page
2 Benedict
XVI Page 6 Editor's Preface In 1980 the General
Conference Session of the Church voted a new Statement of Beliefs. The section
on "The Son" did not clarify the nature Christ assumed in the
Incarnation. The Statement read: "He became truly man, the man Christ
Jesus." Adam was a "man" both before and after he fell. The
Statement affirmed further that Christ "lived and experienced temptation
as a human being, yet without sin." Again, Adam was a "human
being" both before and following the Fall.
However, during this time, there were voices raised
which echoed the original position held by the Church, even in editorials in
the Review. But by that time - 1967 - the Review was no longer
"the official organ of the Church," but merely a "General Church
Paper." The final picture is the republication of Questions on Doctrine as an Adventist "Classic"
even noting that the Adventist Conferees had been “less than transparent" with
the Evangelicals. Froom, in his "apology," Movement of Destiny, went even further - he put words from
the book as if the quoted author, E. J. Waggoner, had actually written them. Since ascending the Papal
throne, Benedict XVI has emphasized as his goal the "visible unity"
of all Christians. He demonstrated his serious intent by restoring the dialogue
with the Anglican Church, which John Paul II had cancelled in 2003. In the
57-page statement released in May. this year, the
affirmations of agreement are resolved around the doctrine of the immortality
of the soul. See quotation, page 7. Page
2 The Doctrine of the
Incarnation as Taught in Adventism – 8c
Decades
of Conflict and Movement of Destiny is but an enlargement of, and
justification for, the position taken in Questions
on Doctrine on what is termed "the Eternal Verities." They were
written from two different motivations, or, at least so claimed. It is obvious
that Questions on Doctrine was
written to answer the questions asked by the Evangelicals at the
SDA-Evangelical Conferences in 1955-1956. On the other hand, Froom alleges that
he wrote Movement of Destiny at the
behest of A. G. Daniels. In his preface to the book, he wrote: Back in the spring of 1930 Arthur G. Daniels, for more than twenty years president of the General Conference, told me he believed that, at a later time, I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption - its principles, provisions, and Divine Personalities - as they unfolded to our view as a Movement from 1844 onward, with special emphasis upon the developments of "1888," and its sequel (p. 17; emphasis his). Much is suggested in this one paragraph: "1930"
- this must be noted in the light of Froom's comments on informal Sabbath
afternoon "intimate Bible study" and "dialogue" at the
General Conference headquarters during the years from 1930 to 1935 (p. 429).
Not being "official" meetings, no minutes were kept, but Froom
alleges that "copious notes" were taken by some present. These have
yet to surface, but they do need to see the light of day. "1888" -
this was revived in the research done by Wieland and Short in 1950 - 1888 Re-examined. But this was kept in
wraps for more than a decade until it imploded upon the Adventist scene about
the same time as Andreasen's Letters to
the Churches challenged the compromises of Questions on Doctrine. This all occurred because of the dedication
of a laymen – A. L. Hudson – and the devoting of his expertise and facilities
to the service of the Lord. While each of these dates - 1930, 1950, and 1955-56 - open
avenues for research and observations, we need to note carefully the advice of
Egemar Linden, teacher at Uppsala University, Sweden, when reviewing Froom's
conclusions as a denominational "apologist." He wrote: "the
reader must always be on the
alert when studying Froom, asking himself whether Froom has given a full
account, or whether important aspects have been neglected, or
misrepresented" (Spectrum,
Autumn, 1971; emphasis mine). This is very apropos when noting Froom's handling
of the doctrine of the Incarnation in Movement
of Destiny. In rewriting the doctrinal history of the Church's
teaching, Froom found himself faced with some difficulties when presenting the
teaching of the Church in regard to the nature of Christ's humanity. He had set
forth the General Conference of 1888 as towering above all other conferences
before or since. He wrote: The epochal Minneapolis Session stands like a mountain peak towering above all other sessions in uniqueness and importance. It was a distinct turning point. Nothing like it had occurred before and none since has been comparable to it. It definitely introduced a new epoch (p. 187). First, Froom had to show beyond question that the doctrine
of the Incarnation was a major point of discussion at the 1888 Session, and
then, secondly, show that what was taught was the same thing that was affirmed
to the Evangelicals. There were no official verbatim minutes made of the 1888
General Conference Session. Froom alleges that the book, Christ and His Righteousness, published in 1890 by the Pacific
Press, was an edited copy by E. J. Waggoner of "shorthand reports taken
down by Jessie F. Moser-Waggoner at the time" (p. 189). Nothing in the
"October 15, 1890" publication of the book indicates this to be true;
and Froom gives no source documentation for his allegation. The book did set forth
in clear uncompromised statements the nature assumed by Christ Page 3 in becoming the Son of man, and it
was not the position as affirmed to Barnhouse and Martin. How did Froom handle
that? Froom chose a section from Waggoner's book, -"God
Manifest in the Flesh" (pp. 24-28). He selected phrases, words, and added
comments to what Waggoner wrote so as to convey the opposite meaning to what
had been written. To illustrate: Waggoner (p. 27) quoted 2 Cor. 5:21 and
commented: This is much stronger than the statement that He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He was made to be sin." Here is the same mystery that the Son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness. Froom's interpretive quoting reads: "As to His
humanity, Christ came in the 'likeness
of sinful flesh.' 'God laid on Him
the iniquity of us all.' He 'took'
all the 'weaknesses' of man, and 'suffered
all the infirmities' of man. More than that, He was actually 'made' - vicariously - to 'be sin for us', that we “might be made the righteousness of God in
him." Then Froom quotes verbatim
the above paragraph from Waggoner beginning with "Here is the same
mystery as that the Son of God should die (p. 197). The fact is simply that Waggoner never used the word,
"vicariously." That word was taken from Questions on Doctrine and written into this interpretive quotation
from Waggoner. This type of misrepresentation - for it is simply prevarication
- in a work that claimed to give an accurate presentation of our denominational
history as a Movement of Destiny
leaves one stunned. It stands as a mute testimony to what extent apostates will
go to cover their tracks. A creditability gap is created. Why the leadership of
the Church placed their full weight of approval behind such a work has yet to
be explained. Another "exhibit" from this period of conflict
and apostasy will evidence how deeply this alien doctrine on the human nature
of Christ had penetrated the Church, and how the very sentiments of Roman
Catholicism were echoed. The Southern Publishing Association published in 1971 a
book by Edwin W. Reiner, M.D. In the Foreword, Dr Reiner stated that
"Elder Harry W. Lowe, of the General Conference, and Dr. W.G.C. Murdoch,
dean of the Theological Seminary of Andrews University, critically read each chapter
before its final approval. [Lowe had served for ten years as secretary of the
Defence Literature Committee until it was merged with the Biblical Study
Research Committee in 1969 to become later the Biblical Research Institute.] In
a chapter captioned, "Christ the Sinless Sinbearer," the following
concepts were presented: Christ, as He lived on earth, was a singular combination of man and God. To become human, He clothed His divinity with humanity, yet He never ceased to also be God. It is, of course, unthinkable that Deity could dwell in a body combined with sinful human nature. Sin cannot exist in the presence of God, and although He shared man's physical degeneration, He did not possess man's spiritual alienation from and rebellion against God. Neither did He sin by thought, deed, or action. He accepted only the human physical condition as it existed after four thousand years, becoming tired, hungry, and weak like any other human being (p.132). Here we find that the Church in 1971, in a published
volume, critically read by the dean of the Theological Seminary, declared that
the concept that Christ took upon Himself the fallen nature of man in the
incarnation to be "unthinkable." In a Sabbath School Lesson for 1913,
a Catholic source was quoted which stated: Disbelief in the immaculate conception of the blessed virgin Mary would imply belief in the following revolting consequences; namely, that He who is holiness itself, and has an infinite horror of sin, took human nature from a corrupt human source (Quoted in Senior SS Lesson Qrt., May 17, 1913, p. 26). The Roman Church considers the doctrine that Christ
accepted the fallen nature of man in the Incarnation as "revolting,"
because Christ is "holiness itself." An
Adventist publication in Page 4 1971 considers the doctrine as "unthinkable,"
because "sin cannot dwell in the presence of God." How apropos are
Elder E. J. Waggoner's words - "We need to settle, every one of us,
whether we are out of the Church of Rome or not. There are a great many that
have the marks yet" (GC Bulletin, 1901, p. 404). During this period, not all of the voices contending for
the historic faith of the Church were drowned in the flood of water pouring
forth from the dragon's mouth. In 1960, the Pacific Press published a book by a
layman from Iowa on the subject. After quoting - "He [Christ] did in
reality possess human nature," Albert H. Olesen wrote: Throughout Christ's life upon this earth, and when He went into the grave, this was the only human nature that He had. This nature was tempted to retaliate when tormented, to anger when insulted, to covet distinction when adored. Jesus was tempted, not merely vicariously, but actually through His own human nature. He fought against this nature until the last hours on the cross, even as we are tempted throughout life (The Golden Chain, p. 30). Again: In our study we come to this conclusion: While it was possible for Christ to bear vicariously the penalty of sin for mankind, yet it appears to have been impossible for Him to have lived the human life vicariously. Because this sinless human living was the center and the heart of redemption, it of necessity was exact and total reality; no substitution could here suffice (p. 33). This layman also made very clear what he understood the
term "human nature" to mean. On this point he wrote - "Our
nature is the inheritance we receive at birth, the legacy of inclinations and
trends that enfold us without our conscious volition. This legacy includes the
physical structure and certain tendencies that we receive from former
generations, the possession of which is not our responsibility" (p. 15). In a private publication, Think Straight About the Incarnation, this
same author stated very clearly the historic position of the Church. He wrote: Christ proposed to take in reality man's fallen nature, and to overcome the devil in that very nature, and it was in the order of God that this should be done. This was the divine plan that was to "open the way" for Redemption. ... In other words, it was the foundation upon which Salvation was to be built. For it was not the desert or the garden or the cross alone that saved us, but the whole lifetime struggle of Christ against tempting fallen flesh in His own person of humanity! It was a titanic daily accomplishment for all those human years that saved man and refuted the challenge of Satan before the universe. For it was in the "form and nature of FALLEN MAN" that Christ saved us. NOT in the form and nature of sinless Adam. This is the very foundation of Redemption, that Christ overcame Satan in our fallen nature of flesh and blood, and there is no other salvation for man (p. 15). The last two issues of the Review for 1971 and the first
for 1972 carried a series of editorials on the nature of the humanity which
Christ assumed in the Incarnation. These editorials echoed the historic
position of the Church. As far as this editor has been able to verify, these
editorials were the first such presentations in any Church publication in over
a decade. It must be understood, however, that after the August 31, 1967 issue,
the Review no longer carried in the masthead the status of the journal as
"the official organ of the Church." It would be simply "The
General Church Paper of the Seventh-day Adventists." Thus editorials
appearing in the paper "in no way bind the church body to an action, nor
do they reflect any particular official position that a committee has
designated." In the first editorial, the associate editor, Dr. Herbert
E. Douglass wrote: The song above all songs that will be sung forever is that Jesus did not take flesh but became flesh, taking "our sinful nature, that He might know how to succour those that are tempted" - Medical Ministry, p. 181. He took "upon himself man's nature in its fallen condition" yet in no way, "not in the least," did He participate in its sin (BC5:1131)." Indeed, though beset by fallen, sinful nature, our Lord remained sinless (R&H, Dec. 23, 1971, p. 13). The second editorial told of Satan's attempt to vitiate
the victory won by Jesus in our fallen nature. It read: One of the mysteries of iniquity is the successful outcropping of Satan’s malice in traditional Page 5 Christian thought. For example, in order to vitiate the victory of Jesus, many attempts have arisen to explain that Jesus did not defeat Satan in man's sinful, fallen, degenerate, hereditary nature but in some sphere with only a physical appearance like other men. This error is the foundation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception whereby to assure the perfect, sinless nature of Jesus He is said to have been born of a perfect sinless mother. But the same subtle and perverse doctrine lies under other explanations such as "Jesus took the sinless nature of the first Adam," or He "vicariously bore man's weaknesses" (R&H, Dec. 30, 1971, p. 16). It has been forever true, that when the Church proclaimed
the truth of the greatness of Christ's The faith that made Jesus the sinless man among men is that characteristic which distinguishes the living saints in the last generation.... The last generation of those who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" will dissolve forever all lingering doubts as to whether man's will joined to God's power can throw back all temptations to self-serving and sin (R&H, Jan. 6, 1972, p. 14). In 1972, the February issue of The Ministry carried a valuable supplement prepared by the Biblical
Research Committee of the General Conference. It was a revision of the one appearing
in Questions on Doctrine as Appendix
B. The new compilation of quotations from the Writings on the incarnation of
Christ removed the heading which introduced Section III of the previous set. In
other words, the concept that Christ "took sinless human nature" is
muted. Upon receiving this supplement, this editor addressed a letter to the
committee which read in part: It was with interest that I noted in detail the most recent insert in The Ministry. Certain corrections which appear as different from the compilation in the book, Questions on Doctrine, have been long overdue. I refer to the heading –"III. Took sinless Human Nature" – which appears on page 650 of the book. But it is very difficult to understand just what objective is to be served by the present compilation which is in itself incomplete. It is very difficult for me to believe that you men who compose the committee are unaware of those statements which have been omitted, and which unless included cannot give the true picture which the title of your insertion conveys – "The Nature of Christ During the Incarnation." In fact, such an omission leaves you brethren open to some very serious questioning. In order that you might see there is another section to the subject of the Incarnation, I am enclosing a copy of a proposed section to be included somewhere in your brochure either after "V – Christ Was the Second Adam," or after – Christ Took Real Human Nature." Now it is true you have in Section VII used several quotations wherein is found the expression, "fallen nature," but by your association of these statements with others in the same section, you are conveying the impression that this expression means – "effects of sin" in a physical sense alone. But you have omitted the statements which give the full picture – a nature "defiled by sin," and the "offending nature of man." A copy of the quotations as sent to the Research Committee
will appear as Appendix C in this series of articles. In the letter sent to the
Committee I also asked about a quotation which is printed in several places but
quoted two different ways. A reply to my letter was written by Dr. Gordon M.
Hyde, Secretary of the Committee. He kindly sent me a copy of the article from
the Youth's Instructor wherein the
quotation in question was printed, but completely ignored the section of my
letter which is quoted above. In closing the original manuscript in 1972 - An
Interpretive History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Taught by the
Seventh-day Adventist Church, - I wrote the following paragraph: As one surveys the last two decades, and the present hour of decision to which the Church has arrived in regard to the doctrine of the humanity our Lord assumed in becoming the Son of man, a message of an ancient prophet of Israel speaks to this hour – "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark." Would to God the next verse could soon be fulfilled in regard to our teaching on the most Page 6 marvelous thing that ever rook place in heaven or earth - "It shall be one day, which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light" (Zechariah 14:6-7). If this research will in any way hasten the "light" at "evening time," it will have accomplished its mission. In these intervening years two events have taken place: 1)
In 1980, the General Conference Session at Dallas, Texas voted a new Statement
of Beliefs. The Statement regarding Jesus Christ continues the description of
the prophet Zechariah - neither "clear, nor dark;" and 2) In 2003,
after all the major participants in the production of the book, Questions on Doctrines had passed from
the scene, the book was republished as a part of the Adventist Classic Library
series by the Andrews University Press with notes by Dr. George R. Knight,
successor "apologist" to Leroy E. Froom. To call a book which
misrepresents the historic position of the Church on a major teaching, as a
"Classic" is difficult to comprehend. But when Knight admits that the
book "easily qualifies as the most divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist
history (p. xviii); and to state that "Froom and his colleagues were less
than transparent" [lied] (p. xv) to the Evangelicals, then to classify it
as an Adventist "Classic" leaves one stunned. Benedict XVI News reports have noted Joseph Ratzinger as "the
generally accepted head of the greater Christian Church" since his
elevation to the Papal throne. While most greeted his election with unbridled
joy and there was dancing and clapping in the square at St. Peters, there was
uneasiness in liberal ranks at the hard line which he had taken during most of
his priestly ministry. He has openly railed against homosexuality, abortion,
birth control and a married priesthood. He clearly believes and preaches that
only through the Roman Catholic tradition can a person find salvation. However,
at his inauguration mass attended by kings and queens, presidents and prime
ministers, he seized the opportunity by challenging the Christian Church of his
desire for unity, that is, Catholic unity. His first prayer as pope was that
God would "grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd." Further,
He promised that he would work "tirelessly" for the "visible
unity of all Christians." The Anglican Church is a case in point. While not a true
Protestant Church as the Lutheran, it had broken with Rome, over other than
doctrinal matters. It has been for a period of time in dialogue with Rome
through the joint Anglican-Roman Catholic International Committee on unity. In
2003, the talks had been suspended by John Paul II after the Episcopal Church
in the United States had agreed to the consecration of an openly gay bishop,
Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, had been
in Rome prior to John Paul II's death, and his remarks then indicated that he
did not expect any early progress toward unity between the two churches. But
since the elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger as Benedict XVI the Vatican surprised
Anglican leaders by announcing it was ready to resume talks on unity despite
the barrier now separating the two churches. The announcement from the Vatican
office that deals with other Christian faiths praised the way the Anglican
leaders had handled the crisis over the gay clergy, suggesting that there was
now a new hope that the dialogue could make progress toward full communion. It
confirmed that a document to be issued on the Virgin Mary, which had been
tabled because of the crisis, would be presented from Seattle, WA, the
following Monday. It was; and carried as an Associated Press Release in
newspapers across the country. It gives an insight into how controversial
teachings will be handled on other doctrines. In 1995, John Paul II, a devotee of the Virgin Mary,
defined the top issues that would have to be resolved before Christianity could
be reunited, including seemingly intractable differences over beliefs about
Mary, the mother of Jesus. Now a 57-page statement raises the prospect that doctrine
concerning Mary, and devotion to her need "no longer be seen as
communion-dividing." Page 7 How various key differences were reconciled is worth
noting. We shall let the Associated Press release speak for itself
on "Key Points of Accord:" Non-Catholics typically say the Immaculate Conception, Mary's freedom from original sin and resulting sinlessness, contradicts the Bible's teaching that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23) and that Jesus is the sole exception (Heb. 4:15). On that question, the accord says "we can affirm together that Christ's redeeming work reached `back' in Mary to the depths of her being, and to her earliest beginnings" without violating Scripture. Mary's assumption into heaven at the end of her life is not taught in the Bible. But the accord says "we can confirm together the teaching that God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into His glory as consonant with Scripture," because God directly received others (Elijah, Stephen (?), the thief on the cross). We are agreed that Mary and the saints pray for the whole Church, the accord states, and it's appropriate to request their prayers, just as Christians on Earth ask each other for prayers. Most Protestants, however, see no biblical justification for this practice. Regarding traditional Catholic belief in Mary's life-long or "perpetual virginity," most Protestants hold that the Bible contradicts this by saying that Joseph and Mary did not come together "until" Jesus was born (Matt. 1:25). Without committing the Anglicans to a specific belief, the accord says, "our two communions are both heirs to a rich tradition which recognizes Mary as ever virgin." "Mary's role in the redemption of humanity" and her biblical words ("all generations will call me blessed"), the accord says, support "appropriate devotion to her in both private and public prayer. But it emphasizes that veneration of Mary cannot supplant Jesus as "the one mediator" between humans and God (I Tim 2:5). The new accord notes, but doesn't resolve, a related snarl. In 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed that the Immaculate Conception must "he believed firmly and constantly by all," and any dissenter is "condemned" and "separated" from true Christianity. Similarly Pope Pius XII's 1950 declaration on the Assumption said doubters "incur the wrath of Almighty God." Yet an Anglican principle, dating from 1562, holds that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required." - Richard N. Ostling, Associated Press. The lone US representative for
the Anglicans on the committee which drew up the Accord, historian Rozanne
Elder from Western Michigan University, said that ecumenists hope that
Catholics will eventually "agree teachings proclaimed during the centuries
of church separation cannot be binding on non-Catholics." ++++++++ "Through
two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will
bring people under his deceptions" - Great Controversy, p. 588. ++++++++ Scroll down to "Page 8" ++++++++ WEBSITES http://ourworld.cs.com/adventistalert http://www.adventistlaymen.com Editor - grotheer@adventistlaymen.com
"Watchman,
What of the Night?" is published monthly by the Adventist Laymen's
Foundation of Mississippi, Inc., P. O. Box 69, Ozone, Editor, Publications & Research Elder Wm. H. Grotheer Regional Contacts: Australia - 1745 Cape Otway
Rd., Wurdi-Boluc, VIC 324 Any portion of the Thought Paper may be reproduced without further permission by adding the credit line - "Reprinted from WWN, Ozone, Arkansas, USA." Current copy free upon request; previous and duplicate
copies - 50c. 800–1-LAYMEN (800-452-9636)
Page 8
An
Adventist Mariology From
among the "many voices" echoing down the corridors of Adventism (Review & Herald, Dec. 13, 1892),
there has been proclaimed what could be called an "Adventist
Mariology." In a book
blessed (p. i) by Dr. Ralph Larson, and edited by
Dorothy Hilmer, is found the following Mariology: As God [Jesus] chose Mary to he His mother. She was chosen because of her piety and her devotion and love to God. She was everything that God could find in a human mother, a sinner, but filled with love for God and her fellow men. In the prenatal experience, while in her womb, Christ was inheriting Man's love for God. In the post natal experience, He saw God through his (Sic.) mother. Mary was continually yielding her will to God's will. Christ learned these lessons from His mother's knee (Waymarks of Adventism, 2nd Edition, July, 1981, p. 39). Think. Do
not be deceived. He who was God came to be flesh. As God, He was love (I John
4:8). It was the very essence of His Divine Identity. To inherit in Mary's
womb, a love superior to His own Identity would require an immaculate condition
greater than even Rome gives to Mary. |