Larry Kirkpatrick

 

Questions on Doctrine 50th Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference October 24-27, 2007 Andrews University, University, Berrien Sprins, !"

A #"$% #"$% O& %OC'("$) B*O#S '+(OU+ '+) C+U(C+ '+) A*')($A') A*')($A') +A!A('"O*O. O& QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE 

 by *arry /irpatric  Septe1ber 5, 2007 3A1ended $ove1ber , 2007

'AB*) O& CO$')$'S 

 

"ntrodction

2

&ro1 "1portant "sses to the Core "sse

2

 $ew )n6and Bacrond for the Seventh-day Adventist %octrine %octrine of Sin

2

'he Seventh-day Adventist %octrine of Sin to 80

2

'he Seve Seventh nth-da -day y Advent Adventist ist %octri %octrine ne of Sin fro1 fro1 8 to 9es 9estio tions ns on on %octr %octrine ine 357 357

2

'he %octrine of Sin in 9estions on %octrine

2

'he $ew :rob6e1

2

'he )vidences for Conde1nation by Birth $atre );a1ined

2

)phesians 28

2

(o1ans 8

2

'he %octrine $ot Sstained

2

'he S%A %octrine of Sin fro1 57 to  "t wasa6thoh not Dite Dite as hoped for> for> #ith #it h the evane6ica6 cortship of the 50s, the Adventist 6eaders started so1ethin the e;tant of which they did not anticipate> anticipate> 'he traditiona6 Adventist 6andscape was bein radica66y chaned>>>ii "ntendin on6y ood, the se6f-described 6itt6e co11ittee of for iii prsed its 1ission the creation of a new vo61e offerin what they considered to be doctrina6 c6arification>iv  "n retrospect, (ay1ond &> Cottre66Es Cottre66Es warnin see1s as prophetic as prescient *et s be certain that nothin ets into the proposed boo that wi66 tae s the ne;t 50 years to 6ive down> v Fst two decades 6ater, /enneth +> #ood #ood co6d p6ain6y dec6are what had in fact co1e to  pass " be6ieve that the evane6ica6 dia6oes and pb6ication of Questions on Doctrine created Doctrine created a c6i1ate in the chrch ch rch favorab6e to criticis1, sspicion, ncertainty, ncertainty, r1or, and a 6oss of confidence in 6eadership>vi #hat had appeared to so1e eyes in its day a rand tri1ph, scant years 6ater was seen with conseDences in train> ood intentions and the enor1os ener enery y invested in the pro?ect co6d not co1pensate for the secrecy, theo6oica6 revisionis1, and heavy-handedness srrondin the  boo> )very 1odern co11nity of faith pb6ishes 1ateria6 which 6ater for1s the inevitab6e  bacdrop for theo6oica6 deve6op1ent> 'heo6oica6 sedi1ents are 6aid down in ti1e> A crrent crrent eneration feeds on those ideas, tain tain fro1 the1 what they wi6 wi66> 6> )venta66y, )venta66y, ear6ier e6aborations of theo6oica6 syste1 harden and a new eneration co1es onto the sceneG a fresh 6ayer is deposited> 'he process contines> 4

 

&or the first ti1e, Questions on Doctrine offered Doctrine offered Adventists a doctrine of sin that was  both evane6ica6 and nscriptra6> And yet, in the years between then and now, Seventh-day Adventis1 has pb6ished a different view of sin than that offered in Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine> 'hose on both sides of the debate d ebate have noted the theo6oica6 centra6ity of the doctrine of sin> vii  #i66ia1 #i6 6ia1 Fohnsson 1ay have said it best 'he isse behind the isse is the concept of sin> 'hose who want to nderstand 1or 1oree c6ear6y FessE h1an natre wo6d et frther if they stopped debatin whether Fess ca1e in h1anityEs pre-&a66 or post-&a66 natre and spent ti1e 6ooin at what the Bib6e says abot sin itse6f>viii 'he isse of ChristEs h1an natre is 1ore crcia6 than Fohnsson thins,i; bt he is correct in pointin to the doctrine of sin bein the isse behind the isse> And yet, in spite of consenss by those on a66 sides of the discssion indicatin the base 6ine natre of this doctrine, the topic has seen on6y 6i1ited e;p6oration> ;  'he athor was ab6e to 6ocate few few sbstantia6 treat1ents of the doctrine of sin in Adventis1;i and no sinificant previos theo6oica6 treat1ent of the ha1artio6oy of Questions on Doctrine.  Doctrine.  Bt how can the ne;t eneration present an Adventist 1essae if as a peop6e we re1ain in nc6arity with reference to this teachin@ ;ii  #hat wi66 the crrent eneration tae fro1 Questions on Doctrine and what wi66 they 6eave@ #hat i1print pon the Chrch, if any, is 6ie6y to re1ain fro1 the a6ternative view of sin offered in 57@ #e propose that Questions on Doctrine introdced Doctrine introdced to Adventis1 a new doctrine of sin that taht conde1nation accordin to birth-natre;iii a fnda1enta66y f6awed teachin> After a  period of nc6arity, nc6arity, the deno1ination re?ected the booEs a6ternative ha1arti ha1artio6oy, o6oy, sstainin sstainin the doctrine of sin he6d precedent to its pb6ication>

From Important Issues to the Core Issue

5

 

Seventh-day Adventists with at 6east a rdi1entary now6ede of the controversy srrondin Questions on Doctrine wi66 Doctrine wi66 have heard that the 1ain areas of friction concerned the natre of Christ and the the atone1ent> One tre benefit f6owin fro1 fro1 its repb6ication repb6ication in the Annotated )dition was the ad1ission by the 2008 editor that the oriina6 athors had 1isrepresented to their evane6ica6 inter6octors the tre Seventh-day Adventist position on the h1anity of Christ> eore (> /niht discovered a61ost a61ost a doHen ways of st statin atin this withot e;p6icit6y sayin that they had 6ied> ;iv )ven the portion of Questions on Doctrine which Doctrine which *> )> &roo1 in the end insisted 1ared its reatest contribtion;v Appendices A, B, and Chas co1e nder scrtiny> scrtiny> Appendi; B had to be sinificant6y 1odified after its pb6ication,;vi and the present athor has nder preparation a sinificant review of Appendi; C 'he Atone1ent, which wi66 de1onstrate that &roo1Es &roo1Es tendency to cherry-pic the state1ents se6ected for it renders it an nre6iab6e ide to )66en #hiteEss view of the atone1ent>;vii #hiteE 'he natre of Christ and the atone1ent are tr6y i1portant i1portant isses> And yet, we reconiHe that the 1ore centra6 prespposition nderpinnin the theo6oica6 disaree1ent enco1passes how the chrch views the concept of sin> sin> 'he chanes atte1pted in the 1idd6e 1idd6e of the 6ast centry reDired their architects to present a different nderstandin of the natre of Christ than that which previos6y was with virta6 nani1ity he6d by the chrch> "t is i1perative i1perative to address the roots of the debate 1ore than than the branches> 'herefore, this doc1ent prses the deve6op1ent of the Seventh-day Adventist nderstandin of sin fro1 past to present, pnctated by the  pb6ication of Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, pasin to review and respond to the evidences iven by the boo in favor of its a6ternative ha1artio6oy>

New England Background for the Seventh-day Adventist octrine of Sin

=

 

'he beinnins of the Seventh-day Seven th-day Adventist nderstandin of sin are rooted in the $ew )n6and re6iios 1i6ie fro1 fro1 which the chrch spran forth> forth> 'he seventeenth and eihteenth centries witnessed a 1a?or c6ash of o6d Ca6vinis1 with Anabaptist, Anabaptist, Ar1inian, 9aer, Socinian, and :e6eian thoht> 'his c6ash res6ted in in a seedbed of new thoht and a shain of the o6d estab6ish1ent,;viii says )dwin Iacrison> #ith #it h reard to the history of the doctrine of oriina6 sin, Adventists ca1e on the A1erican scene toward the end of a protracted attac on &edera6 theo6oy by dissentin e6e1ents, which ter1inated in a drastica66y a6tered view of the doctrine> ;i;  Iacrison points to the incorporation of this view into ear6y Adventis1> 'he teachins of  $athanie6 and Fohn 'ay6or 'ay6or were wide6y distribted and ca1e to do1inate in the $ortheast> "n a rea6 sense conditiona6is1 Jconditiona6 i11orta6ityK and $ew +aven views of h1an responsibi6ity coa6esced in Adventist theo6oy> theo6oy> 'he Adventist view of Ada1E Ada1Ess sin was an e6e1ent of a 6arer anthropo6oy that beca1e part of the chrchEs faith> > > > 'he conditiona6is1 of 'ay6or 'ay6or was preserved in Storrs and accepted by Adventis1 a6on with the new view of oriina6 sin> 'he 6ine can be c6ear6y seen fro1 Storrs, throh Stephenson and +a66, and fina66y to *ohboroh where the teachin beca1e entrenched in the deve6opin Adventist theo6oy and re1ained essentia66y nchaned for the ne;t three decades>;; 'he $ew +aven views contrasted with the o6d Ca6vinis1G i1ptation of Ada1E Ada1Ess sin to his h is  posterity was re?ected> Concepts are never for1ed in a vac1> So1eti1es crrent ideas 1esh with the Bib6e, other ti1es ti1es not> &ew e6e1ents that co1pose the the Seventh-day Adventist Adventist theo6oica6 nderstandin are oriina6 with the 1ove1ent, and an d the Adventist nderstandin of ha1artio6oy is no different>

!he Seventh-day Adventist octrine of Sin to "#

%$#hen Adventists adopted eore StorrsE teachins on the natre of 1an, they adopted as  bib6ica6 a6so his anthropo6oy> anthropo6oy> 'hese views were propaated in  Stephenson, %> :> :> +a66, and F> $> *ohboroh> ;;i  'he deno1ination was fonded in ;;ii  'he ear6iest years saw 1ost discssion of oriina6 oriina6 sin 3when it occrred in tanentia6 for1, sch as 6ists of defective (o1an Catho6ic doctrines 6ie infant baptis1> ;;iii &ro1 the beinnin Seventh-day Adventists 1aintained stron reconition of the ro6e  p6ayed by h1an free wi66> As a enera6 point, re6iios syste1s that ive sbstant sbstantia6 ia6 space to the idea of free wi66 have a stron e1phasis on persona6 responsibi6ity and h1an decision1ain> Syste1s that focs on divine divine sovereinty tend to depreciate the ii1portance 1portance of h1an free wi66 and of decisions 1ade by h1ans> Adventis1, co1in fro1 its :rotestant, (adica6 (efor1ation roots, fo66owed the sa1e 6oica6 pattern, in its e1phasis on free wi66> )66et F> #aoner and A> '> '> Fones, consonant with their Christo6oy, re?ected the view of oriina6 sin pop6ar6y accepted in Christendo1 becase of its teachin of conde1nation or i6t  i6t on the basis of birth-natre> 'hey saw that the h1anity of Christ 1st be ct fro1 the sa1e c6oth as fa66en h1anity in order for Fess to 6eiti1ate6y stand as the Sbstitte and the );a1p6e needed by the race>;;iv "n short, pre-Questions pre-Questions on Doctrine Seventh-day Doctrine Seventh-day Adventis1 offered scant spport for the doctrine of sin as proponded in the 57 vo61e> 'he ear6iest Seventh-day Adventist state1ents of be6ief taht no sch doctrine> ;;v

!he Seventh-day Adventist octrine of Sin from "#$" to Questions on Doctrine &"#'()

Adventist teachins tochin the doctrine of sin crrent in 57 trace bac to the 8 .earboo state1ent of be6iefs> On6y two passaes fro1 that state1ent co6d even re1ote6y be considered pertinent;;vi the forth, and an e;cerpt fro1 the ninth

<

 

4> 'hat every person in order to obtain sa6vation 1st e;perience the new b birthG irthG that this co1prises an entire transfor1ation of 6ife and character by the recreative power of od throh faith in the *ord Fess Christ 3Fohn 8=G !att  > !orta6 1an possesses a natre inherent6y sinf6 and dyin> d yin>;;vii 'he forth state1ent 1ere6y affir1s the necessity of the new birtha point pon which evane6ica6s and Adventists Adventists a6ie wi66 i11ediate6y aree> 'he sa1e wi66 concr with the sentence fro1 the ninth> 'he 8 state1ent never affir1s or sests that 1an is i6ty or conde1ned on the  basis of his birth-natre> "ndeed, the 8 &nda1enta6sE eihth ite1 states the very opposite 'he 6aw of od is written on their heartsG and throh the enab6in power of the indwe66in Christ, their 6ives are broht into confor1ity to the divine preceptsan e;perience i1possib6e of rea6iHation if even those those who be6ieve are ab6e on6y to prodce wor wors s of sin> 'hs, the 8 state1ent affir1s that 1en, in their fa66en natre, 1ay obey odEs wi66 and 6ive 6ives of obedience> 'his is pre-Questions pre-Questions on Doctrine Seventh-day Doctrine Seventh-day Adventist theo6oy> theo6oy> Unti6 the appearance of Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, then, the basic Seventh-day Adventist  position on sin was prob6e1atic neither for the natre of ChristE ChristEs h1anity, h1anity, nor for the ChrchEs nderstandin of the c6eansin of the sanctary, the c6ose of probation, or any other Bib6e doctrine>

!he octrine of Sin in Questions on Doctrine

#ith #it h the arriva6 of Questions on Doctrine a Doctrine a new approach to sin was offered> Accordin to the boo, Ada1Ess sin invo6ved the who6e h1an race> LBy one 1an sin enter Ada1E entered ed the wor6d, and death  by sinE dec6ares the apost6e :a6 3(o1 52> 'he e;pression Lby sinE shows c6ear6y that he is referrin, not to acta6 individa6 sins, bt rather to the sinf6 natre that we a66 inherited



 

fro1 Ada1> L"n Ada1 a66 dieE 3 Cor 522> Becase of Ada1Es Ada1Es sin, Ldeath passed pon a66 1enE 3(o1 52> ;;viii 'he above is what was acta66y acta66y pb6ished> 'he version offered iin n the pre-pb6ication draft had  been 1ore abrpt Ada1Ess sin invo6ved the who6e h1an race> LBy one 1an sin enter Ada1E entered ed the wor6d, and death  by sinE dec6ares the apost6e :a6 3(o1 52> 'he e;pression Lby sinE shows c6ear6y that he is referrin, not to acta6 individa6 sins, bt rather to origina sin the sinf6 natre that we have have a66  a66 inherited fro1 Ada1> L"n Ada1 a66 dieE 3 Cor 522>  !y that origina  sin,  sin, Ldeath passed pon a66 1en 3(o1 52>;;i; 'hese sentences, as 6ti1ate6y pb6ished, with the ter1 oriina6 sin re1oved,;;; are 6ess  ?arrin> Ada1Es Ada1Es sin had a dra1atic i1pact pon the who6e h1an raceG with this none are in disaree1ent> Un6ess the reader has a caref6 eye for the fit fit of the centra6 theo6oica6 1 1achinery achinery of ha1artio6oy, ha1artio6oy, atone1ent, and the natre of 1an, and an nderstandin of the historica6 deve6op1ent of those the1es in Christendo1, he 1ay see 6it 6itt6e t6e case for cation> Bt the  prepb6ication draft shows that the athors of Questions on Doctrine eDated Doctrine eDated sinf6 natre with oriina6 sin> "n one of the few responses retrned;;;i to the prepb6ication draft that had been sent ot, (ay1ond Cottre66 then co1p6ained 42>=>8 LOriina6 sin>E 'his is the first " new that Adventists be6ieve in Loriina6 sin,E at 6east in the technica6 theo6oica6 theo6oica6 definition of the word> 'his ter1 has a technica6 technica6 theo6oica6 i1port to which we cannot sbscribe which wo6d reDire sacra1enta6  practices sch as infant baptis1>;;;ii 'he section was 1odified> ;;;iii  Bt even an editor cannot trn trn one syste1 syste1 into its opposite> 'he essence of the Questions on Doctrine athorsE Doctrine athorsE  viewpoint re1ains, and is fond in the boo ?st two pararaphs 6ater &ro1 Ada1 we a66 have inherited inherited a sinf6 natre> #e a66 are Lby natre the chi6dren of wrathE 3)ph 28> #hether we be Fews or enti6es we are a66 Lnder sin>E L'here is none that seeeth after od> > > > there is none that doeth ood, no, not oneE 3(o1 8, , 2> ConseDent6y,, a66 are i6ty before od 3verse > Bt if 1en wi66 on6y accept odE ConseDent6y odEss free 0

 

ift of rihteosness, then no 1atter how far they have drifted fro1 od, or how deep6y d eep6y they have beco1e e1bedded in sin, they can sti66 be ?stified, for ChristEs rihteosness, if accepted, is acconted as theirs> Sch is the 1atch6ess race of od>;;;iv "t is evident that the athors of Questions on Doctrine viewed Doctrine viewed 1an as i6ty or conde1ned on the basis of his inherited birth-natre> 'his is seen a6so a6so in the previos reference, which had e1phasiHed that (o1 52 was referrin not to acta6 individa6 sins> Ada1Es Ada1Es sin, accordin to the athors of Questions on Doctrine" broht Doctrine" broht not on6y death, bt conde1nation to or racea conde1nation e;istin apart fro1 any wi66f6 persona6 decision to beco1e a rebe6>;;;v  (e1e1ber, the Destion Destion accordin to Adventis1 had a6ways been, #hat is is the natre of sin for which 1an is considered i6ty, so i6ty that he 1st die in the fires of he66 n6ess he is resced by the race of od@;;;vi  'he 57 teachin had never been Adventist doctrine> Sin, in its 1ost 1ost fnda1enta6 essencethe sin for which we are considered i6tya6ways  i6tya6ways before had been viewed by Adventists as an isse isse of free wi66, wi66, choice e;ercised in rebe66ion> $everthe6ess, the new doctrine of sin was now bein portrayed to evane6ica6s as that adhered to by Adventists>

'he $ew :rob6e1 Unfortnate6y for a66 invo6ved, this new-to-Seventh-day-Adventis1 e;p6anation for sin introdced nnecessary theo6oica6 contradicti contradictions> ons> Unti6 the Questions on Doctrine party Doctrine party had  had   pb6ished the new view, view, state1ents sch as the fo66owin by )66en #hit #hitee and by other deno1inationa6 writers offered offered no sbstantive diffic6ties> Afterward, they stood ot as bein inconsistent with the then-crrent6y pro1oted view> view> 'hose who are 6ivin pon the earth when the intercession of Christ sha66 cease in the sanctary above are to stand in the siht of a ho6y od withot a 1ediator> 1ediator> 'heir robes 1st be spot6ess, their characters 1st be prified fro1 sin by the b6ood b 6ood of sprin6in> 'hroh the race of od and their own di6ient effort they 1st be conDerors in the 

 

 batt6e with evi6> #hi6e the investiative ?d1ent is oin forward in heaven, whi6e the sins of penitent be6ievers are bein re1oved fro1 the sanctary sanctary,, there is to be a specia6 wor of prification, of pttin away of sin, a1on odEs peop6e pon earth>;;;vii  $ow, whi6e or reat +ih :riest is 1ain the atone1ent for s, we sho6d see to  $ow,  beco1e perfect in Christ> $ot even by a thoht co6d or Savior be broht to yie6d to the power of te1ptation> te1ptation> Satan finds in h1an hearts hearts so1e point where he can ain a footho6dG so1e sinf6 desire is cherished, by 1eans of which his te1ptations assert their  power> Bt Christ dec6ared of +i1se6f L'he L'he prince of this wor6d co1eth, and hath nothin in !e>E Fohn 480> Satan co6d find nothin in the Son Son of od that wo6d enab6e hi1 to ain the victory> victory> +e had ept +is &atherEs co11and1ents, and there was no sin in +i1 that Satan co6d se to his advantae> 'his is the condition condition in which those 1st be fond who sha66 stand in the ti1e of trob6e> ;;;viii 'hese state1ents, a1on others,;;;i; de1onstrate the prob6e1 new6y created by the chanes introdced via Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine> )66en #hite pointed ot that the sins of be6ievers are bein re1oved now, now, and 1st be e6i1inated before ChristEs present intercession in the heaven6y sanctary ceases 3at 3at the c6ose of probation> 'hroh a decided consecration,  be6ievers in Christ are to e;perience persona66y the netra6iHation of de1onic footho6d-points> By the be6ieverEs srrender and discontinance throh odEs strenth of that which had been cherished bt 1ora66y inappropriate, SatanEs te1ptations are to be robbed of their effectiveness> !en are ab6e by the power of od to cease fro1 sinin spite of their disordered h1an oranis1s and of c6tivated sin habits> Bt if sin is bi6t into oneEs very h1an natre 3as taht in Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, pp> 40=-40 'he above Doted state1ents, indicatin what iiss to be the present e;perience of the the be6iever, beco1e i1possibi6ities> i1possibi6ities> !en do not act when they thin their action cannot chane their present present sitation> So1ethin is reDired for the incentive to act>

2

 

'o 1ae a 1an act, neasiness and the i1ae of a 1ore satisfactory state a6one are not sfficient> A third third condition is reDired the e;pectation that prposef6 behavior has the  power to re1ove or at 6east to a66eviate the fe6t neasiness> "n the absence of this condition no action is feasib6e> !an 1st yie6d yie6d to the inevitab6e> inevitab6e> +e 1st sb1it sb1it to destiny> destiny>;6 "f he can be conde1ned apart fro1 the e;ercise of his free wi66, and if he has no frther recorse to re1ove conde1nation throh any a ny sbseDent action on his part, 1an sees on6y fata6istic destiny>> +e is tter6y destiny tter6y re1oved fro1 any sbstantive part in chanin his fate> 'he reat Controversy #ar #ar beco1es a 1ere staed prodction to be he6p6ess6y watched, rather than a conf6ict between ood and evi6 in which he has by the %eity been ranted the opportnity 3in s1a66 part of vindicatin the character of +is savin od> &rther1ore, the 57 introdction of the doctrine d octrine of oriina6 sin;6i a6so 1aes it necessary to protect the h1anity of Fess fro1 havin the sa1e vitiated natre as a66 other 1en> "f we are i6ty for for or birth-natres, then then Fess cannot have the sa1e bir birth-natre> th-natre> 'he doctrine of oriina6 sin snders snders the brotherhood between Fess and ffa66en a66en 1an> "t denies the co1p6eteness of FessE h1anity> h1anity> And so, we see the i1perative reason why the enineers of Questions on  Doctrine fe6t  Doctrine  fe6t it so needf6 to bend Seventh-day Adventist teachin concernin the h1anity of Christ>

'he )vidences for Conde1nation by Birth $atre );a1ined Questions on Doctrine offered Doctrine offered two Bib6e passaes in spport of its new-to-Adventis1 doctrine of sin;6ii )ph 28, and te;ts in (o1 8> #e #e review these in trn>

Ephesians *+$

);a1ination of )ph 28 revea6s that nowhere in this verse or the passae in which it occrs 3)ph 2-22 does :a6 6in the concept of chi6dren of wr wrath ath with birth-natre> (ather,

8

 

n1eros ti1es the passae points to the sorce of wrath as bein pre-conversion behavior 328, 5, , 2> &irst, the phrase chi6dren of wrath need on6y sest a rop of peop6e pon who1 odEs wrath abides> One sho6d not 1iss :a6Es :a6Es se of the very si1i6ar chi6dren of disobedience in )ph 22G 5= and Co6 8=> 'he wi66 is not e;ercised in rebe66ion nti6 the the choice is 1ade to disobey> disobey> "n )ph 5= the connection between disobedience and wrat wrath h is 1ade c6ear *et no 1an deceive yo with vain words for becase of these thins co1eth the wrath of od pon the chi6dren chi6dren of disobedience> disobedience> #hat thins@ Bt fornication, and a66 nc6eanness, or covetosness, 6et it not be once na1ed a1on yo, as beco1eth saintsG neither fi6thiness, nor foo6ish ta6in, nor ?estin, which are not convenient bt rather ivin of thans> thans> &or this ye now, now, that no whore1oner, whore1oner, nor nc6ean person, nor covetos 1an, who is an ido6ater, hath any inheritance in the indo1 of Christ and of od> &or which thinsE sae the wrath of od co1eth on the chi6dren of disobedience 3)ph 58-5> 'he 6isted behaviors brin odEs odEs wrath> Accordin to :a6, these sho6d on6y be past behaviors for the Christian, not acco1panyin hi1 into his new 6ife in Christ> "n these passaes 3)ph 2-8G 58-=G Co6> 85- and their broader settins, :a6 refers freDent6y to the behavior that cases wrath in the aorist> aorist> "n contrast, the present Christian Christian e;perience is to be one in which the be6iever wa6s in 6iht 3)ph 5G Co6 8> Chi6dren of wrath refse refse to abandon their adversaria6 posi position> tion> Adversaries of od, they they 1ae the1se6ves eDa66y so adversaries of their fe66ow 1an> 'hey persist in tryin to be od for the1se6ves and for others> By natre contains one of :a6Es 1any $' ses of the ree ree #husis.  #husis.   +e ses the word word 1any ways> &or e;a1p6e, in (o1 2-24 the enti6es are rafted into the tree of "s "srae6 rae6 aainst their #husis their  #husis>> #hatEs #hatEs 1ore, even corrpted corrpted natre 3 #husis  #husis sho6d 6ead s ariht in so1e cases

4

 

3(o1 2=G 28-=, 2=-2G  Cor 4, etc>> So1eti1es :a6 ses #husis ses #husis restrictive6y  restrictive6y 3a6 24-=>;6iii  $husis  $husis sed  sed for natre has no necessity of bein interpreted as 1eanin %irth %irth-natre> -natre> 'he tendency of so1e theo6oians to interpret the passae in the sense of birth-natre owes 1ore to do1a than to this passae> Chi6dren of wrath in )ph 28 are those who chose disobedience, disobedience, the nconverted> Iacrison, no advocate of the ear6y Adventist view on oriina6 sin, addressin )ph 28 writes :a6 says nothin abot Ada1Es sin here and the ter1 Lby natreE does not necessari6y have to 1ean innate innate, , that is, aain, it need not n ot 1ean birth-natre>;6iv #e se the word natre in 1ore than one way> So1eti1es we say, *etEs *etEs tae a natre wa6, where we 1ean to tae a wa6 in a par or a forest> So1eti1es we hear so1eone say, say, 'hat is h1an natre for yo> 'hen we now the speaer is tain a specific incident and sin it as an e;a1p6e e;a1p6e of the behavior of peop6e in enera6> 'he for1er is a i ind nd of wa6, the 6atter a ind of behavior> +ere is the fnda1enta6 1eanin of natre the natre of so1ethin is that which sets it apart as that &ind  of  of so1ethin> "n (o1 24 :a6 writes, &or when the enti6es, which have not the 6aw, 6aw, do by natre J #husisK  #husisK the thins contained in the 6aw, these, havin not the 6aw, are a 6aw nto the1se6ves> +1an natre has not on6y its nnatra6 inc6ination to evi6, a chane res6tin fro1 the &a66, bt, h1anity a6so retains so1ethin fro1 the oriina6 creation and its natra6 inc6ination to ood> (o1 24 says that there is sti66 in the enti6e enti6e an inc6ination to ood> 'here is sti66 so1e e6e1ent of that oriina6 positive inc6ination in s that od can wor with> Another case is (o1 22=-2 "f the ncirc1cision eep the rihteosness of the 6aw 6aw,, sha66 not his ncirc1cision be conted for circ1cision@ And sha66 not ncirc1cision ncirc1cision which is by natre J #husisK,  #husisK, if it f6fi6 the 6aw, 6aw, ?de thee, who by the 6etter and circ1cision dost transress the 6aw@ &or he is not a Few, which is one otward6yG neither is that circ1cision, which is otward in

5

 

the f6esh Bt he is a Few, Few, which is one inward6yG and circ1cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 6etterG whose praise is not n ot of 1en, bt of od>  $atre as here sed speas of Fewish verss enti6e racia6 bacrond> enti6e natre does not ato1atica66y 1ean evi6, ?st as Fewish natre does not ato1atica66y 1ean ood> 'he )phesians who had specia6iHed in trespasses and sins had chosen for the1se6ves the  position of chi6dren of disobedience, of wrath> 'hey had corrpted the1se6ves so that the core  princip6es of their character were se6f-centered> 'hey had beco1e that ind of person> 'hey had chosen to beco1e chi6dren of wrath> Bt ?st as they co6d be partaers of a de1onic natre, sso o too they co6d choose to beco1e partaers of the divine natre J #husis  #husisK K 32 :et 4> 4> 'he ospe6 rants 1an opportnity to to choose the natre he wi66 partae of> "n the end 1an wi66 echo Satan or Fess> +e does not choose the disordered h1anity h1anity of his infancy, infancy, bt he does choose the ind of person he beco1es, the the ind of character for1ed> +e can chane fro1 one ind of h1an to anotherG it a66 boi6s down to whether he partaes of the natre inwroht in his h1anity,, or the natre inwroht in odEs h1anity odEs divinity> Chi6dren of wrath are peop6e who disobey disobey>> "n disobeyin nown dty, dty, they incr conde1nation> 'he disobedience and ths wrath :a6 poi points nts to in )ph 2 was was,, in the past, wi66f66y chosen> "f the disobeyin parti parties es were 6acin c6arity on the precise ethica6 specifics which they were transressin, sti66 they were i6ty of refsin to see od who they new, by intition and by reve6ation, e;isted 3:s -4G Fohn G 8, 20G (o1  +1ans of sch ae have not, with 1eaninf6 inte66ecta6 and 1ora6 awareness, prposef66y chosen rebe66ion> rebe66ion> #here there is no conde1nab6e decision, decision, there can be no conde1nation> Sch chi6dren are not responsib6e for bein born into a si sin-i1pacted n-i1pacted =

 

environ1ent> 'hey did not choose their co1in-into-bein co1in-into-bein in a ind of h1an natre that is nnatra6, that itse6f p66s toward se6f-ind6ence> se6f-ind6ence> Seventh-day Adventists Adventists c6ear-headed6y re?ect the teachin of an eterna6 pnish1ent by od in a never-endin he66, findin the idea to be neither bib6ica6 nor a ?st portraya6 of +is divine character> character> And yet, so1e are seen wi66in to e1brace a conception of od as a Bein Bein whose wrath abides on newborn chi6dr chi6dren> en> +ow consistent is this@ 'o s11ariHe, those who are by natre chi6dren of wrath beca1e sch by choosin to act in rebe66ion to od and to co1e into so6idarity with the c6a11ers of their disordered h1anity>> 'he word trans6ated h1anity trans6ated natre need not 1ean innate or birth-natre> birth-natre> 'here is no reDire1ent that we nderstand chi6dren of wrath as bein 1ore than a description of those pon who1 odEs odEs wrath abides> 'he te;t is, at best a tanentia6 and spec6ative evidence in spport of conde1nation by fa66en natre> natre> "n itse6f, )ph 28 is indeter1inateG in its its conte;t, it acta66y spports the 1eanin of wrath abidin pon those who had chosen wiced behavior>

,omans $

"n order to rasp the basis pon which :a6 offers his 'anah 3O6d ' 'esta1ent esta1ent references fond at (o1 8-20 3fro1 which the Questions on Doctrine athors Doctrine athors presented their teachin, so1ethin of the 6arer ar1ent of the first three chapters of the epist6e 1st be nderstood> nd erstood>;6v Both the rihteosness and the wrath of od are revea6ed> #hi6e the rihteosness of od is revea6ed in the ospe6 via the faith of a66 wi66in 1en, so too odEs wrath is revea6ed aainst sppressors of trth 37,  :a6 is de1onstrati de1onstratin n that a66 h1ans, rees and Fews Fews and everyone, have chosen rebe66ion, e;pressed it by sinnin, and so stand conde1ned and sb?ect to odEs odEs wrath> 'hs, a66 need restoration restoration into odEs odEs rihteosness> 'he ospe6 is +eavenEs appointed 1eans for revea6in revea6in odEs rihteosness> rihteosness> 3:a6 wo6d write in +eb 87-42

7

 

that Fews had the ospe6 6on before hi1 bt that they fai6ed to e1p6oy odEs 1eans for victory victory> > enti6es are conde1ned becase in wi66f66y re?ectin their Creator 3(o1  (e?ectin the rond of 1ora6 1ora6ity ity they descend to an i1ae 6ie a beast 32=-82> Bt the Few is ?st as i6ty of se6f-wi66 se6f-wi66 and rebe66ion> (e6iios trappins aside, his conde1nation of the wiced behavior of others in no way a1e6iorates his own wicedness when he enaes in the sa1e behavior 32-=> 32-=> +is hypocrisy is conde1ned, the sa1e behavior identified in the Few 327-24> (ihteos behavior in the enti6e enti6e conde1ns nrihteos  behavior in the Few 3225-27> 'he tre Few is identified by his behavior 322 &ina66y, &ina66y, it is ared that even if the Fews fai6 to tae advantae of odEs he6p, their badness does not conde1n odEs nfai6in oodness 38- 'o s11ariHe crcia6 points fro1 the ar1ent of 5-8 "n the first three three chapters of (o1ans, :a6 repeated6y repeated6y pairs Fews and non Fews side-byside 34, =G 2, 0G 8, 2> 2> :a6 e1phasiHes that Fews and non Fews are conde1nab6e for enain in the sa1e sins 32, 8, 2-28> 8> odEs wrath is revea6ed, not on6y aainst enti6es bt aainst disobedient Fews, whi6e 6ory,, honor, and peace accre to the obedient, aain, whether Few or enti6e 325-0> 6ory 4> 'here is no respect of persons with od 32-=> 32-=> 5> 'he tre Few is the obedient 1an 322 => (ita6istic 'orah-eepin 'orah-eepin is not the sorce of rihteosness 327-20, 2> 'hs, before arrivin at 8 or , a6ready :a6, by severa6 6ines of ar1ent, has de1onstrated that Few and enti6e are both conde1ned c onde1ned for wron-doin, both ranted odEs odEs approbation for riht-doin> On6y with a rea6iHation rea6iHation that for :a6, these points have a66 been 1ade before 8, is

<

 

the reader ready to nderstand :a6E : a6Ess re1ainin state1ents concernin sin and i6t in chapter ch apter three> After pressin his ar1ent to 8, :a6 ass, ass, #hat then@ are we better than they@ +is answer is no, for we have before proved both Fews and enti6es, that they are a66 nder sin> Mia the precedin ar1entation he has a6ready 1ade his case, na1e6y, that Fews and enti6es  both stand nder conde1nation for their chosen acts of rebe66ion> By nder sin in 8 :a6 1eans every 1oth stopped and a66 the wor6d i6ty before od 38> #hat then of the seven 'anah references strn across 80-20@;6vi  "f :a6 a6ready a6ready has  proven his point, why add these frther references@ (e1e1ber, none of :a6Es :a6Es references, in their oriina6 conte;t, are niversa6 niversa6 in scope> Bt in a sperficia6 readin readin of (o1ans, the Dotations 1ay appear to be offered as provin niversa6 princip6es1ay appear as bein 1issed, 6ifted ot of conte;t> 'wo so6tions to the apparent prob6e1 here h ere 3:a6Es a66eed 1isse of the 'anah, trnin its 6i1ited state1ents into proofs of the niversa6 conde1nation of h1anind have been offered> Be6ievers in Fdais1 have he6d that :a6 1isses the +ebrew Scriptres>;6vii  "n 1ost 6ocations where the athor has wored, adherents to Fdais1 do not 6ine p at the chrch door asin for Bib6e stdies> 'heir nderstandin is that the $ew ' 'esta1ent esta1ent via the writins of :a6 teaches oriina6 sin;6viii a doctrine they find to be c6ear6y at odds with the teachin of the 'anah> 'hs, the $ew 'esta1ent 'esta1ent and its Christian c6ai1s are easi6y dis1issed, reDirin bt 6itt6e serios attention> attention> Fst as the Christian re?ects doctrines doctrines he does not find sstained in his Bib6e, so the Few> Few> "n this case, the Few is both riht and wron he is correct that oriina6 si sin n is not fond in 'anah, 'anah,;6i; bt wron, in that neither is it taht by :a6 or the $ew 'esta1ent> 'esta1ent> 'he doctrine of oriina6 sin is a third-throh-fifth-centry deve6op1ent in #ester #estern n Christianity>



 

!any Christians, on the other hand, have si1p6y assined interpretative precedence to the  $ew 'esta1ent 'esta1ent over the 'anah> 'anah> $either so6tion satisfies> satisfies> "t is tre that $ew 'esta1ent 'esta1ent Scriptres offer the perspective of 1ore recent reve6ation, bt one reve6ation does not tr1p another becase it is newer> newer> %avid is not rep6aced bt is spp6e1ented by :a6> 'he so6tion is to 6et :a6 say on6y what :a6 is sayin> +e never sets forth a doctrine of oriina6 sin> +e does insist that a66 bt Christ have at so1e point chosen rebe66ion rebe66ion and ths stand in need of sa6vation sa6vation throh Christ> Christ> Consider the references> references> "n (o1 80-2 :a6 Dotes fro1 :ss 4 and 58> +e 6ets the :sa61istE :sa61istEss descriptions of sinners and foo6s serve as i66strative descriptions of the conde1nab conde1nabi6ity i6ity of h1anityEs behavior behavior>> Bt :s 4 shows that the one described is the na%a , the foo6 who opposes od> "n verse 4 the sinner is conde1ned, whi6e verses 5 and = point ot that there a6so e; e;ist ist the rihteos and the  poorG these are shown as victi1s of the foo6s and the worers of iniDity iniDity>> A66 this is part of the conte;t in which we find the apparent6y niversa6 conde1nation of 1an in verses 2 and 8> "n (o1 88 he offers a Dotation fro1 the fifth fifth :sa61> "n its fifth verse specia6 conde1nation is ca66ed ot for the foo6 and the sinner> sinner> Bt verses  and 2 show that the  psa61ist a6so be6ieves that there re1ain the rihteos, rihteos, there re1ain those who pt their trst in od> "t is in this this conte;t that :a6 especia66y especia66y hih6ihts verse  and tthe he wicedness of the wiced> "n (o1 84 :a6 Dotes fro1 :s 0> +ere, the wiced prey pon the poor and the h1b6e> od is seen to defend the father6ess and the the oppressed 3:s 0 $o niversa6 wicedness of 1an is indicated> "n (o1 85-7 the Dotation is fro1 "sa 57, Bt in this i1 i11ediate 1ediate portion of "saiah yo have beside the wiced those who refse to do evi6 35=2, the rihteos 357, those who

20

 

respond obedient6y to odEs odEs appea6s 35 "sa 57, < cannot 6eiti 6eiti1ate6y 1ate6y be disconnected fro1 its conte;t and trned to serve as a co11ent on the niversa6 conde1nation of 1en> "n (o1 8< the Dotation co1es fro1 :s 8=> 'here we find 1entioned not on6y the wiced bt those a6so who now od 38=0> "n (o1 820 the Dotation shows shows si1i6arity to :s 482> 'he state1ent is that no 1an can be ?stified in odEs odEs siht> 'here, %avid writes of his bein persected and of his deep desire to be riht with with od, his desire to to serve +i1 faithf66y faithf66y>> +e p6eads for odEs odEs he6p> 'he te;t wo6d see1 to be 1ore a p6ea for 1ercy and state1ent o off h1i6ity than an intended proof of the i1possibi6ity i1possibi6ity of ?stification in the the technica6 theo6oica6 sense> %avid is sayin that od is a6ways 1ore rihteos than 1an> "n none of these cases 1ay we e;pect that :a6 intended his se of state1ents indicatin the neative characteristics of foo6s, worers of iniDity, et cetera, cetera, as bein offered in proof of niversa6 i6t for h1anindcertain6y not on the basis of birth-natre> (ather, :a6 presents these state1ents in his epist6e to (o1e to de1onstrate that a66, at so1e point, have chosen to sin and have ths beco1e i6ty> i6ty> A66 need sa6vation throh Chris Christt becase a66 have chosen chosen   rebe66ionnot fro1 havin been born into into it> :a6 does not contradict %avid or any other  psa61ist> A66, at so1e point, have chosen the behavior of the worer of iniDity and of the foo6, and in so choosin, reistered their i6t> A66, at so1e point, have chosen their way into a need for persona6 sa6vation> A66 have a6ined the1se6ves wit with h the tendencies inherent in the disordered h1an oranis1> :a6 presents these te;ts then, not as proofs p roofs for that for which he has a6ready ared in (o1 5-8 Becase a66, Few and

2

 

enti6e a6ie, have chosen rebe66ion, a66 these descriptions 3(o1 8-20 are app6icab6e to every individa6> :a6 is worin worin on the sa1e p6an as in the first two chapters of (o1ans> 'here he de1onstrated that, far fro1 bein not as other 1en are 3*e  'he oriina6 conte;t of the seven Dotations offered in (o1 80-20, in each case, 1itiates aainst seein those references as state1ents state1ents of niversa6 h1an conde1nation> Of this :a6 was we66 aware> +e has a6ready 1ade his ar1ent ar1ent and before proved 38 that a66 have conde1ned the1se6ves> +ere then, :a6 1aes an appea6, not tthat hat wo6d be i11ediate6y fa6ted by his fe66ow Fews, bt that 3 is in har1ony with the 'anah, 'anah, 32 shows s that he is not teachin oriina6 sin, and 38 shows what :a6 does inst instead ead teach> 'he botto1 6ine is that that a66 have sinned, and co1e short of the the 6ory of od 3828> By choice each 1an beco1es a sinner sinner>> "t is precise6y in this way then that 1an acDires a cDires his conde1nation> (etrnin to Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, we re?ect the assertion that 1en are conde1ned on the basis of birth-natre birth-natre rather than their persona6 persona6 choices to rebe6> :a6 does does present  present h1anind as conde1ned in (o1 -8, bt %ecause o' #ersona choices and choices and never on the basis of any doctrine of oriina6 sin> +e says re6ative6y 6itt6e 6itt6e concernin the 1echanis1 by which 1 1en en  beco1e i6ty, i6ty, bt what he does state c6ear6y points to chosen acts of rebe66ion 328, 25-27, 8082G 2-8, =-5, 2-28, 25-27, etc>>

'he %octrine $ot Sstained 'he bib6ica6 passaes offered in beha6f of the Questions on Doctrine athors in spport of  their new view  view do not sstain it> On the basis of what what 1ay have been on6y sperficia6 thoht by 22

 

the 6itt6e co11ittee of for concernin the theo6oica6 repercssions, the deno1ination was e;pected to adopt the concept of birth-conde1nation> birth-conde1nation> +ere, then, was a new doctrine doctrine offered, ironica66y, in a boo a61ost rent6y represented as brinin no doctrina6 chanes> 6

!he SA octrine of Sin from "#'( to "#%

'he =0s and 70s Accordin to Iacrison, "n the =0s oriina6 sin beca1e an open6y discssed isse when !> *> Andreasen, 6on ti1e Adventist, teacher, teacher, writer and ad1inistrator, ad1inistrator, dec6ared in his *etters to the Chrches, written to set forth his ob?ections to the boo Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on  Doctrine,, that Adventists donEt be6ieve in oriina6 sin> 6i  Doctrine "t was inevitab6e that the topic of oriina6 sin wo6d arise after the pb6ication of Questions on  Doctrine,, and this is precise6y  Doctrine precise6y what happened> (obert Brins1ead a6so sti16ated sti16ated discssion of the isse of oriina6 sin drin the period of his pop6arity, an a6toether nderstandab6e otco1e with the introdction of the 57 view and the res6tant confsion> %rin the 70s, 'ho1as A> %avis, +erbert )> %o6ass, /enneth +> #ood, #ood, and others,  pb6ished artic6es and editoria6s in the Review the Review and  and varios boos in which the views offered sstained the pre-Questions pre-Questions on Doctrine ha1artio6oy> Doctrine ha1artio6oy>6ii  Bt ear6y in the sa1e decade &roo1  presented a fresh sa6vo of se6f-?stification se6f-?stification in his dbios vo61e vo61e (ove)ent  (ove)ent o' Destiny. Destiny. !any of  its paes were devoted to defendin Questions on Doctrine and Doctrine and its positions6iii a c6e that he fe6t that the capstone he had soht to p6ace over Adventist theo6oy in 57 was not secre> "n a 1eetin he6d 6ate in 7< for :()NA% 3:residentEs 3:residentEs );ective Advisory Co11ittee and invitees, /enneth +> # #ood ood in 52 paes offered a recapit6ation of Adventist history since the evane6ica6 conferences> #ood detai6ed especia66y the pb6ished art artic6es, ic6es, deno1inationa6 party-

28

 

6ine, and at1ospherics of the period, with a specia6 e1phasis on what was in effect an n ndec6ared dec6ared  psycho6oica6 warfare condcted aainst those who re1ained spporters of the pre-57 views> +is coent, so1eti1es b6isterin report conc6ded by offerin these ten factors behind what %o6ass 6ater ca66ed the radioactive fa66ot 6iv that spread downwind fro1 Questions on  Doctrine  Doctrine > "nadeDate co11nication with the the chrch 1e1bership w whi6e hi6e the !artin-Barnhose !artin-Barnhose dia6oes were tain p6ace with chrch 6eaders> 2> :b6ication :b6ication of artic6es artic6es in the the (inistry that see1ed to be b e 1odifyin Adventist teachins on the atone1ent and h1an natre of Christ> 8> ivin the i1pression that the traditiona6 teachins on thes thesee two points had been he6d by on6y a 1inoritya ind of 6natic frine or wi6d-eyed irresponsib6es> 4> Sestin that peop6e who he6d the Lo6d viewsE on these two Destions wo6d, so far as  possib6e, be he6d in chec> 5> !ain c6ear that chanes wo6d be 1ade in or pb6ications to brin the1 a66 into 6ine with the Lnew views>E => &ai6in to ive an adeDate e;p6anation to serios serios Bib6e stdents wit within hin the chrch as to how they co6d har1oniHe apparent6y conf6ictin state1ents by )66en > #hite on the atone1ent and incarnation>

7> &ai6in to state fran6y fran6y to the chrch 1e1bers that tthe he chrch was in transition, transition, rada66y rep6acin bib6ica6 theo6oy as nor1ative with syste1atic theo6oy> :b6ication :b6ication of Questions on Doctrine withot by-6ines and with the f66 endorse1ent of the enera6 Conference> > !ain no provision for discssion discssion of theo6oica6 Destions tthat hat were bein discssed  private6y>>  private6y 0 0>>

(e-a (e-awa wae eni nin n o6d o6d an; an;ie ieti ties es and and co cont ntro rove vers rsie iess by p pb6 b6is ishi hin n (ove)ent  (ove)ent o'

 Destiny,, aain with f66 enera6 Conference endorse1ent> 6v  Destiny

24

 

A review of #oodEs #oodEs points shows that he saw not on6y procedra6 and ad1inistrative errors, bt  pointed doctrina6 isses> +is 1ateria6 shows that withi within n the rans of top chrch 6eadership, the 50s initiative had been caref66y caref66y ana6yHed and conseDences considered> "n 6ess than two years wo6d co1e the new deno1inationa6 deno1inationa6 state1ent of be6iefs> "t is arab6e arab6e that Questions on  Doctrine had a part in preparin the rond for the %es1ond &ord theo6oica6 crisis spiin at the end of the decade> 'he risin tr1oi6 srrondin srrondin &ord 1st have been in the bac of everyoneEs 1ind at the 1eetin in $osoca :ines>

'he $ew &nda1enta6 Be6ief State1ent of  'hoh created free beins, each is an iindivisib6e ndivisib6e nity of  body, 1ind, 1ind, and spirit, dependent pon od for 6ife and breath and a66 e6se> #hen or first  parents disobeyed od, they denied their dependence pon +i1 and fe66 fro1 their hih  position nder od> 'he i1ae of od in the1 was 1arred and they beca1e sb?ect to death> 'heir descendants share this fa66en natre and its conseDences> 'hey are born with weanesses and tendencies to evi6> Bt od in Christ reconci6ed the wor6d to +i1se6f +i1se6f and  by +is Spirit restores in penitent 1orta6s 1orta6s the i1ae of their !aer !aer>> Created for the 6ory of  od, they are ca66ed to 6ove +i1 +i1 and one another, and to care for their environ1ent> environ1ent> 3en 2=-2 #hite> (epresentative state1ents by #hite inc6de her refer reference ence to the discip6es a66 havin inherited and c6tivated tendencies to evi6>6vii  'he &nda1enta6 Be6ief state1ent reads as thoh the co11ittee that wrote it intended to har1oniHe it with another  pivota6 anthropo6oica6 state1ent of hers Christ is the L*iht, which 6ihteth every 1an that co1eth into the wor6d>E Fohn > As throh Christ every h1an bein has h as 6ife, so a6so throh +i1 every so6 receives so1e ray of divine 6iht> $ot on6y inte66ecta6 bt spirita6 power power,, a perception of riht, a desire for oodness, e;ists in in every heart> Bt aainst these princip6es princip6es there is str6in str6in an antaonistic power> power> 'he res6t of the eatin of the tree of now6ede of ood and evi6 is 1anifest in every 1anEs 1anEs e;perience> 'here is in his natre a bent to evi6, a force which, naided, he cannot resist> 'o withstand this force, to attain that idea6 which in his in1ost so6 he accepts as a6one worthy, worthy, he can find he6p in bt one power> 'hat power is Christ> Co-operation with that power is 1anEs reatest need>6viii )ven one who has not srrendered hi1se6f to od for sa6vation sti66 has the benefit of a spirita6  power fro1 Christ operatin in hi1> !ethodists ca66 this odE odEss prevenient race> At the sa1e ti1e, we a66 now by e;perience e;p erience the bent to evi6, the antaonistic power operative in or fa66en natre> So1e, at 6east, of those who co1posed and voted the  'he state1ent co1posed was consonant with prepre-Questions Questions on Doctrine Adventis1> Doctrine Adventis1> Sti66, so1e had soht to to carry forward the oriina6 oriina6 sin the1e fro1 57> &ro1 the f6oor debate of the enera6 Conference Session co1es the fo66owin #> %U$CA$ )M )MA A 'his state1ent J'he $atre $at re of !anK was stroner ori oriina66y> ina66y> #e referred to the wordin of :sa61 55, LBeho6d, " was shapen in iniDityG and in sin did 1y 1other conceive 1e>E #e had the idea here that we ar aree born in sin> Becase there were severa6 ob?ections to that, we too it ot> #e tried to say that the i1ae of od was distorted and 1en beca1e sb?ect to death, and that their descendants share this sb?ection

2=

 

to death as part of their fa66en natre> #e sed the words Lfa66en natreE to strenthen the idea of what the distortion of the i1ae of od 1eant> 6i; 'he co11ittee had te1porari6y considered for the wordin of their draft a pro1inent te;t 1ost often presented in spport of oriina6 sin, bt, after severa6 ob?ections, o b?ections, it was re1oved> 6;  And we66 that it was, for the +ebrews, who had had this passae ,000 years before :a6Es :a6Es writins, never deve6oped fro1 it any doctrine doctrine 6ie oriina6 sin> "ndeed, :a6, in presentin his di discorses scorses concernin sin, never ses :s 55, 55, or 1aes any a66sion to it> 'he doctrine had no e;istence in his day> day> "ts deve6op1ent 1st await await the third, forth, and fifth centries centries in # #estern estern Christendo1>6;i #eihin the thrst of the  > > > (ather  than fo66ow the 6ead of so1e evane6ica6 co11nities that have shown no reticence to e;p6ain precise6y what they 1ean by the effect of Ada1Es Ada1Es sin on his h is posterity, posterity, Adventis1 has chosen, even in its 6atest confession, to avoid the ter1ino6oy of oriina6 sin and to a66ow for so1e variety of interpretation>6;ii Bt Adventis1 Adventis1 had not been a1biva6ent abot e;pressin its view view>> "t re?ects the doctrine of oriina6 sin> "t is that si1p6e> si1p6e> &ew discoveries are 1ore irritatin irritatin than those which e;pose the pediree of ideas> 'he idea of oriina6 sin is a post-$ew 'esta1ent 'esta1ent deve6op1ent> 6;iii  'o so1e, the chrchE chrchEss sstainin a  pre-Questions  preQuestions on Doctrine ha1artio6oy Doctrine ha1artio6oy wi66 distrbG it wi66 see1 to the1 to be the tain of  bacward steps> And yet, as we sha66 see, there are benefits in increased doctrina6 c6arity c6arity,, verss debits in sstainin i66-conceived doctrines>

27

 

!he Seventh-day Adventist octrine of Sin From "#" to the .resent

Seventh-day Adventists !eieve . . . 3 'he new boo stated !any Scriptra6 passaes, inc6din partic6ar6y the accont of o f the &a66, 1ae it c6ear that sin is a 1ora6 evi6the res6t of a free 1ora6 aentEs choosin to vio6ate the revea6ed wi66 6;vii

of od 3en 8-=G (o1  'his viewpoint is sstained throhot the discssion of sin in Seventh-day Adventists !eieve..> !eieve..> "ts te;t hih6ihts the depravity and thoroh6y sinf6 natre of fa66en 1an>6;viii  #hi6e e1phasiHin or basic sinf6ness, at the s11ation of this part of the discssion, the boo dec6ares, by natre we tend toward evi6, not ood>6;i;  At no point does the boo boo  sest that conde1nation or i6t adhe adhere re to s on the basis of or birth-natre> 'he boo refses to af affir1 fir1 the ha1artio6oy of Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine>6;; 

2<

 

 *and%oo& o' Seventh-day Adventist Theoogy 32000 "n the year 2000, the chrch added vo6> 2 to the Co11entary (eference Series, with the  pb6ication of the *and%oo& the *and%oo& o' Seventh-day Adventist Theoogy> Theoogy> 'his vo61e contains the 1ost e;tensive discssion of the the doctrine of sin ever pb6is pb6ished hed by the chrcha f66 87 paes> "n spite of certain weanesses in the presentation, 6;;i the fo66owin passaes indicate the position offered> Adventists do not stress the sense of oriina6 sin in the sense that Lpersona6, individa6 1ora6 i6t adheres to Ada1Es Ada1Es descendants becase of his JAda1EsK sin> 'hey stress, instead, that his sin res6ted in the condition of estrane1ent e strane1ent fro1 od in which every h1an bein is born> 'his estrane1ent invo6ves an iinherent nherent tendency to co11it sin>E6;;ii #hi6e Questions on Doctrine taht Doctrine taht that 1an was i6ty on the basis of his birth-natre, the *and%oo&  the  *and%oo&  is  is caref6, in the fina6 ana6ysis, to present the res6t of Ada1Es &a66 as bein an inherent tendency to co11it co11it sin> 'he artic6e states states that 'endency to sin or te1ptation to sin is not sin> $either constittes a revo6t aainst od> .ie6din .ie6din to sin and co11ittin the act of sin, ths transressin the 6aw of od, a6ienate s fro1 od and 1ae s i6ty before +i1>6;;iii i6t is res6tant res6tant on6y when yie6din, co11ittin tthe he act of sin> 'hs, aain in 2000 the Chrch contined its reaffir1ation of the pre-Questions pre-Questions on Doctrine ha1artio6oy>

3Questions on Doctrine Annotated Doctrine Annotated )dition 32008 'he srprisin repb6ication of Questions on Doctrine by Doctrine by the Andrews University :ress in 2008 does not Da6ify in any way as a deno1inationa66y sinificant 1i6estone, and so it does not tr6y fit we66 anywhere in this paper> paper> "ts repb6ication as a vo61e in the pro?ected Adventist C6assics *ibrary nder6ines how definite6y definite6y the boo has been retired> A c6assic c6assic it is not>

2

 

#hi6e the new notes are 1ore honest abot the 57 editionEs treat1ent of the natre of Christ, in the 2008 edition the atone1ent Destions are yet aain e;p6ained as se1antica6 nonisses> "n ter1s of this paperEs stdy, stdy, 66on on after Adventists Adventists sho6d now what is the isse  behind the isse 3the doctrine of sin, the reprint does not toch pon the topic> 'hat is, e;cept to ad1it that the 57 athorEs assertion that Adventis1 is neither Ca6vinistic nor Ar1inian is fa6se> "t is diffic6t to nderstand what is 1eant by sayin that Lthe Seventh-day Sev enth-day Adventist Chrch is neither Ca6vinist nor n or tota66y Ar1inian in theo6oyE in the conte;t of Questions on  Doctrine+ss discssion of the five cardina6 points of Ca6vinis1 and the five points of  Doctrine+ Ar1inian rebtta6> "n that conte;t it is safe to say that Adventis1 is tota66y Ar1inian>6;;iv 'he ad1ission that Adventis1 is essentia66y Ar1inian is an indirect reconition that the doctrine of sin offered offered in the boo was sewed> &or as eore eore :ar &isher confir1s, 'he Ar1inians Ar1inians introdced into their theo6oy other deviations fro1 tthe he crrent syste1> "n  partic6ar, they 1odified 1odified the accepted doctrine of Oriina6 Sin, e;c6din native i6t in the 6itera6 and proper sense of the ter1>>> 6;;v Seventh-day Adventists !eieve 3200= !eieve  3200= "n the 2005 enera6 Conference Session, the deno1ination voted to add a new state1ent to the &nda1enta6 Be6iefs, brinin the tota6 to 2< ite1s> After this addition and conseDent reshff6in of the be6iefs, Seventh-day Adventists !eieve... was !eieve... was revised and repb6ished in 200= as Seventh-day Adventists !eieve 3the !eieve 3the tit6e was s6iht6y chaned with re1ova6 of the e66ipses> 'he te;t of the sections on the natre of 1an and the doctrine of sin offered no chanes>

S11ary &ro1 the > Bt the ha1artio6oy the pre-Questions pre-Questions on Doctrine teachin Doctrine teachin concernin sin was instead  persistent6y affir1ed> affir1ed> 'hs, of the ha6f centry that has passed since Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, 1ch of it has seen a re?ection of the 57 doctrine of sin> At the very core of Adventist Adventist doctrine a wind had passed throh the chrch and b6own itse6f ot> 'he one doctrine set forth in the 50s that had the potentia6 to re1ae Adventist theo6oy had been repdiated>

E/cursus+ 0istory ,epeated in North American ivision in "##%s

"f the pri1ary actions and pb6ications of the chrch do not sstain the a6ternative ha1artio6oy of Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, why then, both today and in the 0s, do we find certain 6eadin Seventh-day Adventist writers and theo6oians apparent6y sidin with Questions on Doctrine@ Doctrine@  'hat is, why have we fond the1 offerin their inf6ence in the advance1ent of a 6are6y evane6ica6 conception of sa6vation@ +avin reviewed the 1ost notab6e hih-6eve6 chrch decisions, state1ents, and pb6ications to the present, we pase to revisit the trb6ent 0s in the $orth A1erican A1erican %ivision> %rin this period in this part of the fie6 fie6d, d, a re1arab6e conf6ict arose between varios 6ay-1inistriesrops pho6din the pre-Questions pre- Questions on Doctrine  Doctrine  theo6oica6 perspective, and a s1a66 rop of 6eaders within the $orth A1erican %ivision>6;;vii 'he sides were a6ined e;act6y a6on the divide opened p by the theo6oy of Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine> 'he Destion of sin and its its definition was 1entioned repeated6y in Issues in Issues and  and other  boos>6;;viii  A rop rop of individa6s within the $orth A1erican %ivision was sti66 seei seein n to sstain the a6ternative ha1artio6oy offered offered decades before> And, as in the initia6 period of conf6ict fo66owin the 57 boo, these see1ed bent on sppressin the persistin pre-57 consenss views> One part of the reason for their resistance to the pre-57 theo6oy is that 1any of the worers then in 6eadin positions had at se1inary co1e co 1e nder the inf6ence of the theo6oy of 8

 

)dward +eppensta66> A6thoh +eppensta66Es +eppensta66Es ro6e in Questions on Doctrine appears to have  been very 6i1ited, he is 1entioned severa6 ti1es in $a1Es $a1Es dissertation>6;;i; "n 2 the $orth A1erican %ivision pb6ished Issues, pb6ished Issues, The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain $rivate (inistries> (inistries>6;;;  "n Issues "n Issues,, opponents to the $orth A1erican %ivisionEss preferred 6ine of theo6oy were said to have an infor1a6 chrch operatin within the %ivisionE  body of the re6ar chrch>>>6;;;i  Issues  Issues athors  athors said that this was 6ie havin active cancer ce66s in a hea6thy body>6;;;ii  'hey stated that the chrch 3who 1ade 1ade the) the) the  the chrch@ fe6t forced to act>6;;;iii  'he athors wrote of havin the cancer ct ot>6;;;iv  "t does not nor1a66y nor1a66y enender fee6ins of ood wi66 to co1pare 6oya6 chrch 1e1bers to cancer ce66s> "n 4 (oy Ada1s offered his The Nature o' Christ , attacin the theo6oy of the sa1e 6are se1ent of Adventists> "n his boo, Ada1s even wrote, " be6ieve that the 1o1ent to strie is now, now, and " thin that the chapters inc6ded here do enae the sa6ient Destions of the crrent debate> > > > #e are si1p6y drea1in if we thin that the dissident 1ove1ent a1on s wi66 si1p6y co66apse before be fore or very eyes if we wait 6on enoh>6;;;v Ada1s frther stated that for writin his boo, he wo6d be b e sb?ect to attac, bt " do it for or  peop6e>6;;;vi  +is boo assai6ed so1e Adventists by na1e, inc6din A1aHin &acts fonder Foe 6;;;vii

Crews> Ada1s 1ocs Adventists Adventists who see a prob6e1 with oriina6 sin theo6oy in one p6ace, whi6e e6sewhere c6ai1in that )66en #hite offered a 6ie teachin withot sin the e;pression>6;;;viii  Ada1Es Ada1Es boo defined a new 6ow in his portraya6 of his perceived opponents> And it was pb6ished nder the i1pri1atr of the (eview and +era6d :b6ishin Association> 'he year 5 saw the debt of The rag)enting o' Adventis) by Adventis) by #i66ia1 > Fohnsson, editor of the Review the Review>> Ada1s has nothin on Fohnsson, who whose se 6anae inc6ded na1in those who disareed with his preferred views on sin, the natre of Christ, and re6ated topics, as parasites>6;;;i; 82

 

 

"t is certain6y tre that in those years so1e of the afore1entioned opponents of the Questions on Doctrine theo6oy Doctrine theo6oy presented their views in an antaonistic sty6e> Bt these vicios reprisa6s in print, print, nder the na1es of top deno1inationa6 deno1inationa6 editors, spoe vo61es> Chrch 1e1bers too note> #hat can be said abot the sitation here describedthe 1ost officia6 state1ents of the chrch refsin to sstain the Questions on Doctrine ha1artio6oy, Doctrine ha1artio6oy, whi6e so1e individa6s in sinificant se1ents of the oraniHed chrch sch as the $orth A1erican A1erican %ivision, re1ained  bent on pb6ishin in its spport@ An instrctive para66e6 e;ists between the s1a66 party of a few 1en who prodced Questions on Doctrine and Doctrine and shepherded it throh the co11ittees to pb6ish it in the na1e of the chrch, and aain, the s1a66 rop of 1en who 6ed ot in the pb6ishin of Issues of  Issues and of the above 1entioned boos and artic6es in the the 0s> Both soht to introdce or sstain sstain a forein view that, thoh ot of har1ony with the officia6 stand of the chrch, carried with it the apparent sanction of 6eadership in pro1inent positions> #hat in effect had occrred was a 1tinyby the captainP 'o offer the ana6oy, ana6oy, the navy had instrcted its captains 3the Chrch had h ad ca66ed pon her worers to condct their 1ission accordin to certain ide6ines 3as seen in the  "nstead, betraya6 3the a6ternative ha1artio6oy of Questions on Doctrine was Doctrine was spported> $ot the nation, not the crew, crew,  bt the captain had 1tinied>

88

 

"t a66 traces bac to Questions on Doctrine. &ifty years after the fact, the 1ission of the chrch contines to be hindered by the onoin fra1entation, 6ac of c6arity, c6arity, and the confsion con fsion res6tin fro1 co1petin co1petin views of sin, sa6vation, sa6vation, and atone1ent in the deno1ination> "f the chrch is ever to niteif it is to rise p and an d f6fi66 its 1ission, its ca66in, and its od-ordained destinyit 1st sDare6y face p to and rapp6e with the core isses introdced by the  pb6ishin of Questions on Doctrine and Doctrine and sbseDent views sy1pathetic sy1pathetic to it> C6ear6y, C6ear6y, the two viewpoints cannot coe;ist> A decision has been 1ade by the chrch> Bt wi66 individa6 individa6 6eaders sstain the teachin as evidenced by the Bib6e, he6d to by the chrch prior to Questions on  Doctrine,, and phe6d by officia6  Doctrine officia6 chrch state1ents in recent decades@ Or, wi66 wi66 the 57 view contine to be pro1oted by a re6ative6y re6ative6y few inf6entia6 6eader 6eaders@ s@ 'he cha66ene is c6ear c6ear,, the i1p6ications 1anifo6d, the conseDences far-reachin>

iscussion

!any (e6iios rops (e?ect Oriina6 Sin Questions on Doctrine is Doctrine is often 6aded for brinin Adventists and evane6ica6s toether> "t is seen as a too6 for bridin re6iios re6iios divides> Bt it is not as wide6y considered that for severa6 rops who have historica66y re?ected oriina6 sin, the boo created new barriers>  $ot on6y do Fdais1;c and "s6a1;ci e;p6icit6y re?ect the do1a of oriina6 sin, bt b t the notion is discredited in )astern branches of Christendo1 as we66> ;cii  (ssian and ree Orthodo;, Assyrian and Coptic Christianity, Christianity, and even A1ericaEs A1ericaEs own Chrch of Fess Christ of *atter-day Saintsa66 Saintsa66 re?ect the doctrine> So1e of these rops are not insbstantia6, as the increasin n1ber of !s6i1s attests> Questions on Doctrine creates Doctrine creates diffic6ties with this be6ief-

84

 

syste1 and so 1any others> others> &or adherents of a66 these these rops, and others not here 6isted, both within and withot Christianity, Christianity, Questions on Doctrine 1eant Doctrine 1eant the erection of new wa66s> "n this sense, the vo61e nderstood to hera6d a widenin of Adventis1, acta66y acta66y  1ars a short-sihted constriction constriction of itse6f> #hatever the boo 1ay appear to have ained for Seventhday Adventist standin a1idst #estern #estern Christianity, Christianity, it certain6y taes away aain for )astern Christianity and the other 1onotheistic faiths> As the deno1ination distances itse6f fro1 tthe he  boo, it proresses in rec6ai1in its se6f-view se6f-view as heavenEs iintended ntended condit offerin a 1essae 6oba6 in scope 3(ev 4=-2G 

'he "nf6ence of Questions on Doctrine "t 1ay be ased how a few paes in one boo co6d effecta66y introdce an a6ternative ha1artio6oy to a deno1ination> Bt +erbert )> %o6ass %o6ass reconts how he and others behi behind nd the scenes then deter1ined that they wo6d eep their dis1ay to the1se6ves> #e never drea1ed that the boo wo6d be so heavi6y advertised, with so 1any ratis copies> #e thoht it better to to 6et the who6e 1atter die for 6ac of attention> attention> #ere we wronP > > > > #hat we did not e;pect was the crescendo of  (inistry  (inistry editoria6s  editoria6s and artic6es that ?oined with a re1arab6y orchestrated :( prora1 in worers 1eetins throhot  $orth A1erica A1erica fro1 57 on>;ciii 'hese 1eetins and advertise1ents reat6y reat6y 16tip6ied the inf6 inf6ence ence of the boo> 'he enera66y  positive attitde in society toward 6eadership and instittions instittions prevai6ed a6so within the chrch at that ti1e 36ate 50s, ear6y =0s, and was another he6p iin n the proress of the boo> $ot on the  basis of the booEs booEs 1erit, bt of the ass1ed faithf6ness of chrch 6eaders was this this trst vested> Another reason for its heavy inf6ence was that its theo6oy inc6ded sinificant chane at core-6eve6 doctrine> As a6ready noted, few theo6oica6 theo6oica6 e6e1ents are as pivota6 as the doctrine of sin> 'his doctrine inevitab6y sets the para1eters for how a host of ot other her concepts wi66 be

85

 

nderstood> "t deter1ines the areed pon scope of the sin prob6e1 as we6 we666 as the e;pectation reardin the anticipated chane to be effected effected throh the ospe6> A6thoh an ite1 1ay be at the doctrina6 core, its sinificance 1ay not be apparent to a66 observers> A forth reason for Questions on Doctrine+s inf6ence Doctrine+s inf6ence is the sbt6ety of the theo6oica6 Destions nder discssion> &roo1 was certain6y an iinte66ient nte66ient 1an, bt he served on6y a few short years as a pastor> pastor>;civ  +e had 6itt6e e;perience that that wo6d 6ead hi1 to see tthe he pastora6 concerns abot the teachin> $or was he a syste1atic syste1atic theo6oian trained to see doctrines doctrines in re6ationship to each otherG he was an editor, editor, historian, apo6oist> "t is not even c6ear whether &roo1 and his associates nderstood how sinificant their new ha1artio6oy was, or, even that they were introdcin it> 'he new doctrine of sin that they offered the the chrch, on their part appears to have been incidenta6> And if !artin and Bar Barnhose nhose nderstood the 6on-ter1 i1p6ications these chanes wo6d wrea pon Adventis1 3it is diffic6t to thin that they did notP, they werenEt sayin> Bt before the infa1os boo was a 6ea1 in anyoneEs eye, the shape of a pre- Questions on Doctrine  Doctrine Adventis1 had been wored ot> "t re1ains the on6y viab6e pathway forward, the on6y vision that accepts a66 of the distinctive d istinctive co1ponents of Adventis1 at their f66 va6e, retainin the1 in a pacae intended to transport the chrch to the ates of eternity> eternity>

A #ron :rescription "n  'hese topics need to be 6aid aside and not red pon or peop6e as necessary isses> ;cv

8=

 

+istory de1onstrates the opposite> "ndisptab6y, "ndisptab6y, the stronest b6ow in the 6ast 50 years aainst the nity of the re1nant chrch was strc with the 57 pb6ication of Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine> On precise6y these points 3the natre of Christ, the natre of sin, the boo offered views a6ien to the previos theo6oy of this chrch> On these very ite1s then, it is especia66 especia66y y since Questions on Doctrine that Doctrine that the fires of disnity have crac6ed> ;cvi  'he correct prescr prescription iption for nity nity is not to inore these topics, bt to reconiHe the conte1porary chrchEs re?ection of the incorrect  positions offered it bac in 57, and to teach positions consistent with with the theo6oica6 consenss  previos to Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine>

+ow !any Adventists "nc6ded@ *et it not be 6ost pon s that the spposed ains reaped throh the Questions on  Doctrine adventre  Doctrine  adventre never app6ied to the 1a?ority 1a?ority of Seventh-day Adventists> 'he evane6ica6s stated that they saw on6y the Adventists who be6ieved as the few Seventh-day Adventist 6eaders had c6ai1ed they did, as bein fe66ow Christians> "n %ona6d rey BarnhoseEs &oreword to #a6ter #a6ter !artinEs =0 boo, The Truth A%out Seventh-day Adventis), Adventis), Barnhose stated that #hen we J Eternity !aaHineK  Eternity !aaHineK pb6ished or conc6sion>>> we were reeted by a stor1 of  protest>>> *et it be nderstood that we 1ade on6y one c6ai1G i>e>, that those Seventh-day Adventists who fo66ow the *ord in the sa1e way as their 6eaders who have interpreted for s the doctrina6 position of their chrch, are to be considered tre 1e1bers of the body of Christ>;cvii  'he vast 1a?ority of Adventists were never inc6ded inc6ded in the 57 rapproche1ent> 'his fact dra1atica66y 1itiates the i1ained benefit of the who6e adventre>

:astora6 Concerns

87

 

%iscssion sho6d not c6ose c6ose withot addressin pastora6 concerns> !ost of the 1inisteria6 worforce had co1p6eted their trainin nder the period of !> *> AndreasenEs ascendancy> +is n1eros boos and his years teachin at Se1inary 387-4 ass assre re s that his viewpoints were wide6y wide6y nown> &ro1 1ost chrch 1e1bers fi66in the pews, to the conference presidents, were fa1i6iar with and 1any were at one with his views> 'hs, when Questions on Doctrine arrived, Doctrine arrived, so1e pastors fond the1se6ves facin conreations withot ood e;p6anations for the new views issin fro1 headDarters> (e1e1ber, #ood #ood co1p6ained that the 6eadership had 1ade no provision for discssion of theo6oica6 Destions that were bein discssed private6y>;cviii  %id the b6 of Adventists notice that their new acceptance by evane6ica6s as bein fe66ow Christians app6ied to a61ost none of the1@ $o wonder the 1ted reaction to the new boo by the 6aityP :eop6e ?oin the chrch and are caref66y taht a tiht6y interated doctrina6 pacae by their pastors> $ow they were bein to6d Dite Dite so1ethin e6se, 1ost6y by 1en 6on departed fro1 the 6oca6 chrch pastorate> 'his p6ayed a 6are ro6e in what # #ood ood 6ater ca66ed the creation of a c6i1ate in the chrch favorab6e to criticis1, sspicion, ncertainty, r1or, and a 6oss of confidence in 6eadership>;ci;  'here are enoh cha66enes cha66enes in pastora6 1inistry withot withot bein  b6ind-sided by theo6oica66y 1isided srprises fro1 6eaders far re1oved fro1 the front 6ines> "t is i1perative that theo6oica6 decisions of Questions on Doctrine 1anitde Doctrine 1anitde not be 1ade in secret> Chrch 1e1bers and pastors of chrches both 6are 6are and s1a66 need to be inc6ded, not ept in b6acot> "t is the conviction conviction of this athor that had pastors been inc6ded in the preparation of the 57 boo, not on6y wo6d wo 6d its theo6oy have been 1ore Adventist bt that the added heart for pastora6 concerns co6d have he6ped the chrch avoid the tan6ed 6eacy inevitab6y accrin to a theo6oy-bendin boo prepared in secrecy>

8<

 

Summary and Conclusion

'he history of the doctrine of sin in the Adventist Chrch shows a steady 6ine, interrpted on6y by the aberration introdced in 57> 'he proofs then iven in spport spport of the new ha1artio6oy,, certain interpretations of )ph 28 and fro1 (o1 8-, were sperficia6 and ha1artio6oy erroneos> Since the dissipation of the fa66ot fro1 that period, the 1ost officia6 officia6 state1ents and  pb6ications of the chrch show a c6ear discontinity with the teachin introdced by Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine> 'he sinificance of this for the re1ainin e6e1ent e6e1entss of the theo6oica6 syste1 tthen hen introdced sho6d not be nderstated> #ithot #ithot the ha1artio6oica6 fondation, the rest rest of the  prora1 is 6ti1ate6y doo1ed> od is never hostae to +is +is peop6e> "f hope re1ains, +e wi66 wi66 wait, offerin offerin initiative after initiative in b6essins or crsins> crsins> And yet, what wi66 happen if h1an 6eaders persist in oin their own way@ 'heo6oians and chrch ad1inistrators do not deter1ine trth, no 1at 1atter ter how certain they 1ay fee6 that that their ideas are vested wi with th positive sinificance> sinificance> 'he Questions on Doctrine adventre, in spite of ood intentions, intentions, has proven itse6f a debac6e> 'he secretiveness, 6ac of transparency, ta6in to non-Adventists before ta6in to Adventists, and the heavy-handedness of the Questions on Doctrine era, wonded the the chrch> "n partic6ar, partic6ar, this is a prob6e1 for which the 6eadership of the chrch is responsib6e, not the 6aity> 6aity> And so1e 6eaders in certain %ivisions %ivisions repeated ey aspects of thi thiss behavior in the 0s> +ence, it is the 6eadership of the chrch today that has a wor to do in order to reestab6ish the spirit of interity and co66eia6ity which can and sho6d e;ist> e;ist> 'he wrecae stretches na1bios6y before s> #hat now@

8

 

Questions on Doctrine de1onstrated Doctrine de1onstrated severa6 points> On the positive, positive, it showed Seventhday Adventists to be interested in friend6y re6ations with their neihborsG that Adventists respect their re6iios views even if they do not aree with a66 of the1G that Adventists the1se6ves desire to be nderstood by others> On the neative side, it showed showed e1barrassin traits> traits> "t to6d the astte observer that Adventists wo6d trade identity for perceived 6eiti1acyG that at 6east so1e deno1inationa6 d eno1inationa6 views co6d be bartered> A6thoh &roo1 and co1pany re6ent6ess6y iinsisted nsisted that they had not chaned Adventist be6iefs, be6iefs, none were foo6ed> $either Barnhose nor !artin, neither Andreasen nor &ihr, were b6ind>c  A66 co6d see see that a few few 1en had carried carried events too far> far> 'he traditiona6 Adventist Adventist 6andscape had been radica66y chaned> 'he boo soon ca1e to be nown for the fror over the natre of Christ and the atone1ent issesG 1ore sinificant was its its new-to-Adventis1 doctrine of sin> #ithot the new ha1artio6oy,, the 1odification of positions on the na ha1artio6oy natre tre of Christ and the atone1ent co6d never have been serios6y atte1pted> 'oday, it is c6ear that the chrch has centered itse6f in the doctrine of sin he6d precedent to the pb6ication of Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine> 'he re?ection of Questions on Doctrine+s 1odification Doctrine+s 1odification of the sin6e 1ost sinificant theo6oica6 e6e1ent 3the doctrine of sin in the core c ore of the Adventist syste1, forete66 forete66ss inevitab6e abandon1ent a6so of viewpoints fa66in a6on the sa1e a;is, on the natre of Christ and an insistence that the atone1ent was finished at the cross with on6y the app6ication of benefits fo66owin> "f &roo1 and his associatesat associatesat the heiht of their their deno1inationa6 inf6ence, in an era when the chrch was perhaps 1ore 1a66eab6e by ad1inistrative initiative than at any other ti1eby the introdction of their errors were nab6e to evoe endrin chane in core theo6oica6 essence, what then is the 6ie6ihood of acco1p6ishin sch in todayEs era of

40

 

networed openness@ $one> 'he core be6iefs be6iefs of the chrch cannot and sho6d not be chaned withot the body first deve6opin that openness and consenss which were never attainedor serios6y atte1ptedin 57> Adventis1 is not a for16ess 1ass shapeab6e shapeab6e by ad1inistrative o6iarchy o6iarchy>> "f one ho6ds that there is an ob?ective trth and that the pre-Questions pre- Questions on Doctrine Adventist Doctrine Adventist nderstandin of  what sin is, is correct, then it sho6d not srprise the reader to see the co66apse of the 57 initiative, and the retrn of the deno1inationa6 view to its npertrbed shape> 'rth, by its very natre, co1ports with rea6ity> rea6ity> 'rth contains its own inherent st strenth, renth, error its own inwroht weaness> Or perception of doctrina6 trth trth can sffer te1porary distortion, bt error error tends to retreat with the passin of its pro1oter eneration> &ar better had it been, if, with narrow and pre?diced 1inds, the c6t ee;perts ;perts in 57 had identified the Seventh-day Adventist Chrch 3fa6se thoh sch a representation wo6d have  been as one a1on the c6ts> &ar better had 1en in or 1idst not coveted the reconition and 6eiti1acy on6y avai6ab6e at the price of o f an atte1pted rewirin of the theo6oica6 center of the Adventist bib6ica6 theo6oica6 syste1> "n  'oday, the windy doctrine of sin  behind Questions on Doctrine has Doctrine has a66 bt b6own itse6f itse6f ot> Bt if that doctrine doctrine has been re?ected, what i1print is 6eft behind@ 'he stin of secrecy, secrecy, revisionis1, heavy-handedness, and ntrthf6ness> 'he 6eadership of the deno1ination deno1ination broe faith with its 1e1bers, and did not correct6y represent its faith to otsiders> otsiders> "t did not ho6d &roo1, Anders Anderson, on, (ead, or &ihr accontab6e> And what has chaned@ 'oo often, so1e in in 6eadership today are are per1itted to press ho1e their own aendas heed6ess heed 6ess of the wi66 of the wor6d chrch 3e>> wo1enEs wo1enEs ordination, et

4

 

cetera> cetera > 'his is the accepted practice, the the 6eacy, 6eacy, the i1print of Questions on Doctrine. Un6ess there is a chane in what happens,  happens, si1i6ar behavior wi66 repeat, eneratin other chrch crises, and we 1ay see 1ore 50-year conferences on other topics a6on the sa1e fa66ot trai6> 'hat is the bad news> 'he ood news is that the the Seventh-day Adventist Adventist Chrch has today retrned to e1brace the theo6oica6 consenss on the doctrine of sin that e;isted before the  pb6ication of the 1ost divisive boo in Seventh-day Adventist Adventist history> history>ci

42

 

Endnotes

48

 

i Fhyeo $a1, (eactions to the Seventh-day Adventist )vane6ica6 Conferences and Questions on Doctrine 55-7, Doctrine 55-7, pp> 2 )> &roo1 is one of the s1a66 rop of s who have prepared these answers 3*etter, 3*etter, (> A> Anderson Anderson to +> )> #hitford, %ec> 8, 5=> %epart1ent of Archives and Specia6 Co66ections, *o1a *inda University, %& 8778>0=C, Correspondence reardin Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, 5=> ii Aae (enda6en, Adventis1 +as the !edi1 Beco1e the !essae@ Evangeica !essae@ Evangeica,, %ec>  85> iii Accordin to the sa6tation of *> )> &roo1 in a 6etter to '> '> )> Unrh, #> )> (ead, (> A> Anderson> 3:res1ab6y &roo1 was the forth co1rade> %epart1ent of Archives and Specia6 Co66ections, *o1a *inda University, %& 8778>0=C, Correspondence reardin Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, 5=> iv "t is i1portant to note that the idea of pb6ishin a new boo was not that of the Adventists initia66y,, bt that !artinEs initia66y !artinEs party insisted that the repdiation of ear6ier ea r6ier errors 1st appear in print in order to be taen serios6y> serios6y> !artin was ada1ant that there be so1e athoritative Adventist vo61e as  proof for assertions he wo6d pb6ish abot the pdated Adventist positionan nderstandab6e point, and one a6so, that, very convenient6y, trapped the Adventists> &roo1 and friends ths fond the1se6ves drawn into the prodction of Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine> 'his 1itiates 1itiates aainst a theory theory that the chanes offered in the boo bean as part of any intentiona66y p6anned conspiracy on the part of Adventist 6eaders> v (ay1ond &> Cottre66, enera6 Sestions on This e !eieve/ Jthird worin tit6e for what  beca1e 9O%K, %ec> 2, 5=, %epart1ent of Archives and Specia6 Co66ections, *o1a *inda University,, %& 8778>0=C, University 8778>0 =C, Correspondence reardin Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, 5=> vi /enneth +> #ood, +ow #e ot #here #e Are A review of so1e aspects of Adventist history since since 55, prepared for :()NA% and invitees, $osoca $osoca :ines, SC, &eb> 0-28, 7 2> vii (oy Ada1s 'he tension between these two nderstandins of sin 3the narrow and the  broadnot to say the sha66ow and the deep 6ies at the heart of the perennia6 debate over sanctification,  perfection, and ChristEs ChristEs natre in the Adventist Adventist Chrch, The Nature o' Christ  3+aerstown,  3+aerstown, !% (eview and +era6d :b> Assn>, 4, p> 66ey "n their assess1ent of the 1inistry of Christ, so1e Adventists see hi1 as pri1ari6y pri1ari6y );a1p6e, others pri1ari6y as Sbstitte> 'hese two conf6ictin views sprin fro1 two differin nderstandins of what constittes sin, Adventist sin, Adventist Review, Review, Fan> 25, 0, p> 2G A> *eroy !oore %enia6 of the doctrine of oriina6 sin 6ies at the heart h eart of J)66enK #hiteEs nderstandin of the conf6ict between ood and evi6, The Theoogy Crisis 3Corps Christi, 'N *ife Se1inars, "nc>,   3see a6so pp> 05, 2, 4, 7, 2, 28, 25G %ennis :riebe At the fondation of the theo6oica6 divisions a1on Adventists on the Destion of rihteosness by faith 6ie differin differin be6iefs on the natre of sin and i6t> 'he rea6 debate is over the natre of sin, sin, ace aceto-ace ith the Rea 0os#e 3Boise, "% :acific :ress :b> Assn>,  4G F> (> Ircher #ithot #it hot Destion, the first step toward a so6tion Jconc Jconcernin ernin the nderstandin of the natre of ChristK 6ies in a bib6ica6 definition of the concept of sin, Touched ith Our eeings, A *istorica Survey o' Adventist Thought on the *u)an * u)an Nature o' Christ > )dward )> #hite, trans> trans>  3+aerstown, !% (eview and +era6d :b> Assn, , p> 254> viii #i66ia1 > Fohnsson, Or !atch6ess SaviorM, SaviorM, Adventist  Adventist Review, Review, A> 2=, 8, p> 4> i; On6y>>> if Fess shared ordinary h1an natre to bein with was +e enine6y part of or history> > > > J+eK was genuiney hu)an in ter)s o' the o ordinary rdinary tensions which )en )ust %ear %ear"" %oth  'ro) without without and 'ro) within> within> > > > "f od entered 1an in sch a 1anner that +e did not share the f66 history of 1anind, there was no rea6 "ncarnation, $> &> S> &errQ, Christ and the Christian, Christian , op> cit>, +arry Fohnson, The *u)anity o' the Saviour , 3*ondon, Britain )pworth :ress, =2, pp> 7=, ; So1e pri1ary discssions are fond, in order o rder of appearance as fo66ows %ennis :riebe, :riebe, ace aceto-ace ith the Rea 0os#e , pp> 22-4G (oy Ada1s, The Nature o' Christ , pp> Ircher,

 

Touched ith Our eeings, eeings, pp> 2or, 2005, pp> -4 ;i 'he 1ost e;tensive treat1ent is )dwin Iacrison, In Iacrison,  In the 1oins o' Ada), A *istorica *istorica Study o' Origina Sin in Adventist Theoogy 3iUniverse, Theoogy 3iUniverse, "nc>, $ew .or .or 2004, 40= pp> IacrisonEs IacrisonEs 1ain the1e in his dissertation is Adventist ha1artio6oy in the years  +e has 6itt6e to say with reference to 20th and 2st centry cen try Adventis1, Adventis1, the Questions on Doctrine isses, Doctrine isses, or conte1porary be6ief  state1ents and their 1ain boo treat1ents by the chrch in 57,  ;v> Sspicion of the Adventist conferees havin heded on the trth of the traditiona6 Adventist  position is see1in6y confir1ed in the section of the appendi; to Questions on Doctrine on Doctrine on LChristEs  $atre %rin the "ncarnation>E "n that appendi; of )66en #hite Dotations the athors of the boo spp6y a headin statin that Christ L'oo L'oo Sin6ess +1an $atre>E 'hat headin is prob6e1atic in that it i1p6ies that that was )66en #hiteEs idea when in fact she was Dite e1phatic in repeated6y statin that Christ too Lor sinf6 natre,E and that L+e too p pon on +i1se6f, fa66en, sfferin h1an natre, deraded and defi6ed by sinE 3 I%id >, >, p> ;vi> "t is>>> diffic6t to ?stify the Adventist confereesE presentation presentation and 1anip6ation of the data d ata they presented on the h1an natre of Christ>>> the chane of position po sition on the h1an natre of Christ was one of sbstance> #hether &roo1 and his co66eaes were wi66in to ad1it it or not, the view of ChristEs h1an natre that they set forth was a enine revision of the position he6d by the 1a?ority of ChristEs the deno1ination before the pb6ication of Questions on Doctrine/ 3 I%id." p>  I%id." p> ;vii> 'he athors at ti1es psh the facts a bit too far>>> they even present their data in a way that creates a fa6se i1pression on the h1an natre of Christ 3 I%id  >, p> ;;;>  I%id >, %e to>>> the prob6e1atic presentation of the topic in Questions on Doctrine>>> Doctrine>>> the h1an natre of Christ wo6d beco1e centra6 to 1ch Adventist theo6oica6 discssi discssion on for the second ha6f of the twentieth centry 3 I%id >, >, p> 805, annot> fn>> Questions on Doctrine not Doctrine not on6y spp6ied a 1is6eadin headin, bt it a6so ne6ected to present the evidence that wo6d have contradicted the headin 3 I%id >, >, p> 5=, annotated fn>> Both the headin to pae R=50R and the non-inc6sion of )66en #hiteEs state1ents c6ai1in that Christ had a sinf6 natre were 6ess than straihtforward and transparent 3 I%id  3 I%id >, >, p> 57, annot> fn>> 'he athors of Questions on Doctrine apparent6y Doctrine apparent6y were te1pted to avoid so1e of )66en #hiteEs #hiteEs stron state1ents in their co1pi6ation and to provide the 1is6eadin headin on pae R=50R 3 I%id.,  I%id., p> 5 fn>> 'he data was 1anip6ated by the athors of Questions on Doctrine/ 3 I%id.,  I%id., p> 520, annot> fn>>

 

*eroy &roo1 and his co66eaes in the evane6ica6 dia6oe had not to6d the trth abot the 6onstandin deno1inationa6 teachin on the h1an natre of Christ 3 I%id >, >, p> 52, annot> fn>> Unfortnate6y,, there does appear to be e6e1ents of a betraya6 in the 1anip6ation of the data Unfortnate6y and in the ntrths that were passed on to Barnhose and !artin on the topic 3 I%id   I%id >, >, p> 522, annot> fn>> ;v *> )> &roo1, (ove)ent &roo1, (ove)ent o' Destiny 3# 3#ashinton, ashinton, %>C> (eview and +era6d :b> Assn>, 7, pp> 4 Beyond that, so1e of the 6ess 6ess than he6pf6 Dotations were de6 de6eted> eted> Other Dotations were added and sections sections were reordered> "n addition, and 1ost i1portant6y, the revision spp6ied severa6 rewritten sbtit6es to 1ae the1 1ore accrate and 6ess controversia6 3Questions 3Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, Annot> )d>, p> 588, annot> fn>> ;vii 'he pre6i1inary tit6e for the paper is, S6antin the Atone1ent A (eview of Questions on  Doctrine+ss Appendi; C, 'he Atone1ent> Upon co1p6etion this doc1ent wi66 be pb6ished in :%&  Doctrine+ for1at on reatControversy>or> reatControversy>or> ;viii Iacrison, p> 7> ;i; I%id  ;i;  I%id > ;; Iacrison, pp> 82, 47> ;;i erhard :fand6, So1e 'hohts on Oriina6 Sin, She6f %oc1ent, Bib6ica6 (esearch "nstitte C, p> 5> ;;ii See :fand6, p> 5> Iacrison, in the inde; of pers persons ons and na1es for his dissertation, on p> 8 ;;iii F> $> *ohboroh, (o1ish %ea6in #ith #ith Sins, Review Sins, Review and *erad , Fan> 80,  2,  F> #aoner, Christ and *is Righteousness 3Oa6and, Righteousness  3Oa6and, CA :acific :ress,  2=> 2 => ;;v 'he  442-44=> ;;viii Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, pp> 40=, 407> ;;i; %ifferences in prepb6ication draft wordin are here indicated by ita6ics> ;;; 'he ter1 oriina6 sin acta66y appeared at 6east five ti1es in the prepb6ication draft> A66 occrrences were stricen before fina6 fina6 pb6ication> $everthe6ess, re1ova6 of the ter1 ter1 did not 1ean re1ova6 of the doctrineG the 6abe6 was stricen bt the pacae re1ained> ;;;i "t had been c6ai1ed that Questions on Doctrine had been reviewedand approvedwith e;crciatin care> "n fact, on6y a very s1a66 s1a66 n1ber offered offered sbstantive critiDes of prepb6ication drafts forwarded to the1> the1> #hi6e it is tre that the 1anscript was wide6y distribted, distribted, doc1entary evidence and 6ater testi1onies fro1 those invo6ved in the pb6ication of the boo indicate that there was never a resondin and nani1os Lchors of approva6>E "ndeed, the 1anscript en?oyed

 

nprecedented pre-pb6ication disse1ination, bt as discssed above, a61ost a66 of the 1etic6os reviews were condcted riht at the enera6 Conference headDarters> As sch, contrary to &ihrE &ihrEss c6ai1, it J9O%K re1ained essentia66y the prodct of a few 1en 3$a1, pp> 2 Cottre66, enera6 Sestions on This e !eieve Jthird worin tit6e for what  beca1e 9O%K, %ec> 2, 5=, %epart1ent of Archives and Specia6 Co66ections, *o1a *inda University,, %& 8778>0=C, University 8778>0 =C, Correspondence reardin Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, 5=> ;;;iii &or a reprodction of so1e the paes in which the ph phrase rase oriina6 sin appeared in the  prepb6ication draft, and its editin chanes, see *arry /irpatric, Oriina6 Sin in :repb6ication :repb6ication >orcopdfir-Dod-osin>pdf  n>pdf > %raft of Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, httpwww>reatcontroversy httpwww>reatcontroversy>orcopdfir-Dod-osi ;;;iv Questions on Doctrine" pp> Doctrine" pp> 407, 40 ;;;v Speain of (o1 52, Sanday and +ead6a1 offer, the effects of Ada1Es Ada1Es &a66 were trans1itted to his descendantsG bt St> :a6 nowhere says how they were trans1ittedG nor does he even ev en define in precise ter1s what is trans1itted, op> cit>, +arry Fohnson, The *u)anity o' 4esus, 4esus, p> 7=> ;;;vi :riebe, p> 2> ;;;vii )66en > #hite, The 0reat Controversy !etween Christ and Satan 3!ontain Miew, CA :acific :ress :b> Assn>, , p> 425> ;;;viii I%id. ;;;viii  I%id.,, p> =28> ;;;i; )very one who by faith obeys odEs co11and1ents, wi66 reach the condition of sin6essness in which Ada1 6ived before his transression, )66en > #hite, Signs o' the Ti)es, Ti)es, F6y 28, 02> ;6 *dwi von !ises, *u)an !ises, *u)an Action, Action, A Treatise on Econo)ics 3"ndianapo6is, "$ *iberty &nd, "nc>, =, (evised 4th )d>, vo6> , p> 4> A6thoh !ises is an econo1ist, he bases his entire for vo61e, 044 pae wor, on the the1e of free wi66> ;6i "t 1iht be ob?ected that the ter1 oriina6 sin never appeared in the printed version of Questions on Doctrine> Doctrine> 'he ter1 is fond with with a variety of 1eanins and nances in theo6oica6 writins> 'he essence of the isse at hand is that a conde1nation is proposed for individa6s on the  basis of what 6ti1ate6y is an invo6ntary for1 of sinG sinG 1en are conde1ned apart fro1 their choice, a view that 1st be anathe1a to the be6iever who has a care for odEs ood na1e> A6thoh the ter1 oriina6 sin was not sed in the pb6ished version of Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, we se the ter1 to represent that booEs teachin becase 3a 'he athors of Questions on Doctrine the1se6ves Doctrine the1se6ves sed the ter1 in prepb6ication drafts of the boo, 3b 'he 1anner in which )ph 28 and an d (o1 8 are sed in the  boo is to sstain an interpretation that h1ans are i6ty or conde1ned by birthechoin the pri1ary the1e of oriina6 sin, 3c 'he athors of the boo boo  aressive6y abandoned the post-&a66 view of the natre of Christ in their rency to affir1 +is sin6essness, 3d A6thoh so1e of s have offered for this nbib6ica6 teachin the 1ore accrate ter1 invo6ntary sin, so1e have not e1braced that ter1> 'herefore, we fa66 bac on the 6abe6 oriina6 sin as the 1ost wide6y he6d consenss ter1 in se to represent the teachin that 1en are born i6ty or conde1ned, however e;pressed> "t 1ay be frther noted that on p> 22 of Questions on Doctrine sin Doctrine sin is spoen of bt not oriina6 sin> Bt we sho6d eep in 1ind that this is one of 8= sin6e-sentence state1ents describin the S%A posit position ion in re6ation to others> Since the concepts are e;panded 6ater in the boo to inc6de conde1nation by birth-natre, it is c6ear that the sin6e-sentence e;p6anation of what Adventists be6ieved in this point did reDire frther e6cidation> Becase of the ideas 6ater 6ater deve6oped, it is c6ear tthat hat the sentence on p> 22 is both inadeDate and inaccrate in describin the doctrine of sin adopted by the boo> ;6ii Other boos fo66owed Questions on Doctrine with Doctrine with this teachin, sch as +arry # *owe,  Redee)ing 0race 3!ontain 0race 3!ontain Miew, Miew, CA :acific :ress :b> Assn>, =C> (eview and +era6d :b> Assn>, 74G The (an ho Is 0od   3#ashinton, 3# ashinton, %>C> (eview and +era6d :b> Assn>, 77, and others> Bt they on6y fo66owed where the 57 athors had first b6aHed the path> Questions on Doctrine was Doctrine was in Seventh-day Adventis1 the se1ina6 state1ent of this doctrine of sin and its a6ien theo6oica6 syste1>

 

;6iii &or a 1ore detai6ed stdy of #husis of  #husis in  in the $', $', see *arry /irpatric, "s Or $atre Conde1ned@ at http6astenerationtheo6oy>or6tdocantir-ionc>php http6astenerationtheo6oy>or6tdocantir-ionc>php>> ;6iv Iacrison, p> 2> >orcopdfro1-8ot6ine>pdf > ;6v &or an ot6ine of (o1 -8, see httpwww>reatcontroversy httpwww>reatcontroversy>orcopdfro1-8ot6ine>pdf  ;6vi (o1 80-2 fro1 :ss 4-8G 58-8> (o1 88 fro1 :s 5G 408> (o1 84 fro1 :s 07> (o1 85-7 fro1 "sa 57, (o1 8< fro1 :s 8=> (o1 820 fro1 :s 482> ;6vii +ere is a description fro1 the perspective of Fdais1 &o66owers of :a6 :a 6 read and nderstand the +ebrew Bib6e throh a certain phi6osophica6 6ensthey brin to it the pre1ise that Fess is the savior, savior, that sa6vation is fro1 hi1> 'hey read the O6d 'esta1ent 'esta1ent fro1 the perspective of the  $ew>> 'hey prioritiHe the $ew over the O6d>  Fews who be6ieve as Fews do ?st the reverse> 'hey  $ew  prioritiHe the O6d over the $ew> $ew> 'hey bein with the pre1ise that od speas throh the +ebrew Bib6e> #ith this this in 1ind, they 1ay proceed to eva6ate the c6ai1s of Chr Christianity istianity>> Becase they approach and interpret scriptre in chrono6oica6 orderas see1s reasonab6e, after a66they find that the $ew 'esta1ent 'esta1ent does not arise natra66y or 6oica66y fro1 the fondation doc1ent, the O6d 'esta1ent, %avid /6inhoffer /6inhoffer,, hy the 4ews Re5ected 4esus 3$ew .or, $. %ob6eday, 2005, pp> 0, 0> /6inhoffer is wron in the conc6sion he draws 33that that Christianity does not fit the +ebrew Scriptres, bt correct abot 1ethod, insofar as he insists that the $ew 'esta1ent 1st be ab6e to har1oniHe with the +ebrew Scriptres not on6y readin fro1 $ew 'esta1ent to O6d, bt O6d to $ew> $ew> 'he point bein that we cannot fair6y interpret (o1ans 8 by si1p6y c6ai1in that becase be case it is newer, the oriina6 conte;t of o f %avidEs :sa61s is ni1portant> ;6viii :a6 3d> ca> =5 C>)>, the apost6e of Fess, was a Few who shaped ear6y Christian thoht> +is views on sin, which for1ed the basis of Christian teachin, differed dra1atica66y fro1 those of rabbinic Fdais1> :a6 and Astine 3854-480, the ear6 ear6y y Chrch &ather, taht that 1an was innate6y sinf6 as a res6t of Ada1Es disobedience to od, and that this condition was trans1itted to a66 newborns>>> "n Christianity, Christianity, sin is a fact of birth, whereas in Fdais1, sin is a 1atter of choice, %avid S> Arie6, hat Do 4ews !eieve 3$ew !eieve  3$ew .or, $. Schocen Boos, 5, p> ;6i; Scho6ars Scho6ars enera6 enera66y 6y acnow6ed acnow6ede e that that the the c6assica c6assica66 3ecc6esi 3ecc6esiastic astica6 a6 doctri doctrine ne of oriina6 oriina6 sin sin is is not fond e;p6icit6y stated by the writers of the O6d ' 'esta1ent esta1ent 3Iacrison, p> >  > 6 #e are not  chanin  chanin or faith> #e need to be very caref6 abot state1ents a6on that 6ine> #e are repdiatin the positions of so1e who, who , in ear6ier days and a few han-overs today, he6d  positions in contravention to or sond scho6arship, and the c6ear conse6s of !rs> )> > #hite #hite 3*etter,, *> )> &roo1 to #a6ter (> !artin, Fne  4=5-540> 6iv %o6ass, O##ortunity o' the Century 3JBoo6etK +ih6and, CA reatControversy>or, reatControversy>or, 2005, p> 24> 6v #ood, pp> 50, 5> 6vi Moted Moted state1ent of &nda1enta6 &n da1enta6 Be6iefs,  6vii )66en > #hite, The Desire o' Ages 3$a1pa, "% :acific :ress :b> Assn>,  6viii , Education , Education 3+aerstown, !% (eview and +era6d :b> Assn>, 08, p 2>   6i; #> %ncan )va, Doted fro1 $inth Bsiness !eetin, &ifty-third enera6 Con Conference ference Session, Apri6 22, !>, :>!>, Session :roceedins, Adventist :roceedins, Adventist Review, Review, Apr> Apr> 24, 

 

6; 'he :s 55 wordin was re1oved fro1 the &nda1enta6 Be6ief state1ent, bt the reference to it re1ained in the 6ist 6ist of acco1panyin Scriptres> 'he wordin that re1ained was c6ear in sstainin a ha1artio6oy consonant with the Bib6e, )66en > #hite, and pre- Questions on Doctrine Seventh-day Adventist theo6oy> theo6oy> 6;i 'he first to asse1b6e 1ost of the concepts that beca1e the doctrine of oriina6 sin into one  pacae was Orien 3d> 2 a>d>, and the pacae deve6oped throh Cyprian 3d> 25 8, A1brose of !i6an 3d> 87, and fina66y Astine 3854-480> See 'atha 'atha #i6ey #i6ey,, Origina  Sin 3$ew .or, .or, $. $. :a6ist :ress, 2002, pp> 4=-75G a6so, Iacrison, pp> 8- 6;ii Iacrison, pp> 4, 5> 6;iii I%id  6;iii  I%id >, >, p> 87> 6;iv Seventh-day Adventists !eieve... 3+aerstown, !% (eview and +era6d :b> Assn>,  Questions on Doctrine was the first sch 1a?or boo> Unfortnate6y, Unfortnate6y, it did not recapit6ate recapit6ate the 8  be6iefs bt rather offered its own set> set> "t was never a 6eiti1ate boo treat1ent of the be6iefs of Seventh-day Adventists> "n  24=, 2 4=, offerin the 1an of (o1ans seven as the anticipated Christian e;perience> 'he artic6e 1entions dis distinct tinct 1eanins for certain certain +ebrew words for sin bt fai6s to note their freDent interchaneab6e sae in the 'anah 3e>> see transression iniDity, iniDity , sin, evi6, and wicedness in );od 847, G :ss 825G 5-5G )He  257 6eaves vae Destions> Destions> &ortnate6y,, the artic6e 1aes so1e very c6ear state1ents abot sin which were inc6ded in the 1ain &ortnate6y  body of this paper, and which co1port with the pre-Questions pre-Questions on Doctrine  Doctrine Adventist view of sin> 'he artic6e wo6d have been considerab6y co nsiderab6y i1proved had a 1ore sinificant discssion been offered o ffered of sin as choice and a 1ore caref6 treat1ent of the doctrine of sin as represented in the writins of )66en > #hite> it is tre that within the artic6e, it is stated that we are i6ty for or sinf6 natre too> 'he  prob6e1 with this doc1ent is that it is interna66y interna66y contradictory contradictory>> :rob6e1s of interna6 contradiction are so6ved by ivin c6oser attention attention to the introdctory and conc6sion stat state1ents e1ents of the artic6 artic6e> e> "n the case of this doc1ent, the s11ary s11ary state1ents indicate the sin is choice position> position> &or a brief discssion of certain potentia66y prob6e1atic state1ents by #hite, see *arry /irpatric, #hat is the  $ew 'heo6oy@ :art 8 'he Sbstance of  '> Fones, )> F> #aoner, #aoner, and )66en > #hite, or "nore it in &avor of !artin *ther@

 

httpwww>reatcontroversy>orcorarir httpwww>reatcontroversy >orcorarir-wint8>php> -wint8>php> 6;;ii Co11entary (eference Series, vo6> 2, *and%oo& 2, *and%oo& o' Seventh-day Adventist Theoogy  Theoogy  3+aerstown !% (eview and +era6d :b> Assn>, 2000, Sin, p> 2=5> 6;;iii I%id. 6;;iii  I%id.,, p> 257> 6;;iv Questions on Doctrine, Doctrine, Annot> )d>, p> 824 annot> fn> 6;;v eore :ar &isher &isher,, The Re'or)ation 3$ew .or, $. Char6es ScribnerEs Sons, 2, p> 8> 6;;vi "t 1ay be ased, why has the athor not inc6ded $or1an 66eyEs 66eyEs Review  Review artic6es,  artic6es, or the :a61da6e conference, etc>@ 'he prpose of this doc1ent wa wass to especia66y address tthe he pri1ary doc1ents and state1ents that enter into the 6ives of the averae chrch 1e1ber> 1e1ber> Artic6es in the  Review are  Review  are often printed that present opposite opinions to previos6y pb6ished artic6es> 'he readership of the Review the Review is  is s1a66> s1a66> !any Adventists have abandoned the Review the Review becase  becase of its 6on-ter1 sstenance of the $ew 'heo6oy> 'heo6oy> As far as theo6oica6 conferences 6ie :a61da6e, atherins of s1a66 rops of theo6oians and ad1inistrators tend to have very 6itt6e i1pact on the be6ief syste1 of the averae chrch 1e1ber> 1e1ber> !any ti1es participants 6eave these very conferences with ?st as diverse a set of positions as before, perhaps 1oreso> +ence, the 1eetins and artic6es w were ere not inc6ded becase they represent a sinificant6y 6i1ited i1pact on the faith and practice of the chrch, whereas enera6 Conference session approved state1ents of Be6ief, and the 1a?or e;p6anatory deno1ination-wide  pb6ications spportin those be6iefs do have an inf6ence i1pactin the averae chrch 1e1ber> 1e1ber> 'hese were the criterion of the athor> 6;;vii "t is beyond the scope of this paper to 6end itse6f to an aa66-sided 66-sided discssion of the featres of this conf6ict> "t 1st sffice sffice to reiterate that the provocations offered by so1e in se6f-s se6f-spportin pportin rops in their endeavor to defend trth trth were very reat> 'his cannot ?stify the the over-reaction of certain editors, athors and ad1inistrators, bt it does he6p s to nderstand that reaction by the1, an and d to forive> 6;;viii "n Issues "n Issues,, see pp> 47, 0> 6;;i; $a1, pp> , 24 "ts 1ain concern is the LAcDired Sin>E Accordin to "s6a1 LsinE LsinE is neither 6ie a hereditary disease that is transferred fro1 a father to his son throh reprodctive syste1 nor is sin 6ie a ran or a tit6e that can be passed fro1 an o6der to a yoner person of the fa1i6y> > > > A h1an  bein is born withot any sin 3i6t6ess or innocent and he re1ains sch n6ess he intentiona66y intentiona66y

 

co11its a sin 3i>e> disobeys odEs co11and1ents 3Abds Sattar hari, 'he Concept of Oriina6 Sin, httpnderstandin-is6a1>co1re6atedte;t>asp@typeTartic6eaidT7co1re6atedte;t>asp@typeTartic6eaidT7 'he &athers si1p6y co6d not have ca66ed Ada1Es transression transression the oriina6, eneric, or first sin, nor co6d they have i1ained od i1posin 6ea6 i6t for it on a66 h1an beins at the 1o1ent of their conception> 'he &athers assined responsibi6ity so6e6y to the transressors Ada1 and )ve 3eore S> abrie6, "ntrodction, Fohn S> (o1anides, The Ancestra Sin 3(idewood, $F Iephyr :b>,   p>  ;ciii %o6ass, pp> =, > ;civ &roo1 served in the pastora6 1inistry beinnin part way throh 8 in !ary6and and then on to %e6aware before 1ovin to to editoria6 wor drin 5> 'hs, his tota6 ti1e ti1e in direct  pastora6 1inistry was 6ess than three three years, with 6itt6e spent in the district districtss where he served as pastor pastor>> See Obitary, *e (oy )dwin &roo1, (eview and +era6d, Apr> 4, 74, p> 80> ;cv Bib6ica6 (esearch "nstitte, An Appea6 for Chrch Unity, "n "n Issues,  Issues, The Seventh-day  Adventist Church and Certain $rivate (inistries" (inistries" Appendi; NM", pp> 28 ;cvi &or a concise discssion of the centra6 i1portance of the post-fa66 natre of Christ position, see %ennis :riebe, Is :riebe, Is it Essentia or Nonessentia  Nonessentia  3JBoo6etK  3JBoo6etK +ih6and, CA reatControversy>or, reatControversy>or, 2007, 24 pp> ;cvii %ona6d rey Barnhose, &oreword to #a6ter !artin, The Truth A%out Seventh-day  Adventis) 3rand (apids, !" Iondervan, =0, p> 7>  Adventis) 3rand ;cviii #ood, #ood, pp> 50, 5> ;ci; I%id  ;ci;  I%id > c $a1, fn>, pp>