Archive for the ‘Cults’ Category

This is part 3 of a review of Wm. Paul Young’s (author of THE SHACK) recently released book Lies We believe About God. Part 1 “No Need to Get Saved…” can be found by clicking right here, and part 2 “Hell is Not Separation from God…” can be found here. Know, again, this is based on his most recently released book (March 7, 2017), and these excerpts are taken from my personal copy:


We now explore chapter 27, where the author introduces as “lie” #27: “Sin separates us from God.”


The straightforward message the author heralds here is that sin does NOT separate, anyone, from God, ever – and to believe this is to swallow a “lie.” Young interjects that this thinking comprises a “theology of separation,” and he further elaborates: “A lot of ‘my people’ will believe that the following statement is in the Bible, but it isn’t: ‘You have sinned and you are separated from God'” (Lies, p. 231, see below).

One obvious flaw with what Young is saying can be found right here:

“But your iniquities have separated you from your God…” (Isaiah 59:2b).

There it is, almost word for word in the Bible. But significantly more telling than this is the theology of the entire Bible. Young has a penchant for making blunt declarations about particular words he hasn’t found in the Bible, and then he uses that as a straw man support to negate it as a teaching. The perfect example is found in THE SHACK book itself on p. 205, when Sarayu, the Holy Spirit, says “… you won’t find the word responsibility in the scriptures.”


Whether or not this English word is found in the particular translation the author is using, the theme of responsibility is all throughout the Bible. Just a nominal gleaning of Jesus’ parables (landowners leaving, coming back, holding servants accountable) makes the authors’ word search findings irrelevant. As for whether the theme of sin separating people from God is found in the Bible, just the Old Testament teaching on the Tabernacle is replete enough for anyone to reach an obvious conclusion. In Exodus 25:8 the Lord says to Moses “Let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.” Why is this sanctuary needed for God to dwell with them? Because God is holy, and people are sinful. Sin has separated them from God. That’s one of the basic teaching points of these narratives. Virtually every aspect of the instructions for building the tabernacle – including the gates, laver, altar, veil, priestly duties, sacrifices, has to do with God being holy and separate from people because of their sin (unholiness). This is very simple Sunday School stuff. If you think I’m overstating this, go here, and read how many times the word “separate” is used. As the veteran Christian artist Phil Keaggy once crooned, “you should have believed Sunday School.” Of course, metaphysically speaking, God is omnipresent, and didn’t merely dwell spatially inside the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle. But relationally, which is the context Young’s premise, God is distinctly separate (for more discussion on this, see William Lane Craig article here). Be reminded that virtually every article in the Tabernacle also points to Jesus and what He has done for us, and our sin, so that we can approach God and not be separate. The language of Ephesians 2:12-13 alludes to this as it reads “that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the common wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope and without God in the world (13) But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (NKJV -emphasis mine). Like in the Romans 8 passage from the previous article, the context here is clearly exclusive to believers in Jesus Christ. A. Skevington Wood writes:

“In the first place, they were without, or apart (NIV, ‘separate’) from Christ (choris Christou)… as a consequence, they lived in a world devoid of hope (I Thess. 4:13)…. ‘But now’ stands in sharp antithesis to v. 12. They are no longer ‘separate from Christ’ (v. 12) but ‘in Christ Jesus…’ those who trust in Him possess a present salvation as well as a future hope. ‘Jesus is the ‘meeting point’ with God for all mankind’ (A. Skevington Wood Expositor’s Bible Commentary c. 1978 p. 39 – Emphasis mine)

To Young, nevertheless, this theology of sin separating people from God is false. Therefore, let’s examine very carefully from his own words in how this plays out (below Lies p. 232):

20170315_162613 (2)

Be very clear about what the author is saying. In Young’s mind, NO ONE EVER has, nor EVER WILL BE, relationally separated from God because of sin. Aside from his spurious usage of Romans 8 (contextually speaking of believers – which was addressed in this article) the implications here are more than a bit provocative. No one (not Nero, Adolf Hitler, Judas), has EVER BEEN, nor will EVER BE…  separated from the love of God in a relational way. Keep in mind, this is even an affront to the punishment Jesus took for our sins – the penal atonement. Ponder the following passages of scripture and the ensuing comments:

Romans 3:23-24 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (25) whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, (26) to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (NKJV)

2 Corinthians 5:21 “For he made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (NKJV)

Galatians 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree'” (NKJV)

Mark 15:34 “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying ‘Eloi, Eloi, loama sabachthani?’ which is translated, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'” (NKJV)

“The orphaned cry of Jesus reflects something of the depth of meaning of Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 5:21: ‘God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us.’ Interpretations that suggest that Jesus began to recite Psalm 22 with the intent of reciting the entire psalm, which ends on a note of triumph, but died before getting past v. 2 are desperate attempts to dodge the reality of Jesus’ forsakenness”  (Walter W. Wessel; Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8 c. 1984 p. 782 – highlights mine)

“At the ninth hour, Jesus expressed the agony of His soul when He cried out from the cross, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ (see Ps. 22:1). The darkness symbolized the judgment Jesus experienced when the Father forsook him (Warren Wiersbe Bible Exposition Commentary c. 1989 p. 165)

“This was more than the cry of a righteous Sufferer affirming His faith that God would cause Him to triumph (contrast Psalm 22:1 with Ps. 22:18). Nor did Jesus merely feel abandoned … Breaking the curse of sin and God’s judgment on sin (Deut. 21:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13) He experienced the unfathomable horror of separation from God, who cannot look on sin (Heb. 1:13). This answers Jesus’ question ‘why?’ Dying for sinners He experienced separation from God (John D. Grassmick The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures By Dallas Theological Seminary – New Testament Edition c. 1983 p. 189 – highlights mine)

For someone reading Mr. Young’s books and listening to his interviews, it shouldn’t be a huge shock he would side with an idea that negates the penal, substitutionary atonement of Jesus for our sins. He regularly dodges this theme as the meaning of the cross event, and when he does refer to the doctrine of Christ’s blood atonement, he does so in a derogatory manner:

“Who originated the cross? If God did, then we worship a cosmic child abuser... And how would we religious people interpret this sacrifice? We would declare that it was God who killed Jesus, slaughtering Him as a necessary appeasement for His bloodthirsty need for justice  (from Lies pp. 149, 150, 151 – emphasis mine)

Beyond this, Young had apparently gone so far as to deny the penal substitution of Christ as long ago as 2009 (see link here). Do go back and read Romans 3:23-26 again if you’re having any doubt about the meaning of Christ’s cross event.

If you’re following along the author’s sequence of logic, many of the aforementioned ideas stem from Young’s designer view of sin itself. In Lies, He does concede to the reality of “sin” and that the Grk word hamartia means “missing the mark” – but he then further explains it this way (below, from Lies p. 229):



Based on this, Young explains his version of what Jesus has done for us:

20170315_162613 (3)

In other words, separation is a mere delusion. If you think sin has separated you from God, you’re deluded. Your true being is like God, and you’ve never been relationally separated – even if you’re not a believer in Christ or you never will be. So, try to get this straight: Jesus, instead of dying to take the penalty of our sin because we were actually separated from God as the result of sin, merely helps us to break through our self-delusions, by witnessing someone who has knowledge of his TRUE self, so we can know our “TRUE selves,” which, as it turns out, looks just like God! (Got it? – Wait, did God really say this? What did God really say? See Gen. 3:1-5 for the earliest version of this plot line). For an actual example of what the Bible says our true selves looks like, let’s take a look at Romans 3:10-19:


10 As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”[a]
13 Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God (NKJV)


No wonder our sin separates us from God who “cannot look on wickedness” (Habakkuk 1:13).

No, don’t throw out those old Gospel tracts. No matter what popular “Christian” authors say, sin still separates people from God, and Jesus is still the Savior who paid the wages for sin on the cross, rose again, and offers the free gift of eternal life – to everyone who repents and believes on Him for salvation (Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:9-10; 10:13; Acts 16:31).

Gospel Tract

Gospel Tract 2


-E (coming next, as promised: Wm Paul Young and Monism)







Well, we crossed another “date” today.

It’s not Y2K, it’s not Harold (“happy”) Camping day… it’s Mayan (yours) calendar day.


Incredibly, my daughter had friends in college about two years ago saying (seriously) “why should we bother going to school if the world is going to end before we graduate?”


One would think, at some point, that especially as professing Christians we would… “get it.” One part of a very simple formula for living according to a Biblical worldview is… to live every day as if it could be our last. Every day. Not just Y2K day, Happy Camping Day, or Starry Calendar day – but every day.

In all likelihood, I’m more likely to die today in a car accident (or some typical occurence) than in a cosmic, cataclysmic disruption of the universe (although I am of the Biblical eschatological view that Christ could return at any time, although the Bible clearly states “of that day and hour no one knows” – Matt. 24:36 – so, once again, be ready… every day – Matt. 24:44)

Death is a part of life. I read a stat once that in the United States alone, roughly 5,500 people die every single day. This in no way diminishes the seriousness of the problem (or “enemy” I Cor. 15:24-26) we call “death” – or the travesty of events like the recent Connecticut shooting. We need to examine ourselves, talk to people about Christ, and minister to people in the name of Christ… but we need to do this… every day. I found a simple online article located right here you can read which addresses a pretty solid Christian perspective on all this.

Friday is supposed to be my “day off” – but here’s what my “day off” schedule looks like today:

I’m going to make numerous visits to homes of people – to either talk with them about where they are in their relationship with Christ, or to encourage them in their service for Christ (class teachers – particularly). I would have been doing this with or without the Mayan (yours) calendar scare.

I remember my first year of service as a pastor – receiving a book in the mail all the way from Korea about how the eschaton (end of all things as we know them) will take place on an upcoming day in October… in 1992. What I ended up doing up until that day in ’92 is essentially the same as what I’ve been doing up until today in ’12.

Are you prepared for eternity? (John 3:16). Are you bearing “fruit” for an eternal account? (John 15:7-8, Phil. 4:17).

Ask yourself these questions every day, and the “scare” day will be… just another day.

-Pastor Eric

By now many here in Iowa, as well as in other places, have seen billboards and heard about Harold Camping’s judgment day prediction. Among various other scripture passages which can be rightly noted about “not knowing the day and hour” of this occurrence, I’m reminded of Jesus’ post-resurrection words found in Acts 1:7 “And He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.’” Later in the same section of scripture following Jesus’ ascension the messengers of God spoke the timely words “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven?” (Acts 1:11a). As Bible-believing Christians, we affirm Jesus is coming again, but until then, we have a task at hand. This task is found in Jesus’ words sandwiched between the above verses where it says “you shall be witnesses to Me…” (Acts 1:8). Being prayerful word and deed witnesses of Christ is explicitly what we should be about the business of doing, and not getting caught up in things that are “not for us to know.” Since I began serving in churches (going back to the late 80’s) I’ve heard countless predictions like this. I remember full-page newspaper ads that read “88 Reasons Why Jesus Will return in 1988” and also a prediction from a church overseas that Christ would return in October of 1992. Apparently Mr. Camping even made his own previous prediction back in 1994.

There have been several famous Christians in church history who were asked what they would do if they knew Christ would return within the next twenty-four hours, and they responded by saying they’d do what they’d always done – being witnesses and servants of Jesus Christ. I think that’s a “sober” perspective to have. It’s not about being “ready” in May of 2011 – it’s about always being ready (Matthew 25:1-13; I Thessalonians 5:1-11; 2 Peter 3:10-13; I Cor. 15:58). For certain, be ready, but not “shaken in mind” (2 Thess. 2:1-2 NKJV). Warren Wiersbe comments on this passage by saying “The purpose of Bible prophecy is not for us to make a calendar, but to build character. Paul emphasized this fact in both of his Thessalonian letters, and our Lord warned us not to set dates for His coming (Matt. 24:36,42). Date-setters are usually upsetters, and that is exactly what happened in the Thessalonican assembly” (Warren Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, Victor books c.1989, p. 196).

For further reading, here is a link to a more detailed analysis of Camping’s predictions that I consider to be pretty solid.

Since so many in our town are receiving complimentary copies of “The Great Controversy… The Storm is Coming” I thought I’d reprint this below article from the respected Christian journalists at Christian Research Institute regarding a background of the prophetic utterances of Ellen (E.G.) White.


From Controversy to Crisis:

An Updated Assessment of Seventh-day Adventism


by Kenneth R. Samples

from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1988, Volume 11, Number 1, page 9. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

Since its inception in the mid-nineteenth century, Seventh-day Adventism (SDA) has remained extremely controversial among evangelical Christians (evangelicalism being defined as that movement in modern Protestant Christianity which emphasizes conformity to orthodox theology, evangelism, and, particularly, the new birth). There was, in fact, something of a consensus among evangelical scholars that SDA was little more than a non-Christian cult until the 1950s, when Donald Grey Barnhouse and Walter Martin began a comprehensive evaluation of Adventist theology. After thousands of hours of research and extensive meetings with Adventist officials, Barnhouse and Martin concluded that SDA was not an anti-Christian cult, but rather a somewhat heterodox (i.e., departing from accepted doctrine) Christian denomination.

Gradually, the climate of evangelical opinion began to change in favor of Barnhouse and Martin’s view, though there were always many dissenting opinions. As the 1960s dawned, SDA enjoyed an unprecedented openness with evangelical Protestantism. Ironically, this openness also raised some very difficult issues as certain key teachings of traditional SDA were challenged from within the denomination.

By the mid 1970s, two distinct factions had emerged within SDA. Traditional Adventism, which defended many pre-1950 Adventist positions, and Evangelical Adventism, which emphasized the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith. This controversy soon gave way to a full-blown internal crisis which severely fragmented the denomination. By the early 1980s, severe denominational discipline against certain evangelical Adventist leaders left many Adventists disillusioned.

These events have led a number of evangelicals to question whether SDA should retain the evangelical label. The purpose of this article is to address this question head-on as we review the controversial evangelical/SDA dialogues of the 1950s, as well as trace the doctrinal issues which have contributed to Adventism’s crisis of identity.


Included among those evangelicals in the 1950s who considered SDA a non-Christian cult were such capable scholars as Louis Talbot, M.R. DeHann, Anthony Hoekema, J.K. Van Baalen, John Gerstner, and Harold Lindsell.[1] Walter Martin, at that time the director of cult apologetics for Zondervan Publishing Company, had classified SDA as a cult in his book The Rise of the Cults. And Donald Grey Barnhouse, nationally-known Bible scholar and founder and editor of Eternity magazine, had written critically of SDA theology. Barnhouse, having encountered some fanatical SDAs earlier in his life, considered evangelicalism and Adventism to be mutually exclusive.

Ironically, Barnhouse’s first contact with Adventist leaders came when T. Edgar Unruh, SDA minister and administrator, wrote to Barnhouse commending him for several lectures he had delivered on the subject of justification by faith. Barnhouse was puzzled that an Adventist, who in his mind accepted works righteousness, would commend him for preaching the Reformation gospel. Though still very suspicious, Barnhouse suggested that the two men talk further in regard to Adventist doctrine.

Several years later, Barnhouse mentioned Unruh’s name to Walter Martin, whom he charged with the task of thoroughly researching SDA for Eternity. Martin approached Unruh about receiving representative materials of their theology and the opportunity to interview certain Adventist leaders. Unruh supplied Martin with the documentation he was looking for and arranged for him to visit the General Conference head-quarters, at that time located in Takoma Park, Maryland. The General Conference, which is the governing body for SDA, received Martin warmly and were very cooperative in supplying him with primary source materials. With the blessing of R.R. Figuhr, the General Conference president, Unruh arranged a formal conference between Martin and several Adventist leaders.

Martin had specifically asked to speak with Adventism’s leading historian and apologist, Leroy E. Froom. Froom, the author of such well-known books as Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers and Movement of Destiny, requested that two other Adventist leaders participate: W.E. Read, Field-Secretary for the General Conference, and Roy Allan Anderson, Secretary of the Ministerial Association of the General Conference and editor of Ministry magazine. These men were joined by T.E. Unruh, who acted as chairman. An associate of Walter Martin, George Cannon, professor of Greek at Nyack Missionary College, assisted Martin in his research at this historic conference. When the meetings later shifted to Pennsylvania, Barnhouse also became an active participant.

Questions and Answers

The format of the conference essentially involved the Adventist scholars answering questions which were being put to them by the evangelicals. Martin, in particular, submitted dozens of questions which had arisen from his study of SDA primary sources. One of the first major issues that the evangelicals brought up was the tremendous amount of Adventist literature which clearly contradicted other official SDA statements. For example, along with orthodox statements regarding the person, nature, and work of Christ, Adventist publications also contained other articles which espoused Arianism (the view that Christ was a created being), a sinful nature of Christ, incomplete atonement theory, Galatianism (salvation by law keeping), and extreme sectarianism. Martin stated that he could supply numerous quotations which were unequivocally heretical. The Adventist scholars were both shocked and appalled at some of the documentation presented.

Because of Adventism’s strong emphasis on progressive scriptural understanding, they have been reluctant to adopt any formal creed. Even their doctrinal statement known as the “27 Fundamental Beliefs” allows for change and revision. Historically, this lack of a formal creed and emphasis on progressive biblical understanding has given place to a wide spectrum of doctrinal interpretation among Adventists. In the 1950s, as today, this tolerance of divergent and sometimes heretical views has hurt the unity and doctrinal soundness of their denomination. This was a critical issue for the evangelicals, who could not hope to accurately represent the position of Adventism to the evangelical world if the Adventists themselves lacked consensus as to those positions.

At the 1955-56 conference, Martin accused the Adventists of, at worst, speaking out of both sides of their mouths, or, at best, not properly policing their ranks. The evangelicals asserted that if the General Conference allowed heresies such as Arianism and Galatianism to continue in their ranks they would be deserving of the title “cult.” To their credit, all of the Adventist scholars present repudiated the positions mentioned above, and promised that aberrational teaching which was at variance with expressed SDA doctrine would be investigated by the General Conference. They also asserted that most, if not all, of these doctrines were not representative of SDA theology, but expressed the opinions of a few who belonged to what Froom referred to as “the lunatic fringe.”

Essential Orthodoxy?

As the conference progressed, the evangelicals became more and more impressed with both the sincerity and the general orthodoxy of the Adventist leaders. It now appeared that the structure of SDA theology was essentially orthodox. Adventism affirmed the inspiration of Scripture, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and Christ’s deity, virgin birth, vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection, and second advent.[2] Martin, who had written extensively on the subject of American-based cults, immediately recognized that this was not the doctrinal statement of a typical cult. He began to believe that SDA, at least as these men represented it, had been very misunderstood by evangelical Christianity.

Though Martin was impressed with their commitment to the essentials of the faith, there were still a number of distinctive Adventist doctrines which long had stood in the way of accepting them as Christian brethren. Most of the evangelical scholars who had written negatively regarding SDA centered their criticisms on these few distinctives, which they believed undermined whatever orthodoxy Adventism might have. Martin, who was determined to understand SDA accurately, requested a thorough explanation of these peculiar beliefs.

Heterodoxy or Heresy?

Because these controversial doctrines convey the uniqueness of Adventist theology, and because reaching an understanding concerning them was important to the Barnhouse/Martin evaluation, a brief discussion of them is necessary. Unfortunately, space limitations preclude an in-depth treatment, so we will discuss three of the distinctives which have been a major source of misunderstanding.[3] The Evangelical/SDA Conference revealed that Adventist theology differed from mainstream Christianity on the following three issues: the Sabbath, the authority of the sect’s leading figure, Ellen G. White, and the “investigative judgment” doctrine.

Sabbatarianism. SDA teaches that the keeping of the Seventh-day Sabbath, as a perpetual memorial to creation, is obligatory for all Christians as a mark of “true obedience” to the Lord. Unlike some extreme Adventists, however, the Adventist scholars at the conference asserted that the keeping of the Sabbath did not procure salvation, and that non-Adventist Christians who observed Sunday in good conscience were not excluded from the body of Christ.

Though Sabbath-keeping has never been the official position of historic Christianity, the evangelicals concluded that to keep, or not keep, a Sabbath was permissible within the context of Romans 14:5-6. Other Christian denominations, such as the Seventh-Day Baptists, had taken this position as well. The evangelicals vigorously disagreed with the Adventists’ conclusion regarding the Sabbath, but they did not see this as an issue which should divide them.

Ellen G. White and the Spirit of Prophecy. The development and very existence of Adventism is literally incomprehensible apart from Ellen White and her voluminous writings. No Christian leader or theologian has exerted as great an influence on a particular denomination as Ellen White has on Adventism. During her lifetime, Mrs. White is credited with writing over 46 books totalling some 25 million words, which touched virtually every area of Adventist belief and practice.

SDA believes that the gift of prophecy mentioned in I Corinthians chapters 12 and 14 was uniquely manifested in the life and writings of Ellen White. Her alleged visions and words from the Lord were interpreted as being an identifying and qualifying characteristic of God’s remnant church. The writings of Ellen White have often been described, as she herself put it, as “a lesser light” pointing to “the greater light” of Scripture.[4]

Because SDA considered the writings of Ellen White as “inspired counsel from the Lord,” the evangelicals were concerned about what relationship her writings had to the Bible. The question put to the Adventist scholars was: “Do Seventh-day Adventists regard the writings of Ellen G. White as on an equal plane with the writings of the Bible?”[5] The Adventist leaders gave the following reply:

    1) That we do not regard the writings of Ellen G. White as an addition to the sacred canon of Scripture.2) That we do not think of them as of universal application, as is the Bible, but particularly for the Seventh-day Adventist church.3) That we do not regard them in the same sense as the Holy Scriptures, which stand alone and unique as the standard by which all other writings must be judged.[6]

While the evangelicals openly rejected the Adventists’ view of Ellen White’s writings, they concluded that as long as her writings were not viewed as 1) being on a par with Scripture, 2) infallible, or 3) a test of Christian fellowship, this issue need not be divisive.

The Sanctuary Doctrine/Investigative Judgment. Perhaps the most distinctive of all Adventist beliefs is their doctrine of the sanctuary. This doctrine came about as an explanation for the failure of the Millerite movement in 1844. Baptist minister William Miller (1782-1849), using the day-year interpretation of Daniel 8:14, predicted that Jesus Christ would literally return to earth 2300 years after the beginning of Daniel’s 70 weeks (Dan. 9:24-27), which he interpreted as being the time span of 457 B.C.-1843 A.D. When 1843 passed without seeing the Lord’s return, the Millerite movement made a minor adjustment and declared that October 22, 1844, would be the date of Christ’s second advent. When this prediction also failed the Millerite movement suffered what is known historically as the “Great Disappointment.” For many this spelled an end to the Advent movement, but for a few it had just begun.

In the wake of the Great Disappointment, another individual, Hiram Edson, reexamined the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 after allegedly receiving an illuminating vision about this matter in a corn field. Edson, with help from O.R.L. Crosier, concluded that Miller’s error rested in the nature of the event, rather than the calculation of time. Miller had interpreted the “cleansing of the sanctuary” (as referred to in Dan. 8:14) as a prophecy that Jesus Christ would return to the earthly “sanctuary”, that is, to the earth itself. Edson, in light of his vision, came to believe that Christ, rather than returning to earth in 1844, actually entered for the first time into the second compartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Edson believed that there existed a heavenly sanctuary which had been the pattern for the Old Testament earthly sanctuary, complete with the dual compartments known as the holy place and the most holy place. 1844, according to Edson, marked the beginning of the second phase of Christ’s atoning work.

The work which Jesus was to perform in the most holy place was later developed into the doctrine of the investigative judgment. Early Adventists understood Jesus’ atoning work to be accomplished in two phases. This two-phase ministry of Christ could best be understood as an antitype of the work of the Old Testament priests.

Under the old covenant, they argued, the daily priestly duties were confined to offering sacrifices within the holy place (forgiving sin), but once a year on the day of atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place and cleansed the sanctuary by sprinkling the blood of a slain goat on the mercy seat (blotting out sin). After the cleansing of the sanctuary, the sins of the people were on the scapegoat who was banished into the wilderness.

According to Adventism, Jesus had been forgiving sin since His vicarious death on the cross; however, on October 22, 1844, Jesus began His work of blotting out sin. From His ascension until 1844, Jesus had been applying the forgiveness He purchased on the cross in the first compartment of the sanctuary, but in 1844, He entered the second compartment and began to investigate the lives of those who had received forgiveness to see if they were worthy of eternal life. Only those who passed this judgment could be assured of being translated at His coming. This doctrine gave rise to what later became known as the sinless perfection teaching (perfect commandment-keeping in order to find acceptance in the judgment). Following the investigative judgment, Christ would come out of the heavenly sanctuary and return to earth bringing to every man his reward, and ushering in the great and terrible day of the Lord. It is 1844, and the events described above, which mark the beginning of SDA. Upon hearing of this peculiar doctrine, Barnhouse described the sanctuary doctrine as nothing more than a face-saving device that was created to bail them out of the Millerite error. The evangelicals repudiated these two doctrines as having no biblical support. The question remained for the evangelicals however, whether these two doctrines stood in the way of genuine fellowship. The primary concern was whether these doctrines minimized Christ’s atoning work, or reduced it to an incomplete atonement. After a critical evaluation, the evangelicals concluded that this doctrine of the investigative judgment “constitutes no real barrier to fellowship when it is understood in its symbolic meaning and not in the materialistic, and extreme literalistic sense in which some of the early Adventist writers set it forth.”[7] They stressed that in contemporary SDA thinking the doctrine did not imply a dual or partially-completed atonement, but rather that the once-for-all atonement is being applied by Christ as our High Priest in heaven.

As far as the evangelicals were concerned, the three doctrines of Sabbatarianism, Ellen White’s authority, and sanctuary/investigative judgment, though erroneous, if properly interpreted would not prevent fellowship between the two camps.

Other distinctive Adventist doctrines such as conditional immortality, annihilation of the wicked, health reform, and the remnant church concept were discussed and evaluated by the evangelicals. Their conclusion was that though these doctrines were out of the evangelical mainstream, and in some cases without any clear biblical support, the explanation given by these Adventist scholars would not prevent them from being genuine followers of Jesus.

After evaluating thousands of pages of documentation, and participating in extensive question and answer sessions with several of Adventism’s most competent scholars, Walter Martin, speaking for the evangelicals, concluded that SDA “is essentially a Christian denomination, but that in the overall perspective its theology must be viewed as more heterodox than orthodox, and that its practices in not a few instances might rightly be termed divisive.”[8]

Aftermath of the Conference

The decision to reclassify SDA as a heterodox denomination, rather than a non-Christian cult, was very controversial. Barnhouse and Martin received considerable criticism within evangelical circles. In fact, after they revealed their findings in several editions of Eternity magazine, 25 percent of the magazine’s subscribers withdrew their subscriptions!

This climate of opinion began to change, however, with the release of the Adventist publication Questions on Doctrine (hereafter QOD).[9] This volume was produced directly from the question and answer sessions with the evangelicals, with both sides contributing to the precise wording of the questions. The expressed purpose of this book was to clarify Adventist doctrine by showing the areas of common belief and distinct differences with evangelicalism. The Adventist scholars who put QOD together emphasized the fact that this book was not a new statement of faith, but rather an explanation of the major aspects of SDA belief.

To insure that this volume was truly representative of SDA theology, and not the opinion of a select few, the unpublished manuscript was sent out to 250 Adventist leaders for review. Upon receiving only minor criticisms, the 720-page manuscript was accepted by a General Conference committee and published by Review and Herald Publishing Association in 1957. While this volume in recent years has become a source of controversy in Adventism, it is interesting to note that R.R. Figuhr later stated that he considered QOD to be the most meaningful accomplishment of his presidency.[10]

Several years later, in 1960, Martin’s book The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism was also published and received wide acceptance. Many who had initially criticized the Barnhouse/Martin evaluation began to take a new look at SDA because of the extensive documentation revealed in Martin’s book. (Though this book has long been out of print, Martin’s evaluation of SDA has remained available through his later book The Kingdom of the Cults.) Adventist leaders also stated publicly that Martin’s book accurately represented Adventist theology. One present-day Adventist scholar made this statement: “Martin’s book is the work of an honest investigator and a competent theologian. He understood and reported accurately what Adventists told him they believed, and he cited their proofs exhaustively.”[11] Thus, according to the leadership of SDA, both QOD and The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism accurately represented their theology in the late 1950s, though, as we shall see, acceptance of that theology in SDA was far from universal.

Much has changed, however, since QOD, and so we now turn our attention to those events which have shaped Adventism’s present-day crisis.


The 1960s and 1970s were a time of great turmoil and doctrinal debate within SDA, with the common denominator being the question of Adventism’s uniqueness.[12] Would Adventism continue in the same direction established under the Figuhr administration in QOD, or would the denomination return to a more traditional understanding of the faith? The debate over this question would give rise to two distinct factions within SDA: Evangelical Adventism and Traditional Adventism.[13] We will now look at these two groups and compare their views on those doctrines which divided them. Those doctrines consisted of righteousness by faith, the human nature of Christ, the events of 1844, assurance of salvation, and the authority of Ellen White.

Evangelical Adventism

The roots of Evangelical Adventism can certainly be traced to the Adventist scholars who dialogued with Barnhouse and Martin. When QOD repudiated such commonly held traditional doctrines as the sinful nature of Christ, literalistic extremes of the heavenly sanctuary, and the writings of Ellen White as an infallible doctrinal authority, they laid a critical foundation for those who would later carry the torch for this reform movement. Former editor of Evangelica, Alan Crandall, comments: “The seeds of this movement were sown within the denomination via the book QOD in 1957, and the seed-plot was watered by the public ministries of such men as R.A. Anderson, H.M.S. Richards, Sr., Edward Heppenstall, Robert Brinsmead, Desmond Ford, Smuts van Rooyen, and others.”[14]

This movement continued to grow and evolve throughout the 1970s, with the main spokesmen being two Australian SDA scholars named Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford (Brinsmead had earlier held to a form of perfectionism, but later repudiated it). Brinsmead and Ford, by means of their writing and lecturing, were the major catalysts of a revival of the doctrine of justification by faith which was receiving a wide hearing, particularly in the Australasian Division of the Adventist church. The movement was supported mainly by young Adventist pastors, seminarians, and laymen. There were also a good number of American Adventist scholars who were sympathetic to the Brinsmead/Ford position.

The major doctrinal issues which united this group were:

    1) Righteousness by faith: This group accepted the reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith includes justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ’s own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ’s human nature was like that of Adam’s before the Fall. Though Christ certainly suffered the limitations of a real man, by nature He was impeccable (i.e., incapable of sin). Jesus was primarily our substitute.3) The events of 1844: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ’s imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven. Trusting Christ gives a person assurance.

    5) Authority of Ellen G. White: Ellen White was a genuine Christian who possessed a gift of prophecy. However, neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a doctrinal authority.

Traditional Adventism

While QOD is considered to be the origin of Evangelical Adventism, it also fueled the fire for those who supported Traditional Adventism. Following its publication, M.L. Andreasen, a respected Adventist scholar, severely criticized QOD, stating that in his opinion it had sold Adventism down the river to the evangelicals.[15] Several years later, under Robert Pierson’s administration, two prominent scholars, Kenneth Wood and Herbert Douglass, declared that the publishing of QOD had been a major mistake.[16]

The crux of Traditional Adventism would certainly appear to rest squarely upon the authority of Ellen G. White. This group would strongly defend those doctrines which were distinctive Adventist beliefs, especially those which received their stamp of approval from Ellen White’s prophetic gift (e.g., sanctuary doctrine, investigative judgment). Support for this group came mainly from the older clergy and laymen, and most importantly, they seemed to have gained the favor of the majority of Adventist administrators. Then, as now, the leaders who ran the denomination are not well informed theologically, but they were responsive to the very vocal Traditionalist segment.

The following positions were taken by Traditional Adventism in response to the doctrinal debates:

    1) Righteousness by faith: Righteousness by faith included both justification and sanctification. Our standing before God rests both in the imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ (God’s work for me and in me). Justification is for sins committed in the past only.2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a human nature that not only was weakened by sin, but had propensities toward sin itself. His nature was like that of Adam after the Fall. Because of His success in overcoming sin, Jesus is primarily our example.3) The events of 1844: Jesus entered into the second compartment of the heavenly sanctuary for the first time on October 22, 1844, and began an investigative judgment. This judgment is the fulfillment of the second phase of Christ’s atoning work. 4)Assurance of salvation: Our standing before God rests in both the imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ; assurance of salvation before the judgment is presumptuous. As Jesus, our example, showed us, perfect commandment keeping is possible.5) The authority of Ellen G. White: The spirit of prophecy was manifest in the ministry of Ellen White as a sign of the remnant church. Her writings are inspired counsel from the Lord and authoritative in doctrinal matters.

It should be noted that volumes have been written on each of these doctrines, on both sides. The brief description given above is only meant to provide an accurate synopsis of the two groups’ views. It is important to realize that during the 1970s, as today, not every Adventist would fit neatly into one of these two groups. Neither of these groups were totally unified in their doctrinal beliefs. For example, not everyone in the Traditional camp held to the sinful nature of Christ doctrine, though the majority certainly did. Among Evangelical Adventists, there were differing opinions regarding the understanding of a pre-advent judgment. As well, there were Adventists who did not feel a need to identify with one side or the other.

It should also be mentioned that, though small, there was and is a segment in Adventism which could be described as being theologically liberal.


As the above doctrinal comparison showed, the differences between these two factions were indeed significant. The differences could essentially be reduced to: 1) the question of authority (sola scriptura vs. Scripture plus Ellen White), and 2) the question of salvation (imputed righteousness vs. imparted righteousness). Adventism, in fact, was debating the same basic issues that provoked the Reformation of the sixteenth century.

As the 1970s came to a close, this doctrinal controversy gave way to a real crisis within SDA. First, two books were released which challenged traditional Adventist positions on justification by faith and the events of 1844. The Shaking of Adventism, written by an Anglican scholar, Geoffrey Paxton, traced the struggle in SDA over the doctrine of justification by faith. He asserted that if Adventists were, as they claimed, the special heirs of the Reformation, then they must accept the Reformational understanding of righteousness by faith. Arriving at a proper understanding of this critical doctrine had plagued Adventism throughout its history. The second book, Robert Brinsmead’s 1844 Reexamined, repudiated the traditional Adventist understanding of 1844 and the investigative judgment. These two books focused on two of the critical issues of Adventism’s crisis of identity.

Shaking the Foundations

Undoubtedly, the most explosive issue that arose during this period was the disclosure of Ellen White’s tremendous literary dependence. Adventist scholars such as Harold Weiss, Roy Branson, William Peterson, and Ronald Numbers all revealed historical research that showed that Ellen White had borrowed material from other nineteenth-century authors. The most controversial disclosure, however, came from an Adventist pastor named Walter Rea. Rea charged that as much as 80 to 90 percent of White’s writings had been plagiarized. Because of the tremendous influence White’s writings have had on the denomination, and because Adventists had been taught that her writings were taken directly from her visions (a view promoted by the denomination), this disclosure shook the very foundation of SDA.

Initially, the White Estate denied this evidence, but later admitted that sources were used in her writings. Review and Herald, the denomination’s official organ, argued in White’s defense that her literary borrowing was much less than Rea had alleged, and that her use of literary sources did not invalidate the inspiration of her writings. After all, they reasoned, some biblical writers used sources. Rea, who later thoroughly documented his charge in the book The White Lie (M. & R. Publications), was fired by the denomination.

The question of Ellen White’s inspiration and authority has been a source of controversy throughout Adventism’s history, but the plagiarism charge had brought about doubt as to her integrity and veracity. Some even charged that the White Estate had known about this problem for some time and attempted to cover it up. This issue was also important in regard to the question of Adventism’s unique identity. Because many of the doctrinal distinctives had received confirmation through her prophetic gift, to question her was to question the uniqueness of SDA itself.

Challenging the Heart of Adventism

Two of the doctrines that had received confirmation through the prophetic gift were the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (i.e., the events of 1844). These two distinctives were at the center of a controversy that would ultimately lead to a sharp division within the Adventist ranks. Desmond Ford, for 16 years the chairman of the theology department at Avondale College in New South Wales, Australia, challenged the biblical validity of the traditional understanding of these doctrines. He argued that the literalistic and perfectionistic understanding of these doctrines promoted by traditional Adventism had no biblical warrant, and were accepted primarily because of Mrs. White’s vision, which confirmed them. Ford stated that though the writings of Ellen White were essential to SDA development, they should be understood as pastoral in nature and not canonical. Though he argued that 1844 had no biblical significance, he did believe that God had indeed raised the SDA denomination up to emphasize, along with righteousness by faith, such doctrines as sabbatarianism, creationism, conditional immortality, and premillennialism.

Because of the controversy over Ford’s doctrinal beliefs, Adventist leaders agreed to give him a six month leave of his duties in order for him to prepare to defend his views. A committee would later meet and evaluate his views in light of SDA doctrine. Ford, a careful and prolific scholar, prepared a 990-page manuscript entitled Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. In August of 1980, 126 Adventist leaders met at Glacier View Ranch, Colorado, to discuss these provocative issues. After a week of meetings, the leaders declared that Ford’s views were at variance with expressed SDA doctrine. Because Ford would not recant his convictions, the denomination removed his ministerial credentials.

The firing of Desmond Ford, who some consider the father of evangelical Adventism, angered many and led to a mass evangelical exodus from the denomination in favor of independent Adventist and mainline evangelical churches. As well, as many as a hundred evangelical Adventist leaders and Bible teachers were later fired or forced to resign because they supported Ford’s theology.

Needless to say, the 1980s have been a time of crisis for SDA. And though it would appear that the most traumatic period is over, the scars of this struggle still remain. While the decisions of the General Conference seem to convey their support of Traditional Adventism, the denomination has denied that it actively sought to eliminate all evangelical influences. Many former Adventist pastors and Bible teachers would vigorously contest this statement. It would appear that there are still large numbers of Adventists who are of evangelical persuasion, but certainly not as vocal after Glacier View.


Because of the controversy that has raged within SDA over the past few decades, many who are aware of the Barnhouse/Martin evaluation in the 1950s have asked if this position should be revised or significantly changed. Because of the action taken against Desmond Ford, Walter Rea, and many others, some have asked if present-day SDA should be regarded as a non-Christian cult.

It is our position that the evaluation given by Barnhouse and Martin still stands for that segment of Adventism which holds to the position stated in QOD, and further expressed in the Evangelical Adventist movement of the last few decades. Though some within this group hold to doctrines which are not part of the evangelical mainstream, they do affirm the foundational doctrines of historic Christianity, particularly the Pauline or Reformation understanding of justification by grace through faith alone (Rom. 3-4). To this group, however many still remain, we extend a hand of fellowship and encouragement. We applaud their courage in standing firm for the gospel.

Traditional Adventism, on the other hand, which seems to have gained the support of many administrators and leaders (at least at Glacier View), appears to be moving further away from a number of positions taken in QOD. While Adventist officials have stated that the denomination stands by QOD, some of these same leaders have disfellowshiped scores of Adventists for affirming portions of QOD. Instead of upholding QOD, some leaders within the denomination have referred to it as “damnable heresy.”[17]

As ironic as it may seem for a group that vociferously condemns Catholicism and claims to be the special heirs of the Reformation, the traditional Adventist position on righteousness by faith is more like that of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent than that of the Reformers.[18] Because this doctrine is so crucial to a proper understanding of law and gospel, their aberrant view of equating justification with sanctification leads to several other unbiblical concepts (lack of assurance, perfectionism, etc.). It is no wonder that Luther thought everything hinged on the proper understanding of this doctrine.

Besides their compromising stance on justification, Traditional Adventism seems bent on making Ellen G. White the infallible interpreter of Scripture. Though this has never been the official position of the church, in a practical way many leaders within Adventism have asserted this. Lyndon K. McDowell makes this insightful comment: “In practice, if not in theory, the writings of E.G. White have been elevated to an almost verbally-inspired touchstone of interpretation which has resulted in an essentially biblically illiterate membership.”[19] Unfortunately, many Adventists see the writings of Ellen White as an infallible shortcut to scriptural understanding. Adventists must understand that if they elevate Ellen White to the position of infallible interpreter, then the dramatic irony of the ages has come true — SDA has a Pope.

Is Traditional Adventism Cultic?

With respect to the charge that Traditional Adventism is a non-Christian cult, it must be emphasized that the structure of Adventism is largely orthodox (accepting the Trinity, Christ’s deity, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, etc.). Presently, however, it would appear that Traditional Adventism is at least aberrant, confusing or compromising biblical truth (e.g., their view of justification,the nature of Christ, appealing to an unbiblical authority). It must also be stated that if the traditional camp continues in its departure from QOD, and in promoting Ellen White as the church’s infallible interpreter, then they could one day be fully deserving of the title “cult”, as some Adventists recognize.

In the late 1970s, SDA was at the crossroads between becoming quite evangelical, or returning to the traditionalism of the past. The crisis of the 1980s makes it plain that many in Adventist leadership are attentive to the vocal traditionalist segment, and, unfortunately, have headed Adventism in the wrong direction. If those in Adventist leadership who love the Reformation gospel (and there are still many) do not speak up and stand for their convictions, Adventism has little hope, because Traditional Adventism is theologically bankrupt. Its perverted gospel robs Adventist Christians of assurance and puts them on a treadmill of trying to measure up to God’s holy law in order to be saved.

Our criticism of Adventism should not be interpreted as an attack from an enemy, but rather concerned words from a friend, who earnestly prays that the present leaders of SDA will honor Scripture and the gospel of grace above their own denominational distinctives.


1 See, for example, Anthony Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963).
2 Questions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1957), 21-22.
3 For a complete analysis of Adventist distinctives see Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, rev. ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1985).
4 Questions on Doctrine, 96.
5 Ibid., 89.
6 Ibid.
7 Walter Martin, “Adventist Theology Vs. Historic Orthodoxy,” Eternity, Jan. 1957, 13
8 Walter Martin, “Seventh-day Adventism,” Christianity Today, 19 Dec. 1960, 14.
9 The exact title is Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, but it is better known as Questions on Doctrine.
10 “Currents Interview: Walter Martin,” Adventist Currents, July 1983, 15.
11 Gary Land (ed.), Adventism In America (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1986), 187.
12 See Land, 215.
13 Desmond and Gillian Ford, The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity. (Newcastle, CA: Desmond Ford Publications, 1982), 20-28.
14 Alan Crandall, “Whither Evangelical Adventism,” Evangelica, May 1982, 23.
15 Ford, 20.
16 Ibid.
17 Geoffrey Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), 153.
18 See Paxton, 46-49
19 Lyndon K. McDowell (Adventist scholar), cited in “Quotable Quotes from Adventist Scholars,” Evangelica, Nov. 1981, 37.


End of document, CRJ0005B.TXT (original CRI file name), “From Controversy To Crisis: An Update Assessment of Seventh-day Adventism” release B, September 6, 1993
R. Poll, CRI

A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.

Copyright 1993 by the Christian Research Institute.COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as “freeware,” without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., “Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute”). This data file may not be used without the permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than 500 words.If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale, please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000.