Name: Honey Joy I.

Gerangue

A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-Day Adventist Beliefs

framework for understanding the historical development of Seventh-day Adventist theology is to see it as a

search for identity moving through four basic stages. But before that let us discover the theological roots of

Adventism and prove that Adventism wasn’t born in a vacuum.

The Theological Roots of Adventism

Adventism’s concept of salvation by grace through faith came through the mainline Reformers, the

theological orientation of Adventism really finds itself most at home with what church historians call the

Radical Reformation or the Anabaptists. The mainline Reformation retained their belief as infant baptism and

state support of the church, while the Anabaptist rejected both doctrines as being unbiblical. Reformers

developed the concept Sola Scriptura ( the Scriptures only), the Anabaptists at its best move away from church

tradition and creedal formulations and a shift towards the ideals of the New Testament Church. The Spirit of the

Restorationist movement set the stage for a great deal of the theological agenda for the majority of American

Protestants in the early nineteenth century. One branch of the Restorationist movement that had a special

importance to Seventh-day Adventist: the Christian Connexion were James White and Joseph Bates were

members. It made an extremely large impact on both Millerite Adventism and later Sabbatarian Adventism.

A third orientation that formed significant part of early Adventism theological context was Methodism.

The Methodist or Wesleyan movement has special importance to Seventh-day Adventist because its founder

Ellen G. White, grew up in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Methodism popularized such ideas as Christ dying

for all people rather than for just a predestined elect; that people had free will rather than predestined will; that

God’s Spirit worked with every person through prevenient grace (the grace that precedes saving grace) to wake

them up to a sense of their need to turn to Christ; that people could accept salvation through a faith response to

God’s Holy Spirit that one could resist grace through apostasy. Methodist understanding made a sense in a

world in which people’s actions and choices seemed to make a difference and where revivalism helped people

to give their hearts and selves to Christ.

A fourth influence was Deism a sceptical beliefs that rejects Christianity with its miracles and beliefs in

a supernatural Bible. Deism utilized human reason rather than the Bible for its ultimate authority. It is important

in understanding the Adventist theological heritage because William Miller was a Deist. He and his generation

lived in a world highly appreciative of rational approaches to everything including religion. Miller would

eventually utilize this logical approach in his study of the Bible. Thus after his conversion to Christianity he

could refer to his experience with Scripture as a “feast of reason”. Following that lead, Miller’s evangelistic

method definitely aimed at his hearer’s heads rather than at their hearts or emotions.
 A fifth element that formed a portion of the theological backdrop of early Adventism was the Puritan

influence that played so large a part in shaping the thought world of nineteenth century Americans. Puritans not

only placed a heavy emphasis on the authority of the Bible and a Christian’s obligation to the law, but they

specifically stressed the importance of strict Sabbath observance. The Christian Sabbath was not merely a day

of worship but also had covenantal overtones that implified a whole way of life as well as faithfulness to God.

What is Adventist in Adventism? (1844-1885)

The search for identity was violently and abruptly thrust upon all Millerite Adventists on October 23,

1844. Up to that time they had known who they were, and they had had little doubt about their place in God's

cosmic plan. But the October disappointment left the bewildered Adventists in a chaotic condition. Millerism in

late 1844 and for most of 1845 needs to be seen as a seething and chaotic mass of confusion. It would take years

for the theological confusion to clear up, and various Adventist groups would eventually come to different

conclusions on the meaning of their experience.

Some eventually concluded that they had been right in the event predicted in Daniel 8:14 but wrong on

the time. For this group the cleansing of the sanctuary still pointed to the second coming of Christ and the

cleansing of the earth by fire. But October 22, 1844, was not the date. Christ's coming was yet future. This

group evolved into the Advent Christian denomination and several related bodies.

Others held that both the event and the time had been correct. Christ had indeed returned on October 22,

but the coming had been spiritual rather than literal. Fanaticism easily arose in the ranks of these spiritualizers,

as they were called.

Yet a third group of disappointed Millerites held that they had been correct on the time, but wrong on

the event. That is, something had taken place on October 22, 1844, but it was not the second coming of Christ.

Rather, after a thorough study of Scripture using Miller's concordance approach, they concluded that the

sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 was God's heavenly temple rather than the earth. Thus, Christ had entered a new phase

of ministry on October 22, 1844. This interpretation formed the initial in sight that led to Seventh-day

Adventism.

After the Great Disappointment, each of those Adventist groups had to redefine its identity. This period

in the development of Seventh-day Adventism might best be thought of as a time when the denomination's

founders sought to determine what was distinctively Adventist in Adventism.

By 1848 or 1849 our Sabbatarian forebears had concluded that Adventism's distinctives centered on

their message of the heavenly sanctuary, the seventh-day Sabbath and the law of God, the premillennial and

visible second ad vent of Christ, the conditional nature of human immortality, and the revival of the gift of

prophecy as evidenced in the ministry of Ellen G. White. These theo logical items were packaged in the endtime

framework of the three angels' messages of Revelation 14.

Adventist in Adventism. For the next 40 years they boldly preached their distinctive theology to the world

around them. Feeling little need to emphasize such items as faith, grace, or other beliefs shared with the larger

Christian world of the day, they emphasized their distinctive be liefs especially the law of God and the seventh-

day Sabbath. Unfortunately, 40 years of emphasizing what is Adventist in Adventism led them into a

disjunction with basic Christianity. That problem would come into bold relief between 1886 and 1888.

What is Christian Adventism? (1886-1919)

The magnitude of the theological groundshift taking place among Adventists in the late 1880s and the

1890s is no secret to anyone with the slightest interest in the development of Adventist theology. Suddenly the

denomination was faced with a new theological emphasis, a new vocabulary, and a new question as to religious

identity.

It had all started simply enough. Two relatively young editors from California A. T. Jones and E. J.

Waggoner had challenged the traditional Adventist interpretation of the 10 horns of Daniel 7 and the nature of

the law in the book of Galatians. But G. I. Butler and Uriah Smith, the official leaders of the denomination,

interpreted their challenge as an attack on the integrity of historic Adventism. As a result, they became

aggressive with Jones and Waggoner and did everything in their power to keep the younger men from getting a

hearing in the denomination..

The confrontation between the two sides came to a head at the Minneapolis session of the General

Conference in the autumn of 1888. That meeting witnessed a meanness of spirit on the part of those defending

historic Adventism that led Ellen White to declare that they were seeking to win the battle by using the spirit of

the Pharisees. Shedeplored such tactics. To her the 1888 session was the "most incomprehensible tug-of-war we

have ever had among our people." Again, she looked back at the session as "one of the saddest chapters in the

history of the believers in present truth."

Both the spirit and the theology of the denomination's leading ministers, she soon concluded, lacked a

crucial element Christ and Christlikeness. As a result, she recalled: "My burden during the meeting was to

present Jesus and His love before my brethren, for I saw marked evidences that many had not the spirit of

Christ." And on October 24 she told the delegates: "We want the truth as it is in Jesus.... I have seen that

precious souls who would have embraced the truth have been turned away from it because of the manner in

which the truth has been handled, because Jesus was not in it. And this is what I have been pleading with you

for all the time we want Jesus.... All the object I had was that the light should be gathered up, and the Saviour

come in."

Coupled with Jones and Waggoner, Ellen White uplifted basic Christian themes at Minneapolis and in

subsequent years. They especially uplifted Jesus and righteousness by faith in Him. That new emphasis was

reflected in Ellen White's writings by a new direction in her literary effort. The first book length contribution to
her new emphasis came in 1892 as Steps to Christ a volume she refused to put out to denominational publishing

houses because she did not trust those in charge to present her gospel message to the people in its unadulterated

form. Rather, Steps to Christ was published by Fleming H. Revell, Moody's brother-in-law. Of course, she also

hoped to reach a broader audience by publishing with Revell.

Steps to Christ would be followed by Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing in 1896 (also published by

Revell), The Desire of Ages in 1898, Christ's Object Lessons in 1900, and the opening chapters of The Ministry

of Healing in 1905. The new emphasis was also reflected in the vocabularies of Waggoner, Jones, and W. W.

Prescott as they preached Christ and His saving grace to the denomination's clergy and members. Whereas these

younger men emphasized words like "Christ," "faith," "justification by faith," and terms related to Christ's

righteousness, the denomination's older theologians put the emphasis on such words as "works," "obedience,"

"law," "commandments," "our righteousness," and "justification by works." The 1888 meetings set the stage for

a major theological shift in Adventism. Between 1888 and 1900 the denomination would arrive at a better

understanding of salvation in Christ, the Trinity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and a fuller understanding

of the divine nature of Christ that would begin to displace Adventism's semi-Arianism. In addition, certain of its

theologians initiated inter pretations regarding the human nature of Christ being exactly like the nature of the

fallen Adam that would set the stage for conflict in the 1990s, and the church would be treated to forceful

attempts by Ellen White to make the Bible rather than her own writings the determinant of Adventist theology.

The new theological emphasis raised at Minneapolis had caused an earthquake in Adventism. In essence

the earthquake had been brought about by a new question. The tectonic plate of the old ques tion "What is

Adventist in Adventism?" had run smack-dab into the tectonic plate of the new question "What is Christian in

Adventism?"

Unfortunately, most of those who had spent their lives preaching the answer to the first question saw the

second as a threat to the first rather than as an enrichment. Thus the 1890s saw war in the Adventist theological

camp at the very time when necessary enrichment was what was being advocated. After all, Seventh-day

Adventism at its best is both Christian and Adventist in its identity. That insight, however, was not obvious to

the denomination's theological gladiators in the late 1890s and has yet to dawn upon many of their heirs in

1994. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of 1888 and the post-Minneapolis period is that the denomination's

theologians had become polarized and no longer served as healthy checks and balances on each other's

viewpoints. The Adventist brethren on the different sides of the theological fence had failed to learn one of

the great lessons of the 1888 General Conference session that they needed each other if they were to maintain

theological balance. The condition of things among Adventist theologians in 1892 led Ellen White to write in

that year that Satan "has a hellish jubilee" "when he can divide brethren." She and others in the 1890s would

repeatedly point out that many of the serious problems in Adventism could have been avoided had the two sides
learned to learn from each other. Having achieved that, they could have pulled together toward Adventism's

theological and experiential center.

Unfortunately, between 1888 and 1900 Adventism kind of rocked along without bringing full unity to its

theology. In other words, the marriage between what was Adventist in Adventism and what was Christian in

Adventism was never successfully consummated. Theological polarity was a better descriptor of the Adventist

theological world in the early 1890s than was that of unity or mutual respect. The identity crisis continued, even

though it seems to have been masked by a pragmatic harmony and excitement in the area of the unprecedented

spread of " Adventist missions.

But even that outward harmony would be shattered soon after the turn of the century as the

denomination faced multiple theological crises in the forms of the holy flesh movement, pantheism, and A. F.

Ballenger's teachings on the sanctuary doctrine. The polarity among Adventism's theologians during the 1890s

left the denomination theologically off center and ill-prepared to meet the challenges of the new century. Thus

the early years of the 1900s witnessed Adventism in the tur moil of a major identity crisis and schism. Many

issues in that crisis would be moving toward resolution by 1920, only to be faced by new challenges that would

contribute their own complicating heritage for Adventist theology in 1994. Out of the new challenges of the

1920s would come a new crisis in Adventist identity and a new question regarding the essential nature of

Adventism.

What is Fundamentalist in Adventism? (1919-1950)

The new question in Adventist identity in the 1920s would be "What is fundamentalist in Adventism?"

The 1920s form a watershed in American religious history. For more than a half century forces within

Protestantism had been building toward a major break between what were coming to be known as liberalism

and fundamentalism. The battle would come to a head in the early 1920s around at least eight issues, with the

fundamentalist holding for verbal inspiration and an inerrant Bible, the historicity of the virgin birth, the

necessity of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the historicity of Christ's resurrection from the dead, His

premillennial return, the authenticity of miracles, the uniqueness of the Christian revelation in the plan of

salvation, and divine creation by fiat as opposed to theistic evolution. The liberals, of course, held to the

opposite position on those eight points. In reality, the fundamentalists were reacting vigorously to the liberal

formulations of those doctrines.

Adventists had traditionally held seven of the eight theological positions set forth by the

fundamentalists. But the denomination had never officially espoused verbal inspiration or an inerrant Bible,

even though such theological leaders as S. N. Haskell, A. T. Jones, the early W. W. Prescott, and many others

certainly did. The General Conference during its 1883 session had gone on record as accepting thought rather

than verbal inspiration. And inerrancy had never been a formal issue. Yet in spite of the moderate official stand

of Adventism on inspiration, a great deal of discussion took place as if the denomination did have a verbalist
and inerrantist view. That viewpoint would be extended and become even more explicit and more consistently

expressed during the 1920s.

During that decade, Adventism was literally forced into the arms of fundamentalism in the face of the

unprecedented polarization taking place in Protestantism. At this point it is crucial to recognize that there was

no neutral theological ground in the 1920s. Either one was a liberal or a fundamentalist, and Adventism

certainly had much more in common with the fundamentalists than with the liberals. In the frenzy of the times,

Adventism was thrust toward fundamentalism in spite of its traditionally more moderate view on inspiration a

moderation definitely supported by the recently deceased Ellen White.

The magnitude of the groundshift in Adventism over inspiration during ""* the 1920s is evidenced by

the fact that the leaders who spoke out openly for a moderate view of inspiration at the 1919 Bible conference

lost their positions in the 1920s. In fact, the inspiration issue became a major lever at the 1922 General

Conference session to un seat the powerful A. G. Daniells, who had been the denomination's president since

1901.

On the other hand, B. L. House, who argued against the more moderate view of inspiration atthe 1919

meetings, would be selected to write the denomination's college-level Bible doctrines textbook that appeared in

1926. House held not only for "verbal inspiration," but that "the selection of the very words of Scripture in the

original languages was overruled by the Holy Spirit," as was the selection of historical data. A similar

perspective was set forth by other denominational publications in the 1920s.

The more rigid view of the inspiration of both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White would shape

Adventism for decades and would not face significant challenge within Adventism until the late 1970s and

1980s. Now, in the 1990s, it has become a major factor in Seventh-day Adventist theological dialogue.

Meanwhile, another contribution to the 1990s dialogue would be developed by M. L. Andreasen in the

1930s as a full-blown "final generation theology" a theology that emphasized that the second advent of Jesus

was dependent upon a behaviorally perfect Adventist Church. Final generation theology was still in seed form

in the 1890s, but it would move to center stage between the late 1950s and 1990s. That brings us to the mid-

1950s and the latest groundshift in Adventist theology.

Adventism in Theological Tension (1950 - )

A new crisis and theological align ment erupted with the 1956 publication of Donald Grey Barnhouse's

Eternity magazine article entitled "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?" In that article, with the apparent

approval of L. E. Froom and R. A. Anderson (foremost Adventist leaders), Barnhouse publicly relegated M. L.

Andreasen (Adventism's leading theologian in the 1930s and 1940s) and his theology to the "lunatic fringe" of

Adventism and inferred that Andreasen and his type were similar to the "wild-eyed irresponsibles" that plague

"every field of fundamental Chris tianity." Meanwhile, the denomination, under the influence of Froom, Ander
son, and W. E. Read, published Questions on Doctrine, a book that fanned the flames of the developing

controversy.

Andreasen retaliated with his Letters to the Churches, in which he charged the denomination with

rejecting both the writings of Ellen White and historic Adventism. Andreasen's reward was the removal of his

ministerial credentials and the withdrawal of his books from denominational bookstores.

Then in 1960 Zondervan Publishing House released Walter Martin's The Truth About Seventh-day

Adventism. In the book's foreword Barnhouse indicated that a major split in Adventist ranks had arisen over

Questions on Doctrine and evangelical recognition. He went on to write that "only... those Seventh-day

Adventists who follow the Lord in the same way as their leaders who have interpreted for us the doctrinal

position of their church are to be considered true members of the body of Christ."

At that point the stage had been set by both Adventist insiders and outsiders for a split in Adventism's

theological ranks. I would suggest that since the mid1950s Adventism can best be defined as being in

theological tension. All the old questions are still being asked in 1994, but now they are being asked at the same

time by differing factions and individuals. Some, for example, are inquiring: "What is distinctively Adventist in

Adventism?" They tend to focus on Andreasen's perfectionistic theology coupled with insights offered by

Robert Wieland and Donald Short, who in the early 1950s shocked the denominational leaders by suggesting

that their forerunners had led Adventism astray by rejecting the message of Jones and Waggoner at Minneapolis

in 1888 and subsequent years.

As of 1994 the "Adventist Adventist" faction of Adventism emphasizes the sinful post-Fall nature of

Christ, the ne cessity of what amounts to some sort of sinless behavioral perfectionism, final generation

theology, and what it increasingly refers to as "historic Adventism." In theological method it practices a very

heavy reliance upon the writings of Ellen White and often sees Jones and Waggoner as having the final word on

righteousness by faith. The Adventist Adventists tend to be weak in their use of the Bible.

Present-day Adventism also has a major theological faction asking: "What is Christian in Adventism?"

At its best this group uplifts the centrality of Christ and the cross in salvation, views the basis of assurance as

being "in Christ," with the saved Christian being both justified and in the process of being sanctified; and seeks

to place the Bible at the center of its theological methodology. While it firmly upholds the distinctively

Adventist doctrines, this faction emphasizes those doctrines within the context of basic Christianity.

Also alive and well in Adventism's 1994 theological world are those who are asking: "What is

fundamentalist in Adventism?" This faction may hold views in common with either those emphasizing that

which is Adventist in Adventism or those stressing that which is Christian in Adventism, but their special

burden is the fundamentalist concerns of the 1920s.

Those divisions in the present-day Adventist theological world would be serious enough, but they have

been aggravated by the multiple shocks to the certitude of Adventist identity resulting from the Numbers, Rea,
Ford, and Davenport crises of the late 1970s and early 1980s, plus the fact that the aging Adventist movement

has arrived at its 150th birthday, and by the same unfortunate polarizing effects that did so much to weaken the

denomination in the 1890s. One cause of the polarity problem is that in a desire to escape from one sort of

perceived error, people are liable to back into the polar opposite.

In Adventism in 1994, theological activity is shaping up along two fronts, with all the old questions

providing the dividing lines. Thus, in the confrontation between those emphasizing that which is Adventist in

Adventism and those emphasizing that which is Christian in Adventism there is the ever-present danger that the

opposing forces will become ever more one-sided in their interpretations.

The crisis issue for the Adventist Adventists is that they will lose contact with basic Christianity as they

focus on non-biblical sources for theological authority and force a true biblical concept of perfection into a sort

of itemized sinless perfectionism. At the other extreme is the ever-present danger that in seeking to avoid the

Adventist Adventist error some will be tempted to deny their Adventism through one-sided emphases and thus

become "Christian Christians." / suggest that there is adequate defensible middle ground for those who might be

designated as "Christian Adventists " if and only if they keep their eyes on the Bible and avoid the distorting

dynamic built into the very process of doing theology, when doing theology becomes primarily an exercise in

doing theology against one's opponent. The distorting factor comes into action when individuals consciously or

unconsciously place a primary emphasis on putting mere distance between themselves and what they consider

to be error and when they conclude that they can learn nothing of value from those who differ from them.

The Adventist Adventist versus Christian Adventist polarizing effect was present in the 1890s, but in

1994 Adventism is also being challenged by a second polarizing dynamic. While some individuals fear

liberalism and appear to be reaching for the fundamentalism of the 1920s (apparently confusing it with the

mind-set of pristine Christianity in the process), other Adventist thought leaders (in their desire to escape what

they consider to be the theological errors and extremes of fundamentalism) are in danger of backing into an

advocacy of the liberal Christianity of the 1920s. At the basis of this polarization are

hermeneutical/epistemological issues of the first rank especially that of the primacy between revelation and

reason. But it should be recognized by all parties, that a modernist view (as was espoused by the liberals in the

1920s) that has adopted the enlightenment emphasis on the supremacy of human reason above Scripture is no

more healthy than the fundamentalist error that confuses 1920s rigidities with the mind-set of Christ and the

apostles.