“Watchman,
what of the night?”
"The hour has come, the hour is
striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
“The Orthodox
Doctrine”
Editor's Preface
In this issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?"
we discuss the Evangelical position on the doctrine of the Incarnation as set
forth by Henry Melvill, a popular Evangelical
Anglican clergyman of the 19th Century. What he taught was first adopted in the
book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe... published in 1988 by the
Ministerial Department of the General Conference. There, Melvill's
position was given as a summary statement as to what Seventh-day Adventists
believe in regard to the nature Christ assumed in the Incarnation. It is now
being used by Dr. George R. Knight in his Annotated Edition of Questions on
Doctrine to offset the lying involving the doctrine of the Incarnation done
by the Adventist conferees to Barnhouse and Martin at the infamous conferences
in 1955-1956.
The Adventist conferees perceived what to
them were contradictory statements in the Writings of Ellen G. White on the
doctrine. In the compilations from the Writings, placed as Appendices to
the 1957 edition of Questions on Doctrine, certain key references
regarding the nature Christ took upon Himself in the Incarnation were omitted.
Now this "orthodox doctrine" of Melvill is
promoted by Knight as the position to explain "all
" of the Ellen G. White statements on the
subject. The documentation so as to make such an assertion, this time around,
was actually prepared by the Ellen G. White Estate.
The position taken by Melvill
required Divine intervention which he freely set forth, and which in turn
provided an "exemption." These are the same basic factors involved in
the Roman Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. By Divine intervention,
Mary was preserved free from "the stain of original sin." By
accepting the "orthodox doctrine," the Church has placed itself but
one step removed from the Roman Dogma, and the White Estate helped forward that
move toward Romanism.
Page 2
"The Orthodox Position"
This title, as
well as being a borrowed title, has been used previously. It was the title of
the lead article of the September 1988 issue of WWN. That issue and the
August issue discussed the book which had just been released by the Ministerial
Association of the General Conference - Seventh-day Adventists Believe... - "A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental
Doctrines." This book serving as a replacement of Questions on Doctrine,
discussed the Statement of Beliefs as voted at
This same "orthodox position" is the position taken
in the Annotated Edition as the solution to the problem created by the
Adventist conferees' lying to the Evangelicals about the Church's teaching
regarding the nature Christ assumed in the Incarnation. In the year 1988, when
Seventh-day
Adventists Believe... was published, the centennial year of the 1888
General Conference, there was one difference. A. T. Jones, who strongly
emphasized that Christ "took upon Himself"
the fallen humanity of Adam, had to be exhumed and "his remains"
burned. The same "executioner" was chosen then as has been used now
to try to destroy Andreasen. Dr. George R. Knight wrote his book, From 1888 to Apostasy, The Case of A. T. Jones,
in 1987, to accomplish that objective.
We
might ask the question as to why this "orthodox doctrine" has so much
appeal as the solution to the problems raised over the doctrine of the
Incarnation in contemporary Adventism. We need to keep in mind that two problems are
involved: 1) The lying done by the
Adventist conferees at the SDA-Evangelical Conferences, and 2) The perceived contradiction in various statements made
by Ellen G. White. The latter problem involves the Ellen G. White Estate, and
their introduction of the "orthodox doctrine" into the picture.
Enter the White Estate
In 1982, the
White Estate released a document "assembled" by Ron Graybill, Warren H. Johns, and Tim Poirier, captioned,
"Henry Melvill and Ellen G. White: A Study in
Literary and Theological Relationships." Henry Melvill
was one of
Tim Poirier went a step further. He wrote an undated
manuscript, "A Comparison of the Christology of Ellen White and Her
Literary Sources," which was published in Ministry, December 1989,
in an edited form. He cited two authors from whom Ellen White borrowed to
express her Christological concepts - Octavius
Winslow (The Glory of the Redeemer) and Henry Melvill's
sermon, "The Humiliation of the Man Christ Jesus." Of this latter
source, Poirier commented: "Ellen White drew extensively from this sermon
..., for her article entitled, ' Christ Man's Example,' in the Review &
Herald of
Page 3
All of this data requires careful
consideration. In a personal letter from a life member of the White Estate, he
wrote, speaking of Ellen White's borrowing: "When she used the writings of
another author it was because his phraseology seemed to clearly present what
she wanted to say, though she avoided errors that did not harmonize with
Scripture" (Letter dated
In a digression in
this sermon, Melvill considers the question of
Christ's humanity. Although we have not found that Ellen White directly
borrowed any material from this digression, a number of her statements that
have become familiar seem to reflect the arguments that digression contains (Ministry, 1989, p. 7).
This is an admission and an assumption based on statements
which to him merely "seem" to imply an acceptance. None, however, are
cited. Since there was extensive borrowing from the sermon, the failure to find
a single reference where anything from the digression was borrowed, would
indicate that Melvill's conclusions in the digression
were rejected by Ellen White! BUT these rejected conclusions were accepted by
the author, and his counsellors, of Seventh-day Adventists
Believe... as well as by Knight in his attempt to cover the lying of the
Adventist conferees to Barnhouse and Martin.
Now the question remains: Why the borrowing of this so-called
"orthodox doctrine" from Melvill? Keep in
mind that Knight has admitted the lying done, as well as the manipulations of
the Writings. This admission should turn the Evangelicals off; but no, he seeks
to substitute another position that should clear everything up, so as to retain
the status given by Barnhouse and Martin, that Seventh-day Adventism is not a
cult. Why? Let us return to the
Paper released
by the White Estate in 1982. There it reads:
One does not
have to delve very deeply into Melvill to understand
why Mrs. White would find his views so congenial. He was an
"Evangelical" Anglican, committed to defending Protestantism of the
Anglican Church against the Oxford Tractarians who
were pushing the church closer to Catholicism (op. cit.,
p. ii).
So we adopt this position of an "Evangelical" on
the doctrine of the Incarnation; they cannot condemn one of their own! We cover
the lying Adventist leaders of 1955-1956 and what they did with the
"digression" of Melvill in an Annotated
edition of Questions on Doctrine and then call it an Adventist
"Classic."
Melvill's Digression
We will quote
in full the "digression" on "Christ's humanity" in Melvill's sermon "The Humiliation of the Man Christ
Jesus." While it will be lengthy, it will serve as a source reference for
those unable to obtain a copy of the sermon. [Comments we will make on various
positions taken by Melvill will be bracketed and in a
different font.] It reads:
We should
pause for a moment, in our argument, and speak on the point of the Savior's
humanity. We are told that Christ's humanity was in every respect the same as
our own humanity; fallen, therefore as ours is fallen. But Christ, as not being
one of the natural descendents of Adam, was not included in the covenant made
with, and violated by, our common father. Hence his humanity was the solitary exception,
the only humanity which became not fallen humanity, as a consequence of
apostasy. If man be a fallen man, he must have fallen in Adam; in other words,
he must be one of those who Adam federally represented. But Christ, as being
emphatically the seed of the woman, was not thus federally represented; and
therefore Christ fell not, as we fell in Adam. He had not been a party to the
broken covenant, and thus could not be a sharer in the guilty consequences of
the infraction.
But, nevertheless, while we argue that Christ was not what is
termed a fallen man, we contend that since "made of a woman"
(Galatians 4:4), he was as truly "man, of the substance of his
mother," as any one amongst ourselves, the weakest and most sinful. He was
"made of a woman," and not a new creation, like Adam in
Page 4
which has descended from a state of moral purity to one
of moral impurity. And so long as there has not been this descent, humanity may
remain unfallen, and yet pass from physical strength to physical weakness. This
is exactly what we hold on the humanity of the Son of God. We do not assert
that Christ's humanity was the Adamic humanity; the humanity, that is, of Adam
whilst still loyal to Jehovah. Had this humanity been reproduced, there must
have been an act of creation; whereas beyond controversy, Christ was "made
of a woman," and not created, like Adam, by an act of omnipotence. And
allowing that Christ's humanity was not the Adamic, of course we allow that
there were consequences of the fall of which it partook. We divide, therefore,
these consequences into innocent infirmities, and sinful propensities. From
both was Adam's humanity free before, and with both was it endowed after,
transgression. Hence it is enough to have either, and the humanity is broadly
distinguished from the Adamic. Now Christ took humanity with the innocent
infirmities. He derived humanity from his mother. Bone of her bone, and flesh
of her flesh, like her he could hunger, and thirst, and weep, and mourn, and
writhe, and die.
[The concept as
expressed in this sentence - bone of bone and flesh of flesh - is the closest
of anything to be found in the Writings which would reflect a concept found in
the digression. In 1900, Ellen White wrote - "He (God) gave His Son to
become bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh" (Sons and Daughters of
God, p. 11). The wording that she used reflects exactly the wording used by
Octavius Winslow in his book, The Glory of the
Redeemer, and which he in turn quoted from some unidentified source (See Ministry,
December 1989, p. 8). This still leaves us with the question as to what kind of
flesh Jesus could receive from Mary. Melvill
evidently sensed this question, and immediately addresses this point.]
But whilst he took humanity with the innocent infirmities, he
did not take it with the sinful propensities. Here Deity interposed. The Holy
Ghost overshadowed the Virgin, and, allowing weaknesses to be derived from her,
forbade wickedness; and so caused that there should be generated a sorrowing
and a suffering humanity, but nevertheless an undefiled and a spotless; a
humanity with tears, but not with stains; accessible to anguish, but not prone
to offend; allied most closely with the produced misery, but infinitely removed
from the producing cause.
[Melvill's answer to the
question is simply "Divine Intervention." The term he used to convey
what was "forbade" was, "wickedness" which word conveys the
results of sinning, but Jesus Christ "did no sin" (1 Peter 2:22) ; yet
He was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" so that He might
condemn "sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:31). Roman Catholicism also
teaches "Divine Intervention," in the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception, but that of Mary so she could not transmit to her Son, "sin in
the flesh."]
So we hold - and we give it you as what we believe the
orthodox doctrine (to be) - that Christ's humanity was not the Adamic
humanity, that is the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity,
that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the
Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the
fallen, because it never descended into immoral impurity. It was, therefore,
most literally our humanity, but without sin. "Made of a woman,"
Christ derived all from his mother that we derive, except sinfulness. And this
he derived not, because Deity, in the person of the Holy Ghost, interposed
between the child and the pollution of the parent.
The italicized part of the above paragraph is made the
summary statement for subsection "b," Christ "was the second
Adam" of section #5 on "The extent of His identification with human
nature," in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe... (p. 47), and footnoted as "the orthodox doctrine" (p.
57).
Knight's Conclusion
Knight in his Annotated Edition of Questions on Doctrine declares that this position of Melvill "is the only one that can explain all of Ellen White's statements on the human nature of Christ" (p. 523; emphasis his). But his conclusion needs further consideration. After diagramming Melvill's position, Knight wrote:
In
other words, Melvill held that the incarnate Christ
was neither just like Adam before the Fall nor just
like fallen humanity since the entrance of sin. That appears to be the position
Ellen White held. In fact, Melvill's explanation fits
quite nicely her statement that caused A. T. Jones so much trouble at the 1895
General Conference session: Christ "is a brother in our infirmities {Melvill's 'innocent infirmities'} but not in possessing
like passions {Melvill's 'sinful propensities'}"
(Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 202). Melvill's model
is the only one that can explain all of Ellen White's statements on the human
nature of Christ (op. cit.).
Some factual historical data needs to be considered. Testimony
for the Church, "Number Seventeen" was published in February 1869
(EGW, Vol. 2, p. 275). In the first article of this Testimony, "The
Sufferings of Christ" is to be found the statement quoted by Knight and is
now found in Vol. 2, pp. 201-202.In the
Page 5
document assembled by Graybill,
Johns, and Poirier for the White Estate dated 1982, it states that shortly
after the Whites arrived in Texas in 1878, Ellen White made a request to their
home in Oakland, California, for books and writing supplies, noting especially,
the one on "Sermons" (p. i), which she had
purchased there. They first arrived in
There is another factor that needs consideration. In a letter
written at the time of the "alpha of deadly heresies"
Ellen White stated:
The
testimonies themselves [not Melvill] will be the key
that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture (Letter
73, 1903; SM, bk. 1, p. 42).
Ellen G. White's Position
What did Ellen White
teach that reflects on the nature Christ took upon Himself in the Incarnation?
First, consider her statements on His pre-existence as to why it is important
that we begin from that point of reference. In 1906, she wrote:
There
are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the
foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place,
making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth infinitely
mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable
truths, while it is enshrined in a light, unapproachable and incomprehensible.
After noting several Scriptural references (see below), she
continued:
That
God should thus be manifest in the flesh is indeed a mystery; and without the
help of the Holy Spirit we cannot hope to comprehend this subject. The most
humbling lesson that man has to learn is the nothingness of human wisdom, and
the folly of trying, by his own unaided efforts, to find out God"
(R&H,
April 5,1906).
We might digress at this point to consider what "this
truth infinitely mysterious in itself" explains in regard to the
difference between "the Son of man" and the sons of men. A question
was raised in regard to a sentence in the April issue of WWN. It read -
"We are born fallen; Christ was not" (p. 3). Every human being
"born of a woman" receives a distinctive non pre-existent identity,
except Jesus Christ, who pre-existed as one with God "before the
foundation of the world was laid." The Word who came to be flesh was the
very embodiment of holiness, "full of grace and truth." He came
unfallen into a fallen world to "tabernacle" with men who had come
into the world fallen (John
Returning to the pre-existent Christ, we find that in the same article (April 5, 1906, first written in 1899), Ellen White wrote:
Page 6
But
while God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon earth, it also
speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine
being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with his Father. ...
"The Word was with God, and the Word was God." Before men or angels were
created, the Word was with God, and was God.
The world was made by Him, "and without him was not
anything made that was made." If Christ made all things, He existed before
all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need
be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was
with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.
The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from
eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing
glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the
adoring homage of angels was received by him as his right. This is no robbery
of God.
[The next paragraph quotes Proverbs 8:22-27, followed by the
paragraph noted above which begins with "There is light and glory in the
truth ... etc. This paragraph, in turn, is followed by Psalm 90:2 and Matthew
4:16 with the comment - "Here the pre-existence of Christ and the purpose
of his manifestation to our world are presented as living beams of light from
the eternal throne;" Micah 5:1-2; and 1 Cor. 1:23-24.]
We would digress again momentarily to note that these
definitive paragraphs from the pen of Ellen White were written seven years
after E. J. Waggoner wrote that "Christ proceeded forth and came from God,
from the bosom of the Father, but that time was so far back in the days of
eternity that to the finite comprehension it is practically without
beginning" (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 21-22). There is no
way that one can reconcile Waggoner's position and Ellen White's. Her position
was that Jesus Christ "existed from eternity, a distinct Person" not
One who "proceeded forth and came from God." Yet, instead of walking
in the advancing light of truth, the voices coming from Smyrna Gospel
Ministries have concreted themselves into a past position which had begun with
Christ as a created being.
Returning again to what Ellen White taught regarding the
nature which Christ took upon Himself in the Incarnation, we can read in
language which leaves no doubt as to where she stood. In the same article,
printed first in
The Signs of the Times,
Christ did not make believe take human
nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the
children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also himself likewise took part of
the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to
human descent.
Left unexplained by Knight in his zeal to press Melvill's position is how the law of inheritance (Desire
of Ages, p. 48) was abridged so as to escape the effects of being of
"the seed of David." Melvill said,
"'---Made of a woman,' Christ derived all from his mother that we derive
except sinfulness. And this he derived not, because Deity, in the person of the
Holy Ghost, interposed between the child and the pollution of the parent"
(Sermon IV, p. 47). But this was in the "digression" from
which Ellen White did not quote. One year after her definitive article
in The Signs, in 1899, she would write in the
Youth's Instructor,
Think of Christ's humiliation. He
took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin.
He took our sorrows, bearing our grief and shame. He endured all the
temptations wherewith man is beset. He united humanity with divinity: a divine
spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh. He united Himself with the temple. "The
Word was made flesh and dwelt among us," because by so doing He could
associate with the sinful, sorrowing sons and daughters of Adam (4BC:
1147).
In Summary
In the teachings on the doctrine of
the Incarnation, there is a key component which pervades each which deny that Christ took upon Himself the nature of fallen man.
It surfaces as "divine intervention," which encompasses the word used
in Questions on Doctrine, "exempt"
(p. 383). Every child of Adam "born of a woman" receives the fallen
nature. There is no exception to this law of heredity, unless there is an
exemption by divine intervention.
The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is an attempt to exempt Christ from taking upon Himself the fallen nature of man. James Cardinal Gibbons explains the Dogma stating:
Page 7
Unlike
the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was never subject to sin,
even in the first moment of its infusion into the body. She alone was exempt
from the original taint (The Faith of Our Fathers, 88th Edition, p. 171).
The Dogma, while not stating exactly how, indicates a divine
intervention by declaring it to be by "the singular grace and privilege of
Almighty God" (ibid.).
In formulating what he calls the "orthodox
doctrine," Melvill
unhesitatingly
declared the birth of Jesus to be a divine intervention which preserved Him
free from the fallen nature of man. He stated:
Here Deity interposed. The Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin, and, allowing weakness to be derived from her, forbade wickedness. ...
"Made of a woman," Christ derived all from His mother that we derive, except sinfulness. And this He derived not, because Deity, in the person of the Holy Ghost, interposed between the child and the pollution of the parent.
The Roman Dogma used the expression, "stain of
original sin;" Melvill used the words,
."wickedness" and "pollution," which give the state
resultant from sinning. But the expression "fallen nature" simply
covers the flesh with the potential to sin, which is the inheritance of
everyone "made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal. 4:4).
This so-called "Orthodox Doctrine" was the final summation of the section on "The Second Adam" in the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe... (p. 47). It is the position which is promoted in the Annotated Edition of Questions on Doctrine by George Knight. But it is not the belief which was held by the Church from its beginning to the 1940s. It stands as evidence of the apostasy which enveloped the Church as a result of the 1955-1956 SDA-Evangelical Conferences.
This time around there is an interesting difference. When
Questions on
Doctrine was published, the Writings were manipulated to lend support to
the lying of the Adventist conferees. This time, the White Estate produced the
"documentation" used by Knight to cover the lying first committed in
1955-1956.
There is yet to be discussed Knight's allegation that "since the 1890s there has been two quite distinct Adventist understandings on the human nature of Christ in Adventism" (Annotated Edition, p. 519). This assertion prefaced his discussion leading to the conclusion that Melvill's "orthodox doctrine" is "the only one that can explain all of Ellen White's statements on the human nature of Christ" (p. 523). It is true that a counter position to the one held by the Church from its organization in 1863 through the 1890s was introduced as the 19th century closed. The Holy Flesh Movement interjected a different position, but this Knight did not address.
(To Be Continued)