Questions on Doctrine

[Live4Him]

Was curious if there was ever a book printed refuting Questions on Doctrine. From what I have read M.L. Andreason was avidly against what the book contained. Did he or anyone else ever refute the fallacies in this book?

[CoAspen]

How can there be fallacies, it they haven't been refuted....what ever 'they' are?

[Kevin H]

There have been some, mostly from the side that tends to have the attitude of "If Questions on Doctrine says it, then I don't believe it and that settles it for me." An example of this type of book would be "With Cloak and Dagger"

The problem with books such as "With Cloak and Dagger" is that they end up with taking approxamately half the truth and use it against the rest of the truth. Andreason's complaints were more that QOD was out of ballance, but the critics have tended to only accept what Andresen said was missing. Then they tend to promote the theological views of Elder Washburn and Elder Wilkenson. Elder Washburn was a nephew of Elder Butler. Both he and Butler were critics of Jones and Wagner in 1888. However by 1919 he and his Uncle were no longer united as his uncle had spent some time trying to reflect on the 1888 crisis, and also Elder Butler was not a Fundamentalist, so Butler's new views and his anti-fundamentalism had him agreeing with A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott in the 1919 Bible Conference, while Washburn and Wilkenson were united in their opposition to Daniels, Prescott and Willie White. Therefore, books like "With Cloak and Dagger" and most other books criticizing "QOD" tends to be advertisement to spread the views of Washburn and Wilkerson.

Althought today instead of being critical of Jones and Wagner, the post 1888 Ellen White, Daniels, Prescott and Willie White, they have tried to baptize these people into being good followers of Washburn and Wilkerson.

For a more ballanced approach I would like to recommend A. LeRoy Moore's books such as "The Theology Crisis" / "Theology in Crisis" and his book "Questions on Doctrine Revisited." Now I don't know if they published this, but you should be able to contact Union College for information and maybe recordings, but professors at Union College Dr. (Ralph?) Niel and his wife were going to campmeetings in the 1980s with a ballanced approach. And also there is in the original book "Sanctuary and the Atonement" the three chapters "The Mighty Opposits: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts one and two and "We Must All Appear: the Investigative Judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White"

[Gordon1]

Every SDA should read With Cloak & Dagger by H.H. Meyers.

It was published by Hartland Institute.

[Kevin H]

Yes, Cloak and Dagger, is an interesting book, but only approxamately half the truth give or take on some points and promotes the thoughts of Washburn and Wilkerson. Look at the information on the conflects between Wilkerson and Willie White, and sadly this is not as easy to find but there was a very simillar friction between Washburn and Mrs.White.

A. LeRoy Moore, the Niels, the chapters in Sanctuary and the atonement are much more ballanced.

Yes, I read all of these as well as much of the corrispondence between Mrs. White and Washburn and his friends, and Willie and Wilkerson. I'm sorry but when Mrs. White tells someone that despite their massive quoting of her words, that they have no idea of what she is actually teaching, I tend to want to side with Mrs. White.

Now, according to Graham Maxwell; he said this in his Sabbath School class, Elder Wilkerson's children did not want to have anything to do with the church or God, causing him to re-evaluate his views at the end of his life and that he said that he was wrong. However his views are still popular among a number of us.

[pierrepaul]

To my mind, these sometimes vicious theological (soteriological?) debates are reminiscent of the "real presence" battles Luther and Calvin waged, or the silly "filoque" debate which provided the theological justification for the great schism. I once heard a sermon from one of these adventist Ivory-tower types who tried explaining that a "correct" (i.e. agreeing with him) understanding of the SdA sanctuary doctrine was vital to salvation. If I believed that agreeing with one particular faction of SdAism really was vital to salvation, I would just go back to my secular life.

[Gregory Matthews]

I don't know that I have ever found a book authored by a human that was 100% without error.

Notwithstanding, I am highly supportative of Questions on Doctrine.

The fact is that the SDA Church has a diversity of people living under it's tent. We do not all agree on every aspect of life and doctrine. We acknowledge that God has not b rought us into total unity in doctrine and belief. At least some of us are willing to fellowship with other members of the household of God who may not see everything as we do.

The above exists in the local congregation that I attend. I welcome the freedom of discussion that exists within it's members.

[Woody]

Quote:

At least some of us are willing to fellowship with other members of the household of God who may not see everything as we do.

Excellent point Gregory. I've never met two individual who have the exact same beliefs in all aspects of Christianity. I pray we have some tolerance for others beliefs. Let's dwell on our common beliefs rather than our differences.

[Woody]

Andrews has published an Annotated Edition of Questions on Doctrines. It has notes of Historical and Theological importance scatter throughout the book written by George Knight. He signed my personal copy. I would highly recommend it for those concerned about this book.

Edit: The book was published in 2003.

[phkrause]

I don't know that I have ever found a book authored by a human that was 100% without error.

Notwithstanding, I am highly supportative of Questions on Doctrine.

The fact is that the SDA Church has a diversity of people living under it's tent. We do not all agree on every aspect of life and doctrine. We acknowledge that God has not b rought us into total unity in doctrine and belief. At least some of us are willing to fellowship with other members of the household of God who may not see everything as we do.

The above exists in the local congregation that I attend. I welcome the freedom of discussion that exists within it's members.

[Johann]

Questions On Doctrine was written while I attended the SDA Theological Seminary, then located at Takoma Park, next door to the General Conference offices. That gave us the possibility of following the production at close range through our teachers, the writers, and the articles in MINISTRY. And then we got the articles by the frustrated M L Andreasen.

I might agree with Virginia Steinweg that M L Andreasen would not have had those problems if his first wife, Annie, had still been alive. M L was in full agreement with almost all of the book.

For some reaaon or other Hartland disagreed with the the book even before they had any idea why the book was written. They kept on fighting against it for more than half a century. They had to have something to fight against. So many decided to side with Hartland for the sake of having an argument with the church. This is the reason for many of our problems today.

[Johann]

Quote:

At least some of us are willing to fellowship with other members of the household of God who may not see everything as we do.

Excellent point Gregory. I've never met two individual who have the exact same beliefs in all aspects of Christianity. I pray we have some tolerance for others beliefs. Let's dwell on our common beliefs rather than our differences.

So why should I agree with you? For some strange reason I do.

[LoneRanger]

Was curious if there was ever a book printed refuting Questions on Doctrine. From what I have read M.L. Andreason was avidly against what the book contained. Did he or anyone else ever refute the fallacies in this book?

There was a book published which I understood to be a refutation of QoD. It was called "Doctrinal Discussions" and I had a copy of it once but have now lost track of it. I don't know the author or publisher.

As I recall it was a collection essays by various authors.

Not much help, is it?

[Woody]

Quote:

This is the reason for many of our problems today.

For some reason I find myself in agreement with you.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Let's dwell on our common beliefs rather than our differences.

Since, as Adventists we are supposed to be a movement raised up in the last days to preach the unadulterated Word, how is that possible and still fulfill God's command.

"I am sending you to them who are stubborn and obstinate children, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ As for them, whether they listen or not—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, neither fear them nor fear their words, though thistles and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions; neither fear their words nor be dismayed at their presence, for they are a rebellious house."Eze 2:4-6 NASB

God cares!

[Woody]

Quote:

Let's dwell on our common beliefs rather than our differences.

Since, as Adventists we are supposed to be a movement raised up in the last days to preach the unadulterated Word, how is that possible and still fulfill God's command.

"I am sending you to them who are stubborn and obstinate children, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ As for them, whether they listen or not—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, neither fear them nor fear their words, though thistles and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions; neither fear their words nor be dismayed at their presence, for they are a rebellious house."Eze 2:4-6 NASB

God cares!

Of course we will be discussing differences. But we will accept all who see things differently - otherwise we will end up only having our self to preach to.

[Johann]

Originally Posted By: Live4Him

Was curious if there was ever a book printed refuting Questions on Doctrine. From what I have read M.L. Andreason was avidly against what the book contained. Did he or anyone else ever refute the fallacies in this book?

There was a book published which I understood to be a refutation of QoD. It was called "Doctrinal Discussions" and I had a copy of it once but have now lost track of it. I don't know the author or publisher.

As I recall it was a collection essays by various authors.

Not much help, is it?

We do have a text which tells us that the one who seeks finds, but as for me I would not waste any time searching for this.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

But we will accept all who see things differently

I would suggest that agrees perfectly with the Word.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."Revelation 22:16 KJV

God cares!

[Woody]

Quote:

We do have a text which tells us that the one who seeks finds, but as for me I would not waste any time searching for this.

[BobRyan]

For some reaaon or other Hartland disagreed with the the book even before they had any idea why the book was written. They kept on fighting against it for more than half a century. They had to have something to fight against. So many decided to side with Hartland for the sake of having an argument with the church. This is the reason for many of our problems today.

Q0D was clear - that the Atoning Sacrifice was completed at the cross and that the benefits of that atoning sacrifice were being applied in the ministry of Christ in heaven in the holy Place and in the Most Holy Place after 1844.

They also stated that Christ did not have a sinful nature - yet the rest of mankind did. This was a problem for Andreason as I understand it - and cannot be blamed on Harland's influence on Andreason.

Andreason took the classic SDA position that the saints must cease to sin by the time of the close of probation and the falling of the 7 last plagues - whereas Heppenstall argued that Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary was almost pointless such that it did not matter whether he was doing it or not - we would be forgiven of new sins either way.

Heppenstall and Andreason appeared to have agreed that the whole point of Christ as our example hinged on Christ having a sinful nature and that if he did not have a sinful nature - He could not be our example. I think they were both wrong on that one.

in Christ,

Bob

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I think they were both wrong on that one.

I most heartily agree, with the SoP pointing out the fact that Jesus entered His human experience with the nature Adam had before he succumbed to temptation. Being sinless in the likeness of man made Him just as much subject to temptation as Adam, therefore capable of proving Adam didn't have to sin in his human experience as well as putting Jesus in the position, being sinless, to take the penalty for man's fall.

The Bible bears this out where it says satan found nothing in Him which could not have been said were Jesus with a fallen nature, something that would have come from satan.

God cares!

[Kevin H]

Quote:

Let's dwell on our common beliefs rather than our differences.

Since, as Adventists we are supposed to be a movement raised up in the last days to preach the unadulterated Word, how is that possible and still fulfill God's command.

"I am sending you to them who are stubborn and obstinate children, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ As for them, whether they listen or not—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, neither fear them nor fear their words, though thistles and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions; neither fear their words nor be dismayed at their presence, for they are a rebellious house."Eze 2:4-6 NASB

God cares!

Because part of that unadultrerated word is liberty of conscience. The pioneers were people of diverse backgrounds and faiths who were kicked out because their breathern focused on the differences rather than their common beliefs. They wanted to form a church where that would not happen. Where they would have a short list of common beliefs and as long as you were not fanatical, you were free to agree to dissagree.

[Kevin H]

Q0D was clear - that the Atoning Sacrifice was completed at the cross and that the benefits of that atoning sacrifice were being applied in the ministry of Christ in heaven in the holy Place and in the Most Holy Place after 1844.

They also stated that Christ did not have a sinful nature - yet the rest of mankind did. This was a problem for Andreason as I understand it - and cannot be blamed on Harland's influence on Andreason.

Andreason took the classic SDA position that the saints must cease to sin by the time of the close of probation and the falling of the 7 last plagues - whereas Heppenstall argued that Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary was almost pointless such that it did not matter whether he was doing it or not - we would be forgiven of new sins either way.

Heppenstall and Andreason appeared to have agreed that the whole point of Christ as our example hinged on Christ having a sinful nature and that if he did not have a sinful nature - He could not be our example. I think they were both wrong on that one.

in Christ,

Bob

As I have studied and understood, Andresen noticed that the answers were not necessarly wrong but incomplete and he was trying to focus on the missing parts. As I understand Hartland and other critics, they tend to see the "Missing parts" as the WHOLE truth and the "Partial" answers as all heresy and thus end up with using part of the truth against the rest of the truth.

As for the nature of Chirst: The issue over whether or not Jesus had a pre or post fall nature was argued for the early centuries and finally got to an agreement that Jesus had his own unique nature, not like Adam's before the fall nor ours after the fall but had his own unique nature. Many (not all) of our pioneers held a semi-aryian (spelling?) nature of Christ which starting in the 1890s we began to give up and to accept the traditional Christian view. Our administrators wanting to let our guests know that we went from where the semi-aryian (spelling?) was popular to now holding the traditional view focused on one part of the issue over the other part. This upset Andresen, and has caused Hartford and others to reject one part and see the other as the whole truth, and have ended up building a whole bunch of speculation and theories on this partial truth.

I heard a lecture from Jim Fleming, a Methodist archaeologist. He was being interviewed by different churches looking for a church where he could base his ministry. He pointed out that in one church he was asked if he believed sertan aspects about Jesus. He assured them that he did, however he pointed out to them that they were asking him only half a question as they left out another aspect of the truth, and it was over the same lines as our debate since Questions on Doctrine.

[Kevin H]

Questions On Doctrine was written while I attended the SDA Theological Seminary, then located at Takoma Park, next door to the General Conference offices. That gave us the possibility of following the production at close range through our teachers, the writers, and the articles in MINISTRY. And then we got the articles by the frustrated M L Andreasen.

I might agree with Virginia Steinweg that M L Andreasen would not have had those problems if his first wife, Annie, had still been alive. M L was in full agreement with almost all of the book.

For some reaaon or other Hartland disagreed with the the book even before they had any idea why the book was written. They kept on fighting against it for more than half a century. They had to have something to fight against. So many decided to side with Hartland for the sake of having an argument with the church. This is the reason for many of our problems today.

Facinating points,thank you for sharing! Did you get to study with one of my heros, Lynn Harper Wood? Both Graham Maxwell and Paul Heubeck have told me facinating stories about him. He has become one of my major heros in the faith. And did you know Felix Lorenz Jr.?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Since, as Adventists we are supposed to be a movement raised up in the last days to preach the unadulterated Word, how is that possible and still fulfill God's command.

1)Not all teachings of Scripture are of equal weight. E.G What Christ accomplished on the cross is much more important than the form of baptism. Both may be important. But, the first is much more important than the second.

2) Not all teachings of Scripture are equally clear. E.G. Justification by faith has greater clairty than does the role of Melchizedek.

3) I will suggest that Christ taught that some things can be left to God to decide and we do not have to play that role, even in end time.

4) Biblical principles remain firmly fixed, but application may differ as circumstances varry. E.G. There is a Biblical principle that related to appropriate dress for both men and women. That application may differ from time, place and culture. At one time in Cuba, a male SDA who wore blue jeans outside of his home could be subject to being expelled from the SDA Chruch. At that same time, this was not true in the U.S.