Letters to the Churches by M.L. Andreason

[Lysimachus]

I came across a comment by Sister White, don't recall the location, where she said people simply get tired of doing all the "stuff" they need to do. Keeping the commandments, not enjoying the sin's of a season or whatever. Various reasons of course. No doubt some of it tied to what appears to be a super legalistic attitude of the church in the 70's and 80's. Perhaps well before that for all I know, maybe it continues? If THAT is a major part of the problem it ties directly into not understanding the righteousness by faith message.

[Kevin H]

"With Cloak and Dagger" is about half the story. For a much more ballanced view may I recommend the books of A. LeRoy Moore such as "Theology in Crisis" (Or "The Theology Crisis") and his book on the writing of Questions on Doctrine.

"With Cloak and Dagger" uses the weaknesses of "Questions on Doctrine" [QOD] to try to push their own agenda, which has some good points, but also some unballanced; basically the views of Elder Washburn and Elder Wilkerson, who received many letters of counsel from other church leaders including Mrs. White and Willie White for their unballanced views but they came up with reasons to reject the counsel and continue to preach their views. But then they modified their views after "QOD" to a spirit of "If QOD says it, then I don't believe it and that settles it for me." and thus they have shifted away even farther than where Washburn was and the pre "QOD" Wilkerson, and much farther than Anderesen was. Andreasen was pointing out where "QOD" only got part of the truth and wanted to remind us of the missing parts. "With Cloak and Dagger" takes the ballancing parts as the ONLY parts and instead of bringing us back into ballance, it ends up ripping the truth in approxamately half and uses their portion of the truth AGAINST the rest of the truth, and thus turning their portion of the truth into a lie.

[Lysimachus]

Honestly, I have considered QOD an amazing powerful tool when dealing with the Dispensational/Evangelical world. It would be difficult for me to comprehend how any Adventist could not say they agree with most of it. True, there are a few things that concern me about it. But it amazes me at just how much the more conservative branches of Adventism hate this book simply because Froom took a few questionable stances concerning the nature of Christ. People tend to get fanatical, and extreme.

[skyblue888]

Kevin, how can you say anything like that after reading Letters to the Churches by Andreason!!!

I have read Moore's book. I have it with me here. I have even met with him in person in Alberta, Canada, in his home and at his office. I have spent hours discussing these issues with him. At the time I met him he was writing a book about Questions on Doctrine and, of course, he takes the defense of the leaders who were involved in this apostasy. We agreed to disagree.

There are a lot of good things in his book "THe Theology Crisis" but as far as Andreason is concerned I believe he is wrong in the positions that he takes.

sky

[Kevin H]

How can I NOT say these things after reading "With Cloak and Dagger" and also havine read much of the corrispondence between the Whites and Washburn and Wilkerson (Now according to Graham Maxwell, after Wilkerson saw how his views caused his children to want nothing to do with God, and as he reviewed his life as an old man he said he was wrong and repented, yet his ideas persist)

[skyblue888]

Honestly, I have considered QOD an amazing powerful tool when dealing with the Dispensational/Evangelical world. It would be difficult for me to comprehend how any Adventist could not say they agree with most of it. True, there are a few things that concern me about it. But it amazes me at just how much the more conservative branches of Adventism hate this book simply because Froom took a few questionable stances concerning the nature of Christ. People tend to get fanatical, and extreme.

But Lysi, that is exactly the point! Mixing truth with just enough error can be Satan's most effective weapon especially when men occupying responsible positions in the church are involved. Satan knows that if he can get them he can get the whole church.

The book Questions on Doctrine is just as subtle as is Movement of Destiny by Leroy Froom.

Andreason was not a fanatic. He was a champion for truth. When was a champion for truth ever recognized by his comtemporaries?

The prophets in the Old Testament, for the most part, were persecuted and sometimes put to death by their own people. Jesus was a champion for truth and so were the apostles and the reformers. Were they not all labeled fanatics and persecuted by the religious authorities?

Let us not forget that our leaders told the evangelicals that those in the adventist church who still believed that Christ lived a sinless life in sinful flesh and that the atonement did not begin until Jesus began His priestly ministry in the first apartment of the sanctuary above and that on the 22nd of October 1844 He began the final phase of the atonement belonged to the "lunatic fringe" or were "wild-eye-irresponsibles".

At the end of the day, the evangelicals declared that there were no more obstacles for us to be recognized as Christians and they stretched out to us the hand of fellowship which was exactly what our leaders were aiming at. The friendship of the world had become more important to them than the truth.

This was not a mere mistake. It was apostasy of the highest order.

sky

[John317]

... Elder Washburn and Elder Wilkerson, who received many letters of counsel from other church leaders including Mrs. White and Willie White for their unballanced views...

Could you please summarize the problems that Wilkerson had and which Ellen White found to be unballanced?

How are these related to M.L. Andreasen and the QOD?

Please give some references to Ellen White's writings where she addresses these issues.

[John317]

Honestly, I have considered QOD an amazing powerful tool when dealing with the Dispensational/Evangelical world. It would be difficult for me to comprehend how any Adventist could not say they agree with most of it.

Yes, much of QOD is good. M.L. Andreasen agreed with that assessment of QOD.

It is interesting that Andreasen never found fault at all with the things it says about the Trinity, for instance.

The three main points that Andreasen critisized about QOD are (1) its position on the nature of Christ's humanity, that He took sinless nature of Adam before the Fall; (2) that it claimed the atonement was completed at the cross and is not taking place now in the heavenly sanctuary; and (3) that it downgraded Ellen White's authority.

[John317]

... Mixing truth with just enough error can be Satan's most effective weapon especially when men occupying responsible positions in the church are involved. Satan knows that if he can get them he can get the whole church.

The book Questions on Doctrine is just as subtle as is Movement of Destiny by Leroy Froom.

Andreason was not a fanatic. He was a champion for truth.

I agree.

Movement of Destiny denies the very things that Ellen White and A.G. Daniells said about the 1888 Message.

I admire a lot of the things that LeRoy Froom wrote, such as Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, the Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, and Coming of the Comforter,but he is wrong in his view of 1888. He claims that 1888 was a great victory for the SDA church. Anyone who studies the 1888 Materials of Ellen G. White can see plainly that this is not true.

As for M.L. Andreasen, he wrote the part of the SDA Bible Commentary on the book of Hebrews. He also wrote a separate commentary on the book of Hebrews, and another excellent book on the Sanctuary. During those years, he was widely regarded as one of our church's foremost theologians. If he was a fanatic, let's pray that God will send the church more fanatics.

[Lysimachus]

Andreason was not a fanatic. He was a champion for truth. When was a champion for truth ever recognized by his comtemporaries?

I hope I was not coming across as though I think Andreason was a fanatic. I agree he was most certainly a champion for truth. I was referring more-so to a number of people today who always talk down on QOD, but never seem to recognize the vast amount of good in this book. It contains essential tools and elements to enable us to effectively dismantle Dispensational and Futurist teachings. But I do agree that a little bit of error is not good. That's why I'd never send the entire QOD book/link to a non-Adventist, rather, I'd only source those essential and truthful elements found in it.

If one studies the life of Froom, one will see that Froom had a burning passion to help the Evangelical world see the "Adventist way". His life was so absorbed in trying to convince the Protestant world that our Adventist foundations were solid, that he ended up overstepping himself into compromise. Sometimes I wonder if he really realized what he was doing. His obsession to vindicate our faith to the Sunday-keeping Protestant world blurred his discernment when the time came when the SDA Church almost got labeled among the cults in "Kingdom of the Cults".

May this be a learning lesson to us. If the Evangelicals wish to label us a cult, SO BE IT. That's their problem. Besides, WHO did Walter Martin think he was?? Who did he think he was to become the "official authority" in deciding who gets labeled a cult or not??

There was no excuse for Froom's compromise. Yet at the same time, after reading almost half of Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, I cannot help but conclude that at heart, he was a sincere man. His passion for vindicating our Adventist Pillars was more than what most men possess. Great sacrifice and and years and years painstaking labor went into these priceless volumes.

[skyblue888]

Great post Lysi.

sky

[Lysimachus]

Great post Lysi.

sky

Thanks.

I have a question (to anybody):

Did the Adventist Church ever produce any works that could be considered a "replacement" to QOD? It got labeled among the "classic Adventist literature" if I remember correctly. But if we no longer consider QOD as our official response to the questions posed by Protestants to Adventism, then what is now considered our official response?

If there isn't, what works today would suffice? "Answers to Objections" by Francis D. Nichol? What else is there?

[John317]

You might want to read Herbert Douglass' Fork In the Road. It's at the ABC and contains the answers to your questions. The fact is that both Anderson and LeRoy Froom tried to pull the wool over many eyes, but I do believe they were convinced they were doing it for a good purpose. I don't believe they thought they were doing evil. They loved the SDA church and they both loved God, I'm sure of it.

LeRoy Froom thought that it was right for him to protect SDAs, even if it meant that he changed or destroyed evidence. When I was in the Loma Linda Branch of the EGW Estate, I personally saw documenation in which EGW Estate employees had written that LeRoy Froom destroyed the major portion of a piece of writing by Hiram Edson. Ellen White had said that this writing was better off never read, and apparently LeRoy Froom took it upon himself to see that no one ever would read it.

Anderson was a friend and co-worker with my father in Loma Linda in the late 70s. I never heard them argue about these issues, even though my father believed firmly that QOD contained some errors.

Anderson taught Daniel and Revelation courses in Loma Linda for many years, and he was a good man, but he did make some serious mistakes. Even the best of the "saints" do wrong. That's one of the main reasons for the Investigative Judgment. It clears the reputation of the saints as well as of God in saving people who did some terrible, shameful things.

[John317]

Not that they take the official place of QOD, but there are The Handbook of SDA Theology, BRI's Daniel & Revelation Committee Series, Seventh-day Adventists Believe... 28, and An Exhaustive Ellen G. White Commentary on Daniel and Revelation.

[ClubV12]

The term "apostasy", in my opinion, is to carelessly thrown about and applied to readily to any and every mistake the Seventh-day Adventist church has made along the way. And will make in the future. The Church, that is, the Seventh-day Adventist church as recognized by man and Governments of today, is going through to the end, period. Mistakes do not always rise to the level of "apostasy".

[John317]

True, Club. Even though Ellen White said that the General Conference made great mistakes, she never said that the church was Babylon or that we should leave the church. She herself followed the call of the GC to go to Australia, although she thought that they were calling her away in order to get her out of their hair over the 1888 Message. She went there while not being sure if God was calling her there, but before it was all over, she knew it was God's will for her to work in Australia. So God works through the GC and the church even though it is faulty.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

... Elder Washburn and Elder Wilkerson, who received many letters of counsel from other church leaders including Mrs. White and Willie White for their unballanced views...

Could you please summarize the problems that Wilkerson had and which Ellen White found to be unballanced?

How are these related to M.L. Andreasen and the QOD?

Please give some references to Ellen White's writings where she addresses these issues.

I'll find it best to answer your question about elder Andersen in your below post. As for Wilkerson and Washburn, when I was at Andrews in 1983-85 I just would spend severa hours sitting in the White Estate vault and just read and read, and I just noticed a whole bunch of letters that sounded similar and began to notice that they were by different people but many of them were written by or to Elder's Washburn and Wilkerson.

and I do not remember all the details of what I read 30 years ago, but some of the things I remember what that these writers letter's tended to have massive quotes by Mrs. White and trying to either convince Mrs. White that she believed certain things or convince Willie that his mom believed certain things, and the White's would write back that despite the massive quoting of Mrs. White, that they did not understand her message and that they were misusing her writings. They tended to be very strict and wanting to defend traditions.

I remember in my visits to family in California as a child say ages 4-5 and then the end of the 2nd to middle of the 3rd grade, that there seemed to be some Adventist who I saw as different from the Adventism of my Grandma and Aunt, some were married to relatives, others just from around town. I thought that the text "Suffer the little children to come unto me" was Jesus siding with this group, that to be a Christian you needed to make children and others suffer. While I loved the God of the Old Testament, I was terrified of Jesus. In Academy the son of the town Doctor would sometimes come into town and speak at the Academy, and what he said seemed to be more like that group I ran into in California. And he was always critical of things the Academy was doing. These letters that I read sounded a lot like those Adventists that I had run into in California and this Doctor's son (his mom had been the secretary to Elder Wilkerson)

In 1986 when I was at Ft. Lewis Washington, near where Hope International was and running into many members who were involved with Hope International and reading many copies of "Our Firm Foundation" I always felt that I was back at Andrews reading the letters of Washburn and Wilkerson and thought about the critical letters that the White's would write back.. Later I would see that frequently Elder Washburn or Elder Wilkerson would have their name in the footnotes and eventually reading articles that would mention these men as heroes who was faithful to the truth and who we were to follow. I found it hard to be convinced of that since the Whites kept writing telling them that they were not understanding her message and that they were misusing her writings.

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, much of QOD is good. M.L. Andreasen agreed with that assessment of QOD.

It is interesting that Andreasen never found fault at all with the things it says about the Trinity, for instance.

The three main points that Andreasen critisized about QOD are (1) its position on the nature of Christ's humanity, that He took sinless nature of Adam before the Fall; (2) that it claimed the atonement was completed at the cross and is not taking place now in the heavenly sanctuary; and (3) that it downgraded Ellen White's authority.

I agree that on these Elder Andresen were quite balanced, and he was pointing out where QOD was not in the balance where it should be. The problem is that the critics of QOD, which was frequently from the group that tended to be admirers of Washburn and Wilkerson, had a tendency to take Elder Andresen's criticisms and assume that QOD was completely wrong and that the truth is the other extream.

Elder Andersen was trying to get us back in balance, too many have taken Andersen's insights to go into the other extreme.

Especially with the nature of Christ. There was a theologian (John, you may have the name handy, I seem to recall the name Melvin) who wrote some wonderful things about the nature of Christ. Mrs. White used some of the best of what he said. Jesus had his own unique nature, unlike Adam's before the fall and unlike ours after the fall. There were similarities of both and differences. Jesus had his own unique nature. For example Adam before the fall naturally had his appetites desires and passions under the control of reason. Jesus like the rest of us does not have that happen naturally and had to constantly subjugate his appetites, desires and passions to reason. And we are sinners because we have in us a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world. Jesus did NOT have the slightest inclining of this disposition in him.

From what I know about studies on the Nature of Chirst, and what I've read in LeRoy Moore's books, even though he does not point this out, it looks like Andresen, Anderson, Froom, Martin and Barnhouse could have very well have held the same nature of Christ that Mrs. White and Melvin (or who ever it was who she liked to quote on this topic). I wish that Froom and Anderson just said that despite our history that we have come to accept the traditional understanding of the nature of Christ and let them read Mrs. White's quotes and maybe even the sources she quoted from. Instead they tried to give a detailed answer and ended up betting only part of the issue, Andersen reminded them of the other part of the issue, and the author of "With Cloak and Dagger" and others have built a whole theology on the neglected parts of this truth but instead of wanting to become balanced like Andresen, they have gone into the other ditch, and thus we are wasting our time with a lot of frivious arguing over which side of the truth we are to accept.

[John317]

.... There was a theologian (John, you may have the name handy, I seem to recall the name Melvin) who wrote some wonderful things about the nature of Christ. Mrs. White used some of the best of what he said.

Is the name Melvill?

If so, I may not have the spelling exactly right here, but it is close.

Ellen White was very selective. As you say, Ellen White took the best of what he wrote-- that is, those parts which were in accordance with what God had shown her-- and she rejected the rest of it. This was helpful to her because she was profoundly conscious of her lack of formal education.

[Kevin H]

Yes, that was the name that I meant to type, it came out wrong in the early morning hours after work.

[skyblue888]

Personally, I have not been wasting my time as to what I should believe regarding the nature of Christ in His humanity. The Scriptures are clear. Jesus was a descendant of David according to the flesh and that can only be sinful flesh. Rom.1:3. Hebrews 2 and 4 confirm this truth by telling us that he was tempted in all points like as we are.

And this is what is taught in the Testimonies, that "the enticements which Jesus resisted were those that we find it so difficult to withstand" and that "they were urged upon him in as much greater degree as His character is superior to ours." D.A.116.

sky