Questions on Doctrine

[Johann]

Originally Posted By: 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.

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.?

Although I recall that L H Woods was around I never had him as a teacher.

One evening I stood on a bridge alone speaking to the river. Suddenly I felt a hand on my shoulder.

- What are you doing here, I heard Graham asking.

- Just preparing for my sermon!

[Johann]

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!

I was reading in the writings of Ellen White when I saw her saying that it was not the human nature of Christ which saves us, but his divine.

I have had some problems finding that again. Can anyone help? She might have been using other words.

[John317]

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?

M.L. Andreason condemned only certain teachings in QOD, but he believed most of the book was good. He condemned the teaching that Christ came with the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall, and he also condemned QOD's teachings regarding the Investigative Judgment, the Atonement, and the Spirit of prophecy.(Significantly, Andreason did not find fault with what QOD teaches regarding the Trinity.)

Elder Andreason wrote the book "Letters to the Churches" in response to QOD, and in those letters he attempted to show that QOD contains teachings that were contrary to what the SDA Church had taught up to that time. Many other books have been written showing that Andreason was right, but other writers and scholars have disagreed with Andreason's position.

It's safe to say that the topics will be debated and discussed until Christ returns. Each of us has to study them for ourselves personally and make up our own mind.

[John317]

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?

One particular book that comes closest to refuting what QOD teaches regarding Christ's human nature being unfallen and sinless is Ralph Larson's book, The Word Was Made Flesh: One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology 1852-1952.

[Johann]

I got one of Ralph Larson's books. When I discovered it contained pages after pages of Ellen White quotations taken out of context, and where I had seen her teaching the opposite of what he claimed, I gave up on him.

[John317]

Please give examples and give quotes from his book if possible, showing that he quotes EGW out of context or that their meaning was opposite of what Ralph Larson claimed.

[John317]

Are you claiming that Elder Larson's thesis is wrong and that the SDA church prior to 1950 believed and taught that Christ's human nature was like that of pre-fallen Adam?

[Windsor]

All those capital "E.G."'s have me thinking you're about to make a statement about Mrs. White.

[Kevin H]

Are you claiming that Elder Larson's thesis is wrong and that the SDA church prior to 1950 believed and taught that Christ's human nature was like that of pre-fallen Adam?

No John, what happened was in the 1950's the QOD people gave a partial answer. Elder Andresen reminded them of the rest of the answer, and Seventh-day Adventists ever since has ripped the pre-1950s truth in approxamately half and have been fighting over which half is correct.

[Johann]

Please give examples and give quotes from his book if possible, showing that he quotes EGW out of context or that their meaning was opposite of what Ralph Larson claimed.

At the age of 80 I have already "retired" several times, leaving most of my books behind. But I do recall that Larson had several pages where he quoted single sentences. I recall checking the context of a number of those quotations about 20 years ago, discovering that the meaning was not what Larson intended. That was the main reason I considered Larson an unreliable source. I have read some very good articles he has written and received a blessing from them, but I have not seen anything from him since that has changed my opinion on his "teachings" in that area.

[Johann]

Elder Andreason wrote the book "Letters to the Churches"

No he did not!

[BobRyan]

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.

In Matt 16 a group of Jews - were told about the then currently popular Jewish administration "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" and that this meant "the doctrine of the pharisees".

In Galatians 5 Paul says to the NT first century church that "a little leaven - leavens the whole lump" speaking at that time of the leaven of false doctrine of fellow Christians regarding the need of Gentiles to become Jewish Christians not just gentile christians.

In Rev 17 the "wine of Babylon" is all about the same "leaven" idea - the wine-yeast - representing "again" false doctrine - from inside the Christian church itself.

In Acts 20 Paul again warns that "from among your own selves" men will arise teaching strange doctrine - drawing disciples away.

Turns out "details matter".

But in Matt 16 another important thing happens. Peter is affirmed for taking a bold position in affirmation of then "present truth" (As Peter calls it) - but then when Christ offerred even more truth - Peter drew a line in the sand (since he had already been approved as being at the head of the class on accepting new doctrine).

And so Jesus turned to him and said "get thee behind Me Satan".

Details matter.

Instructive.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

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.

Fortunately - George Knight is no theologian of any kind.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: John317

Are you claiming that Elder Larson's thesis is wrong and that the SDA church prior to 1950 believed and taught that Christ's human nature was like that of pre-fallen Adam?

No John, what happened was in the 1950's the QOD people gave a partial answer. Elder Andresen reminded them of the rest of the answer, and Seventh-day Adventists ever since has ripped the pre-1950s truth in approxamately half and have been fighting over which half is correct.

There is a lot of confusion on this question. One of George Knight's books on the history of the Adventist Church hints at some of the issues. One of them was the fact that M.L. Andreason dominated the Seminary in the 30's and taught that Christ had a sinful nature.

Then Heppenstall came in and took over that place of domination claiming (among other things) that Christ did not have a sinful nature.

In Q.O.D it is stated explicitly that Christ did not have a sinful nature and this caused a strong reaction in the church among some of Andreason's followers vs those who believed everything Heppenstall said for some odd reason.

Ellen White warned us not to tarnish the "Sinlessness of the human nature of Christ" in any way by claiming he had a nature altogether like ours.

But there were other differences between Andreason and Heppenstall that do not show up in Q.O.D. Areas where Andreason was right and Heppenstall was wrong.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

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?

M.L. Andreason condemned only certain teachings in QOD, but he believed most of the book was good. He condemned the teaching that Christ came with the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall, and he also condemned QOD's teachings regarding the Investigative Judgment, the Atonement, and the Spirit of prophecy.(Significantly, Andreason did not find fault with what QOD teaches regarding the Trinity.)

[Johann]

Originally Posted By: John317

Elder Andreason wrote the book "Letters to the Churches"

No he did not!

Nobody has paid attention to this?

One of my seminary teachers used to tell us, "There is no substitute for accuracy!"

You people keep on misspelling the name of Milian Lauritz Andreasen

Checking the electronic phone directory for Denmark, where he originally came from, there is not one person listed under Andreason, but there are quite a few listed as Andreasson. But neither of these names were the names of Milian Lauritz. His family name was

Andreasen

which is a fairly common name in Denmark

We should make sure we are talking about the right person.

[BobRyan]

The name Andreason has been used a number of times on this thread, so while your point is correct - I am not sure why it is so important.

in Christ,

Bob

[Johann]

When dealing with delicate matters accuracy may seem more appropriate

[BobRyan]

Ok well then - it is observed that the spelling of Andreason appears numerous times on this thread.

next.

[Johann]

Which is correct when dealing with Questions On Doctrine, the way many people do it, or the right way?

[Kevin H]

Swedish people tend to use "son" Norwegians tend to use "sen" Dainish people use either. However it is a sense of national pride that others respect our ethic background by useing the correct spelling.