Adventism Versus Calvinism

In the fall of the year 1977 Jeanne and I moved to a western city where I had been asked to serve as the senior pastor of a large church. Here I encountered a situation that I had never seen before, in spite of the fact that as a conference evangelist and as a ministerial secretary I had come into close relationship with many churches. The congregation was dividing over theological issues, and the tensions were severe. I was taken by surprise, especially when I was advised by some church members that my own theology, the theology that I had been taught in two Seventhday Adventist colleges and had been preaching for thirty years in Seventhday Adventist churches, was incorrect.
That was in 1977. We are now near the end of 1988. The problem is now much more widespread. When I spoke to a graduate class of ministerial students earlier this year, I warned them that they must be prepared to meet the same problem in almost any church in the North American Division to which they might be assigned when they leave the Seminary to assume their pastoral responsibilities.
What is it all about? How did it happen? Perhaps a brief history of the problem will be helpful.
Two major schools of theological opinion that have extended their influence from Reformation times until the present are the Arminian and Calvinistic. The role of John Calvin in establishing the Calvinistic school is well known and needs no description here. The Dutch theologian Arminius (1560-1609) is less well known, partly because he was later in time (he was born four years before Calvin died), and partly because of the unfortunate brevity of his own life, only forty-nine years.
Arminius was nevertheless a formidable opponent of the worst features of Calvinism, its decrees of predestination and its doctrine that Christians cannot stop sinning and so are saved by “justification (forgiveness) only.” His teachings were incorporated into English Methodism by John Wesley to counteract the laxity among the Christians of that country that had,

286
to some extent, resulted from the preaching of “justification only” theology. (See article “Methodism” in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, et. al.)
Francis Asbury, beyond question one of the greatest ministers that Methodism has produced, was appointed by Wesley in 1771 to care for the infant Methodist church in the American colonies (ten ministers, six hundred members). He served forty-five years, having literally “no home but the road.” He preached 16,500 sermons, traveled 270,000 miles (about 6,000 miles per year), and ordained 4,000 preachers. At his death in 1816 the Methodist church had 214,235 members. (See Schaff, article “Francis Asbury.”)
In his memoirs Asbury refers to his unceasing contest with the errors of Calvinism, and the conditions that resulted from its doctrine of salvation by “justification only.” This doctrine had led its adherents to be confident of salvation although they were indulging freely in open sins, according to Asbury.
It should be remembered that this was not the Calvinism of, for example, the great Westminster Confession of 1645. In that document, we find these words:

Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the grace of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, page 643.

At this earlier time Calvinists themselves were in disagreement, as evidenced by the Shorter Catechism, published soon after the Westminster Confession, in which victorious Christian living was declared to be impossible. The view of the catechism seems to have prevailed, and its baleful doctrine that even Christians cannot stop sinning has been a challenge to non-Calvinistic Christians for centuries.
This Calvinism, with its general lowering of ethical standards, was vigorously opposed by Arminius, Wesley, Asbury, and their associates. It was opposed with equal vigor by the founders and pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church, and in particular by Ellen White. The reader will remember that Ellen White published no less than thirtyfive statements in which she identified the idea that man cannot obey God’s law as Satan’s great lie, an accusation that he hoped to use to discredit God before the entire universe. (See Chapter six.)
It is worth noting that all of these statements were published during and after the year 1888, although a less emphatic statement had been published in the 1884 edition of The Great Controversy.
During this centennial year, 1988, much attention is being given to the problems of the memorable conference of 1888 held in Minneapolis.

287
We have learned about the problem of legalism versus righteousness by faith, the problem of kingly power versus gospel freedom in church administration, and the problem of disbelief in the Spirit of Prophecy versus continuing confidence in the prophetic gift. Unfortunately, the fourth major problem, and perhaps the greatest in view of its direct challenge to the doctrine of righteousness by faith, has often been overlooked - the intrusion of Calvinism into the Seventh-day Adventist church.
We do not have stenographic reports of the messages presented by Jones and Waggoner during the 1888 conferences, but we do have the messages presented by Ellen White. On October 20, the first Sabbath of the conference, she preached a keynote sermon entitled, “Advancing in Christian Experience,” based on 2Peter 1:1-12. In the first paragraphs of this sermon she describes the problem that she is addressing. It is clearly the Calvinistic doctrine that Christians cannot stop sinning.

Please observe:

Now what we want to present is how you may advance in the divine life. We hear many excuses: I cannot live up to this or that. What do you mean by this or that? Do you mean that it was an imperfect sacrifice that was made for the fallen race upon Calvary, that there is not sufficient grace and power granted us that we may work away from our own natural defects and tendencies, that it was not a whole Saviour that was given us? or do you mean to cast reproach upon God? Well, you say, it was Adam’s sin. You say, I am not guilty of that, and I am not responsible for his guilt and fall. Here all these natural tendencies are in me, and I am not to blame if I act out these natural tendencies. Who is to blame? Is God? Why did God let Satan have this power over human nature? These are accusations against the God of heaven, and He will give you an opportunity, if you want it, of finally bringing your accusations against Him. Then He will bring His accusations against you when you are brought into His court of judgment.
How is it that He is pleading, “I know all the evils and temptations with which you are beset, and I sent My Son Jesus Christ to your world to reveal to you My power, My mightiness; to reveal to you that I am God, and that I will give you help in order to lift you from the power of the enemy, and give you a chance that you might win back the moral image of God.” God sent His Son, who was as Himself, one with the Father, and He bore insult and shame and mockery for us, and suffered at last the ignominious death upon Calvary. Satan met Him with opposition just as soon as He came into the world; but He met it all; He did not swerve a bit. Had it not been for the power that God gave Him, He could not have stood the assaults of the enemy; but He did, and although He had him to meet at every step, and was

288
pressed step by step, yet here was the battle fought in this world with the powers of darkness. (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, Volume I, page 122.)

The Holy Spirit had revealed to God’s special messenger what had been developing, perhaps imperceptibly, in the minds of some of the ministers. They had been accepting the false reasoning that because of the fall of Adam our natures have been so weakened and corrupted that it is impossible for us to stop sinning, and so this sinning is not our fault. We are not responsible. The implication of this reasoning is, of course, that the responsibility for our sinning rests on God, because He let this weakening and corruption happen to us. Notice Ellen White’s horrified response:

Do you mean to cast reproach upon God?

In the light of these words, we are better able to understand why an angel of God instructed her that

. . . there was a spirit coming in taking possession of the churches, that if permitted would separate them from God. . . (Emphasis mine). 1888 Materials 1, 296

. . . this spirit had been gathering strength for years, and the leavening influence was at work and spiritual life was going out of the churches. (Emphasis mine.) 1888 Materials 1, 297

. . . I had presented before me in Europe chapters in the future experience of our people which are being fulfilled during this meeting. The reason given me was want of Bible piety and of the spirit and mind of Christ. The enemy has been placing his mold on the work for years, for it certainly is not the divine mold. (Emphasis mine.) 1888 Materials 1, 179

She had been in Europe from AuguST I885 until August 1887. As early as 1882 Ellen White had published in Testimonies to the Church, Volume V, these warnings:

Knowing as I do the great lack of holiness and power with our ministers. . . . p.160

I tell you, my brethren, that a large number who profess to believe and even to teach the truth, are under the bondage of sin. Base passions defile the mind and corrupt the soul. (Emphasis mine.) p. 220

When we compare these warnings regarding the Satanic spirit that was working in the churches, the want of Bible piety, and the surrender

289
to the bondage of sin, with her statements regarding the non-scriptural reasoning that was going on in the minds of some of the ministers in 1888, we cannot doubt that a truly serious invasion of the errors of Calvinism into the Seventh-day Adventist church had occurred. Obviously, this did not happen at the 1888 conference, nor in the months immediately preceding that conference. It had been going on for years, according to the angel.
All of this causes us to look with renewed interest at the agenda of topics proposed by the conference leaders for discussion during the tenday ministerial institute that preceded the 1888 conference.
On the list is the subject, predestination. (See A. V. Olson, 1888-1901 Thirteen Crisis Years, p. 37.) Why would a group of leading Seventh-day Adventist ministers need to spend even one minute discussing that hideous doctrine?
Had the enchantment of some of the ministers with the errors of Calvinism reached the point that they were willing to consider embracing the doctrine of predestination in its original form or even in a modified form?
Elder A. V. Olson, author of the book Thirteen Crisis Years referred to above, includes in his Appendix A, pages 248-311, the text of the sermons presented by Ellen White during both the ministerial institute and the conference. Even a casual reading of these sermons will demonstrate Ellen White’s overriding concern about low spiritual conditions among the ministers. Repeatedly she urges them to be worthy of their calling and to let their lives and characters reflect the truths of the gospel. Olson himself comments that her sermon on Sabbath, October 13, dealt with the problem of Christless preachers (Ibid, p. 45). One who today reads those messages presented by Ellen White may wonder why Olson confined that description to one particular sermon. It would seem to apply to others equally well. Further evidence regarding the extremely serious nature of this intrusion of Calvinism into the Seventh-day Adventist church, including its ministry, is found by comparing the time and effort that Ellen White devoted to solving the four major problems.

1. The problem of legalism versus righteousness by faith. While the delegates seemed to feel that this issue centered in a correct understanding of the law in Galatians, Ellen White strongly disagreed. She refused to enter into the debate on the law in Galatians, aside from urging that the subject be discussed in a courteous and Christian manner. She waited until 1896 before setting forth her own views. (1888 Materials IV, 1575) (See Chapter Six of this volume.) She firmly rebuked a delegate who set forth the proposition that our message stood or fell on the basis of our position on the law in Galations. (1888 Materials I, p. 220.) Apparently she paid little attention to this subject in the past I888 years.

290
2. The problem of kingly power versus gospel freedom in church administration. She related to this problem primarily in correspondence from Australia to the major church leaders, and especially to the General Conference president, Elder 0. A. Olsen. The increasing vigor of her protests and appeals for reform may be comprehended by reading the series of letters to Elder Olsen that are found in the 1888 materials four volume set. These appeals for reform reached their climax in the year 1901, when, having returned from Australia, she attended the conference in Battle Creek. On April 1 she gathered the leading workers into the college library and in a remarkably frank manner pointed out the evils that existed in high places and urged that a correction be established before the conference closed.
This appeal brought about extensive changes in organization and in leadership personnel. Ellen White seemed to feel that the crisis had been successfully met, and she had little to say about it in the after years. We should not forget, however, that the problem of kingly power, abuse of authority, is by its very nature a recurring problem. We must always be on guard lest it be reasserted in our organization.

3. The problem of disbelief in the Spirit of Prophecy versus continuing confidence in the prophetic gift. The particular eruption of disbelief that occurred in 1888 was to a large extent offset by the repentance and renewed confidence of many of those who were in the worst condition during and after the conference itself. (See 1888 Materials and Thirteen Crisis Years.) In her subsequent writings she made few references to this particular problem and dealt with the need of confidence in the prophetic gift in a manner not unlike her dealing with that problem in the years before 1888.

4. The problem of the intrusion of the false doctrines of Calvinism into the Seventhday Adventist church. Judged by the time and attention that Ellen White devoted to it, this might reasonably be described as the greatest problem of the church in 1888 in that it was a direct challenge to the doctrine of Righteousness by Faith. She dealt with the idea that Christians cannot stop sinning by identifying it as Satan’s lie, an accusation against the character of God, in a series of thirty-five statements published during the years 1888-1909.

She dealt with the problem by setting forth new descriptions of it, as in ST 8/29/92:

There are many who in their hearts murmur against God. They say, “We inherit the fallen nature of Adam, and are not responsible for our natural imperfections.” They find fault with God’s requirements, and complain that He demands what they have no power to give. Satan made the same complaint in heaven, but such thoughts dishonor God.

291
Those who would justify themselves in wrongdoing, and lay the blame of their disobedience upon God, will be heard. They argue that they are born with strong passions and appetites, and are surrounded with objects that solicit to sin, and under such circumstances how is it just to condemn them.

As we see the weakness of human nature, instead of trying to justify ourselves in wrongdoing, let us become more familiar with the Word of God. It will stengthen our minds in the time of temptation. You may say, “I was born with a natural tendency toward this evil, but I cannot overcome.” But every provision has been made by our heavenly Father whereby you may be able to overcome every unholy tendency. You are to overcome even as Christ overcame in your behalf.

. . . Christ died on Calvary that man might have power to overcome his natural tendencies to sin. 2RH 545-6

And she dealt with the problem by issuing a steady stream of statements affirming that it is possible by God’s power for Christians to stop sinning. We have presented approximately 2500 such statements in this volume, but let it be remembered that these were selected from a total of 4,500 that were found by examining only the published works, not including her letters and unpublished manuscripts.
She labored incessantly to set forth the true doctrine of righteousness by faith in contrast to the false doctrine of unrighteousness by presumption.

Faith claims God’s promises, and brings forth fruit in obedience. Presumption also claims the promises, but uses them, as Satan did, to excuse transgression. Desire of Ages, 126

Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness, if we sustain a living connection with Him. Then we cease to transgress the Holy Law of God, and become partakers of the Divine Nature. 2RH 269

Genuine faith appropriates the righteousness of Christ, and the sinner is made an overcomer. . . . 1SM 364

By His perfect obedience, He has made it possible for every human being to obey God’s commandments. When we submit ourselves to Christ the heart is united with His heart; the will is merged in His will; the mind becomes one with His mind; the thoughts are brought into captivity to Him; we live His life. This is what it means to be clothed with the garment of His righteousness. 4ST 403

Her own summation of the discussions in the 1888 conference is found in Testimonies To Ministers, pp. 91-92:

292
The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.

Ellen White’s determined opposition to the intrusion of the errors of Calvinism into the Seventh-day Adventist church was effective. Satan’s attempt to destroy the unique mission of our church, as expressed in the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14:6-14 was largely a failure. But Satan is a wily foe. He must have realized that his next attempt to introduce into our church his greatest lie, that God has given a law that His subjects cannot obey, would have to be more subtle. He studied, planned, and awaited an opportunity, which came in the 1950’s.
The details of the conferences between certain of our church leaders and a Calvinistic theologian named Walter Martin that occurred in the 1950’s have been set forth in our previous Volume, The Word Was Made Flesh. The conferences, and apparently the appealing prospect of gaining better acceptance from the evangelical churches, led our brethren to publish a book in 1957 entitled, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions On Doctrine, now identified more simply as Questions On Doctrine, or QOD.
This book contains a statement about the historic belief of Seventhday Adventists in regard to the human nature of our Lord intended to show a similarity between our doctrine of Christ and the Calvinistic doctrine that Christ came to this earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. But the statement was an unexplainably inaccurate misreading of Seventh-day Adventist history. Our research brought to light a total of approximately 1200 published statements by Seventhday Adventist leaders that strongly affirmed the opposite view, that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man. Approximately four hundred of these statements were from the pen of Ellen White. Not one statement was found in the period 1852-1952 that supported the position set forth in Questions On Doctrine.
Nevertheless Questions on Doctrine has been circulated throughout the world as an accurate and authentic definition of SDA beliefs. The seemingly harmless affirmation of our agreement with Calvinism regarding the human nature of our Lord has turned out to be a Trojan horse, whereby the serious error that confronted our church in 1888 has been reintroduced.
If our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, He would have had no inherited weaknesses of any kind, and could not possibly have been tempted as we are tempted. And in view of the

293
enormous difference between His human nature and ours, it would be unreasonable and unfair to expect us to live as He lived, to overcome as He overcame. This is a conclusion that has entered into the thinking of many Seventh-day Adventists. Interestingly, this is precisely the same error of our ministers in 1888 that so alarmed Ellen White when it was made known to her. It is the error that she opposed so vigorously until her death in 1915.
It is also an error that is being preached from many pulpits in the Seventh-day Adventist church today, and is creating large-scale confusion and disagreement among our church members. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the disagreements engendered by this “new theology” (which is actually centuries old Calvinism) are now troubling the church, especially in the North American Division but also in some divisions overseas.
Those who cling to the historic Arminian Wesleyan Seventh-day Adventist position that victorious Christian living through the power of Christ is possible, and those who are embracing the doctrine that Christians cannot, by any means, stop sinning until Jesus comes, are becoming more and more uncomfortable with each other. They are finding it increasingly difficult to understand each other, and to work together on church committees, churchboards, and even conference committees.
The problem afflicts both pulpit and pew. The pastor who enters the sacred desk on Sabbath morning with an awareness that he must attempt to minister to two schools of theological opinion between which there is no small degree of tension is hard pressed to accomplish so difficult a task. It is truly a “no-win” situation. If he reinforces the opinions of one group, he disappoints the other, and vice-versa. If he tries to avoid disappointing either group by presenting bland, non-controversial sermons, he succeeds in satisfying nobody, and gives occasion to the criticism, so often heard, “The sermons we hear on Sabbath morning in our church might be heard in any church in town on Sunday morning.”
Some ministers are bold enough to openly identify with one school of opinion or the other, which creates problems for the church member. The member hears Pastor A preach a fervent sermon on overcoming through faith in the power of Christ, and perhaps only a week later hears Pastor B preach with equal fervor that no one will be able to stop sinning until Jesus comes. The church member’s bewilderment is intensified when he remembers that at the General Conference of 1980 in Dallas, Texas, the writings of Ellen White were affirmed to be “a continuing and authoritative source of truth.” If the member has purchased the new book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, he finds that statement firmly supported on pages 216-230.
He therefore turns to his Spirit of Prophecy library for information and finds such material as has filled the greater portion of this book. What can it mean? Why are the pastors in such disagreement with one another?

294
At this point the church member may consult with his conference administrator, and it becomes the president’s problem. The president may consult with the Bible teachers at the college supported by his Union and discover that they are also in disagreement. If he seeks help from higher administrative officials, he may find that the disagreement exists at both the Union Conference and the General Conference levels of administration.
This is not hypothetical speculation. These problems are actually occurring today. If they have not until this point in time touched you, count yourself fortunate, and say a prayer for your fellow church members.
So what is ahead?
What is the future of the Seventh-day Adventist church?
We may continue in the way we are going until disagreement ends in division - an appalling prospect. Or - we may achieve the harmony and unity that now elude us by addressing ourselves earnestly to the question, What is the basis of true unity? Shall we ascribe more authority to the opinions of theologians or to the Word of God? To scholastic speculation or to the Spirit of Prophecy?
We Seventh-day Adventists have been puzzled by the practise of some Christians who continue to print and publish church creeds that they have no apparent intention of following. They affirm on the one hand, for example, that the Ten Commandments are eternal and unchangeable, and on the other that Sunday is the day of worship, an obvious conflict between logic and practise. Surely we do not want to follow their example by affirming the authority of Ellen White’s writings while we ignore them.
Recently we visited the tooth relic temple in Kandy, Sri Lanka. We were told that somewhere in this huge temple is secreted a series of seven caskets, one within another, the inmost casket containing an authentic tooth of Buddha. Worshippers prostrate themselves in the supposed direction of the tooth to show their reverence and respect. The effect on their lives is not apparent.
Are we not in danger of giving an equally empty respect to the Spirit of Prophecy? Or could it be that we, too, have imperceptibly taken the same position that some took in 1888? See in the 1888 Materials, Volume II, page 684, where Ellen White reports that various church members were saying

. . . Elder Smith, Elder Butler, Elder Canright, (and others) did not any longer regard the testimonies as they once did, but they considered Sister White’s work and influence was a thing of the past. We had got beyond the need of the testimonies . . . This statement is what I meet everywhere in regard to (these men).

295
The approbation of the world and the love of sin are ever-present problems to all Christian groups, but among the dynamics that have contributed to the current problems in the Seventhday Adventist church, the book Questions On Doctrine, with its teaching regarding the nature of Christ, must be considered because its end result has been the providing of a theological defense for continuing in sin.
This was a concession to Calvinism, an attempt to harmonize two theologies that are in certain essential points basically incompatible. We must pass no judgment on the motives of those who prepared the QOD statement, but it seems to have been an attempt to rewrite the Spirit of Prophecy on this subject rather than to receive instruction from it. Once again the church has had to learn a painful lesson:

Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe in His prophets, so shall ye prosper. 2Chronicles 20:20

But there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. The new doctrinal book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, which is an explanation of the twenty-seven points of our faith that were voted at the General Conference of 1980, is a courageous realignment with the historic faith of our pioneers and our church. Calvinism is conspicuous by its absence. The book reaffirms that “He (Christ) took the nature of man in it its fallen state. . . “ (page 49), and . . . “dispelled the myth that humans cannot obey God’s law and have victory over sin.” (page 50) It contains no less than 140 affirmations of the possibility of victorious Christian living through power received from God, which is the theme of the Ellen White quotations in this book.
Will this new book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, mark the end of an era of uncertainty, confusion, and disagreement among Seventh-day Adventists? Let us earnestly hope and devoutly pray that it will be so.

Back To Top

Last Chapter | Tell of His Power Index | Next Chapter