2008-05-15 18:18Z

A Response to “The Crucial Role of M. L. Andreasen and His Last Generation Theology,” from George R. Knight’s book, A Search for Identity, pp. 144-152

Presenter: Larry Kirkpatrick

Location: Internet

Delivery: 2007-10-20 06:51Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2007-10-20 06:51Z

Type: Article

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-knight-mlalgt.php

George R. Knight makes the following statement at the beginning of his treatment of the teachings of M. L. Andreasen:

It is impossible to overestimate the influence of M. L. Andreasen on twentieth-century Adventist theology. His theological package is so central to modern Adventist development that a person is forced to respond in one way or another to it. Individuals and groups within the church either agree with his theology or they must react against it. Neutrality is not an option for those who understand his teachings.¹

Knight is signaling his abandonment of the historian’s anticipated objectivity. He comes out against Andreasen and his “theological package.” Knight’s assessment is correct on this point: one cannot remain neutral about the theology discussed.

We, too, have reviewed Andreasen’s viewpoint, but see in his theology Adventism taken to its intended goal. Because, as Knight says, “neutrality is not an option,” we, in the following pages pause to review his charges against Andreasen. In fact, we find Knight’s seven charges ill-founded.

Knight does claim to see three strengths in Andreasen’s last generation theology:

Its concern with sanctification.
Its insight that God’s justification in the eyes of the universe is more important than the justification of individuals.
Its understanding that Satan accuses God of creating a law that no human could obey.²

And yet, the thrust of Knight’s material seems measured to negate most of what Andreasen offers on these very points.

There is a Theological Package

There is here a distinct theological package under discussion. As most theological packages, so this one involves a set of logical, systemic elements. This implies that the tapestries offered are in a general sense either sound or unsound. Knight is likely either mostly right or mostly wrong with reference to his position concerning the “theological package.”³

Knight asserts that there was a decided shift of direction denominationally. He does not downplay the significance of the directional change.

Andreasen’s theology dominated Adventism from the 1940s through the late 1950s, but as we shall see in the next chapter, it would face continuous challenge from the mid 1950s onward. That opposition would create a major split among the denomination’s members and thought leaders.⁴

Knight is not alone in his assessment. In 1985 another Adventist theology professor, coming from another direction, wrote, “these two tracks are totally incompatible with each other… compromise is impossible… compromise or harmony between them is logically impossible… one must make a choice between the two systems.”⁵

Thus, Knight correctly insists that there was, on a denomination-wide basis, a collision of theological systems in the 1950s. This is very significant. If jettisoning the theology upheld by Andreasen was actually an error, then for half a century the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been building on a mistaken foundation, wandering in the wilderness instead of advancing homeward. The stakes are that high. Under dispute then is which “integrated eschatological theology”⁶ is the correct one.

Foundational Aspects

It is crucial to highlight the ideas we must weigh in order to determine which view is more correct.

Knight names six foundational points in the theological package he identifies with “last generation theology.” First, dual or parallel cleansing. Just as the sanctuary in heaven is being cleansed, so too must believers on earth be cleansed. Next, Mrs. White’s teaching that the final generation will pass through the time of trouble without a Mediator. Next, Mrs. White’s statement that Christ is waiting for a certain development of character in His followers precedent to His return to claim them as His own. The fourth point is the teaching (which Knight prefers to assign to Waggoner and Jones) that Jesus took sinful human nature.

Fifthly, God’s end-time followers are intended to offer a demonstration to the universe. Knight points out Andreasen’s objection to the concept of a finished atonement at the cross. Then he makes his loudest complaint: he urges that Andreasen and those sustaining his ideas have over-represented the role of God’s people in the making of the atonement.⁷

So we review these ideas, doing so with a pointed concern in mind: although ideas are indeed traceable to certain individuals (Knight mentions several), we risk misunderstanding them if we refuse to consider also that which each one of them thought of as their primary sources—the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Dual Cleansing

The dual or parallel cleansing idea is found unambiguously in Ellen White:

From the Holy of Holies, there goes on the grand work of instruction. The angels of God are communicating to men. Christ officiates in the sanctuary. We do not follow Him into the sanctuary as we should. Christ and angels work in the hearts of the children of men. The church above united with the church below is warring the good warfare upon the earth. There must be a purifying of the soul here upon the earth, in harmony with Christ’s cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven.⁸

The work in the heavenly sanctuary is going forward. Jesus is cleansing the sanctuary. The work on earth corresponds with the work in heaven.⁹

Christ is cleansing the temple in heaven from the sins of the people, and we must work in harmony with Him upon the earth, cleansing the soul temple from its moral defilement.¹⁰

The work which Christ is doing in the sanctuary above will engage the thoughts and be the burden of the conversation, because by faith he has entered into the sanctuary. He is on earth, but his sympathies are in harmony with the work that Christ is doing in heaven. Christ is cleansing the heavenly sanctuary from the sins of the people, and it is the work of all who are laborers together with God to be cleansing the sanctuary of the soul from everything that is offensive to Him.¹¹

But not just in Ellen White. In Torah we see a dual or parallel cleansing. Leviticus 16:29-31 tells us that during the day of atonement and during the active ministry of the high priest in cleansing the sanctuary, the people of God were indeed participatory:

And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.

It is well to remind ourselves that God’s intention for Israel was that they be a nation of priests:

And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto Myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine: And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel (Exodus 19:3-6).

We today hold to a priesthood of believers. There is nothing problematic about the idea—whether it is M. L. Andreasen or anyone else expressing it—of a “dual cleansing.” Beside this we have evidence in texts such as Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 John 3:3, Revelation 7:13, 14; 19:7, 8 indicating an active role for the believer in God’s cleansing. All this, plus the idea of the investigative judgment and a final cleansing of the sanctuary (Daniel 8:14; Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:10, 11; 23, 24). The role of the High Priest is always highlighted; it is he who approaches the throne itself. But there is a role for the people. It is true even today.

Without a Mediator

Knight mentions Mrs. White’s statement about living without a Mediator:

Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth. This work is more clearly presented in the messages of Revelation 14.¹²

This statement is neither ambiguous nor problematic; the Bible supports the idea. Will Christ’s intercession in the sanctuary above cease at some point? Yes, for it must be concluded before the Second Coming, because at that time Jesus returns to earth to give reward according to the outcome of the Investigative Judgment:

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be (Revelation 22:11, 12).

What of believers at this time? The facts are important: they “are living,” they must be able “to stand,” their “robes must be spotless,” their “characters must be purified from sin,” “they must be conquerors in the battle with evil.”

Neither is the Scripture ambiguous:

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that He should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation (Hebrews 9:24-28).

Jesus’ purpose is to put away sin. Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many—to be a legitimate sacrificial Substitute for us, and to be a legitimate heavenly High Priest for us—He bears our sins through the cleansing process of the atonement, but at last appears “without sin.” Sin is put away by His followers on earth. The Third Angel’s Message has accomplished its work in them. They have so connected to Jesus their Mediator that they have permitted Him to cleanse them. There is nothing remaining in them that Satan can leverage to successfully provoke them into sinning (John 14:30; Psalm 17:3). Do they stand independently of God and His power? Never!

But do they need a Mediator for continued sinning? Do they need a current ministry of forgiveness? Not after probation’s close, because they have taken Jesus at His word. Galatians 2:20 has become a living reality for them. They are sealed. They are walking with Christ. It is an extended faith walk. Peter walked on the water for a few moments and began to sink (Matthew 14:25-34); these walk by faith through the last leg of the journey home by faith, their eyes and hearts refuse to separate from Christ. They never sink drowning into the water. No strange doctrine here.

Perfect Reproduction

Knight mentions Mrs. White’s well known statement from Christ’s Object Lessons:

‘When the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.’ Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.¹³

But we already noted Revelation 22:11, 12, which says the same thing. Those who are holy after probation has closed will be holy still, and Jesus, immediately after determining that the harvest is ripe puts in His sickle (Mark 4:29). Peter speaks plainly of speeding the arrival of the Second Coming by holy living (2 Peter 3:11, 12). All of our ground is, so far, eminently biblical, completely inspired, even if Knight has framed the discussion with reference to some of the stronger Ellen White statements. It would be of interest to the reader for Knight, having brought up the statement, to tell his reader where Andreasen refers to it in the main body of his text, and to tell us how Andreasen misunderstood it. Perhaps you see the point: there is no reason for Knight to bring up this item here. Andreasen never quotes from or gives hint of alluding to the statement from Christ’s Object Lessons.

The Humanity of Christ Post-Fall

Here Knight turns from White to Jones and Waggoner. He saves most of his discussion of Christ’s humanity for other sections of A Search for Identity. And yet, once again, Andeasen is on solid ground. J. R. Zurcher has insightfully pointed out that until the mid 1950s direction-change, discussion of Christ’s humanity was conducted mostly with reference to Bible-sourced texts, whereas after that time, and with the sharply skewed misrepresentations of Ellen G. White found in Appendix B of Questions on Doctrine, the discussion shifted to interpretations of the Ellen G. White writings.¹⁴

Andreasen’s main reference to Christ’s humanity is found at the second sentence of his “The Final Generation” chapter:

Christ showed the way. He took a human body, and in that body demonstrated the power of God. Men are to follow His example and prove that what God did in Christ, He can do in every human being who submits to Him. The world is awaiting this demonstration (Romans 8:19).¹⁵

One need not pull from the writings of Ellen White to sustain these four lines. Even a concise study of the most common humanity of Christ passages makes the same point (Romans 8:3, 4; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:7-18; 4:15).

Believers to Offer a Demonstration

Knight states that Andreasen received his concept that “God’s end-time people would be a demonstration to the universe” from Waggoner and Jones. But Knight quotes Revelation 14:12: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”

He should have continued, presenting other Scriptures that Andreasen had found in his Bible.

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature [creation] was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature [creation] itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (Romans 8:18-22).

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men (1 Corinthians 4:9).

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God… Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen (Ephesians 3:10, 20, 21).

Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into (1 Peter 1:12).

Nor should we here neglect Job, who lived out his testing experience under the careful scrutiny of heavenly beings, never knowing that His trust in God was being showcased in vindication of the divine character. But this is no different than Jesus, who himself indicated that the eyes of heavenly beings were tracking developments earthward (Matthew 18:10; Luke 2:9-14; 9:28-31; 15:7; John 1:51). Or yet the prophetic picture given by God in Revelation 12, where our attention is drawn to the titanic closing struggle between Satan and our Lord’s church—not just our Lord.

Nor yet should we neglect the two-fold crushing of Satan, first by Christ at the cross (Genesis 3:15), where Jesus crushes Satan’s head, and “Yet Satan was not then destroyed.”¹⁶ But at the last Christ does indeed destroy Satan, bringing down all his serpentine claims—and does so, in the very end, through His saints (Romans 16:20). Under their feet, Satan’s kingdom is at last ended. Yes, Knight might have quoted many texts, had he a mind to. Instead, the Andreasen ideas are said to originate in Waggoner and Jones.

Atonement Not Finished at the Cross

Knight finds Andreasen’s recognition that “Christ’s atonement remained unfinished at the cross”¹⁷ a crucial piece in the larger picture—and one that elsewhere he takes him to task for. Knight has no problem with what he calls the QOD authors’ making of a “verbal adjustment” and “adjusted their language”¹⁸ with reference to the atonement.¹⁹ This, in spite of the fact that their “adjustment” was unconvincing so that even Martin and Barnhouse said that it appeared to them that Seventh-day Adventists were taking a position that was new. But evangelical concerns over our teaching were not based on terminological differences; the evangelicals did not think us cultic on the basis of terminology. Our teaching on the atonement had been different from evangelicals from Miller onward. P. Gerard Damsteegt summarizes:

The insights into the sanctuary obtained from Exodus, Leviticus, Hebrews and Daniel led the Adventist believers to the inescapable conviction that the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the 2,300 years was nothing less than the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary on the antitypical Day of Atonement. Daniel 8:14, they concluded, prophesies the beginning, not the end, of the antitypical Day of Atonement…. the Day of Atonement did not end on October 22, 1844, but began on that date, and Christ’s special atoning ministry would continue until He had finished His work of mediation in the sanctuary.²⁰

The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy writings provide abundant evidence that the atonement was not completed at the cross. Indeed, Christ’s atoning ministry in heaven especially since 1844 was “the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844” and “opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious.”²¹ If one accepts (as do Adventists) that the earthly sanctuary system parallels the heavenly, that the cross parallels the offerings in the courtyard of the Hebrew sanctuary, then one must also accept that the High Priestly ministry in the Holy and Most Holy, with the cleansing of the sanctuary, is equally parallel. To find fault with Andreasen (or any other Adventist) on this point is to give countenance to changing our religion.²²

A Central Role For God’s People

Knight reserves his strongest concern for the role of God’s people. For Andreasen, he says, “The final generation holds the central spot in the great controversy between Christ and Satan and plays the most important part in the atonement.”²³ Knight is here especially blurring issues of salvation offered through Christ, and the vindication of God’s character.

Two distinct things are happening. One is the personal salvation, i.e. transformation and restoration of His people. The other is the vindication of God’s character. Both are part of the larger scenario, but they are distinct in terms of the atonement. Dennis Priebe makes it plain:

We must be very clear here. The final atonement does not mean a new sacrifice, or say that the sacrifice of Christ was not sufficient. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient, it was complete, and it will never be repeated in any way. But the atonement process, ratified at the cross, is not complete. Major issues in the great controversy have not been settled. Sins are still on record in the heavenly sanctuary. Full unity has not been accomplished.²⁴

The bringing to maturity of the characters of God’s last generation of believers is an effect of the final atonement, but it is not the making of the final atonement. Jesus as our Great High Priest makes final atonement for us via His intercessions. The cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven is connected to the cleansing of the lives of God’s people here on earth, yes—but not meritoriously. It is just that the work that goes forward is coeval, that is, contemporary, occurring between the same chronological mileposts on the timeline. Their role in vindicating God’s character is indeed significant, but their role in effecting meritorious atonement for personal salvation? Nil.

Again, as Priebe says,

What Jesus did on the cross was the basis for ‘at-one-ment,’ because without the cross, no reconciliation would have been possible. But there is yet something to be accomplished to bring full unity between a holy God and a fallen race.²⁵

Jesus’ work is not only the basis, it is essential. But at-one-ment takes a coming together of two parties; reconciliation can never be unilateral. It can never be imposed. Party A has free will, and party B has free will. For this reason the New Testament, nay, the whole Bible is filled with admonitions to cooperate with God. We cooperate, He accomplishes the meritorious aspect. Christendom has underrepresented the importance of human participation. We need to learn to read the New Testament through its own eyes, rather than the narrowed perspective of 18th century scholastics who thought they were reading it through the eyes of 16th century reformers.

Knight’s Five Charges Against Andreasen

Knight makes at least five charges against Andreasen. How do they match up with the facts?

Charge 1: Did Andreasen’s “One Man” Argument Disprove His Broader Last Generation Theme?

What—specifically—shall we make of Knight’s charge that when Andreasen says “it is necessary for God to produce at least one man who has kept the law. In the absence of such a man, God loses and Satan wins”²⁶—he undermines everything else that he says? Knight claims that Jesus is the one Man who did indeed keep the law. Would we dispute this?

We do not dispute that Jesus kept the law. Andreasen himself says, “The Son of God, in His own person, has met Satan’s charges, and proved them false.”²⁷

But Andreasen in the context of his statements²⁸ is not here talking about Christ. He discusses Job, and then the last generation. Andreasen argues that down through the ages there have been many who, for a period of time, lived without sinning. But Satan claims that these are “special cases.”²⁹ “He demands a clear-cut case where there can be no doubt, and where God has not interfered.”³⁰ While Jesus has proved it can be done, “The supreme exhibition has been reserved until the final contest.”³¹

Satan can claim that Jesus’ obedience was a special case. After all, He is God. Nor can this concern be easily discounted, for, after all, this is the very claim that is common throughout Christendom: Jesus successfully obeyed because He was God. Throughout His incarnation He had access to all or most of the varied attributes of His deity that were His own by right. Of course He overcame.

But Jesus did not access His powers of deity while incarnate. (That is another topic.) The point here is that Satan could easily claim that Jesus was a special case. It would not be true, but he could make the claim. God is forestalling such claims. He meets this argument by showing that ordinary people can obey, and does so by presenting a group of significant size. These are two points that Jesus, because of circumstances, simply does not and cannot meet.

There is more. Jesus’ humanity, while it is the fallen kind, is not the weakest iteration of the fallen kind. The last, the final generation will be the weakest. Jesus came about 4,000 years after the Fall; we live today about 6,000 years after it. Remember, “the Fall” is actually “a succession of falls,”³² and so, with each new generation of fallen humanity, the race declines another notch in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth.³³ If we declare each generation (somewhat arbitrarily, but remember we should correct in some way for the exceptionally long-lived initial generations) to be approximately 40 years apart, then Jesus comes 100 generations downstream from Adam’s fall. If we say that since the time of Christ, generations are 21 years apart, then we add another 95 generations. Christ’s humanity might have a depravity rating of 100, ours of 195. Numbers here are only illustrative. The point is, it is harder to overcome in our humanity today than it was for Jesus to overcome in the humanity of His day. This is inescapable. But it is also true that no matter how much worse our humanity is than Christ’s, that there is a far, far more dramatic difference between pre-Fall and post-Fall adamic nature, than between post-Fall 100 generations and post-Fall 195 generations.

In any case, we need not become hung up here. The bottom line is that if God expects all men, from generation 1 to generation 195 to keep His commandments and to learn to live without sinning while incarnate in fallen flesh, then the only way Satan’s charges can be demonstrated as being false, is for God to present a definitive demonstration in the weakest kind of flesh that is expected to obey. Therefore, if this issue is to be addressed by the Great Controversy War, it can only be done by the very last of all generations. Again, then, Jesus simply does not and cannot qualify.

Here is a crucial item: we are not discussing at this point salvation and a legal, substitutionary sacrifice—we are discussing how God victoriously completes the Great Controversy War. Jesus, incarnating in our kind of flesh (“fallen”), and offering His perfect life in our place, qualifies to redeem us at the cross. But for the purposes Andreasen has outlined, there must be “a clear-cut case where there can be no doubt, and where God has not interfered,” and where He “demonstrates through the weakest of the weak that there is no excuse, and never has been any, for sinning.”³⁴ It thus becomes apparent that Andreasen is right and Knight is wrong. This specific aspect in God’s purposes cannot be met by Jesus 2,000 years ago. Andreasen has not weakened his case; he has strengthened it.

Charge 2: Did Andreasen Abuse the Writings of Ellen G. White?

Knight charges that Andreasen’s final generation chapter “indicates an extremely heavy reliance upon his understanding of the thought of Ellen White, even though he does not quote her even once.”³⁵ He also charges Andreasen with misusing her writings by granting them too much authority.

It is difficult to know what to say about this charge. Knight claims Andreasen makes an “extremely heavy” reliance on White, yet he provides no evidence whatsoever of this. If Andreasen’s reliance on White is so substantial, why then cannot Knight offer even just one or two items to sustain his claim? Because Knight is indulging here in mind-reading. Because he cannot prove such a charge, he is left here with only one possibility: assertion.

Knight’s claim is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is supposition. And by the way, can we be sure that George Knight has never relied “upon his [own] understanding of the thought of Ellen White”? He speculates that Andreasen relied upon White but chose not to quote her, a practice he claims A. T. Jones engaged in. This portrays Andreasen’s views as being distanced from Scripture. In the end, Knight expects you to take his word for it. But no evidence.

Charge 3: Did Andreasen Teach an Inadequate Doctrine of Sin?

The charge that Andreasen taught an inadequate doctrine of sin is nothing new. Ever since the authors of Questions on Doctrine in their erroneous book sought to introduce the doctrine of Original Sin to Adventism, this charge has been persistently offered. Yet the facts are different. The denomination, except for the Questions on Doctrine aberration, has held a consistent view, both before and soon after QOD. The most substantial statements and published offerings of the church in 1980, 1988, 2000, and 2005, have all refused to uphold the concept of condemnation by birth-nature.³⁶

Knight insists Andreasen is to be faulted for seeing sin as merely a series of actions.³⁷ Has Knight actually read Andreasen?

A man might speak evil words. That he ought not to do, but the mere elimination of evil words was not satisfactory to Christ. Back of evil words was an evil heart. In that Jesus was interested. He knew that a corrupt tree could not bring forth good fruit…. To Jesus, the inward state of the heart was more important than outward conformity.³⁸

Sin is more than the outward act. God desires truth in the inward parts. (Psalm 51:6.) There is where true religion resides…. Christianity is more than getting rid of certain undesirable traits. It includes the acquisition of the opposite characteristics.³⁹

Indeed, in one book, Andreasen devotes two whole chapters to addressing “internal” sins such as envy, discontent, pride, selfishness, covetousness, hatred, and lying.⁴⁰ Even in Andreasen’s “The Last Generation” chapter, which we know Knight read, Andreasen is plain:

God’s law is exceedingly broad; it takes cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart. It judges motives as well as acts, thoughts as well as words.⁴¹

It is true that Andreasen also discussed sin in terms of concrete acts. Both aspects are important. Not only the outward act but the inward disposition—ultimately—is chosen, in the sense that we intentionally reinforce an evil disposition or a righteous one. Knight charges that the New Testament and Ellen G. White disagree with Andreasen on the doctrine of sin. But Knight has himself misconstrued the doctrine of sin found in the inspired writings. Either Knight is going beyond inspiration in his understanding of sin, or he has not read Andreasen. Either solution is unhelpful.

At the bottom line Andreasen’s doctrine of sin differs in no way from the conventional Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of sin offered from the beginning of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1861, to the present. Andreasen’s views on this doctrine are biblical and orthodox. Knight’s offering is another false charge.

Charge 4: Was Andreasen Wrong About the Event of the Cross?

Knight charges that Andreasen was wrong about the event of the cross, teaching that it “did not finally and fully defeat Satan.⁴² Here, at least, Knight cites evidence: Jesus’ cry in John 19:30, “it is finished,” and Ellen White’s statement from The Desire of Ages, p. 764 that the destruction of sin and Satan were forever made certain and the universe made eternally secure.

But John 19:30 is Jesus affirming that His part as the offering for the atonement is ready and complete—not that the whole of the atonement was then complete. And when Knight quotes The Desire of Ages that God’s victory in the Great Controversy War was made certain, Andreasen is still right in pointing out that Satan was not fully and finally defeated. He is still causing the destruction of souls, and the government of God is not yet fully vindicated. Knight ignores other statements made by the same author just three pages from 764, for she also states,

Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan’s existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve.⁴³

Knight, not Andreasen, has misconstrued the event of the cross. If the cross finally and fully resolved all these matters, what need then for the next 2,000 years of sin and suffering? None, in Knight’s plan. But in the Bible, Ellen G. White, and M. L. Andreasen, it is different. The Bible points to the development of a final generation (Revelation 7:1-4; 14:1-5, etc.) and a final testing (Revelation 12; 13; 18). White tells us that the Great Controversy War is continued in the interest of sharpening the contrast so that good and evil may once for all be seen in their truest light.

Knight seems unfair in what he ascribes to Andreasen, for Andreasen repeatedly notes the importance of the cross. Andreasen says, for example, that the demonstration offered by the final generation will be the most sweeping and conclusive in all the ages showing what God can do in men. Even so, he interrupts his own sentence to make sure that we know that this is only “if we exempt Christ’s godly life on earth and His supreme sacrifice on Calvary.”⁴⁴ Indeed, although Jesus sacrificial death on the cross is not even the main them of the chapter, Andreasen mentions it incidentally at least 10 times.⁴⁵ It is difficult to know just what is really bothering Knight. Is it that Andreasen is articulating a competing view of the role of the cross in a connected system of theology?

Charge 5: Did Andreasen’s Theology Make Salvation a Human-Centered Affair?

Knight charges that Andreasen’s theology makes the plan of salvation a human-centered affair. He goes so far as to claim that

In actuality, according to his theology, humans must get to the place where they don’t need Christ, where they can stand on the basis of their own achievements.⁴⁶

This is perhaps Knight’s most offensive misrepresentation of Andreasen. Among all that he says, this seems the most unfair. Where O where is the evidence to substantiate it? Nowhere. Where O where then is the evidence even to suggest it? Knight provides no references. Sometimes the most extreme charges are the ones presented with no substantiating evidence.

Is Andreasen teaching that God’s people are to overcome independently of Christ? or through Christ? Knight’s chief argument falls to the ground if it can be shown that Andreasen teaches the latter and not the former.

Andreasen believes that apart from Christ, we cannot overcome. Listen:

If Christ is not God, He cannot save us; for no human being, however highly exalted, can save another. The deity of Christ lies at the foundation of all true religion.⁴⁷

If no human being, however highly exalted, can save another, then it is axiomatic that no human being, however highly exalted, can save himself. Andreasen never teaches that humans must, or even can come to the place where they don’t need Christ. But Knight’s charge stems from his reading of Andreasen’s “The Last Generation” chapter. Let us look there for something that may have confused him. What Knight does say, is the following: “M. L. Andreasen came to that interpretation when he read Ellen White’s statements about standing without a mediator in the sense of standing without a Savior.”⁴⁸ Can we find anything in Andreasen to support such a theory?

There are three possibilities in “The Final Generation” chapter. First, on p. 302 Andreasen speaks of obtaining complete victory over sin. But it is not a victory without Christ, for he writes “God has finished His work in him…. He [God] will take the weakest of the weak, those bearing the sins of their forefathers, and in them show the power of God.”⁴⁹

Clearly, God is working in the man; in them He is showing His power. This cannot be construed as gaining victory apart from a Savior, or as coming to the place where one no longer needs Him. Unfallen people need God and so do redeemed and victorious people. It is the power of God that makes the victory possible. When Andreasen says that “God has finished His work in him,” he is not saying that a man no longer needs God.

The next possibility is on pp. 312, 314. Here Andreasen suggests that the experience of testing that the last generation will undergo will approach “that which the Master underwent,” and that it will be a repeat of the experiences of Job. Very intense, indeed! But of Job’s test, Andreasen says, “he retains his integrity and faith in God.”⁵⁰

End-time believers will, like Job, have every earthly stay removed. And yet, “God will produce, not only one or two who keep His commandments, but a whole group, spoken of as the 144,000.”⁵¹ Notice that these overcomers are produced by God, not by the efforts of men who are separated from Him. Their ordeal during testing is described as being “left alone to battle with the powers of darkness.”⁵² But this “alone” must be intended as a qualified “alone.” Alone from human comforters and the help of earthly powers, yes, but if they are maintaining their faith in God and their integrity, as Job, then they are not alone. The Holy Spirit is withdrawn from those who have rejected Him, not those who have accepted. We cannot be fair to Andreasen’s words and find Knight’s theory in this passage.

The third and final possibility begins at p. 317. Andreasen outlines the situation. First, God withdraws His Holy Spirit from the earth, meaning that the wicked are no longer restrained from following their full commitment to selfishness. There is no suggestion by Andreasen that the Holy Spirit is withdrawn from God’s people.

Next, he says they will be threatened, tortured, persecuted. We are told that their trials occur not under Job level 1 (Job 1:12), but Job level 2 (Job 2:6). Satan is unleashed to do everything but take the tempted one’s life.

The third specification is that God hides Himself; the sanctuary in heaven is closed. By this, no doubt, Andreasen is addressing the point in time after probation has closed. Listen closely: “He [God] appears not to hear… seemingly they must fight their battles alone. They must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.”⁵³ The situation appears one way, seems one way, while actually God “supplies grace and power for holy living.”⁵⁴

Here then is Andreasen’s understanding of living without a Mediator—not Knight’s “standing without a Savior”! What’s more, this is found in the core text that Knight purports to comment on. This is what Andreasen means when he writes in his final paragraph “in them every sin must be burned out, so that they will be able to stand in the sight of a holy God and live with the devouring fire.”⁵⁵

Knight worries that Andreasen’s theology exalts man. He warns that in the book of Revelation it is always God and the Lamb who are glorified. We agree that it is always God and the Lamb who are glorified. It is always God the Father and God the Son Jesus who are glorified. But it is no part of Andreasen’s theological plan to glorify the last generation. A mighty test, of necessity, comes on their watch, but they are not glorified by it. They will cast their crowns only at the feet of their Savior Jesus.

Knight needs to be careful, for the book of Revelation sometimes surprises us. There is a considerable focus in the book on the people of God. In Revelation 7 most of the talk is about the 144,000. In Revelation 12 Jesus appears only briefly (12:5), while the remainder of the chapter is focused on the conflict between God’s followers and Satan’s. Revelation 13 and 14 are similar, although Jesus is prominent in Revelation 14:1, 4. We should not condemn God for putting the spotlight on His people in these places, and we should not condemn Andreasen for seeking to understand the role of God’s people here, either.

Knight’s assertion is seen to be false. But he finishes his chapter by offering the charge that Andreasen’s theological package makes God dependent upon human beings—what Knight calls “the ultimate heresy of the first-century Jews, who saw themselves as the only avenue through which God could complete His work.”⁵⁶ But if God elects to give evidence through agencies He has selected, then His “dependence” upon man is willful. He, in His sovereignty, has chosen it.

It is to be remembered that while He has chosen to make His case by using humankind, He has never yet committed it irrevocably to any people. To the Hebrews He at last granted 490 years in which to accomplish His goals. They did not meet His purposes. Their probation closed. Likewise, the generation of Seventh-day Adventists that could have finished the work failed also, and were allowed to die in the wilderness rather than to cause God to close His case without placing His last exhibit into evidence.

Knight closes this section of his book by repeating several sentences from a previous book he had written. He declares that God’s work will stand whether any human beings accept it or not; it is independent of man. This makes for a God-centered kind of assertion. John Calvin would approve. But we are not so interested in assertions as in developing a correct understanding in what inspiration has given us. We do not set the parameters, God does. If we do not consent to let Him set the parameters, then we are not letting God be God. Andreasen’s theology does not make salvation a human-centered affair any more than the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy writings do.

Andreasen Cannot Fill the Role of Scapegoat

We cannot end this paper without pointing out how Knight has overrated the novelty of Andreasen’s theology. Contemporary to Andreasen, even historically present at some of the same meetings (A. F. Ballenger hearings in 1905, Ellen White funeral in 1915, etc.) was S. N. Haskell, long time worker and confidante to Mrs. White. In 1914—and doubtless long before—he taught the following:

Anciently the congregation was not accepted as a whole; but it was an individual work (Leviticus 23:29, 30). So today each one answers for himself before God. We must not content ourselves by doing just as our fathers did, who passed away before the judgment opened in the courts of heaven. God requires special service of His people now. They are to live while their cases are being decided in heaven, and Satan brings to bear upon the last generation, which are weaker physically than any previous generation, all the wisdom he has gained in a six thousand year’s warfare. Those who, in the investigative judgment, are accounted worthy, will live for a time without a Mediator. Their experience will be different from that of any other company that has ever lived upon the earth. There are many reasons why God in His infinite mercy has enjoined special duties upon the last generation, that they might be more strongly fortified against the attacks of the enemy, and not be overthrown by his devices.

In the ancient service, if an individual failed to keep the day of atonement as God directed, his sins were not confessed over the scapegoat by the high priest; but he was cut off from among the people of God (Leviticus 23:28-30). The individual who, during the antitypical day of atonement, or the investigative judgment, thinks that Christ will plead his case while he himself ignores the work God has enjoined upon the antitypical congregation, will find at last that his name is blotted out from the book of life. We are saved by faith in our High Priest, but faith without works is dead (James 2:17). If we have a living faith, we shall gladly do as the Lord directs.…⁵⁷

The thoughtful reader will notice talk of “special service,” of living while our “cases are being decided,” of a people “weaker physically than any previous generation,” who are finally “accounted worthy,” who “live for a time without a Mediator,” in short, a people whose “experience will be different from that of any other company that has ever lived upon the earth.” To hear Knight, you would here think that you must be reading Andreasen. But all the above is Stephen Haskell. This is but one example. Would you like a few more?

Joseph Bates:

Will the reader please read these eighteen words (Lev. 16:16) again, and see if he cannot tell the meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary? Oh yes! You say, it was to cleanse the people, all of them, from their sins. Very well, do not forget it, when it comes down to you in the antitype.⁵⁸

James White:

A consecration every way as complete as this will be necessary in order for the names of the living saints to be retained in the book of life, and their sins blotted out. What a struggle to die to this world while in full strength! We feel confident that many will go with the people of God who will fail in their feeble efforts to overcome. But very few realize what a real Bible death to this world is. O church of Christ awake! arise! The judgment is passing! Very soon will your names either be confessed by Jesus Christ before his Father, or they will be blotted out of the book of life. Consecrate all to God, then you will be prepared to act your part in saving others from ruin. The great work of consecration now required is set forth in the following scriptures.⁵⁹

S. N. Haskell again:

A theory of the Third Angel’s Message never, no never, will save us, without the wedding garment, which is the righteousness of the saints. We must perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord.⁶⁰

D. T. Bourdeau:

Some do not see the necessity of receiving the truths applicable to the present time in order to be sanctified. They think they can be sanctified by living as other good Christians have lived. But how have good Christians in the past been sanctified? Have they not been sanctified by living up to the light that they had in their day? And if we are favored with more light than they were, if God has other duties for us to perform, can we be sanctified by merely living as they lived? Does God cause light to shine on His word in vain?… It will require a special preparation to meet the Lord when He comes.⁶¹

W. W. Prescott:

There is a difference between the gospel being preached for the forgiveness of sins and the gospel being preached for the blotting out of sin. Always, and today, there is abundant provision for the forgiveness of sins. In our generation comes the provision for the blotting out of sin. And the blotting out of sin is what will prepare the way for the coming of the Lord; and the blotting out of sin is the ministry of our High Priest in in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary….

Now that should be distinctly brought out in the third angel’s message; and with that, of course, will come the clearest revelation of the gospel ministry for this time, the blotting out of sin in this generation, thus preparing the way of the Lord….

And when these truths are preached in the light of advent history and advent prophecy, they will save people from sin and from sinning now. They will prepare a people to stand in the hour of temptation that faces us, and will prepare a people to meet the Lord in the air, and so to ever be with the Lord; and that is the message to be preached in this generation.⁶²

And more are not difficult to find.

We take nothing away from Andreasen. He wrote a number of books and did, through those writings and his role at the Theological Seminary, serve as a popularizer of what some have disparagingly called “Last Generation Theology.” And yet, but little of his theology was novel or new. Knight says that it is impossible to overestimate the influence of Andreasen. We differ. Knight and others have overestimated at least his theological influence.

The party line today is to assign the “mistakes” of Last Generation Theology to one man (Andreasen) and a few misguided followers. But was QOD so explosive in 1957 because of one 81 year old man and a few others, or was the actual cause something else? Herbert Douglass says it was. He points to one of the footnotes in the Questions on Doctrine Annotated Edition:

The Logic that flowed from that belief was that if Christ was just like us, yet had lived a sinless life, then so must other human beings—especially those of the last generation.… [This teaching] became the belief of the majority of Seventh-day Adventists in the first half of the twentieth century. That teaching was so widely accepted that it no longer needed to be argued in Adventist literature. It was accepted as a fact. It was upon that teaching that M. L. Andreasen would build his final generation theology.⁶³

After reprising the above, Douglass exclaims

Here is the clear statement why QOD was so ‘explosive’! QOD was directly contradicting of many years of Adventist Christology that had been a rock of appreciation and personal trust among clergy and laity.⁶⁴

It was not just one man. Directors of motion pictures center conflict between their flawed-yet-just hero, and one really, really bad villain. It is convenient to simplify a conflict down to one hero or set of heroic protagonists, and one villain. Vanquish the villain; the matter is closed. What a convenient plot device. In the controversies over Questions on Doctrine, M. L. Andreasen is cast as the villain. If we can assign our stack of “aberrant” theological points to him, then we can assign him the malfactor role and move on. Andreasen becomes theological scapegoat, bearing away the sins of aberrant theology to the wilderness of time past.

It will not wash. M. L. is not the criminal he has been made out to be. Ellen White, Stephen Haskell, and a host of others are his co-conspirators! Moreover, Andreasen did not allow himself to be led off quietly into the wilderness. The one place where Andreasen’s influence is closer to inestimable is in his indomitable spirit. While other workers kept quiet, Andreasen roared; he would not be silenced. His protest has echoed for 50 years. A humble man was simply carrying the torch of truth that had been passed into his hands. At the time of his death in 1962, it must have appeared to him as if the torch entrusted to the remnant had gone out.

But there is news. Fifty-years later the truth is very much alive.

Conclusion

A review of “The Crucial Role of M. L. Andreasen and His Last Generation Theology,” from George R. Knight’s book, A Search for Identity, pp. 144-152, comes out very poorly for Knight. He is not just wrong on some of his charges against Andreasen; he is wrong on all counts.

Knight’s book has been assigned as required reading at Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. Other portions of the book are not so dubious, but the section of the book here reviewed presents itself almost as character assassination of one already deceased, and is a deeply flawed representation of M. L. Andreasen and “his” Last Generation Theology. Although we are sure the author intended his text as a positive help, it is not a contribution to understanding or unity in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. GCO

Endnotes

George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2000), p. 144.
These items mentioned in Knight, p. 149.
Ibid., p. 144.
Ibid, p. 149.
Dennis Priebe, Face-to-Face With the Real Gospel (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1985), pp. 8, 9.
Knight, p. 149.
Ibid., pp. 145, 146.
Ellen G. White, Maranatha, p. 249.
________, The Upward Look, p. 344.
________, Review and Herald, February 11, 1890.
________, Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, pp. 54, 55.
________, The Great Controversy, p. 425.
________, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 69.
J. R. Zurcher, Touched With Our Feelings, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1999), p. 157.
M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 299.
White, The Desire of Ages, p. 761.
Knight, p. 146.
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Annotated Ed., p. xvii.
Ibid., p. xv.
P. Gerard Damsteegt, “How Our Pioneers Discovered the Sanctuary Doctrine,” Adventists Affirm, Fall 1992,
http://www2.andrews.edu/~damsteeg/pion.html, accessed online 2006-01-11 05:54Z.
White, The Great Controversy, p. 424.
________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 204.
Knight, p. 148.
Dennis Priebe, “What is the Final Atonement?”
http://www.dennispriebe.com/documents/What%20is%20the%20Final%20Atonement.html, accessed 2007-10-19 19:56Z.
Ibid.
Knight, p. 149, quoting from Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 316.
M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, 1937 ed., p. 314.
________, The Sanctuary Service, 1947 ed., pp. 314, 316.
Ibid., p. 316.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ellen G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, p. 1082.
________, The Desire of Ages, p. 117.
Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 318.
Knight, p. 150.
See my QOD 50 Year Conference paper, “A Wind of Doctrine Blows Through the Church: the Alternate Hamartiology of Questions on Doctrine (to be posted online on 2007-10-26).
Knight, p. 150.
M. L. Andreasen, The Faith of Jesus, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1939), pp. 98, 99.
Ibid., pp. 125, 126.
Ibid., pp. 91-126.
________, The Sanctuary Service, p. 310.
Knight, p. 151.
White, The Desire of Ages, p. 761.
Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 303.
Ibid., pp. 303, 304, 306, 307, 309x4, 310, 318.
Knight, p. 151.
Andreasen, The Faith of Jesus, p. 21.
Knight, p. 151.
Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 302.
Ibid., p. 314.
Ibid., p. 315.
Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 317, 318.
Ibid., p. 318.
Ibid., p. 321.
Knight, p. 152.
S. N. Haskell, The Cross and its Shadow, 1914, pp. 211-223.
Joseph Bates, “Midnight Cry in the Past,” Review and Herald, December 1850.
James White, “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth,” Review and Herald, Jan. 29, 1857.
Stephen Haskell, “A Few Thoughts on the Philadelphia and Laodicean Churches,” Review and Herald, Nov. 6, 1856.
D. T. Bordeau, “Sanctification or Living Holiness,” Review and Herald, Aug. 2, 1864.
W. W. Prescott, “The Gospel Message for Today,” General Conference Bulletin, April 2, 1903, pp. 53, 54.
Questions on Doctrine, Annotated Edition, pp. 518, 519.
Herbert E. Dougass, [booklet] Opportunity of the Century (Highland, CA: GreatControversy.org, 2005), p. 35.

© 2007 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American Southwest as pastor to churches in Nevada, Utah, and California. He received his Batchelor of Arts in Religion from Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with specialization in Adventist Studies. While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate Berrien Springs branch office. Pr. Kirkpatrick has been involved in youth ministry including the General Youth Conference and other initiatives. He is author of the 2003 book Real Grace for Real People and 2005’s Cleanse and Close: Last Generation Theology in 14 Points. He pioneered internet ministry, launching GreatControversy.org in 1997. He presently serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located near Loma Linda, California. Larry and wife Pamela live in Highland, California along with their children. They are actively involved in foster parenting.