GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | GCO PRESS PRICE LIST | GCO Ministry Officers 2008-05-15 18:17Z

The Loss of Transcendence, Pt. 6

Kevin D. Paulson reviews Graeme Bradford’s More Than A Prophet (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006), and People Are Human (Look What They Did To Ellen White) (Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 2006).

Presenter:   Kevin D. Paulson

Location:    Internet

Delivery:    2007-05-23 21:38Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2007-05-23 21:38Z

Type:        Book Review

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot6.php

Ellen White and the Adventist Salvation Controversy

In More Than a Prophet, Bradford ventures into the treacherous waters of the continuing Adventist controversy over the doctrine of salvation and related topics. In Bradford’s view, an inflated concept of Ellen White’s authority has been a principal problem in the church’s continued wrestling with these issues (541).

It is not the present writer’s wish to address in depth, in this context, the salvation and Christology debate in modern Adventism. For the purposes of this review, two questions will be considered: (1) Does the view labeled by Bradford as that of “Fundamentalist Adventism,” taught by such as M.L. Andreasen, depend primarily—as Bradford alleges—on Ellen White for support rather than the Bible? and (2) Does Bradford’s own salvation theology, as glimpsed in More Than a Prophet, affect in significant ways his view of Ellen White’s authority?

We have already noted, in this and the former book review (542), Bradford’s attempt to distinguish “salvation by grace” from the call of John the Baptist for reformation of life as a condition of being saved (Luke 3:11-14) (543). Again we must note the problem this distinction raises for the teachings of Christ Himself (Matthew 19:16, 17; 12:26, 27; 25:31-46; Luke 10:25-28), as well as the teachings of the apostle Paul (Romans 2:6-10; 8:13; Hebrews 5:9). Each of these passages is as clear as anything stated by John the Baptist that Spirit-empowered obedience is the condition of salvation.

Like others in contemporary Adventism (544), Bradford partakes of the following unscriptural concept:

Always we are accepted on the basis of what Christ has done for us, never on what He has done in us through the Spirit (545).

One needn’t go to Ellen White to refute this theory, though her writings give clear evidence of teaching otherwise (546). The apostle Paul is clear that the Christian’s salvation is accomplished both by forgiveness, or justification (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7), and by the Holy Spirit’s regeneration and sanctification:

God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5).

Though he doesn’t elaborate on his view of the nature of sin, it seems Bradford adheres to the belief many call original (or involuntary) sin, thus making it impossible for the human Christ to inherit at birth the same nature all other humans inherit (547). His denial that salvation can be accomplished even in part by the Spirit’s transformation is therefore completely logical, like that of others who hold his view. Inborn, involuntary sin not only disallows Christ from taking the same nature as fallen beings; it also disallows such beings from attaining sinless obedience this side of heaven—even through the Spirit’s power—so long as they retain such a nature. Bradford clearly seems to hold this particular understanding of the gospel (548).

One is curious as to how Bradford can hold the “original sin” view of human depravity while simultaneously placing such confidence in the “wisdom” and “discernment” of believers in weighing the objective counsel of God (549). If our entire being—including, presumably, our powers of discernment—is involuntarily depraved, how can such persons be trusted to rightly discern which prophetic counsels to consider “wheat” and which “chaff” (550)? Even if Bradford should protest that the wisdom and discernment of which he speaks are gifts of the Holy Spirit, one must remind him that according to his salvation theology, even the Spirit’s imparted power is incapable of perfecting character on this earth due to the depraved state of man’s nature (551). If the Spirit can’t subdue man’s depraved lower nature in the struggle with sin here on earth, how could Spirit-imparted wisdom and discernment fare any better in guiding the equally depraved perceptions of a believer’s intellect?

In Bradford’s view, the big problem with this controversy in Adventism, going back to Andreasen and the book Questions on Doctrine, is a too-heavy use of Ellen White by both sides of the discussion. In his own words:

Adventist history shows that, for the most part, theological divisions and conflicts have arisen over the misuse of and misunderstanding of Ellen White’s writings.… The church has paid a heavy price over the wranglings and multiplying of quotations to prove a point instead of settling the issues from the Bible. The church is still divided and the theology mapped out by M.L. Andreasen is a good example of the improper use of her writings (552).

Further describing Andreasen’s theology, Bradford writes:

Andreasen developed a final-generation theology based, to a large degree, upon a statement found in Christ’s Object Lessons. His “harvest theology,” developed in the 1930s, emphasized four major points:

The cleansing of the soul temple is an experience available in the antitypical Day of Atonement since 1844.

Ellen White indicates in her book The Great Controversy, in page 614, how the final generation is going to go through the “Time of Trouble” without an intercessor.

Ellen White states in Christ’s Object Lessons, page 69, that Christ will not come until His character is fully reflected in His people.

Revelation 14:12 shows how at the end there will be a final demonstration in the universe of a people who will keep the commandments of God. In The Sanctuary Service he develops this theme further as he shows the process of how he believes the final generation of Christians may become victorious over each sin in turn until they are ready for translation (553).

Without offering any proof whatsoever, Bradford states of Andreasen:

He read too much into some Ellen White statements while ignoring the context and other statements that say something different. And he ignored the fact that the Bible has little to say on the subject while giving too much pre-eminence to Ellen White (554).

Quite obviously, Bradford has read neither the Bible nor Andreasen very carefully. While Bradford correctly describes the final-generation theology taught by Andreasen, his claim is flat-out wrong that Andreasen’s doctrine in this regard is based primarily on Ellen White statements. Bradford refers in the above statement to Andreasen’s book The Sanctuary Service, where last generation theology is prominently taught (555). However, in this entire book of 334 pages and hundreds of Bible texts, only seven Ellen White statements are offered (556). And these seven references, together with others in an appendix (557), are nearly all historical statements on Israel’s history, the sanctuary types, and their fulfillment in the work of Christ. None are used as linchpins of Andreasen’s perfection theology.

Indeed, the chapter on “The Last Generation,” which lays out his teachings on this topic, includes only one Ellen White statement in a chapter of over 20 pages. And this statement merely refers to the temple in heaven in which only the 144,000 can enter (558). Not a single Ellen White statement is used to establish Andreasen’s belief in the perfecting of the final generation. Only Bible verses, and many of them at that, are used to demonstrate this point (Job 1:20-22; 2:10; Romans 8:19; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 5:23; Hebrews 3:1; 12:14; Revelation 3:21; 14:12 (559).

Andreasen’s volume The Book of Hebrews (560), also noted by Bradford as teaching the doctrine in question (561), reveals a pattern similar to The Sanctuary Service. In a book of 542 pages, and hundreds of Bible texts once again, only two Ellen White statements are used in the body of the author’s text (562). In addition, one finds a scant 51 pages—out of 542—of “Additional Notes” which contain Ellen White references (563). In his chapter on “The Author of Hebrews,” Andreasen defends his belief that Paul is the author of this epistle (564), but not once does he quote Ellen White in support of his stand. And in his chapter titled “Complete Sanctification,” which strongly upholds both the hope of character perfection in this life and Christ’s making this possible through taking our fallen nature (565), the author again uses Scripture only to sustain his position. Not a single Ellen White statement is used.

Not once, in either of these books, does Andreasen offer Christ’s Object Lessons, page 69, in support of his belief in final-generation perfection and the hastening—through such perfection—of the return of our Lord.

Popular though the claim may be that Andreasen’s last generation theology is based primarily on Ellen White rather than the Bible, the facts say otherwise. Indeed, the very statement in Christ’s Object Lessons, page 69, on the character of Christ being perfectly reproduced in His people, refers to 2 Peter 3:12 as support for the hastening of Christ’s coming through the perfecting of God’s people. This verse, when taken in context, offers strong support for what Ellen White (and Andreasen) are saying:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless (2 Peter 3:10-12, 14).

The belief that the perfecting of the saints is an essential prerequisite for the coming of Jesus is also found in such passages as Zephaniah 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 John 3:2, 3; and Revelation 14:5. Many other verses uphold the promise of sinless obedience as attainable by the Christian here on earth (Job 1:1, 22; 2:10; Psalm 119:1-3, 11; John 8:11; Romans 6:14; 8:4; 1 Corinthians 15:34; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 10:4, 5; Philippians 4:13; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 4:1; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:1; 3:6-9; Jude 24; Revelation 3:21). When, therefore, Bradford writes disparagingly of the teachings of A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner, saying how recent studies indicate “they were advocating a form of sinless perfectionism” (566), he leaves himself wide open—since he doesn’t define this term—to the assumption that he holds the evangelical doctrine (often called the “New Theology” in contemporary Adventism) that complete victory over sin is not possible in this life. Other statements, where he uses similar language (567), lend substantial credence to this conclusion.

Regarding the human nature of Christ, the post-Fall view held by Andreasen and others is actually easier to defend if one uses the Bible alone. A straightforward reading of such verses as Romans 1:3; 8:3; Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:15 makes it difficult to reach any other conclusion. Such Ellen White statements as the famous Baker letter of 1895 (568), though understandable when viewed in the context of the Ellen White consensus (569), find no parallel in the Bible. Methodist scholar Harry Johnson, who likely knew nothing of Ellen White, takes the same position as Andreasen and other Adventists of like mind in his book The Humanity of the Saviour (570).

Bradford is certainly right about one thing. He writes, concerning the preparation of Questions on Doctrine, that “bypassing Andreasen proved to be a great mistake” (571). Indeed, Andreasen’s books give every evidence that had he been included in the discussions with Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin, he would have presented a solid, strictly biblical case for his position on both the humanity of Christ and the nature of the atonement. Any illusion that one was compelled to resort to Ellen White statements to establish the classic Adventist stand on these issues, would have died a quick death at the hands of this able student of God’s Word.

Bradford is wrong, however, in implying that the answers given to Martin and Barnhouse in Questions on Doctrine claimed that “the Seventh-day Adventist stand on assurance before God was solely on a basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness,” and that “sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven” (572). Once again, Bradford gives no reference for this claim. In fact, Questions on Doctrine taught neither of these concepts, a fact which led Geoffrey Paxton in The Shaking of Adventism to describe QOD—despite its advocacy of Christ’s sinless human nature (573)—as having “a decidedly perfectionistic flavor” (574). Paxton goes on to document, quite correctly, that such concepts as justification-alone salvation and the imperfectability of Christian character did not enter Adventist thought until the 1960s (575).

Paxton’s research is especially significant in that its depiction of Adventist theological history agrees with that of one on the opposite end of the Adventist salvation controversy—Ralph Larson, to whom Bradford briefly refers (576). Paxton is clear that prior to 1950, Adventists were largely united in their belief in the post-Fall nature of Christ and the perfectibility of Christian character on earth (577). At one point Paxton writes, “The doctrine of the perfecting of the final generation stands near the heart of Adventist theology” (578). Larson’s research documents the same harmony in Adventist thought during the pre-1950 period (579). Whatever one’s final conclusions, it is difficult to ignore agreement of this kind between two researchers with opposite theologies.

Bradford’s apparent ignorance of Andreasen’s writings leads him to make such statements as the following: “One cannot help but wonder whether Andreasen would have gone the same route in his eschatology if he had been aware of the 1919 Bible Conference discussion about the role and function of Ellen White” (580). But regardless of the strengths or weaknesses in the arguments used by the 1919 participants, any honest review of Andreasen’s books on the subject in question reveals the solid biblical ground for the arguments presented. Though the present writer holds the theology of Ellen White to be in perfect harmony with that of Andreasen, readers are urged to consult Andreasen’s books for themselves and see how heavily he uses the Bible, and how rarely he uses Ellen White, in support of his eschatological views. Whatever one’s theology, this fact is hard to deny.

The fact that some who defend Andreasen’s position have often used more Ellen White statements than Bible texts in defense of their theology, does not prove their theology to be lacking in biblical support. (One shouldn’t forget that while the Bible contains only 800,000 words, Ellen White’s writings contain over 25 million, and are thus likely to be both more precise and voluminous on many subjects—and thus more frequently quoted—than the Bible.) It has ever been the present writer’s objective, when addressing these and other topics, to first build a foundation in the Bible before moving on to clarifying, elaborating statements from Ellen White. To the extent that some who hold Andreasen’s views have at times failed to do this, their cause has suffered. But such failure in no way proves biblical evidence for their stand is not both real and substantive.

Bradford implies, as have others, a connection between Andreasen’s theology and the early teachings of Robert Brinsmead:

Many of the ideas of Andreasen were later taken to their logical conclusion by an Australian, Robert Brinsmead, who caused havoc and division in the church during the 1960s (581).

Bradford unfortunately offers no evidence as to how the logic of Andreasen presumably led to the teachings of the early Brinsmead. The fact is that Brinsmead during the 1960s taught an end-time perfection accomplished by the cleansing of the subconscious mind from original sin during the sealing time (582). By contrast, M.L. Andreasen, like other classic Adventists, taught that perfection was attainable through sanctified growth (583), with no mention of some manipulative divine act erasing memory or purifying the subconscious. Paxton’s The Shaking of Adventism demonstrates how Brinsmead’s acceptance of the doctrine of original sin and his effort to fuse this doctrine with classic Adventist eschatology as taught by Andreasen, eventually produced tensions which led to Brinsmead’s rejection of classic Adventism and full embrace of justification-alone, perfection-denying salvation (584). Andreasen, by contrast, explicitly denied the doctrine of original sin (585).

In time, of course, Brinsmead’s “gospel” theology would lead him to reject 1844 and the investigative judgment (586), Ellen White’s prophetic authority (587), the remnant-church theology (588), and the Sabbath (589). Today he is an agnostic, with no religion to speak of (590).

Bradford’s allegation that Andreasen’s negative reaction to Questions on Doctrine was at least partly due to his not having been paid for the writing of a Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly (591), is another claim for which he gives no support. Even if true, it is beside the point. Such anecdotes have no relevance to the weighty questions of inspiration or other theological issues addressed by Bradford as well as this review. Andreasen’s theology stands or falls on its relation to the written counsel of God. Not on his personal shortcomings or resentments, whatever they may have been.

Speaking of Andreasen’s last generation theology, Bradford writes: “This teaching seems to have its roots in Adventism from the 1890s when A.T. Jones along with Anna Rice (claiming to be a prophetess) spoke of the final generation theology” (592). Others in modern Adventism, of course, have tried to make A.T. Jones, E.J. Waggoner, and M.L. Andreasen the principal sources for this teaching in Adventist history (593). But investigation reveals the roots of this teaching in the denomination to extend much deeper. Such Adventist pioneers as Joseph Bates (594), James White (595), Stephen Haskell (596), D.T. Bourdeau (597), even Bradford’s “progressive” hero W.W. Prescott (598), all taught what Andreasen later did about the perfecting of the last generation and the consequent hastening of Christ’s return.

In discussing the debate between Andreasen and then-General Conference President R.R. Figuhr regarding alleged changes in Adventist theology (599), Bradford again fails to consider who in Adventism is exclusively able to decide what the church officially believes. When Bradford writes that “the church had changed from its ideas on the nature of Christ, sinless perfectionism and the atonement due largely to the teachings of Heppenstall” (600), he is wrong again. It is true that many within the church changed their views, but the only body capable of speaking for official Seventh-day Adventism is the General Conference in global business session. At no such session have the teachings of Questions on Doctrine or Edward Heppenstall—on perfection, the humanity of Christ, or the scope of the atonement—ever been officially adopted.

While Bradford is correct in saying the role of Ellen White was addressed by the authors of Questions on Doctrine (601), thus commencing the modern process whereby certain Adventists would seek to downgrade her authority (602), this doesn’t mean—as we have seen already—that the stand of Andreasen and others with his convictions was not defensible on the basis of Scripture. What it does mean, despite Bradford’s claims to the contrary, is that in the view of those with Bradford’s salvation theology, Ellen White’s authority is clearly a threat. His claim that those seeking to “do theology” by means of Ellen White’s writings supposedly encounter “a wilderness of quotes and counter-quotes” which don’t take into consideration how inconsistent she allegedly could be (603), again confuses the issue. The fact is that while both sides of the salvation and Christology debate in Adventism use Ellen White to defend their views, only one side has actively sought to reduce her authoritative role (604). If her writings were truly as ambiguous as some say, both sides would seek to reduce her authority. But only one side in the controversy seeks to do this, and understandably so. If Ellen White is granted her full authority as stated in her writings, and if the consensus of her counsel is examined regarding the issues in question, the theology of Graeme Bradford and those of like mind stands in mortal peril.

When Geoffrey Paxton wrote in 1977 of Ellen White’s “wax nose,” presumably pushed this way and that by both sides of the salvation controversy (605), he perhaps didn’t realize that not far hence, a great many holding the views he held would come to see Ellen White’s “nose” as more granite than wax! Some years later, analyzing two different Sabbath School Quarterlies holding opposite views on the humanity of Christ (606), one author who rejects Ellen White’s authority frankly admitted which side more accurately represented her theology:

Does it follow, then, that Ellen White did not really have a consistent viewpoint concerning the nature of Christ and the issue of perfection? Probably not, because her entire theology was perfection-oriented. The Sabbath and health reform, two of her great concerns, have their rationale in perfectionism in preparation for translation.… Using some of Ellen White’s statements to prove that perfection is unattainable would seem as futile as using some of her statements to establish that she repudiated the significance of 1844 (607).

The same author states earlier in this article that a series of “antiperfectionistic” Ellen White statements quoted by another author “are generally not very convincing when read in context” (608). He goes on, writing of the end-time-perfection theology: “To repudiate it would be to repudiate the very nature of Adventism” (609).

Well said!

Earlier in this review we addressed the notion of Bradford and his scholar-supporters that the delay of Jesus’ coming necessitates reinterpretation of Adventist eschatology (610), and the distorted theories Bradford seems to embrace regarding the conditionality of Bible prophecy (611). Unfortunately, the biggest problem for Bradford and those of like mind on this subject is their unwillingness to accept the Bible-based, Spirit of Prophecy-affirmed reason for the delay—the failure thus far of God’s people to perfectly reproduce the character of Jesus.

We noted above the passage from Second Peter which speaks of God’s people “looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God” (2 Peter 3:12), and how this principle is noted by Ellen White as the basis of her statement that “when the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own” (612). One need not rely on the King James Version to establish from the above verse the principle that Jesus’ coming can be hastened—and, by implication, delayed—by His people. The Revised Standard Version translates “hasting unto the coming” as “hastening the coming,” the New International Version says the saints may “speed its coming,” the New English Bible says “work to hasten it on,” the New Living Translation says “hurry it along,” the Good News Bible says “do your best to make it come soon.” Without question, this verse teaches that Jesus’ coming may be hastened by His people through character preparation (verses 11, 14).

The book of Revelation declares that “in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God shall be finished” (Revelation 10:7). How does the New Testament define this mystery? “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). In other words, only at the end of time, when the seventh angel begins to sound, will the revelation of Christ through His people be complete.

Revelation likewise depicts four angels holding back the winds of strife until God’s servants are sealed in their foreheads (Revelation 7:1-3). Elsewhere the New Testament defines this sealing process as the Holy Spirit’s transforming work in believers’ lives (Ephesians 3:16-21; 4:30), making it possible for them to be “filled with all the fulness of God” Ephesians 3:19). Reflecting this biblical theme, Ellen White declares, regarding preparation for the end-time sealing: “Those who receive the seal of the living God and are protected in the time of trouble must reflect the image of Jesus fully” (613).

Once this principle is understood, Ellen White is recognized as thoroughly biblical when declaring that “when the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own” (614). It becomes equally clear that no aspect of God’s end-time message need be adjusted to accommodate the shifting sands of culture and society. Sin and righteousness remain culturally transcendent and timelessly relevant; neither social upheaval nor technology can render obsolete the simplicity of God’s Word. Time has lingered through Inquisition and Holocaust, slavery and segregation, Rwanda and Darfur, for but one reason—the eternal divine will that perfect righteousness be displayed at last alongside perfect sin. The persistent query of thoughtful minds and hearts as to why a good God would allow such an evil world, is answered by no other theological construct in the universe of Christian thought.

Both in More Than a Prophet and People Are Human, Bradford gives another reason why—in his view—Ellen White cannot be decisively authoritative for the church:

The Bible is a completed book. Hebrews 1:1 gives the reason for this, ‘In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son.…’ The generation of Jesus’ day were taught by Christ and individuals wrote down what they had learned. Jesus was the fullest, most complete revelation of God. Nothing that comes after Him will ever add to or eclipse the revelation of God in Him. All that comes after will be but a reflection of the light that shone through Him (615).

This reason for reducing Ellen White’s role has been heard before. In the wake of Glacier View, Robert Brinsmead in Judged by the Gospel declared:

The inevitable corollary of the Reformation’s sola fide (by faith alone) was sola Scriptura (the Bible alone). As long as the church mixed man’s sanctification with the article of righteousness by faith, it mixed the authority of its traditions with the authority of the Bible. As soon as the Reformation broke this Catholic synthesis of Christ’s righteousness and the believer’s regeneration, it broke the synthesis of the Bible and tradition.… The New Testament gospel proclaims that the Old Testament has reached its transcendent fulfillment in Christ. He is presented as the goal of salvation history. In Him God has realized His purpose for the human race. God, who had spoken in varied and fragmentary ways by the prophets, has at last spoken by His Son (Heb. 1:1, 2 Weymouth).… Jesus Christ is God’s final Word to man. There is no way to move beyond the hearing of the New Testament gospel to some higher and fuller knowledge or experience of God. This is why the canon of Holy Scripture had to close with the apostolic gospel (616).

In a magazine published by Desmond Ford sympathizers following his removal from the Adventist ministry, this argument was stated even more clearly:

On the basis of the New Testament gospel Christians should never adopt an extrabiblical, post-apostolic revelation as doctrinally or ethically authoritative. In the final analysis, this is the real issue at hand.… The finality of the Christ event in salvation history is inseparable from the finality of the apostolic witness and revelation. A subsequent, supplementary, and doctrinally authoritative revelation is not necessary. It is neither anticipated nor allowed by the New Testament. The finality of the New Testament revelation is a necessary corollary of the finished work of Christ (617).

Dale Ratzlaff, a former Adventist minister and prominent critic of key SDA doctrines, echoes this theme in the following statement:

To say that a modern prophet is needed to augment God’s final word in Christ is to undermine the content and finality of the Christ Event.… To hold the writings of a modern prophet as ‘a continuing and authoritative source of truth’ is tantamount to heresy. To say that Revelation 19:10 points to the work of a modern prophet usurps the central place of Christ in Scripture. Those who hold that Revelation 19:10 points to a modern prophet whose writings are a source of authority cannot justly claim to be Protestants. Protestants hold to the Bible and the Bible only as the source of truth. We must accept the Biblical definition of the spirit of prophecy for what it is: The Christ Event as foretold by all the biblical prophets and recorded in the canon of Scripture (618).

Here we see a clear, logical connection between the unscriptural exaltation of one aspect of God’s righteousness over another, and the unscriptural exaltation of one manifestation of the prophetic Word over another. The closure of the Bible canon is not the issue here. No truths or principles need be added beyond what Scripture says. But neither the above statements nor those of Bradford stop with drawing a difference between the function of the Bible to establish truth and that of non-canonical prophets to clarify and amplify the same. According to Bradford, as well as those cited above, no inspired revelation with transcendent authority over the Christian conscience can come to the church after Revelation 22. Never mind, of course, that Scripture declares all spiritual gifts—including prophecy—to function in the church till the coming of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:6, 7).

Like Bradford, Brinsmead and the others here quoted teach the existence of the “Christian” gift of prophecy, which supposedly wields less authority and accuracy than the gift manifested by the Bible writers (619). But just as the Bible contradicts the forensic-only salvation taught by Brinsmead and Bradford and their friends (2 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 3:5), so we have seen how it contradicts the attempt to distinguish the authority of canonical from non-canonical prophets (1 Chronicles 29:29). God’s righteousness is God’s righteousness, whether justifying or sanctifying (1 Corinthians 1:30). And the prophetic voice is the transcendent Word of God Himself, whether delivered through Moses, Nathan, Elijah, Isaiah, the apostle Paul, or Ellen G. White. No qualitative or authoritative distinction is made by the Bible, in either case.

Jesus’ sacrifice was fully complete on the cross. Adventists have never denied this. And yet, sacrifice is but a part of the larger process of atonement (620), the indispensable means whereby the salvation of believers is later accomplished. The Bible flatly disallows a complete atonement on the cross, since in order for atonement (“reconciliation” in the New Testament) to be complete, confession of sin as well as the blood’s mediation by a priest must take place (Leviticus 4, 5; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 1:9; 2:1). Sin must also be forsaken for this process to be complete (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7; Colossians 1:20-23), and the scapegoat led into the wilderness to die (Leviticus 16:10). Only when the originator of evil is at last destroyed can this atonement (reconciliation) between God and man be complete, when Eden lost finally becomes Eden restored.

Returning to the questions posed at the start of this section, we ask again: (1) Does the view labeled by Bradford as “Fundamentalist Adventism,” taught by such as M.L. Andreasen, depend primarily—as Bradford alleges—on Ellen White for support rather than the Bible? (2) Does Bradford’s own salvation theology, as glimpsed in More Than a Prophet, affect in significant ways his view of Ellen White’s authority?

On the basis of the evidence we have seen, the first question must be answered emphatically in the negative, and the second must be answered with equal emphasis in the positive. No matter how vigorous and justifiable his defense of Ellen White’s authority, Andreasen’s theology was firmly based on the Bible. And Bradford’s endorsement of forensic-only salvation, the imperfectability of Christian character, and a truncated atonement constrain him both logically and historically toward a reduced understanding of Ellen White’s role.

When Bradford speaks pejoratively of Andreasen when the latter warned that “these apostates (the writers and supporters of Questions on Doctrine)… would downgrade the sanctuary and Ellen White and must be removed from the church” (621), Bradford’s own theology makes it clear Andreasen’s warning—like that of those troubled by certain deliberations at the 1919 Bible Conference—was all too justified. Not only does Bradford clearly downgrade the authority of Ellen White, but his abbreviated manifesto telling why he remains a Seventh-day Adventist makes no mention of 1844 or the investigative judgment (622). Indeed, the only mention of the antitypical Day of Atonement since 1844 in More Than a Prophet occurs when he speaks critically of the theology of M.L. Andreasen (623).

Let no one be fooled by Bradford’s affirmation of “the reality of the heavenly sanctuary” (624). Desmond Ford used this exact title for an article of his, which claims the heavenly sanctuary is synonymous with “the very presence of God” (625). Like Ford, Bradford claims to believe in “the ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary” (626), but with no mention either of two apartments or two phases of ministry. Taking another page from the Ford script (627), Bradford quotes Ellen White’s prediction of future falsehoods arising, “such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary” (628), as referring to Kellogg’s pantheism and similar ideas (629), thus conveniently sidestepping Ford’s own denial of a literal sanctuary in heaven.

The ambivalence in Bradford’s writings regarding Ellen White’s rebukes to A.F. Ballenger, noted earlier in this review, offer similar cause for concern in this regard (630). Worst of all, Bradford is clear he believes the significance of 1844 as taught by classic Adventism is primarily the product of Ellen White’s interpretation of Scripture, rather than Scripture itself. In his own words:

Issues over the ‘Daily,’ the ‘Law in Galatians,’ the 1888 controversy over righteousness by faith, right up to this present era with issues over the date 1844 for the commencement of the Investigative Judgment were basically over the role and function of Ellen G. White in relationship to scripture. The issue being for the most part as to whether Seventh-day Adventists are to accept her as the final word on interpreting the Bible or whether they are free to differ with her (631).

Obviously Bradford either fails to understand the solid biblical foundations for the Adventist sanctuary doctrine and the significance of 1844, or he rejects them. The illusion of being “free to differ” with messages from the Most High as revealed through a modern prophet, all the while claiming to be a Seventh-day Adventist, is bad enough. Failure or refusal to accept the biblical basis for these messages is worse still.

Both logic and history compel the realization that Adventism’s classic 1844 theology can no more co-exist with Bradford’s evangelical gospel than can the full authority of Ellen White (632). By refusing to affirm his faith in 1844 and the Investigative Judgment, Bradford gives further evidence of how neatly his unscriptural, un-Seventh-day Adventist views dovetail together. GCO

541. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 187-193; People Are Human, p. 81.
542. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
543. Bradford, Prophets Are Human, p. 67; More Than a Prophet, p. 50.
544. See Robert S. Folkenberg, “Will the Real Evangelical Adventist Please Stand Up?” Adventist Review, April 1997, p. 17; Clifford Goldstein, “By Grace Alone?” Adventist Review, June 22, 2000, p. 9; “Joshua and the Angel,” Adventist Review, May 24, 2001, p. 29; “The Christless Cross,” Adventist Review, Nov. 22, 2001, p. 28; “Beyond Logic,” Adventist Review, Jan. 23, 2003, p. 28; J. David Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, Aug. 24, 2006, pp. 26, 27; Jack Sequeira, Beyond Belief: The promise, the power, and the reality of the everlasting gospel (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1993), pp. 25, 32, 33, 103, 170.
545. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 25.
546. See White, Steps to Christ, p. 63; The Desire of Ages, p. 300; Messages to Young People, p. 35; Our High Calling, p. 77; Special Testimonies, Series B, p. 278.
547. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 188.
548. Ibid., pp. 177, 186, 190-193.
549. Ibid., pp. 77-84, 215, 216; People Are Human, p. 149.
550. Ibid., p. 77.
551. Ibid., pp. 177, 186, 191.
552. Ibid., p. 187.
553. Ibid.
554. Ibid., p. 188.
555. M.L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1947; second edition), pp. 299-321.
556. Ibid., pp. 79-81, 208, 232, 233, 235, 319.
557. Ibid., pp. 358-393.
558. White, Early Writings, p. 19, quoted by Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 319.
559. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, pp. 299-303, 312, 313, 319, 320.
560. ________, The Book of Hebrews (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1948).
561. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 188.
562. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews, pp. 57, 58.
563. Ibid., pp. 110-115, 124-140, 207-220, 305-316, 393, 412-416.
564. Ibid., pp. 32-42.
565. Ibid., pp. 417-457.
566. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 124.
567. Ibid., pp. 177, 186; People Are Human, p. 81.
568. White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129.
569. See Paulson, “The Lower and Higher Natures: The Key to Resolving the Adventist Christology Debate,”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-lhnature.php3.
570. Harry Johnson, The Humanity of the Saviour (London: The Epworth Press, 1962).
571. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 189.
572. Ibid., p. 186.
573. Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1957), pp. 58-62.
574. Geoffrey J. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism (Wilmington, DE: Zenith Publishers, Inc, 1977), p. 107.
575. Ibid., pp. 107, 110-119.
576. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 200, 277.
577. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism, pp. 88, 113.
578. Ibid., p. 114.
579. See Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh: One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology, 1852-1952 (Cherry Valley, CA: The Cherrystone Press, 1986), pp. 33-218.
580. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 188.
581. Ibid.
582. See Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism, pp. 98-103. Especially crucial is the contrast drawn on pp. 102, 103 between the traditional perfection theology of classic Adventism and the perfection theology of Brinsmead during the 1960s.
583. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, pp. 299-303, 321; The Book of Hebrews, pp. 424-426.
584. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism, pp. 98-104.
585. M.L. Andreasen, Letters to the Churches, (Payson, AZ: Leaves of Autumn Books, 1983), p. 81.
586. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, pp. 33-116.
587. Ibid., pp. 119, 200.
588. Ibid., pp. 281-287, 309-311.
589. ________, “Sabbatarianism Re-Examined,” Verdict, June 1981, pp. 6-66.
590. Larry Pahl, “Where is Robert Brinsmead?” Adventist Today, May-June 1999, pp. 14, 15.
591. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 189.
592. Ibid., p. 277.
593. See Roy Adams, The Nature of Christ: Help for a church divided over perfection (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1994), pp. 29-51.
594. Joseph Bates, “Midnight Cry in the Past,” Review and Herald, December 1850, p. 21.
595. See James White, Review and Herald, Jan. 29, 1857; Life Sketches of James White and Ellen G. White, p. 431.
596. Stephen N. Haskell, “A Few Thoughts on the Philadelphia and Laodicean Churches,” Review and Herald, Nov. 6, 1856, p. 6.
597. D.T. Bourdeau, “Sanctification: or Living Holiness,” Review and Herald, August 2, 1864.
598. W.W. Prescott, “The Gospel Message for Today,” General Conference Bulletin, April 2, 1903, pp. 53, 54.
599. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 190.
600. Ibid., p. 191.
601. See Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1971), pp. 17, 18, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 192.
602. See Andreasen, Letters to the Churches, pp. 36-50.
603. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 188.
604. See Desmond Ford, Documents from the Palmdale Conference on Righteousness by Faith (Goodlettsville, TN: Jack D. Walker, Publisher, 1976), pp. 42, 43; Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Castleberry, FL: Euangelion Press, pp. 4-6; Roy Adams, “Divided We Crawl,” Adventist Review, February 1995, p. 2; George R. Knight, Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1989), p. 107; Martin Weber, Adventist Hot Potatoes (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1991), pp. 100-113; Who’s Got the Truth? Making sense out of five different Adventist gospels (Silver Spring, MD: Home Study International Press, 1991), pp. 187-211.
605. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism, p. 156.
606. Herbert E. Douglass, Jesus the Model Man (Adult Sabbath School Lessons, April-June 1977); Norman R. Gulley, Christ’s All-Atoning Sacrifice (Adult Sabbath School Lessons, January-March 1983).
607. Dennis Hokama, “Wallowing in the Gulley of Indecision:—Christ’s All-Atoning Sacrifice versus Jesus the Model Man: An Analysis,” Adventist Currents, July 1983, p. 14.
608. Ibid.
609. Ibid.
610. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 140-143, 279.
611. Ibid., p. 140.
612. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 69.
613. ________, Early Writings, p. 71.
614. ________, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 69.
615. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 207; People Are Human, p. 135.
616. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, pp. 119, 120.
617. Alexander LaBrecque, “The Real Issue,” Evangelica, November 1981, pp. 41, 42.
618. Dale Ratzlaff, “The Christ Event and the Spirit of Prophecy,” Proclamation! March-April 2007, p. 19.
619. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, pp. 122, 123, 189, 190; LaBrecque, “The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Christian Era,” Evangelica, December 1980, pp. 26-30; ”Evangelica Offers Objections to Answers,” Evangelica, November 1981, p. 24.
620. See Paulson, “In Defense of the Biblical Judgment”
     www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-reallyijferris.php.
621. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 190.
622. Ibid., pp. 227-233.
623. Ibid., p. 187.
624. Ibid., p. 232.
625. Desmond Ford, “The Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary” (Pacific Union College Religion Department Paper, 1977-1979), p. 3.
626. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 232.
627. Ford, “The Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary,” p. 1.
628. White, Review and Herald, May 25, 1905 (Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 53), quoted by Bradford, People Are Human, p. 70.
629. Bradford, People Are Human, p. 69.
630. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 124; People Are Human, pp. 69, 70.
631. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 269.
632. See Ford, Good News for Adventists (Newcastle, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1985); Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel, pp. 35-116. Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource/An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Sedona, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996), pp. 319-341; Jerry Gladson, A Theologian’s Journey from Seventh-day Adventism to Mainstream Christianity (Glendale, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 200), pp. 37-105.

© 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.

Contributing author Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His published work has appeared in numerous venues. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin has also since 2003 served as the speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.