A Compromise and

- + -

Some of us who lived through "the burden and heat of the day" when the full effect of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences was felt, sometimes forget that the vast majority of the laity and ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were either not members of the church at that time, or were children and youth who were totally unaware of what was taking place. 1 Thus to cite certain factors from the period of 1955-1960 without documentation leaves a void in the minds of many readers since they honestly do not have background information to evaluate what took place in the controversy which has involved Adventism since that date.

In fact, even though the printing of Questions on Doctrine was large and the circulation widespread, the book today is difficult to obtain and many concerned laypersons do not have a copy available for study and comparison.

In the previous issue of a "Watchman, What of the Night?" (XIX-6), we set forth certain facts involving the publication and release of the book - Questions on Doctrine. A.L. Hudson of Baker, Oregon, in a letter to six people including Walter Martin, revealed a telephone conversation with Martin which clearly indicated that the book - Questions on Doctrine (Q on D) was not the original answers given to Barnhouse and Martin in response to the questions they had asked the Adventist Church's leadership, but rather a revision of the answers so as to be more palatable for the laity of the Church. From personal contact with the late Don Neufeld, I was also aware of the same fact. In commenting on the information which I personally had, I wrote:

We were able to document a few changes by comparing page 30 in Questions on Doctrine with the article in Eternity, November, 1956, where Martin quoted from the original draft copy. (WWN, XIX-6, p. 2)

Then I suggested to the readers that they should check with the manuscript which the Foundation has made available of the documents on the 1955-1956 SDA-Evangelical Conferences. But many of the readers do not have a copy of Q on D by which to make the check. There are a number of other facets to the events which transpired during that time and need to be amplified beyond the brief summary given in the previous issue of WWN. These we hope to enlarge upon in forthcoming issues of the Thought Paper. While we are providing for the readers a complete transcript of the telephone conversation between Hudson and Barnhouse, this will be a good time to discuss the whole picture, such as, the 1888 Message of Righteousness by Faith and the 1958 setting in which it was again brought to the attention of the Church, along with the Church's response.

Immediately following the SDA-Evangelical Conferences in 1955-56, Barnhouse and Martin published a series of articles on the history

Page 2

and the doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism in Eternity magazine. (The first article appeared in the September, 1956 issue, and asked the question, - "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christian?" This was written by Barnhouse.) Eternity was a monthly journal published by The Evangelical Foundation, Inc., with Barnhouse as Editor-in-Chief, and Walter Martin as a Contributing Editor. In all, five articles appeared, four from September through January, 1957, then in the November, 1957 issue, Barnhouse wrote a final article captioned, "Postscript on Seventh-day Adventism." This final article is a comment on the book - Questions on Doctrine - after it was published, and half of the article is a quotes from the book (pp. 21-25). Barnhouse was playing it "safe." He waited until he could quote from the published book, before writing the postscript. 2 The other three articles were written by Martin . 3 His third article discussed - "What Seventh-day Adventists Really Believe." However, he chose to quote from the answers given to him prior to the publication of the book - Q on D, - and thus prior to its revision. (He does reveal that LeRoy E. Froom is the author of Q on D, though no authors name appeared when the book was published in 1957.) In the article, Martin quotes at length from the answer given to Question #3. By so doing, we have the evidence of the fact that a revision did take place between the time the original answers were given to Barnhouse and Martin, and the answers were published for the ministry and laity of the Church.

We shall give the quotes as found in Eternity, and the same paragraphs as published in Q on D. The revisions will be in underscored (and in bold for clarity) in Q on D.

The substitution of "death" for "sacrifice" is cosmetic and merely avoids word repetition when "sacrificial" was added to the text. However, the substitution of "anew" for "afresh," though synonyms has significance. There is a nuance between these two words. The one editing the revision was evidently aware of this. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives as one meaning of "afresh" - "from a new start" - and the meaning of "anew" - "in a new form." This subtle difference of meaning between these two words tells the whole story of the compromise and cover-up in a single nutshell.

The Adventist conferees wished the Evangelicals to believe that they were actually making a "new start" in the formulation of the teachings of the Church, in other words, "afresh." Barnhouse in his article, "Are Seventh-day Adventist Christians?", after reviewing the experience of Hiram Edson the morning following the Great Disappointment on October 22, 1844, from which the perception of Christ entering the Most Holy Place developed after deep searching of the Scriptures, wrote - "Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say, flatly, that they repudiate all such extremes. This they said in no uncertain terms." Then stating that our pioneers taught "that Jesus atoning work was not completed on Calvary but that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844," Barnhouse wrote --"This idea is also totally repudiated." And this repudiation is the idea conveyed in Martin's quote from the copy of the answers he received. And this was an "afresh" concept!

In the revision a different story was being told - the death of Christ was a "sacrificial" atonement. Thus the laity could be told that the leaders of the Church were merely stating "anew" our beliefs in a form that could be better understood by the Evangelicals, but nothing had been changed. In fact, when the furor arose over the book - QOD - this is exactly the line used by the hierarchy - it is just a matter of semantics, there has been, no change. Were the doctrines of the Church altered, or is this just an imaginary perception? This we shall pursue in the next issue of WWN.

1 In 1955, the total world membership barely exceeded 1 million members. In 1984, there were over 4 1/2 million members. Further a large number of the 1955 membership have died since that date.

Page 3

Transcript of a Recorded

CONVERSATION

between

A. L. HUDSON

and

DR. DONALD BARNHOUSE

May 16, 1958

Regarding the book

QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE

(Continued)

[In last month's issue, as we closed the first segment of the telephone conversation, Hudson was inquiring about the Adventist Church's desire to be a part of the National Association of Evangelicals. Barnhouse replied that such an idea did not have "any foundation." Hudson then asked about Walter Martin's statement which inferred such. We begin this segment with Barnhouse's comment on this.]

(B) Well I will put it this way: There is no doubt of the fact that any man who is truly born-again wants to extend the hand to everybody else who is born again. If he doesn't, he is out of the will of God. Now, I know that some of the men at Takoma Park are not only saved, but they want to be led by the Holy Spirit. Now, any man who wants to be led by the Holy Spirit - Now, this year, the year 1958, I have already spoken in a Seventh-day Adventist meeting; I held a week of meetings in the Pentecost Assembly in Missouri; last week I was in the Episcopal cathedral in Cleveland under the greater Cleveland Federations of Churches, and I have already preached this year in Northern and Southern Baptist, Northern and Southern Presbyterian, [?] Methodist church in Kansas City, and I want to work with the whole body of Christ. If you are born again, and you are going to be in heaven, then you are my brother. But if you are a sectarian - I don't know what your attitude is. You called me up on the telephone and I'm speaking to you plainly although I don't know who you are at all. But if you are a person trying to stir up trouble, if you are a person trying to find out if you can sharpen your knife using me as a whetstone in order that you may try to sink it in some of the leaders who are trying to be godly men, then I tell you that you are being led of the antichrist, and not by the Holy Spirit.

(H) No, I'm not. Now what I had [in mind], I don't mean "No" to that last question. I'm not trying to fly under any false colors. That's the reason I mentioned my letter which if it had reached you, you would know exactly what my position is. Now, you and Mr. Martin have made certain representations as to the Adventist beliefs, etc. in your magazine. I have been in correspondence with our men in Washington. I have on my desk now a letter I received from the Secretary of the General Conference just yesterday. There is quite a wide discrepancy between your interpretation of our belief and what has been and is still current in our midst. I'm just trying to iron out the facts.

(B) Look, we have written and signed by the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist movement that we have not misinterpreted Seventh-day [Adventist] positions.

(H) Now, that's what Mr. Martin told me as we talked about this matter informally more than a month ago. Now, I have also asked our men in Washington about this purported, not recommendation, but I think it is called a foreword, which was signed by an officer of the General Conference stating that you had not misrepresented doctrine. I can't get any satisfaction out of our men in Washington as to just what they agreed to do and didn't agree to do, but it doesn't agree with I what you wrote in Eternity. Now, I'm just trying to get at the facts, that's all that I am trying to do, because I am writing a paper myself, and I think later on, will be incorporated into a book.

(B) Now, what is your position? Are you trying to keep Seventh-day Adventism as it has been for the last 100 years or so?

(H) Frankly, my personal position, I am not convinced of the necessity of a change, no.

(B) I mean, you know that Christ didn't come back in 1844; you know if you know anything at all, that Jesus hasn't been wandering around in heaven since 1844. He did not get up off the throne and go into an inner sanctuary. You know this was a face-saving

Page 4

device of men who were so scaredy cat that they were walking in a cornfield in order to keep off the main road. You know this wasn't the Holy Spirit. You know in your heart, and if you ever take the position, God is going to nullify your ministry, and at the judgment seat of Christ, you are going to answer for it.

(H) Now, I appreciate your frankness. I wish our men would come out and be just as frank as to their relationship to you and Mr. Martin, and also doctrinal positions they are taking. Frankly, there is considerable difference between what you have published and what our men are telling us. I'm just trying to find out if we have changed, if we should change, just what the status of the thing is.

(B) Everything I have published was read by Seventh-day Adventist leaders before we published. Not one line have I ever printed that was not previously read by Froom, for instance.

(H) Well, that's just what - I'm not trying to stir up any trouble. I'm a Seventh-day Adventist, and I'm not convinced even from what you say, that I should change, but I'm willing to consider it provided it is brought out in the open and handled in a businesslike way. Now, if our leaders in Washington feel we should modify our position, my position is that they should come out to us as Seventh-day Adventists in the field and say, "Brethren, we have been in error on this. We'd better change to so and so and so and so." Now, they are not doing that. They're telling us that they have not changed, and yet apparently they are giving you and Mr. Martin the idea that we at least are in the process of changing or are willing to change. Now, I'm just trying to get the facts.

(B) I think what they're doing, as I say, I think these men are educated men, and some of them know Greek. We sat here with their Greek professor, some of these men know Greek, and Walter Martin pointed out, "By one offering he had perfected forever them that are sanctified." That is in the aorist tense. And one man of the top leaders said, "Now I don't know Greek," he said. ? ? myself, the three of us have had a lot of Greek, and all of - the wonderful part of our fellowship with Anderson and Froom and Unruh, and I forget the other men that came up from Washington, the top men, and we spent two days one time and two and a half another, here in my home. We entertained these men, and fed them vegetarian meals, and we had a nice time together. We had a wonderful time together.

(H) Have you ever eaten any Adventist steaks then?

(B) Huh?

(H) You mention you fed them vegetarian meals, so I thought maybe they had reciprocated with some Adventist steaks.

(B) Well, we've had them at Takoma Park and out in California. I spoke for Richards in a Seventh-day Adventist group - to all his people, etc. and I am going to preach in the Seventh-day Adventist church in Takoma Park, Washington. And we had Dr. Roy Anderson come into my pulpit in the Presbyterian church and my people heard him with great profit. He is a godly man. Now this is a whole lot better than having everybody taking Talbot's position and saying you are all anti-christs.

(H) Well, this is a complicated proposition.

(B) Let me tell you this, if you don't want, I mean if you try to write a book or anything that there has been no change in Adventism, then we're going to have to go back and say, "You are anti-christ." I will have to make a public retraction, and send it to Time magazine, and say, "Your article," - did you read it when it came out in Time?

(H) No.

(B) Well, you see Time magazine wrote a big article about my article on Seventh-day Adventism and called it "Peace with the Adventists." Well, I'll have to write Time magazine and publish in Eternity and write an abject apology to Talbot for Kings Business, Moody Monthly, and say, "I was wrong. These people are still antichrist Put them back with Jehovah's Witnesses where they belong," - if you start writing the way you're contemplating.

(H) You actually believe, then, that our book, Questions on Doctrine supports the attitude that you have put forth in your magazine Eternity, and which you have set forth here to me. You actually believe that the book supports that?

(B) I say this, I have a copy of it within three feet of me and what you have done,

Page 5

beyond any question, in that book, in taking the position, for example, that anybody that ever said that it was necessary to keep Saturday in order to be saved, was wrong. Your book states this. Now, for instance, you don't hold that keeping Sunday is the mark of the beast, do you?

(H) Yes.

(B) You do?

(H) Yes.

(B) Well, then we might as well hang up. You belong to the anti-christ party. I'll tell you this, brother, and you, I doubt if you're saved.

(H) Well,

(B) You don't know what salvation is. Hudson, you don't know what salvation is.

(H) Well, perhaps that's right, Mr. Barnhouse, but the Adventists believe that, too.

(B) They, now that's the point, the Adventists do not believe this. This is the point I'm making. And everywhere we said, for instance, Dr. John Sutherlin Bonnell, pastor of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian church, wrote an article in Look magazine called "What Presbyterians Believe," and he said they believe that there is no hell, and that they don't believe in the virgin birth, etc. Well, that is not what Presbyterians believe. That's what a screwball on the fringe believes. Now, in the Seventh-day Adventist movement you've got screwballs and people on the fringe.

(H) Yeah, that's apparently where I am.

(B) Well, if you believe that keeping any day but Saturday is the mark of the beast then you are of the party of the antichrist because you deny salvation by grace alone. You do not believe that salvation is by grace alone, do you?

(H) Not in the sense that you see it, no.

(B) Yeah, in other words you believe that a man has to add something to the work of Christ in order to be saved?

[Barnhouse led Hudson into a trap at this point.]

H) Yes, that's right.

(B) Well then, I say that is of the devil, beyond any question, and you see, you're the one that's making the difficulty, and I will print this is our magazine. Are you the pastor of a church there in Oregon?

(H) No, I am a layman

(B) You're a layman?

(H) I'm an officer of the church, but I'm not an ordained minister. I studied for the ministry, however, in the Adventist church, and I think I know what Adventists believe.

(B) You really believe then, that everybody who is not a Seventh-day Adventist is lost?

(H) Oh, no, I didn't say that.

(B) Well, this is what you say, because the people who are not Adventists don't keep Saturday, and won't. I hate Saturday as a Sabbath religious day. I hate it because Christ hates it.

(H) Every man must stand before God himself and on his understanding of the Bible. Now, my position is this, with reference to this controversy, that our men have not set forth Adventist teaching accurately.

(B) Your leaders, no, you see there have been divisions in your church for the past hundred years.

(H) Yes, of course there always are differences of opinion.

(B) Sure, but what I call the screwball element in your church has been the group that has printed these little tracts on the side saying Saturday is the Sabbath, and anybody who doesn't keep it is a lost soul. Well, that is the screwball element. No responsible Christian can ever say this.

(H) Well, there is a distinction there. In what Mr. Martin has printed in here on the remnant church, he told me that, as you have told me, that you have written confirmation of the approval of Seventh-day Adventist leaders before you printed this. Now Mr. Bryant --

(B) Do you feel that you are the remnant church?

(H) That is Adventist teaching.

(B) Well, if you believe that, then you are a megalomaniac. Now let's face it. I'm not going to pull words. You just are not following the Bible.

(H) I appreciate your position. Now, of course, over the telephone here I couldn't defend that position but friend that is Adventist teaching.

(B) Well, it isn't Adventist teaching. Excuse

Page 6

me, but it is not.

(H) Well, that's the point. What makes you think it isn't?

(B) Well, their book, their statement, and even Ellen G. White. I can show you in Ellen G. White that she doesn't believe this.

(H) She doesn't believe that the Adventist church is the remnant church?

(B) She does not believe [that], she believes that God gave some vital truth, some latter-day truth, but she does not take the position that anybody that is not a Seventh-day Adventist is not a believer in Christ.

(H) No, she doesn't. Neither do we.

(B) Oh, yes you do.

(H) No.

(B) That's it. You just said that not keeping Saturday, keeping Sunday, was the mark of the beast. Your trouble is that you don't know what you say.

(H) Yes, I do realize what I say.

(B) Well, if you say, for instance, let me ask you this: Do you think I'm a lost soul?

(H) Friend, that is up to God.

(B) No, no, no, - but wait a minute. Let's ask a question; that's up to God but do you think that I cursing Saturday as the Sabbath, adopting the position of redemption in Christ, cursing Sunday as the Sabbath, cursing everything that is of the law, and wanting grace alone, and wanting to live in holiness, believing that all sin is removed by the blood of Jesus Christ alone, do you believe that therefore I am a lost soul?

(H) I believe that you are a disobedient follower of Christ, and that disobedience, if it is continued, will ultimately cause the loss of your soul, yes.

(B) Yeah, well, you see there's no use in your talking. You don't even believe that I'm saved.

(H) Now, I think that you will find if you will investigate the matter a little more closely that -

(B) Thank God the leaders of Seventh-day Adventism do not hold your position.

(H) You don't think they do.

(B) I know they don't. I know they don't. We've gone on our knees together, and have gotten up from our knees together, and they say, "Brother, this is wonderful. We are redeemed and fellows in Christ."

(H) And you don't think that Seventh-day Adventist leaders believe that you are a disobedient follower of Jesus.

(B) I didn't say that. They believe that I am a born-again person; that I am saved and have eternal life. They know that I hold the Calvinistic position that I am saved forever and can never be lost. They say to me, they hold the Arminian position, but nevertheless, they definitely believe that I am a born-again believer and a brother in Christ.

(H) Well, now here, I had one of these very men who has been foremost in this relationship tell me when I was in Washington, D.C., last November; I went back for some conferences and study. He told me -

(B) Which man?

(H) I'd rather not give his name.

(B) Oh, come on now. If you're not honest enough to talk, what did you call me up for?

(H) Well, you accuse me, didn't accuse me but wondered if I was trying to stir up personal trouble. I'm not. But I am trying to arrive at some facts. Now if I tell you this man's name personally, that is a personal thing. If I tell you the position he took, then it becomes -

(B) You said one of the men who came to my house.

(H) Well, let's put it this way. One of the men that has been -

(B) You said one of the men that came to my house.

(H) You've got me on the spot.

(B) Sure I do. It's either Froom or Anderson or Richards.

(H) Unruh?

(B) No, Unruh is from Pennsylvania. You said Washington. That's Froom and Anderson and the fourth man, what's his name?

(H) I don't know.

(B) You don't know. Well, that leaves that it's Froom or Anderson who told you this.

(H) All right, I'll tell you, it was Froom. He told me that he had you men right where

Page 7

you were going to have to admit the seventh day is the Sabbath.

(B) Oh, he never said anything of the kind.

(H) Well, that's what he told me.

(B) We know that the seventh day is not the Sabbath.

(H) That's what he told me, and he told me in the offices of the General Conference in Washington.

(B) Well, you listen to the National Broadcasting System coast to coast next Sunday morning at 8:30. I come on over (?), and I'm preaching against the Sabbath right now.

(H) My point is this. As near as I can get information together, here, our men have been representing one thing to you and they are representing another thing to us.

(B) Well, put that down in so many words.

(H) Well, now I'll put in writing, and will you prove to the contrary? In other words, you say you have in your files stuff to support everything that you have written in Eternity magazine. Well, now will you come out with that question?

(B) Well, uh -

(H) Our men are denying that. Now let's get the thing straight. I have a stack of correspondence here from our officials in Washington. I'm trying to get at the basis of this thing, and I don't know what is in your files.

To be continued--