September-October (06)

“Watchman,

what of the night?”

"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!"          Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)

Moore Indicts

M.L. Andreasen

Posthumously

Editor's Preface

While it was a good thing to attempt to "revisit" Questions on Doctrine as Dr. Leroy Moore has done, it does not heal the breach in Adventism by introducing new and controversial concepts in the doctrinal area of the Incarnation, much less a personal attack on the late M. L. Andreasen, especially so, when the charge is so weak and questionable. In this issue of WWN we will discuss his indictment of Andreasen, and leave for another issue a discussion of the doctrinal concept of the Incarnation as suggested by Moore, as well as his dual pole concept of relating truth and error itself.

The sentence which forms the basis of the indictment was rewritten in summary form from the original by Andreasen. Its meaning was not altered but reflected the same concept which Froom had expressed with the other Adventist conferees in their conversations with Barnhouse and Martin. Further, neither did M. E. Kern, first president of the SDA Theological Seminary and friend of Andreasen, nor did R. R. Figuhr, president of the General Conference and antagonist of Andreasen question Andreasen's summarized use of Froom's sentence from the Ministry magazine. I am unaware that Dr. Moore's degree is in English grammar, which would give him authority to question how Andreasen summarized Froom's sentence as a direct quote. We will let each reader make his own decision as he analyzes the documentation presented.

Page 2

Moore Indicts

M. L. Andreasen

Posthumously

Chapter XIV of Moore's publication, Questions on Doctrine Revisited is captioned, "Andreasen Misrepresents Froom’s Sentence." He charges that Andreasen so alters what Froom wrote in the Ministry (Feb., 1957) as to misrepresent what Froom actually taught and believed. The sentence in question is a part of the full paragraph which reads:

But this should be most carefully noted: Christ's atoning death on Calvary provided redemption potentially for all mankind. That is, Christ died provisionally for every sinner in all the world, that the efficacy of His death might embrace all men in its sweep throughout all human history. That is the tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the cross - a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man's sin (p. 10, Froom's emphasis).

Let us also observe in full context the sentence which Andreasen is charged with altering. He wrote in Letters to the Churches #3, p. 35, quoting Froom, that the atonement "is not, on the one hand, limited just to the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. 0n the other hand, neither is it confined to the ministry of our heavenly High Priest in the sanctuary above, on the antitypical day of atonement, - or hour of God's judgment, - as some of our forefathers first erroneously thought and wrote. Instead, as attested by the Spirit of Prophecy, it clearly embraces both - one aspect being incomplete without the other, and each being the indispensable complement of the other" (Ministry, Feb., 1957, p. 9). To this Andreasen added, "That is, both the death on the cross and Christ's ministry in the second apartment are necessary to atonement. With this, we are in full agreement. The death was a necessary part of the atonement. The one is incomplete without the other” (p. 36). Then comes the sentence:

"This point should be noted, for a few sentences further on the author will say that the death on the cross is complete in itself; to quote: "The sacrificial act of the cross (is) a complete, perfect and final atonement for man's sin" (page 10). After having first said that the sacrificial death was incomplete, he now says it is complete, perfect and final. He does not consider the death merely as a partial atonement, but a complete and perfect and final one. With this we disagree. The two statements are irreconcilable."

Andreasen did not alter what Froom wrote as charged by Moore. He did summarize it, using a colon (":") and left it saying what Froom said in the Ministry. Moore admits that others involved at the time, M. E. Kern and R. R. Figuhr did not challenge Andreasen's usage as "misquoting" Froom (p. 136). I am sure that Kern who served as Secretary of the General Conference and who became the first president of the SDA Theological Seminary, understood English grammar well enough that he would have caught Andreasen's misuse had there been such. Froom was merely stating the position as given in Q0D. We do well to note what Q0D stated on the Atonement inasmuch as it is being "revisited."

With full emphasis, it was written:

Adventists do not hold any theory of a dual atonement. "Christ hath redeemed us" (Gal 3:13) "once for all" (Heb. 10:10) (p. 390).

Under the caption, "Redemption Absolute by the Victory of Christ," the authors of Q0D unequivocally indicate their position:

How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the more meaningful when we

Page 3

realize that Jesus our Surety entered the "holy places," and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. And now as our High Priest He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice to us (p. 381).

The authors of Q0D go even further. They seek to interpret the writings to fit their new evangelical positions. They advised:

When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature - even in the writings of Ellen G. White - that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests (pp. 354-55).

In his new publication, Moore goes to great lengths to sustain an assumption that Froom by using "a" complete, perfect, and final atonement, and even though omitting the word, "sacrificial" is not inferring that the cross is the final atonement as charged by Andreasen (See Questions on Doctrine Revisited QODR, p. 137). But I find in reading Andreasen's quotation in Letters to the Churches he likewise uses the same indefinite article "a." Whatever Andreasen quoted and interpreted is the same concept that the Evangelical conferees understood the Adventist representatives to say in conference. In Eternity (Sept. 1956, p. 44), Barnhouse's official publication, he wrote that he and Mr. Martin heard "the Adventists leaders" repudiate "all such extremes" such as a final atonement "in the second apartment of (the heavenly) sanctuary." He added - "This they have said in no uncertain terms." It must be added that Froom's position in the sentence quoted by Andreasen from the article in Ministry is no different than the position set forth in Q0D as noted above. If taken all together the evidence sustains the justification for Andreasen's conviction that the SDA-Evangelical Conferences and the publication which followed, Q0D, were evidences of the "0mega" of apostasy which had been predicted.

Moore, in his current publication, emphasizes that we are to "put the best possible construction" (Q0DR, p. 108), on an opponent's position which in this situation - QOD - is error and apostasy! The problem, however, is aggravated in the publication of Q0D. Not only does it repudiate basic truth committed in sacred trust to the Church, but it also was given in a deceptive manner to the Evangelical conferees: words were added to the original answers given the Evangelicals when published for the Adventist constituents. All of these factors added together reveal the depth of the apostasy. There is only one bright spot. It is being "revisited"! I hope that it will be a candid revisitation, and not one "sugar-coated" to make it more palatable. The following basic questions will also need to be "revisited:"

1) Biblical justification of a "dual atonement."

2) The last generation question.

3) The 0mega itself and how must one relate.

----- x -----

We have been having problems with our answering system besides the usual impairment that hearing aids add to the picture. If you have not heard back from your calls, please try again. "Your call is important to us."

Page 4

The Bible & the Dual Atonement

In the book of Hebrews, Paul tells us that the priests of the sanctuary, which Moses erected in the wilderness under instruction from God, served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things" (8:5). In the daily and yearly services conducted in this sanctuary using the typological hermeneutic suggested by this verse, we find the biblical basis for a dual atonement.

In Leviticus 4 are outlined the daily services to be performed in case the high priest, congregation, the ruler, or the common person sinned through ignorance. For the last three of the above named categories the conclusion reads:

The priest shall make an atonement for them/him and it shall be forgiven them/him (Verses 20, 26, 31, 35).

It is clearly an atonement which resulted in forgiveness, with a ritual which could be performed by either the common or high priest, the variance being in the disposition of the blood.

In Leviticus 16 is outlined the ritual for the final atonement which was to result in cleansing. The text reads:

In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month . . . shall the high priest make an atonement for you to cleanse you, that ye may be clean of all your sins before the Lord (vers 29-30).

The Scriptures do teach a dual atonement as set forth in the typical services of the Hebrew sanctuary. It is also true that the Great Disappointment of 0ctober 22, 1844, produced some serious study with regard to the sanctuary ritual and the atonements. 0ne such study was done by 0. R. L. Crosier, and published in the 1850 Advent Review. 0f this study by Crosier, James White in 1853 commented: "The article on the sanctuary by 0. R. L. Crosier, is excellent. The subject of the Sanctuary should be carefully examined, as it lies at the foundation of our faith and hope." (Note the use of the word, "foundation.")

In this article Crosier recognized the dual nature of the atonement of the typical services of the Hebrew sanctuary. He wrote:

The atonement is the great idea of the Law, as well as of the gospel; and as the design of that Law was to teach us that of the Gospel, it is very important to be understood. The atonement, which the priests made for the people in connection with their daily ministration, was different from that made on the tenth day of the seventh month. In making the former, they went no further than in the Holy (Place); but to make the latter they entered the Holy of Holies - the former was made for individual cases, the latter for the whole nation of Israel collectively - the former was made for the forgiveness of sins, the latter for blotting them out - the former could be made at any time, the latter only on the tenth day of the seventh month. Hence the former may be called the daily atonement and the latter the yearly, or the former the individual, and the latter the national atonement (See Facsimiles of the Two Earliest SDA Periodicals, p. 42).

Because it was being taught that the atonement was made and finished at Calvary, Crosier devotes some comments to that position:

Now it must be clear to everyone that if the antitype of the yearly service began at the first Advent, the antitype of the daily had been previously fulfilled; and as the atonement for forgiveness was a part of that daily service, they are involved in the conclusion that there has been no forgiveness of sins under the Gospel Dispensation. Such a theory is wholly at war with the entire genius of the Gospel dispensation and stands rebuked, not only by Moses and Paul, but by the teaching and works of our Saviour and His commission to

Page 5

His apostles, by their subsequent teaching and the history of the Christian church (ibid., p. 45).

To those who held the position that the atonement was finalized at the cross, Crosier directed the comment -"Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests." He then gave five propositions based in Scripture which make this position unsustainable, and concluded:

Therefore, He did not begin the work of making the (national or yearly) atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered His heavenly Sanctuary for us (ibid).

Some of the early writers in Adventism denied any atonement at Calvary not understanding Crosier's position of which Ellen White had written:

I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew (sic.) me in vision, more than a year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the sanctuary, &; and that it was His will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint (A Word to the "Little Flock", p. 12).

Keep in mind that James White stated that the subject of the sanctuary lies at the "foundation" of our faith and hope. Ellen White indicated that "Heaven" considered Crosier's study, "the true light." Crosier's article clearly teaches a "dual atonement," which he called the "individual" or daily atonement and a "national" or yearly atonement. In the article in Ministry (February, 1957), it would first appear that Froom was so stating, and Andreasen wrote in his Letters to the Churches, "With this, we are in full agreement." Then Froom switched, taking the position that the cross is the final atonement for man's sin. This brought the article into harmony with Q0D, but it left Froom in an "irreconcilable" position as charged by Andreasen. Andreasen did not misrepresent Froom in altering the sentence structure; that both Kern and Figuhr well knew. It seems that now Moore cannot comprehend a simple summary statement constructed from the original wording. Does his antagonism for Andreasen give him a mental block? 0f course he will deny "antagonism!"

The Last Generation

Moore captions chapter XXV of his book - "The Final Generation Perfection: `Behold Your God'" and prefaces it with a paragraph by Julius Nam, Professor of Religion at Pacific Union College. It reads:

The cornerstone of Andreasen's theology was his last generation theology which taught that there will arise a generation of God's people in the end-time who will overcome sin completely and demonstrate to the universe that it is possible to live a sinless life. This theology served as the background for Andreasen's insistence on reserving the wording "the final atonement" to the investigative judgment era - a special time in the history of redemption when the final blotting of sin was to take place and the last generation would arise.

To this Moore adds - "This was also the nerve of Andreasen's nature of Christ defense" and then continues to quote Nam:

"If Christ's human nature was in any way different from that of an ordinary human being and if the cross finished the work of atonement, Andreasen's last generation theology would become superfluous and irrelevant and his theological legacy as well as what he saw as the theological heritage of Adventist pioneers would crumble. Thus, for Andreasen, his reaction to Questions on Doctrine went much beyond doctrinal

Page 6

discussions; it was a monumental struggle for the survival of the Adventist movement" (p. 256).

This is true, and is also the basis for Andreasen's seeing in what was taking place the omega of apostasy.

First, we must determine whether Andreasen had a valid Scriptural basis for a final generation perfection? The answer is, Yes! To the small remnant who remained steadfast after the Great Disappointment and saw the light of the "Final Atonement," God committed the giving of the Three Angels' Messages. The final result of these messages is described as a demonstration -"Here are they which keep (not "are trying to keep") the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." They ultimately stand with the Lamb on Mt. Zion having His Father's name in their foreheads. They are without fault before the Throne; in their mouths is nothing false (ψενδοζ). They do not succumb to the omega of apostasy!

As Moore comes to the end of his book, he comments on the restoration of the love relations broken with God by Adam and Eve and writes that the restoration of those love relations "will never take place so long as our focus is upon becoming sinless" (p. 276). This position seems at variance with the following:

We are to exert every energy of the soul in the work of overcoming and to look to Jesus for strength to do what we cannot do of ourselves. No sin can be tolerated in those who shall walk with Christ in white. The filthy garments are to be removed, and Christ's robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us. By repentance and faith we are enabled to render obedience to all the commandments of God, and are found without blame before Him (Testimonies, Vol.5, p. 472).

Next comes Appendix A in which Moore seeks to set forth his "Flesh vs. Spirit Theme" as found in Romans and relates it first to a new Incarnation position which he is promoting. Failing to exegete correctly Paul's introductory verses, he goes to Romans 4, and makes some interesting observations concerning Abraham:

Chapter 4:1 questions what Abraham our father according to the flesh (kata sarka) has found. Even he had to have righteousness imputed to him "apart from works" (4:1-6). While he fathered Arabic tribes by natural procreation, he became the father of Isaac, progenitor of Israel, not by his futile, natural efforts but by faith in God's covenant promise.

Isaac's birth by divine. biological intervention became a type of the virgin birth (4:17-22). [The verses cited do not sustain the conclusion drawn.]

It is evident from the biblical record that Abraham was not the one who was sterile (Gen. 25), but rather Sarah. It is of further interest to note the record that the birth of Isaac came after it was impossible for Sarah to have children even if she had not been sterile. That fact is emphasized in Gen. 16:1-2; 17:17; 18:11. His birth was by Divine intervention. Paul uses this experience to illustrate righteousness by faith. Sarah begat Isaac because God gave Sarah new organs for conception and birthing. It must be considered; the question must be asked: Will there be Divine intervention to produce a sinless generation? Does the greatness of the Divine Sacrifice merit such an intervention?

There is pictured the process of complete cleansing in Zechariah 3, so much so that the recipients of heaven's cleansing are "men wondered at" (ver. 8). After all, the final atonement is about cleansing, not forgiveness. The men described have their "filthy garments" removed and a change of raiment given. It is by Divine decree -"I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment" (ver. 4). Concerning this chapter is this thought-provoking

Page 7

comment - "Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing up of the great day of atonement" (p. 472, emphasis supplied). Andreasen may not have been as far-a-field as Moore and others would like to place him. Perhaps it is Moore and Knight who are far-a-field from truth!

What Did Crosier Believe as revealed in his article in the Day-Star Extra of 1846?

From the documentation given in the first part of this issue of WWN, it is clear that Crosier believed in a Dual Atonement, one which he called the "Individual Atonement" and the other a "National Atonement." He challenged those who supported a completed and full atonement at the cross with a series of questions which could not be answered and such a position sustained. What then was his first "atonement" concept and upon what did it rest? He wrote:

It should be distinctly remembered that the priest did not begin his duties till he obtained the blood of the victim, and that they were all performed in the court (the enclosure of the Sanctuary), and that the atonement thus made was only for the forgiveness of sins. These points are expressly taught in this chapter (Lev. 4) and the following one on the trespass offering. Here is an atonement to make which the priests only entered the Holy, and to make it they could enter that apartment "always" or "daily." But into the second [the Holy of Holies] went the High Priest alone once every year, not without blood which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people" Heb. ix, 7 (emphasis his) (The Advent Review, September, 1850, p. 43).

Crosier's position placed the first atonement beginning upon Christ's ascension and enthronement upon the Throne of Grace at the right hand of God. He noted that Peter preaching on the Day of Pentecost called for those hearing "To repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins" Acts ii, 38. But Crosier also observed that Peter spoke of a future "blotting out" of sins - the final atonement -- beyond this initial atonement which gave forgiveness (Acts iii, 19).