The author's purpose is to ascertain what Seventh-day Adventists have historically believed on the "specific Christological question, Did the incarnate Christ come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, or in the human nature of fallen man ?" Rather than a primarily scriptural or theological study, the author sought "to establish what Seventh-day Adventists have believed, not why they have believed it."
In perhaps the most thorough examination yet made, he analyzed the books and periodical articles written by Ellen White and other Adventists between 1852 and 1952.
His research revealed four specific categories of statements: (1) those that use the words "sinful nature" or "fallen nature" to describe the humanity of Jesus; (2) those that use "unmistakable equivalencies"; (3) those that would be "difficult to understand or utterly meaningless if applied to Christ in the nature of unfallen Adam"; and (4) those that "specifically reject the idea that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam." He concluded that "our spiritual ancestors agreed heartily" with the position that Christ took the fallen nature of man rather than the unfallen nature of Adam and that Christology and soteriology are "inseparably and intimately linked together....When we change one, we inevitably change the other."
The author's definitions of terms, especially as they are used by Ellen White, prove helpful. He defines terms such as sinful, sinless, sinfulness, sinlessness, imputed righteousness, the Fall, besetments, transmission of sin, inherited fallen nature, passions, and propensities, giving special emphasis to the last two. With his usual irenic approach, Larson addresses the phenomenon of the "Baker letter" (a letter written by Ellen White to Pastor W.L.H. Baker in 1895 that includes the sentence "Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity") and its use and misuse since its publication in the early 1950s.
Dr. Larson felt the need for this historical analysis because of a widespread uncertainty (in spite of a century of denominational consensus) as to what modern Adventists should believe regarding this central biblical doctrine that affects all other questions involving why Jesus came and how men and women are saved. He described the "new milestone" in the history of Adventist thought on Christology as occurring in the middle 1950s when certain editorials appeared in Ministry magazine (anticipating the publication of Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny) as part of a dialogue with "evangelical brethren in Christ."
After analyzing the materials used by these publications in their original context and the procedures used in their rearrangements, Dr. Larson felt compelled to draw "a most painful conclusion" because he felt that they represented "a methodological monstrosity."
The author believes that the influence of these publications has been "incalculable" and provides the basis for the widely believed misconception that "the Seventh-day Adventist people, aside from a poorly informed minority, had never believed or taught that Christ came to this earth in the nature of fallen man" a conclusion that "virtually every Bible department in Seventh-day Adventist colleges is now teaching."
Realizing that such a sea change in theological thought must be connected with other currents, the author reflects on the fundamental, mutually exclusive differences between Calvinistic presuppositions and Arminian-Wesleyan thought (the heritage traditionally espoused by Seventh-day Adventists). Although many have tried to merge these two theological tectonic plates, it seems to this reviewer that the author is correct in noting that invariably the result has been disastrous.
But Dr. Larson does not leave his scholarly work at this point--as if it were a mere theological exercise. He believes that the shift of viewpoints on Christ's human nature has confused Adventists the world over, leading them to believe that Ellen White speaks in contradictory terms and that historical Adventist positions regarding how men and women are saved have been erroneous. He asks for
others to verify his findings--not to accept them or reject them without personal study--to determine from the evidence itself whether a mistake made in the third quarter of the twentieth century should not be courageously admitted for the sake of clarifying the mission and message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
A slight oversight in the author's review of the material on the subject caused him to leave out what I believe may be the strongest and clearest statement substantiating his conclusions. I refer to Ellen White's manuscript 1, 1892, at times quoted sparingly in published materials (a document written at the height of discussion regarding Christology and soteriology), but published in its entirety for the first time in the Adventist Review of June 17, 1976.
This historical analysis will assist anyone who is determined to understand the watershed change of emphasis that has divided the Adventist Church for more than a quarter century.
