An Open Letter to my Lecturer Over the Issue of the Theology of Sin by Eddy Thompson Azanor
An Open Letter to my Lecturer Over the Issue of the Theology of Sin
by
Eddy Thompson Azanor
Sir, it is true that the recommended version of Question On Doctrine was the annotated one. We even talked about that in class. But the part you did not let anyone express in class is the fact that George Knight’s annotation does not mean correction. The DK Illustrated Oxford Dictionary says the word “annotate” means to “add explanatory notes to (a book, document, etc).” So the question is: was there any change of the original write up? The answer is no. Knight was only trying to explain why the book caused so much a theological earthquake that divided the church. He even tried to exonerate writers of the 1957 edition of QOD for the bold heading “Took Sinless Human Nature” and their avoidance of quoting the clear Ellen White’s statements on the issues (see QOD Annotated Edition, pp. 517, 518). Do we need to apologize to Evangelicals for our biblically congruent faith? Do you see that the average reader will still be confused, thinking the authors of the 1957 version didn’t do so badly. Why would one even want to “resurrect” such a book that was proscribed by the General Conference because of its overt misrepresentation of our faith?
Now, as regards SDA belief #7 on the nature of man, it will shock many Adventists to know that it was not the original draft of the book that was written by the appointed General Conference ad hoc committee that was latter printed. The project was hijacked by some theologians of Andrews University. Check out the documented facts below:
[Pastor Eva] said that before the new statement would be submitted to the full Church Manual committee, it would be presented to “certain professors at the seminary with whom we will meet in September.” After the Church Manual committee gave its approval, the statement would proceed to the [General Conference] officers, the union [conference] presidents, the Annual Council, and finally to the General Conference session in Dallas [the following April]
(Dr. Lawrence Geraty, President, La Sierra University, “A new Statement of Fundamental Belief,” Spectrum Vol. II, Issue No. 1, Summer, 1980, p.3.)
Paston Seton recalled:
"When that further limited revision was completed, I ventured to suggest that it would be wise to submit the document to our professional theologians on the basis that it would be better to have their reactions before the document went further rather than await their strictures on the session floor. There was some hesitation, but eventually the suggestion was accepted, and the document went to Andrews University with the requests that it be studied, that comments and recommendations be referred back to the ad hoc committee. Those terms of reference did not register, for the university prepared its own set of Fundamentals."
(Dr. Lawrence Geraty transcription of a presentation to the San Diego Forum, presented April 18, 2000 in which he presented his recollections from a conversation with Pastor Bernard Seton as recorded in Dr. Fritz Guy, Spectrum , Vol. 32, Issue 3, Summer 2004, p. 23).
To make the long story short, it was not a reworking of the material submitted but a rewritten document that was received. Andrews theologians effectively routed the General Conference 1980 ad hoc committee in a doctrinal coup. This should not surprise anyone who is not a tyro in the way Jesuit infiltrators and their sympathizers do their nefarious jobs. A knowledge of how Protestant movements who once saw popery as the antichrist of the last days now embrace and shake hand with the foe their forebears abhorred should have taught us a lesson.
So that is how they introduced the error of the original sin which you can now find in page 104 of your Seventh-day Adventists Believe which teaches that man was a sinner by birth and not only by choice. And not to make Christ a sinner because Scripture and SOP are clear that Christ took our fallen human nature, they say His nature was sinless. This is an Augustinian Catholic error that led to infant baptism and the doctrine of predestination and once saved always saved popularized by John Calvin. In order to escape this logical dead end, some modern theologians try to propose that Christ took a dual nature of unfallen Adam and sinful humanity. But if this is the case how can it be true that Christ was like us in every way except sinning (Heb. 2:14-17). Also read Romans 8:3.
Now let’s ask the question: how detrimental is believing that Christ was not like us—having our fallen humanity—when he came to earth? Then we cannot say He is our example in living a victorious Christlike life. If we, through the same power that was available to Christ could never live Christ, then we cannot keep believing that there will be a close of probation and the sealing of destiny before Jesus comes as we find in the Bible and SOP. Do you see where it’s leading? We cannot be prepared for eternity. Because belief in the original sin will lead us to excuse our sins and believe that we shall continue to sin till Jesus comes. (By the way, I recommend Ralph Larson's book The Word Made Flesh to you. In his book he presented about 1200 quotes from periodicals and other sources in North America, Great Britain, South Africa and Australasia (about 400 of these were from E. G. White) of Adventist pioneers and later leaders who unanimously believe that Christ took human fallen nature. This is the first 100 years of SDA Church history. It was only until the 1950s after the publication of QOD that another view entered the church.Let me leave you for now with this quote:
“When the shaking comes, by the introduction of false theories, these surface readers, anchored nowhere are like shifting sand.”
(E. G. White, Last Days Events , p. 176.)
So beloved, it is time to watch and pray.
COMMENTS