At Issue Index   Webster Index  Previous  Next

Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology

by Claude Webster


III. Evaluation and Critique

In this section we wish to evaluate the positive contribution which Douglass has made to Adventism as a result of his Christological emphasis and to give a critique of his theology with special reference to Christology. One would be tempted to deal with the entire orbit of Douglass' theology but this would take us far from our primary task. Hence we must limit ourselves to those aspects of his theology which legitimately relate to Christology.

A. An Evaluation of the Contribution of Douglass' Christology to Adventism within the Framework of his total Theology 

In Section A it is our intention to concentrate on the positive contribution which Douglass has made to Adventism while not hesitating to raise certain questions. This evaluation will be sub-divided into four divisions.

1. Douglass has attempted to draw attention to the crucial role of Christology in Adventist thinking

Whatever one's view of Douglass' Christology might be, one must agree that for Douglass, Christology has implicit, if not always explicit, importance in his system. As we have seen, Christ plays a crucial role in Douglass' whole concept of the 'great controversy' as it relates to salvation and the future.180 Anyone seeking to understand Douglass must realize that his concept of Christ is interlocked with his whole theological network.181 Douglass' influence in this regard on Adventism has been primarily through two avenues, namely, his lucid ability to integrate theological and philosophical dimensions of Christology with the practical concerns of Adventism, and secondly, through his contribution to the 'Righteousness by Faith' dialogue. We will now look at these two aspects in turn.

a. Douglass has attempted to integrate the theological and philosophical implications of Christology with practical concerns of Adventism

A careful perusal of Douglass' published works, whether in book form or in editorials in the Adventist Review, reveals a lucid writing style which can be compelling. Douglass has the ability of taking theological and philosophical concepts, tying them to his Christological motif of the humanity of Christ and ending up with practical issues of everyday importance to Adventism.182

It is evident that Douglass' concern for the soteriological and eschatological implications of Christ's life and example, whether couched in theoretical terms or not, leads him into many practical issues which he believes are of importance to Adventism.

For example, Douglass will often be found championing the Adventist concern for such practical issues as ecology, 183 the quiet life versus destructive influence of noise,184 the danger of smoking,185 the peril of cancer 186 and the general interest in health issues.187 And, of course, for Douglass these practical concerns are tied into his strong motivating conviction that the humanity of Christ is an attainable model for all men and that this ideal will change all of life.

But while Douglass has succeeded in stimulating the Adventist mind towards the goal of making Christ's life the pattern for all of Adventist living, one would raise the question as to whether Douglass has not used his writing skill to condition his readers from every possible angle that Christianity is essentially the reproduction of the life of Christ in the flesh. Has Douglass not overplayed his one dominant theme and ended up by using Christ chiefly as a stepping-stone to primarily anthropocentric interests? Almost all of his writing flows into this one main stream of thought. This is evident whether he writes on the church,188 the sanctuary,188 eschatology,190 or the apparent delay in the Advent.191

b. Douglass' contribution to the 'righteousness by faith’ dialogue within Adventism

A second, but not inconsequential avenue through which Douglass has attempted to bring Christology into greater prominence within Adventism, has been in the 'righteousness by faith’ discussions. In this, Douglass is following the lead given by men such as M. L. Andreasen, Short and Wieland, and even the ‘early’ Robert Brinsmead.192 In essence this has been the argument that ‘righteousness by faith’ means righteous living by faith, and secondly, that Christ who overcame in sinful flesh shows fallen man how this is to be achieved. Thus, in the book Perfection (which deals with the whole subject of 'righteousness by faith'), we notice that Douglass is the only author to draw his arguments extensively from Christology.193 His basic argument is that perfection (righteous living by faith) is possible for fallen man because of the example of Jesus in sinful, fallen nature. Notice that here Christology is a logical necessity to his views on 'righteousness by faith.' A further example is the special issue of the Review and Herald on ‘righteousness by faith’ where the role of Christology is evident.194

2. Douglass has attempted to give due weight to the full implications of the humanity of Christ in all his thinking

It must be stated that Douglass has contributed to the proper emphasis on the reality of the humanity of Christ within Adventism. As we have seen, for Douglass Christ was not an astronaut from outer space insulated From the realities of planet earth.195 Any tendency towards docetism within Adventism would be opposed by Douglass.

While Adventism has always accepted the humanity of Jesus Christ, Douglass has pursued this aspect with considerable tenacity. Firstly, for Douglass it is not sufficient to merely assert that in the Incarnation Jesus assumed humanity in general, for he insists that we go further to assert that He assumed sinful humanity. Secondly, Douglass wishes to go beyond the traditional Adventist acceptance of Christ's participation in the external conditions of sin, and to insist that He also participated in the internal conditions of sin. Thirdly, Douglass insists that we not balk at the concept of inherited propensities to sin which form a part of these internal conditions.

It is in this light that Douglass has seen the humanity of Christ as a benchmark for all mankind and the humanity of Jesus as a model which men can follow. The man Jesus is in touch with all sinners, He experiences their level, He can sympathize and feel with their struggles and can give them victory in the hour of temptation. For Douglass, the humanity of Jesus is everything and the example of Jesus in His earthly life becomes an attainable goal for all men.

While some positive aspects of this emphasis on the humanity of Jesus can be acknowledged, one wonders whether Douglass has really done credit to the uniqueness and glory of the person of Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the New Testament. Is it not precisely the divinity of Christ that lifts the story of Bethlehem above the level of other human births?

One can ask whether the treatment of the humanity of Jesus has not been conducted in too mechanical a manner by Douglass. For his system, Jesus must be just like man in every respect. This is a matter of necessity and with inevitable consistency all considerations must bend to this pre-supposition. Does not the logical pressure of Douglass' system of the necessity of the humanity of Jesus prevent him from just standing back and rejoicing in the glory, the grace and the wonder of the Incarnation when God became man in the person of His Son? Is God really at the center of Douglass' treatment of Jesus Christ of Nazareth? These are the questions which we must take up in our critique.

3. Douglass has attempted to link the quality of life in the here and now with Christology

Because of the very close link in Douglass' thinking between Christology and anthropology the logical consequence has been an emphasis on the quality of man's life in the present. This is a healthy emphasis and is a contribution to Adventism's impact on the world. In the past Adventism has at times been criticized for its other-worldliness and its indifference to the culture and quality of this life. Douglass has assisted in dispelling this criticism.

Motivated by Christ's humanity and example, Douglass shows great interest and concern for excellence,196 for quality education on the Adventist campus,197 for cleanliness of body and mind,198 for health and related matters,199 for happiness200 and for general quality of life.201 This deep concern for the quality of life in this world is a very clear outgrowth of Douglass' Christology. He must be commended for his occupation with the interests of this life for the Christian.

There is no doubt that with this interest which Douglass shows for man's sanctification and self-development he has contributed to the concept of the importance of man within Adventism. This, of course, is also in keeping with the universal concern for man in this scientific and humanistic age.

While Douglass can be commended for this role in highlighting the importance of man, two subtle dangers Lie hidden in this very emphasis. The one is in taking the attention from Christ and the cross of Calvary as man's only hope. As the searchlight plays on man and his quality, the danger exists of losing the realization of the primacy of Christ in contrast to man. The second danger at the other end of the spectrum is in transforming sanctification and the quality of life into an insidious means to an end rather than the fruit of grace in the life.

4. Douglass has attempted to integrate the Adventist sense of mission and future hope with Christology

Finally, we must acknowledge that one of the effects of Douglass' emphasis on the humanity of Christ has resulted in an unexpected spin-off in the area of missiology and eschatology. Based on his view of Jesus as the benchmark for man, Douglass has placed considerable stress on the vital role to be played by the quality of the Christian's life in the mission of the church.202 By imitating Christ in being healthy, happy and loving, the church's witness will become convincing to a skeptical world.

Furthermore, Douglass' whole tendency to carry the implications of the person of Christ into the last generation has had the effect of giving far more weight to eschatology than has often been the case in Christian dogmatics. Where eschatology has often been nothing more than the postscript to theology, for Douglass, his whole system is dependent on the vital significance of eschatology. Concepts such as the vindication of God, the great controversy regarding the law, the image of God in man, the harvest of character and the achieving of sinless perfection all await consummation in the final generation. Douglass has also contributed in sharpening the focus of the Adventist upon the end 203 and upon the unique role which the Adventist Church is to play in preparing the world for the second Advent of Christ. The question of the delay in the Advent assumes great importance for Douglass and gives added impetus to his challenge that the church member appropriate his God-given privilege of reproducing the life of Christ, thus hastening the Advent.

In the light of the usual tendency to treat histology as a theoretical exercise divorced from the practical issues of mission and the future, Douglass must e commended for his attempt to integrate these concerns. However, we must notice that Douglass has done this by making a distinction between what we may call 'inaugural Christology' linked with the historical Jesus, and a future 'consummated Christology' which he has projected into the last generation of this age. We will take up his observation and explain it in the next section.

But even if it has only been by arousing discussion, Douglass has made a contribution by pointing out the real need for an integration of Christology and other areas of theology.

B. A Critique of Douglass' Christology against the Background of his total Theology

Notwithstanding the positive directions taken by Douglass and noted in the previous section, we would ail to be fully objective if we did not look at certain problem areas in his Christology. These areas will be, namely, Douglass' relation to Scripture, his relation to Ellen White, and the logical inconsistencies in his system.

1. Douglass fails to do real justice to Scripture

While Douglass does obviously use Scripture and often is in harmony with its message, there are, nevertheless, certain specific problems which must be noted. The two which we will discuss are his tendency towards selectivity and his, at times, inadequate hermeneutic.

a. Douglass tends to be selective in listening to the witness of Scripture

While, undoubtedly, total objectivity is beyond the reach of any of us and while all of us have to read the Bible through our own eyes, the temptation to be selective in one's use of Scripture must be resisted if we are to do justice to its message. One cannot help wondering whether Douglass has not, all too often, succumbed to this temptation especially in his treatment of the crucial question of the person of Christ.

The stress in Douglass' Christology lies overwhelmingly on the example and teachings of Jesus rather than on the mystery of His person.204 For example, Douglass has shown a tendency to give more weight to the parables of Jesus than to the apostolic witness to Jesus. We have seen this in his constant use of the parable for the growing seed 205and his dependence on a book like Christ's Object Lessons.206 While the teachings of Jesus are, no doubt, meant to play an important role in any Christology, to give them greater priority than the events of Christ's life is surely to invert the priority of the New Testament gospels themselves.207

And as Douglass has shown a strong preference for the humanity of Jesus, has he not been selective in listening more intently to the synoptic account of Jesus than to the Johannine record of the incarnate Word?208 Furthermore, even in his concentration on the humanity of Christ has Douglass not even neglected the synoptic witness to the uniqueness of the Messiah? For example, hen Christ asks His disciples the question, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" (Matt. 16:13, NIV), Matthew acknowledges that Jesus is only satisfied when the uniqueness of His person as the Christ, the Son of the living God (v.16) is recognized. Furthermore, why does Douglass not make more of the Lucan record of the distinction of Christ in His birth when he writes, "So he holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" Luke 1:35)?

Aside from the testimony of the gospels one must ask whether Douglass has listened objectively to the entire witness of the Pauline corpus. In his desire to emphasize the humanity and the ethics of Jesus, has he not neglected the strong emphasis on the substitutionary nature of Christ's obedience, death and resurrection? Has due regard been given to the strong confessional nature of the Pauline evidence regarding Christ? 209 And when Douglass listens to the testimony of the book of Hebrews why is it that he has emphasized the second chapter regarding the humanity of Christ while apparently failing to give equal weight to the first chapter dealing with His divinity? Does the epistle to the Hebrews not wish to hold the divinity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in equal tension?

What must be said of Douglass' attention to the Old Testament in his Christology and overall theology? It is quite evident that the New Testament writers have made a clear attempt to base their view of the person of Christ on the Old Testament.210 If Douglass places most of his emphasis on the humanity of Jesus and the importance of following His human example, has he given sufficient place for the importance of Christ in the Old Testament dispensation before He adopted humanity? It is quite clear that the apostles regarded Christ to be the eternal Mediator between God and man and, therefore, the active agent in creation and salvation-history.211 If following the example of Jesus is so vital in the salvation process for Douglass, how were the Old Testament saints 'saved' without this example?

b. Douglass uses an inadequate hermeneutic

It is evident that at times Douglass' interpretation of Scripture is biased by his systematic pre-suppositions. This is seen, for example, in his approach to the key text, Revelation 14:12. "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Of particular interest is Douglass' use of the phrase 'faith of Jesus' in his entire theology. For Douglass, Jesus must be just like fallen man and it is of pivotal importance that what Jesus did man must be able to do. Hence, for Douglass, the 'faith of Jesus' does not mean 'faith in Jesus' but a reduplication of the faith which Jesus exhibited. Upon this interpretation rests Douglass' whole concept of the vindication of God by man, the 'harvest' principle, the idea of sinless perfection and the delay in the Advent. This interpretation has little support from the majority of New Testament exegetes.212 Even if the phrase in question was a subjective rather than an objective genitive it is dubious whether such theological amplification is warranted without other clear Scriptural support. It is interesting to note that the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary appears to lend weight to an interpretation of the phrase in question as 'faith in Jesus.'213

Not only is an inadequate hermeneutic seen in Douglass' approach to individual texts but he manifests an almost total failure to engage in genuine exegesis of larger passages of Scripture. He is, for example, happy to concentrate on Romans 8:l-4, where he finds in the phrase 'the likeness of sinful man' (vs.3) an indication that Christ possessed a sinful human nature like man and that it is possible for fallen man to live a life of total obedience to God's law.214 However, it must be asked whether Douglass has taken the context of the whole of Romans 7 and 8 as a unit into proper perspective. Would a careful exegesis of Romans 7 not reveal the radical nature of sin for all men? Does it not show that sin in humanity is far deeper than mere acts of transgression? Could it not indicate that even for man who delights in the law of God there is a principle of sin within his members which condemns him, but for the merits of Jesus Christ? How could Douglass ascribe such a nature to Christ for this would in fact make Him a sinner? In Romans 7 and 8 is Jesus Christ really on the same level as fallen man when it comes to the principle of sin in their members? And when Paul says in conclusion "in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us" (Rom. 8:4) does he mean in actuality or through the merits of Jesus Christ? Would a careful exegesis of the entire passage by Douglass not be more convincing than the reliance upon 'proof' texts to bolster a position?

Finally, Douglass reveals a 'dispensational' 215 tendency in his usage of Scripture. He will not hesitate to apply certain New Testament texts to the end-time and then will take other texts clearly having reference to first-century times and project them almost exclusively into the same future time. For example, this is seen in Douglass' treatment of Revelation 14:12.216 He rightly understands that this text calls for people in the last generation who will truly and fully keep the commandments of God. For him there are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ connected with this obedience.217 It is total obedience and the 'faith of Jesus' will provide the power for sinless living. But now to strengthen this concept of 'sinless living' Douglass brings in a host of texts clearly applying to the apostolic days and the entire Christian dispensation. Instead of using these texts to illustrate that God's standard is the same throughout the ages, Douglass has utilized them to support strongly dispensational view of perfection in the endtime.218 It is highly questionable whether this method of interpretation does justice to the New Testament.

2. Inadequacies in Douglass' use of Ellen White's writings

Douglass believes, along with many others, that Ellen White has made a major contribution to the basic structure of Adventist theology and hence draws heavily from her writings to support his Christology. It is in the light of this fact that we must notice some weaknesses in Douglass' use of Ellen White. These are a tendency to be selective in the use of this author and incomplete grasp of her Christology.

a. Tendency to be selective in the use of Ellen White

For one who claims to use Ellen White as an authority for his Christology it should be expected that he would give equal treatment to her total output. However, it appears that Douglass is at times selective his usage of Ellen White's Christological material. This selectivity is also revealed by the disproportionate weight that Douglass places on certain Ellen White material and the apparent neglect of other material thus distorting the balance of Ellen White's at times antithetical and paradoxical presentation.

For example, Douglass will often state that Jesus was just like other children except for the fact that they committed acts of sin and Jesus did not.219 Why does Douglass fail to give due emphasis to the other stream in Ellen White's thought in this connection, for example, in such a statement as: "No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh."220

To merely quote from statements that indicate the similarity between Jesus and other children is to fail to do justice to other statements such as the above where, for Ellen White, Christ was not merely similar to other children but was essentially different in His person.

Again, as Douglass endeavors to place Christ on the same level as all other men with regard to hereditary traits and yet rejects any concept of original sin for man, why does he neglect Ellen White's clear contrast between the birth of Seth and that of Christ? Speaking of Seth, Ellen White clearly states that he was 'born in sin' and yet by contrast she states that Christ was "born without the taint of sin."221 It is evident that she is here speaking not of acts, but of state, for at birth there has been no opportunity for acts of sin. Once again this is an example of a tendency to ignore contrary evidence in Ellen White.

And again when it comes to man and sin, it appears as if Douglass neglects those Ellen White passages which describe the radical nature of man's sin. Is this because of his desire to keep man and Christ on the same level? Ellen White states that even for converted believers who truly worship the Lord, their prayers and praise pass through the corrupt channels of humanity and unless purified by the blood of a Mediator, are unacceptable to God.222 If this is not a description of the radical sinfulness of man's nature which separates the saint from Christ then words are inadequate to describe the depth of human sin. Douglass nowhere attempts to come to grips with this other side of Ellen White's thought.

When Douglass emphasizes the humanity of Jesus the question could well be asked as to why he does not give due emphasis to the dialectical approach to the dual concept of God and man in Jesus Christ as followed by Ellen White. Douglass ignores the careful balancing of weight given by Ellen White to her statements regarding the divinity and the humanity of Christ. He writes almost as if Ellen White only believed in the humanity of Christ. And yet evidence is replete that for Ellen White Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man while on earth.223

Douglass lays great importance on Ellen White's work on Christ, namely, The Desire of Ages.224 For him it is the epitome of her work on the Saviour. It is interesting to note how Douglass will select those sections of this book which deal with the humanity of Jesus and His acceptance of man's heredity and weakness. These passages are acclaimed as depicting Ellen White's view on Jesus but the question must be raised as to why Douglass has failed to give equal weight to her strong emphasis on the divine person of Jesus Christ in this same book. For her, Christ was no ordinary man; He was the great I AM, the Eternal One in human flesh.225 It appears that Douglass has used Ellen White's Desire of Ages to present partial evidence. All of this should not be taken to mean that Douglass denies the divinity of Christ, but his selective use of Ellen White, drawing largely on those statements emphasizing the humanity of Christ, results in a caricature of Ellen White.

b. Incomplete grasp of Ellen White by Douglass

In spite of Douglass' heavy dependence upon Ellen White and in addition to the problem of selective usage of her material, there remains the suspicion that Douglass in some respects fails to grasp the complexities and depth of Ellen White's Christology. One can postulate that Douglass' understanding of her total thought in this area remains partial and incomplete.

Take, for example, Ellen White's complexity of thought with regard to Christian perfection. Douglass is inclined to equate perfection with sinless living and he would say whereas the Bible and Ellen White call for perfection, and Jesus showed that sinless living is possible, therefore all His followers should live sinless lives. However, the pragmatic evidence in the lives of countless saints is that sinless living on a par with Jesus is extremely rare. Douglass himself admits that this type of perfection is lacking, hence he has suggested that the Advent is being delayed because of this deficiency, awaiting a generation who will ideally reach the standard.226 We would suggest that Christian perfection is far more complex in Ellen White's thought than Douglass would have us believe, 227 and can only be understood in a dialectical setting in order to avoid the dispensational solution proposed by Douglass.

We would also suggest that Douglass fails to really do credit to Ellen White's view regarding Christ and sin. Because of his failure to understand the radical nature of sin, Douglass falls into the trap of compromising with an almost sinful Christ. Not sinful in act; but sinful in nature. We see Douglass trying desperately to disentangle himself from the tentacles of the Baker letter with its "propensities of sin." 228 While Ellen White states that Adam's posterity are born with inherent propensities of disobedience, Douglass' pre-supposition must dictate that Christ is born with these same inherent propensities. And then we see Douglass wrestling with Ellen White's succeeding thought that "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." All Douglass can do is to engage in fancy footwork as he gingerly steps between 'propensities to sin' and 'propensities of sin.'

Finally, we would submit that Douglass fails to grasp the divine secret of the person of Christ in the total works of Ellen White. When Douglass states that Jesus Christ laid aside His divine powers and prerogatives when He became man, we ask what kind of a Christ does Douglass have left? Was He really anyone more than the best man after being stripped of these powers and prerogatives? Is not the total message of Ellen White that this Man, Jesus, remained fully God? Did He not retain His essential divinity in His Incarnation? Does Ellen White not present a far more complex Christ than simply Someone who used to be God and now has become a Man? It might be more simple for us to understand Christ as a mere Man but simplicity is not the final answer to the mystery and glory of the person of Jesus Christ.

3. Logical inconsistencies in Douglass' Christology within his total scheme

As we have seen, Douglass attempts to integrate the various elements of his theology into a systematic scheme and we have already noted that Christology in its explicit form plays a minor but crucial role within this scheme. It is, therefore, obvious that any logical inconsistencies within Douglass' theological scheme would tend to jeopardize the whole structure. We are talking here of the inner logic of Douglass' own thought rather than of some external rationalistic principle imposed upon him.

a. Christ and temptation

One of the major Christological premises of Douglass' whole theological system is that salvation (and especially living the Christ-like life) is only possible if Christ became exactly like every fallen, sinful man in nature. There can be no difference except for actual sin. If Christ is to help the worst possible sinner He must have stooped down to that level. We have seen how Douglass courageously attempts to follow this thought to its logical conclusion. He insists that Christ took fallen sinful nature and that He was subject to temptation not only from without, but also from within, on the basis of inherent propensities to sin. On this basis he confidently states that Christ has faced any conceivable situation that man must face and thus can be the Model for all men. What He did, we can do.

We suggest, however, that in the final analysis there is a major logical flaw in this kind of reasoning. Is it not true that the temptation to commit sin is heightened and strengthened after repeated sin? When a man has fallen into a particular sin, the temptation to commit that same sin again is more powerful. Right here there remains a massive gap between Christ and the sinner. At best, Christ can only face initial temptation, but He cannot be brought down to the level of the alcoholic who faces the temptation to indulge in strong drink for the thousandth time. The more a man finds himself in the quagmire of actual sin the further he drifts away from Christ who never sinned. Christ never knew the power of habitual sin and cannot meet fallen man on that level. Thus despite Douglass' best efforts to bring Christ to sinful man's level in order to validate his entire system, Douglass' attempt seems to collapse on the bedrock of habitual sin.

Besides, would it not be true to say that any particular historical existence in a particular historical time and place and cultural setting would immediately distance Christ from all other situations? Even though Christ was a male did He face the temptations that a married man faces, let alone those of a woman? Or did Jesus face all the particular temptations peculiar to our generation? If Douglass counters this and says that although Christ did not face each particular temptation, but only the essence of temptation, then he weakens his whole argument for the fallen nature of Christ, because it would be quite possible for Christ to have faced the ground of temptation (i.e. to act independently of God) even if He had a sinless unfallen human nature. It is quite clear that Adam was readily susceptible to temptation from a clear position of innocence. In the light of this second consideration it is clear that the implication of Douglass' presupposition, namely, that in order to save all men Jesus must face and overcome all temptations within the capacities of fallen man, falls apart on the stumbling-stone of historical particularism.

b. Christ and the virgin birth

A further example of a problem of logic associated with Douglass' view on the sinful nature of Christ is his strange equivocation on the question of the virgin birth and Jesus' relationship to Mary. In one place Douglass asserts that the birth from Mary proves that Jesus inherited a normal human nature with all the liabilities and propensities to sin as do all other men. 229 How can Douglass make such an assertion, for surely the virgin birth (and Douglass accepts that Christ had no natural father) proves that Jesus had anything but a simple natural human descent. Does the conception by the Holy Spirit play no distinctive role and have no special significance? From what perspective can Douglass declare that the fact of Jesus' human mother implies He had a sinful human nature when Douglass refuses to draw the contrasting conclusions in the light of His paternal origin? Besides, in the light of Douglass' general teaching that Jesus is on exactly the same level as all other men, what can be understood by Douglass' assertion that the reason for Jesus not sinning when a child was because He selected the best possible mother? 230 Why insist on Jesus coming to the lowest level and yet wanting the very best mother? Is it logical to insist on both?

c. Christ and 'sinful nature'

In Douglass' concern that Jesus and man be on the same level exactly when it comes to 'equipment', he has ascribed 'sinful nature' to all of humanity including Jesus. However, he faces a problem, for while it would be in order to make 'sinful nature' for man as stark as possible, when it comes to Jesus His 'sinful nature' must harmonize with His purity, incorruption and sinlessness. Douglass does not want a sinful Jesus. Therefore, he is forced to have everyone in a state of innocence and purity at birth. The term 'sinful nature' is watered down to the place where it means either 'innocence', 'neutrality', 'a nature able to sin' or at worst 'innocent weaknesses and liabilities'. For Douglass the contrast between man and Jesus is only in act, but not in state. In view of this, one wonders if it is not really inconsistent to speak of Jesus or man possessing a 'sinful nature' when nothing sinful is intended. Would it not be more logical for Douglass to speak of man possessing an innocent nature' rather than a 'sinful nature'? furthermore, it does seem illogical to speak of a 'sinful nature' and yet deny any form of original sin. as Douglass not in fact opened himself to criticism and can his friends be entirely blamed for placing him in the Pelagian camp? 231

d. Christ and sinless perfection

We face another logical problem in connection with Douglass' concept of sinless perfection for the last generation. If Jesus Christ really reached man's fallen level and became a model for all why is this Model so elusive? Why does Douglass reserve it primarily for some future generation? Quite clearly he believes that the life-style of Jesus has not been achieved by the church at large, hence the delay in the Advent. If Jesus is the benchmark for all men, why relegate perfection to a future time? Surely it should be the attainable reality for all Christians. Furthermore, would it not be far more logical to postulate that the apostles and saints of the first century, who saw Christ and associated with Him, would have a greater advantage in forming perfect characters, in view of the influence of the Model, than the last generation separated from Christ by thousands of years? Surely there is some fault in the logic of Douglass' timing of sinless perfection.

e. Christ and vindication

In Douglass' thinking we have seen that the theme of the 'great controversy' is a vital one.232 An integral part of the controversy has been the question of the possibility of full obedience to the law of God. It is in this connection that Douglass advocates the vindication theory. 233 We would suggest that there appears to be an inconsistency in the application of this theory. If, according to Douglass, Jesus possessed a sinful human nature and kept the law perfectly, thus vindicating His Father's government, what requirement would necessitate man later endeavoring to do the same? For surely a man who never sinned once can vindicate the issue far better than the man who has sinned often and finally stopped? And since all men have sinned, what type of vindication would be offered by man? Even if he lived a sinless life for six months or two years, would this be required to add to Christ's perfect vindication? On the other hand, if Jesus was not on our level (without a sinful nature), then one could argue that Jesus did not really prove that sinful man could keep the law and hence a later vindication by fallen men would be required. The alternative is simply this. If the controversy revolves around the question whether man can keep the law, then surely a man who never sinned once is a far better answer than a man who finally stopped sinning. Or if Douglass wants to show that the real vindication of God is that sinners can stop sinning, then in what possible way could Jesus have done this? Either Christ vindicates or the last generation vindicates. It would appear that in order to preserve a theory of man's vindication of God, logic would demand one of the alternatives. It appears as if Douglass has endeavored to combine these two alternatives. However, if one believes that Jesus Christ really vindicated God fully in His life and death, no consequential vindication by man at any later time is a necessity for the plan of salvation.

f. Christ and 'inaugural' and 'consummated' Christology

A well-known distinction in the field of eschatology has been made between inaugural eschatology, which applies to the inauguration of the kingdom in connection with Christ's first advent and consummated eschatology dealing with the setting up of the kingdom of glory at the second Advent. 234 This schema has been used in eschatology to clarify the tension between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory, between the 'already' and the 'not yet' and between Christ's resurrection and the last resurrection. We have borrowed the terms 'inaugural' and 'consummated' from eschatology because we believe that they can adequately describe an analogous scheme which seems to appear in Douglass' Christology.

While Douglass fully accepts the historical events connected with the Incarnation and the earthly life, death and resurrection of Jesus as the 'already', there is a very strong element of the 'not yet' in his Christological thought. For Douglass, Jesus kept the Father's law perfectly, but this was not sufficient to answer the challenge to God's justice, and therefore, he believes that this function of Christ awaits consummation by a 'final generation'. He believes that Jesus in His life revealed the character of His Father, but again this function awaits consummation by a larger demonstration of the character of God by the 'final generation'. Douglass sees Jesus as the Model Man who has already come, but the demonstration by God's people in the final time will serve as a completion of the Model before the universe. In the 'already', Jesus Christ was both divine and human and in the 'not yet' man will partake of the divine nature and live victoriously, in a sense consummating the Incarnation. Douglass accepts that Jesus Christ made an atonement for sin upon the cross, but he also sees Christ as making a further atonement in the lives of the saints during the end time. Finally, while Douglass accepts that Jesus vindicated His Father's rule and government during His earthly life, he believes that this initial vindication must be supplemented by a fuller vindication at the end. For Douglass the 'already' has taken place, but he believes that heaven is waiting for the 'not yet' to be accomplished in the lives of the saints. Thus we can see that practically all of the functional aspects of the work of Christ fit into this concept of 'inauguration' and 'consummation'. We have called it 'inaugural and 'consummated' Christology because functions that traditionally have been seen as entirely the prerogative of the work of Christ within Christology have here been separated into this two-phased distinction.

The question must be asked whether Douglass' scheme can be harmonized with the overwhelming emphasis in the New Testament on the uniqueness and completeness of Christ's earthly work. This is, of course, not to deny that Christians have always believed in the heavenly reign and priesthood of Christ, culminating in the last judgment and return. But the point is that these have always been seen as further aspects of the work of Christ which rest on the finished work of His earthly life. What Douglass has done has been to dilute the historical work of Christ by extending it through the efforts of man the final generation. Does not the New Testament have a ring of accomplishment and finality about Jesus' life, ministry and death? These events will never be repeated because it is through the obedience of one Man, rough the death of one Man and through the resurrection of one Man that the gates of heaven have been opened once and for all for all men.

Does this view of Douglass not tend to lessen the real importance of the events and person of the historical Jesus? Does it not also, in fact, make the life and work of Jesus incomplete and insufficient? Does it not in reality mean that man is to add to the work of Jesus Christ to bring it to fulfillment? In is scheme there is the danger that man can be as important as Jesus Christ in accomplishing the plan of salvation and the work of grace.

C. Conclusion

We have seen that in Douglass' theological system eschatology, anthropology, soteriology and Christology are closely interlaced and interrelated. The question could we11 be asked as to the initial interest and concern which started Douglass on his particular theological path. Looking back to his earliest writings, we would suggest at it was most probably eschatology which must claim first position in this quest.235 It is clear that the whole question of the second Advent, the apparent delay in the Advent and the reasons for this delay loomed large in his initial writings and have become more absorbing as the years have passed. 236 Around this subject of the delay in the Advent has grown Douglass' solution, called the 'harvest principle'.

It would seem that from the springboard of eschatology, Douglass found himself involved with man and his responsibility for the delay in the Advent. As the delay was not God's fault, the problem must be located in the inadequacies of man. The searchlight was now on man and his responsibility to keep the commandments, to exercise the faith which Jesus had, to reach God's standard of sinless living, to reflect the health and happiness of the Lord, to consummate the gospel, to finally solve the 'great controversy' and to fully vindicate God. For all of these God would wait. The eschatological dilemma had directed Douglass to his interest in man. This, of course, in turn led him into the related field of soteriology.

From man's problem and dilemma it was natural for Douglass to turn to Jesus as the answer. For him Jesus was no astronaut, no stranger to man. He had come, according to Douglass, with the same equipment as any other man and He has shown us how to live and overcome sin. If Jesus could live without sin, then fallen man, with the same nature which Jesus had, could do the same with God's help and grace. This whole concept has shaped Douglass' Christology which in turn must harmonize with his eschatological expectations, with his view of the inadequacies of man and with his soteriological demands.

We would suggest then, that from eschatology via anthropology and soteriology, Douglass arrived at Christology. Once having reached this point, Christology now took on greater significance. Douglass found that the humanity of Jesus was the key which could unlock the doors to the whole theological edifice. Jesus was the pattern and model for all men. And now the journey was reversed for Douglass. This time starting with Jesus, Douglass was led to soteriology and discovered that the faith which Jesus had was the power necessary for full salvation. From this faith experience Douglass was led back to anthropology when he discovered that all of man's inadequacies could be met by Jesus as man's Substitute and Example. And the journey continued this time from anthropology back to the place where it all began, namely, eschatology. The circle was now complete and today it is difficult to know whether the theological journey, for Douglass, begins with eschatology or with Christology. Whatever else is said, Douglass must be respected for his sincere attempts to make a meaningful theological journey.


180 Because Christ's perfect obedience to the law in sinful flesh sets the stage for fallen man to do the same. Man's response in sanctification today and during the 'last generation' is in imitation of the example of Jesus Christ. [back]

181 This theological network has been presented in the 'Overview of the Theology of Douglass' on pages 351-80 of this chapter. [back]

182 See, for example, one of his series of editorials in the 1970 Adventist Review. Here in seven articles he dealt with the concepts of faith and truth in man's search for relevancy amidst the collapse of certainty in modern times. Douglass, "The Modern Cry for Relevance," Review and Herald, February 19, 1970; "Self-authenticating Truth," Review and Herald, February 26, 1970; "Separating the Head from the Heart," Review and Herald, March 5, 1970; "The Search for Relevancy," Review and Herald, March 12, 1970; "The Collapse of Certainty in Modern Times," Review and Herald, March 19, 1970; "Faith, the Free Response of a Convinced Man," Review and Herald, March 26, 1970; "The Rock of Christian Faith," Review and Herald, April 2, 1970. In dealing with these somewhat abstract themes Douglass reveals an ability to handle philosophical concepts in an interesting writing style. As a sample of his writing style we quote from one of the above articles: "The prevailing cry for relevancy and personal meaning is a religious as well as a social phenomenon of the twentieth century. The unusual and often bizarre methods that young and old have used in the past decade in their attempts to 'do their thing' cannot be lightly written off as a passing fad as we would the goldfish-swallowing of an earlier generation. Neither can it be said that if these lonely, dispossessed seekers for a personal faith would only try organized Christianity they would find that their heart's desire. Precisely at this point much of the disillusionment began" ("The Search for Relevancy," Review and Herald, March 12, 1970, p.14). [back]

183 See his series of three editorials in the Adventist Review, "Is Ecology a Legitimate Concern for Adventists?", April 16,23,30, 1970; also "Adventist Leadership in Ecology," Adventist Review, May 4, 1972. [back]

184 See Douglass, "Noise, One of Life's Cruelest Enemies," Adventist Review, December 9, 1971.[back]

185 Douglass, "Nonsmoking Society Makes Sense," Adventist Review, February 10, 1972.[back]

186 Douglass, "Cancer and a Meat Diet," Adventist Review, December 2, 1971.[back]

187 See Douglass, "How to Cut Health Care by 40 Per Cent," Adventist Review, January 16, 1975; a series of three articles "Health Ministry - A Means or an End?", Adventist Review, January 15,29; February 5, 1976.[back]

188 Notice Douglass' series of five editorials entitled, "How the Church Becomes Convincing," in Adventist Review, May 15,29; June 5,19; August 21, 1975.[back]

189 See the series of eight editorials by Douglass entitled, "Importance of the Sanctuary Truth," in Adventist Review, September 4,18; October 2,23,30; November 6,27; December 4, 1975.[back]

190 In a series of editorials in the Adventist Review, Douglass analyses what he calls "Ellen White's Eschatological Principle" as he discovers it in her book, Christ's Object Lessons. For Douglass, Ellen White's principle is that essential to the plan of salvation is the emergence of the last generation that will vindicate the government of God, and that without this distinctive generation the plan of salvation would have failed to prove its efficacy. See Douglass, "Ellen White's Eschatological Principle," Adventist Review, May 23; June 6,20; July 4,18; August l,15,29, 1974. This concept of the final vindication of God by the last generation is, of course, very closely tied to Douglass' view of Christ and His important role as example and model. [back]

191 A constantly recurring theme in Douglass' writing is the concept of the delay in the second Advent primarily caused by the fact that the members of the church are not reproducing the life-style of Jesus Christ. This note is sounded in many articles dealing with a totally different subject and many references could be cited. Merely as an example we refer to the articles in the Adventist Review entitled, "Gallup Poll Highlights Adventists" (October 21, 1971) and "U.S. Population Growth Rate Declines" (April 6, 1972). One of Douglass' books is devoted entirely to the concept of the delay in the Advent, Why Jesus Waits, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1976, 61 pages. We select the titles of some of Douglass' articles in the Adventist Review dealing specifically with the delay in the Advent. "Advent Waits for God's Exhibit A," (August 13, 1970); "God Waits for the Fruit of the Spirit," (April 5, 1973); "Why Jesus Waits," October 4, 1973); "Jesus Waits for a Quality People," December 6, 1973); "Why God is Urgent and yet Waits," May 16, 1974); "Heaven Waits for Human Channels," August 29, 1974); "Does Jesus Wait for more evil before He can return?" (November 7, 1974); "Why Time Lingers," (December 4, 1975). [back]

192 M. L. Andreasen, D. K. Short, R. J. Wieland and the 'early' Robert D. Brinsmead built their concept of ‘righteousness by faith’ on an acceptance of the ‘sinful nature’ of Christ. In the case of Andreasen this contention is supported by the evidence of his "Letters to the Churches" in opposition to the Christology of Questions on Doctrine. Andreasen's whole emphasis flowered into his concept of ‘sinless perfection’ of the 'final generation' and is definitely a prelude to Douglass' thought. For a critique and evaluation of Andreasen in this connection see "The Doctrine of the Sanctuary in the Seventh-day Adventist Church: Three Approaches" by Roy Adams, presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Theology, at Andrews University in August 1980. As for Wieland and Short, their understanding of the connecting links between the ‘sinful nature’ of Christ and 'righteousness by faith' are clearly seen in their joint effort, 1888 Re-examined, and also in Wieland's The 1888 Message: An Introduction, with a foreword by Short. In the sanctuary awakening message of the ‘early’ Brinsmead this same link between the ‘sinful nature’ of Christ and ‘righteousness by faith’ was prominent. Brinsmead was perhaps just a step ahead of Andreasen and Wieland and Short in realizing that sinless perfection was ultimately God's work in man and hence called for a 'psychic experience' in the judgment which would do for man what he could not do through normal spiritual channels. [back]

193 We have already observed how heavily Douglass draws on the work and example of Jesus in his arguments for human perfection. Heppenstall's presentation, "Let Us Go on to Perfection," (Perfection, pp.61-88), while revealing the great contrast between Jesus Christ and sinful man, is not dependent on the argument of Christology. Likewise, LaRondelle approaches perfection from a purely Biblical basis without delving into the subject of the person of Christ. (See "The Biblical Idea of Perfection" in Perfection, pp.93-136). Maxwell, in "Ready for His Appearing" (Perfection, pp.141-200), handles the subject of character perfection and 'righteousness by faith' in the light of the Sabbath, the sanctuary and the second coming of Christ. Also, in his case Christology is not used as a basic argument, as in the case of Douglass. [back]

194 See "Why God is Urgent and yet Waits," Review and Herald, May 16, 1974,'righteousness by faith', special issue. Note Douglass' words: "Righteous Jesus, wonderful Lord! Righteous Christians, triumphs of grace! (p.22). [back]

195 Douglass writes: "No, Jesus was not an astronaut...He became man without a protective spacesuit, either visible or invisible, that would separate Him from the kind of life lived by His contemporaries" (Why Jesus Waits, p.9). [back]

196 See Douglass, "Beyond Excellence," Adventist Review, January 29, 1970. [back]

197 Douglass, "Regard for Purpose on the Adventist Campus," Adventist Review, September 10, 1970. [back]

198 Douglass, "The 'Clean Life' Pays Off," Adventist Review, February 25, 1971. [back]

199 Douglass, "How to Cut Health Care by 40 Per Cent," Adventist Review, January 16, 1975; "Health Ministry - A Means or an End?" Adventist Review, January 15,29; February 5, 1976. [back]

200 Douglass, "Unhappy People Outnumbered Four to One," Adventist Review, April 27, 1972. [back]

201 Douglass, "Jesus Waits for a Quality People," Adventist Review, December 6, 1973. [back]

202 See Douglass' series "How the Church 8ecomes Convincing," in the Adventist Review of May 15,29; June 5,19; August 21, 1975. [back]

203 As one example we refer to Douglass' book, The End. [back]

204 To our knowledge Douglass makes no attempt to discuss the dual nature or the two natures of Christ. He simply by-passes this problem which has engaged Christian thought before and since Chalcedon. He writes simply as if Jesus was the best Man and Teacher who ever lived. [back]

205 It is one of the basic foundations of the books, Perfection and The End, and also of many editorials. [back]

206 See, for example, his series "Ellen White's Eschatological Principle" covering the book, Christ's Object Lessons, in the Adventist Review, May 23-August 29, l974. [back]

207 A careful study of the four gospels will reveal that Christ's miracles as evidence of His Messiahship and His passion occupy more space and prominence than His teachings. [back]

208 While the synoptic gospels give emphasis to the humanity of Christ, without neglecting His divinity, it is especially the gospel of John that upholds Christ as the divine Logos who reveals the Father. [back]

209 Reference is here made to such passages as Romans 3:21-26; 8:31-39; 10:4-11; 1 Cor. l:23-30; 3:6; 12:3-6; 15:3-8; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; 13:14; Eph. 3:11-21; 4:4-6; Col. 1:12-20; 2:6-10. [back]

210 See, for example, Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2; Stephen's defense before the Council in Acts 7; Paul's preaching at Antioch as recorded in Acts 13. [back]

211 See, for example, Ephesians 3:l-11; 1:12-19; 1 Timothy 2:3-5; Hebrews l:l-14. [back]

212 See the International Critical Commentary series, and consult R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, Vol. 1, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920, p.369, which says: "the faith which has Jesus for its object"; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1933, p.413, where he refers to the phrase as "the faith in Jesus" and calls it an objective genitive as in 2:13; Mark 11:22; James 2:l; see also, Robert H. Mounce, Revelation, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, general editor, F. F. Bruce, Grand Rapids, Michigan: J. B. Eerdmans, 1977, p.277; A Bible Commentary for English leaders, edited by Charles John Ellicott, Vol. V111, London: Cassell & Co., [n.d.], p.603; The Daily Study Bible Series, revised edition, Revelation, Vol. 2, translated by William Barclay, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976, p.112. [back]

213 This commentary states: "Faith of Jesus. Or 'faith in Jesus.' The Greek may be understood either Jay, though the latter meaning is generally preferred" Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, comments on Revelation 14:12, p.833. [back]

214 See Jesus-The Benchmark of Humanity, p.29. Also The Humanity of Jesus, (mimeographed document), pp.6,7. [back]

215 By this we do not mean traditional dispensationalism of the Darby or Schofield or Hal Lindsey type. No, Douglass is opposed to prophetic dispensationalism. However, in practice Douglass does present a soteriological dispensational scheme, if not intentionally, then inadvertently. [back]

216 See "Faith Condemns Sin in the Flesh," Faith, Saying Yes to God, pp.7S-81. [back]

217 Douglass writes: "God's people are commandment-keepers. No ifs, and, and buts - the 8ible says that they are commandment-keepers" (Faith, Saying Yes to God, p.11). [back]

218 We note how Douglass will discuss the future perfection of the 'last generation' for which he says God is waiting and will then use New Testament texts plying to the first century and the entire Christian dispensation as if they were written especially for this future state of perfection. See his reference to Ephesians 1:4-6; 4:13,24; Col. l:10-22; 1 Peter l:15; Peter l:3,4; 3:11-14; 1 John 3:2,3. See Perfection, .31-34. [back]

219 See "The Humanity of the Son of God is Everything to Us," Review and Herald, December 23, 1971; "Jesus Showed Us the Possible," Review and Herald, December 33, 1971. [back]

220 Ellen White, The Youth's Instructor, September 8, 1898. [back]

221 See Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, February 20, 1879; Letter 97, 1898, in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p.925. [back]

222 Ellen White, Manuscript 5, 1900, (cited in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, p.1078). [back]

223 As an example see the selected Ellen White statements in Appendix A and B of Questions on Doctrine, p.641-660. [back]

224 Douglass speaks of this book being the touchstone by which all other statements on the human nature of Christ should be understood. See "An Historical Note on the 1895 Baker Letter," pp.l,2. [back]

225 For some of this evidence see Desire of Ages, pp.168, 198, 207, 217, 231, 326, 406, 421, 469-70, 475, 494, 507, 530, 535-6, 608-9, 645, 663-4, 700, 729, 731, 734, 751, 785, 799. [back]

226 See pages 376-378. [back]

227 In seeking to understand Ellen White's view of perfection one must bear several factors in mind. These are, the ever-present ideal of living without willful sin by the grace of God; the possibility of obeying the law of God; the constant need of the merit of Christ; the requirement for the righteousness of Christ to be added to man's obedience; the continual struggle between the flesh and the Spirit which will remain as long as life lasts; the corruption of human nature demanding the constant addition of the fragrance of Christ's righteousness to make man acceptable to God. These and other actors combine to make Ellen White's view of Christian perfection rich and complex. [back]

228 In "An Historical Note on the 1895 Baker Letter" (mimeographed document prepared by H. Douglass, February 13, 1975, 12 pages), Douglass suggests that Ellen White uses the word 'propensities' in two distinctly different ways. Firstly, in the sense of "inherent weaknesses, liabilities, tendencies to sin, and clamors of our fallen nature" (pp.6,7). In this first sense all the children of Adam, including Jesus, have an equal share. He labels this first usage as a "propensity to sin" and calls it the category of "inherent, natural, original propensity" (p.7). Douglass then suggests that the word 'propensities' is used in a second sense by Ellen White, namely, in the sense of "actual weaknesses, liabilities, and clamors stimulated by participation in sin" (p.7). He calls these "propensities of sin" to differentiate from the first category of "propensities to sin." While Christ, according to Douglass, would have "propensities to sin," He would be excluded from the second category, namely, "propensities of sin." Can this distinction be substantiated in the Baker letter? A close look at the first paragraph of this letter reveals that Ellen White uses the word 'propensity' or 'propensities' three times in the one paragraph (see E. G. White, Letter 8, 1895, in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 7A, pp.248,249). In the first usage she says: "Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin" (Ibid.). Douglass would say, fine, that means the second category. In her second usage, Ellen White speaks of Adam and his descendants and states: "Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience" (Ibid.). This sentence creates a problem for Douglass. In fact, he bypasses it entirely in his "Historical Note." On the one hand, Douglass would say that this second usage belongs to category number one, because Ellen White is speaking of the inherent propensities at birth. According to Douglass' own classification, this state should then include Jesus. However, in this sentence Ellen White speaks of "propensities of disobedience" which sounds very much like Douglass' category number two, namely, cultivated propensities stimulated by participation in sin. Quite clearly Ellen White makes no distinction between inherent "propensities to sin" and cultivated "propensities of disobedience" in this paragraph. The point being made is that Adam's posterity are born with inherent "propensities of disobedience" while Jesus Christ was not born with these inherent propensities. The contrast is not merely between Adam and Christ, but between Adam's posterity and Jesus Christ. In the final usage of the word, Ellen White puts the capstone on her argument: "but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." In this paragraph, Jesus Christ did not "inherit propensities of disobedience." In this way Ellen White links Douglass' category one and category two and excludes Jesus Christ from both. [back]

229 See The Humanity of Jesus (mimeographed document) p. 4. [back]

230 See Unidentified Document, p.3a. [back]

231 For a discussion of Pelagianism see H. K. LaRondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism, Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1971, pp.287-295. [back]

232 We refer the reader to pages 356-359. [back]

233 For a critique of Douglass' vindication theory see "A Critical Examination of the Theology of Herbert E. Douglass" by William B. Willruth, a term paper presented in fulfillment of the requirements of the course, THST 890 Directed Readings in Systematic Theology, Andrews University, Autumn quarter, 1979. For his discussion of Douglass' view on vindication see pp.11-15; 44-47. [back]

234 0n the question of 'inaugurated' and 'consummated' eschatology see: John Bright, The Kingdom of God, Nashville, 1953, pp.216, 231-232; 237-238; George B. Caird, "Judgment and Salvation," Canadian Journal of Theology, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.235,237; 0. Cullmann, Christ and Time, London, 1951, pp.84-87; C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, New York, 1962, pp.13,36; 42-43; 84-86; Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment, Casselberry, Florida, 1980, pp.316-325; Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, New York, 1963, pp.117,118; G. E. Ladd, The Pattern of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1968, pp. 90-97; 100-102. [back]

235 Note his early series on eschatology entitled “Hastening the Advent," parts 1-4, in the Gleaner, August 14,28, 1961. This is a sample of his earliest writing some nine years before he became associate editor of the view and Herald. See footnote 121 of this chapter. [back]

236 On the whole question of the delay in the Advent, see footnotes 114-124, 191 of this chapter. [back]

At Issue Index   Webster Index   Previous  Next