The Incarnation and the "Son of Man"

QUESTION  6

What do Adventists understand by Christ's use of the title "Son of man"? And what do you consider to have been the basic purpose of the incarnation?

50

The Inspired Word and the Incarnate Word, or the Word made flesh, are twin pillars in the faith of Seventh-day Adventists, in common with all true Christians. Our entire hope of salvation rests on these two immutable provisions of God. Indeed, we consider the incarnation of Christ to be the most stupendous fact, in itself and its consequences, in the history of man, and the key to all the redemptive provisions of God. Everything before the incarnation led up to it; and all that follows after grows out of it. It undergirds the whole of the gospel, and is absolutely essential to the Christian faith. This union of the Godhead with humanity—of the Infinite with the finite, the Creator with the creature, in order that Divinity might be revealed in humanity—passes our human comprehension. Christ united heaven and earth, God and man, in His own Person through this provision.

Furthermore, at His incarnation Christ became what He was not before. He took upon Himself a human

51

bodily form, and accepted the limitations of human bodily life, as the mode of existence while on earth among men. Thus Deity was wedded to humanity in one Person, as He became the one and only God-man. This is basic in our faith. The vicarious atoning death of Christ on the cross was the inevitable outgrowth of this primary provision.

Again, when Christ identified Himself with the human race, through the incarnation, the eternal Word of God entered into the earthly relationships of time. But from thenceforth, ever since the Son of God became man, He has not ceased to be man. He adopted human nature, and when He returned to His Father, He not only carried with Him the humanity which He had assumed at the incarnation, but He retained His perfect human nature forever—thenceforth eternally identifying Himself with the race He had redeemed. This has been well expressed by one of our most prominent writers, Ellen G. White: "In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us."—The Desire of Ages (1940), p. 25.

I. The Son of God Becomes the Son of Man

Through the incarnation, the majesty and glory of the Eternal Word, the Creator and Lord of the universe (John 1:1-3), was veiled. And it was then that the Son of God became the Son of man—a term used more than eighty times in the New Testament. Taking humanity upon Himself, He became one with the human race that He might reveal the fatherhood of God to sinful man, and that He might redeem lost mankind.

52

At His incarnation He became flesh. He hungered and thirsted and was weary. He needed food and rest and was refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man, craving human sympathy and needing divine assistance. Nevertheless, He ever remained the blameless Son of God.

He sojourned on earth, was tempted and tried, and was touched with the feelings of our human infirmities, yet He lived a life wholly free from sin. His was a real and genuine humanity, one that must pass through the various stages of growth, like any other member of the race. He was subject to Joseph and Mary, and was a worshiper in the synagogue and Temple. He wept over the guilty city of Jerusalem, and at the grave of a loved one. He expressed His dependence upon God by prayer. Yet all the while He retained His deity—the one and only God-man. He was the second Adam, coming in the "likeness" of sinful human flesh (Rom. 8:3), but without a taint of its sinful propensities and passions. (See also Appendix B.)

The first time the title "Son of man" appears in the New Testament it is applied to Jesus as a homeless wanderer, without a place to lay His head (Matt. 8:20); the last time as a glorified, returning King (Rev. 14:14). It was as the Son of man that He came to save the lost (Luke 19:10). As Son of man He claimed authority to forgive sins (Matt. 9:1-8). As Son of man He sowed the seed of truth (Matt. 13:37), was betrayed (Matt. 17:22; Luke 22:48), was crucified (Matt. 26:2), rose from the dead (Mark 9:9), and ascended to heaven (John 6:62).

53

It is likewise as Son of man that He is now in heaven (Acts 7:56) and watches over His church on earth (Rev. 1:12, 13, 20). Moreover, it is as the Son of man that He will return in the clouds of heaven (Matt. 24:30; 25:31). And as Son of man He will execute judgment (John 5:27) and receive His kingdom (Dan. 7:13, 14). That is the inspired record of His role as Son of man.

II. Miraculous Union of the Divine and the Human

Christ Jesus our Lord was a miraculous union of the divine nature with our human nature. He was the Son of man while here in the flesh, but He was also the Son of God. The mystery of the Incarnation is expressed clearly and definitely in the Holy Scriptures.

"Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). "God was in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19). "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

What a wonderful truth! This has been referred to by Ellen G. White as follows:

He clothed His divinity with humanity. He was all the while as God, but He did not appear as God. He veiled the demonstrations of Deity which had commanded the homage, and called forth the admiration, of the universe of God. He was God while upon earth, but He divested Himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the earth as a man. For our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He laid aside His glory and His majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for a while relinquished.—The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887.

The more we think about Christ's becoming a babe here on earth, the more wonderful it appears. How can it be that the helpless babe in Bethlehem's manger is still the divine Son of God? Though we cannot understand it, we can believe that He who made the worlds, for our sakes became a helpless babe.

54

Though higher than any of the angels, though as great as the Father on the throne of heaven, He became one with us. In Him God and man became one, and it is in this fact that we find the hope of our fallen race. Looking upon Christ in the flesh, we look upon God in humanity, and see in Him the brightness of divine glory, the express image of God the Father.—The Youth's Instructor, Nov.21, 1895.

The Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fulness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one. It is in this union that we find the hope of our fallen race. looking upon Christ in humanity, we look upon God, and see in Him the brightness of His glory, the express image of His person.—Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896.

In both His natures, the divine, and the human, He was perfect; He was sinless. That this was true of His divine nature there can be no question. That it was so of His humanity is also true. In His challenge to the Pharisees of His day, He said, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" (John 8:46). The apostle to the Gentiles declared that He "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21); that He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26). Peter could testify that He "did no sin" (1 Peter 2:22); and John the beloved assures us that "in Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5). But not only did His friends emphasize the sinlessness of His nature; His enemies also declared it, Pilate was forced to confess that he found "no fault" in Him (Luke 23:14). Pilate's wife warned her husband to have "nothing to do with that just man" (Matt. 27:19). Even the devils were compelled to acknowledge His Sonship and hence His deity. When commanded to come out of the man they had possessed, they retorted, "What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God" (Matt. 8:29). Mark's gospel gives "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24) 

55

Ellen G. White has written:

He took "the nature, but not the sinfulness of man."—Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901. "We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.

Why did Christ take human nature? This has been well expressed as follows:

Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown, Christ clothed His divinity with humanity, that human beings might be raised from their degradation, and placed on vantage-ground. Christ could not have come to this earth with the glory that He had in the heavenly courts. Sinful human beings could not have borne the sight. He veiled His divinity with the garb of humanity, but He did not part with His divinity. A divine-human Saviour, He came to stand at the head of the fallen race, to share in their experience from childhood to manhood. That human beings might be partakers of the divine nature, He came to this earth, and lived a life of perfect obedience.—Ellen G. White in The Review and Herald, June 15, 1905. (Italics supplied.)

Christ took upon Himself humanity, that He might reach humanity. . . . It required both the divine and the human to bring salvation to the world.—The Desire of Ages, p. 296.

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth—in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin.—Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 286.

We emphasize again that in His human nature Christ was perfect and sinless.

56

In this respect, something of vital import must be considered. The Sinless One, our blessed Lord, voluntarily took upon Himself the burden and penalty of our sins. This was an act in full counsel and cooperation with God the Father.

God "laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin . . ." (verse 10).

And yet, this was a voluntary act of our blessed Saviour, for we read:

"He shall bear their iniquities" (verse 11).

"He hath poured out his soul unto death" (verse 12).

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24).

As a member of the human family He was mortal, but as a God He was the fountain of life to the world. He could, in His divine person, ever have withstood the advances of death, and refused to come under its dominion; but He voluntarily laid down His life, that in so doing He might give life and bring immortality to light. . . . What humility was this! It amazed angels. The tongue can never describe it; the imagination cannot take it in. The eternal Word consented to be made flesh! God became man! It was a wonderful humility.—Ellen G. White in The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887. (Italics supplied.)

Only the sinless Son of God could be our substitute. This our sinless Redeemer did; He took upon Himself the sins of the whole world, but, in doing so, there was not the slightest taint of corruption upon Him. The Holy Bible, however, does say that God "made him to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21). This Pauline expression has puzzled theologians for centuries, but whatever it means, it certainly does not mean that our Immaculate Lord became a sinner. The text states that He was made

57

"to be  sin." Hence it must mean that He took our place, that He died in our stead, that "he was numbered with the transgressors" (Isa. 53:12), and that He took the burden and penalty that was ours.

All true Christians recognize this redemptive act of Jesus on Calvary's cross. There is an abundance of scriptural testimony to this fact.

The writings of Ellen G. White are entirely in harmony with the Scriptures on this point.

The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him.—Signs of the Times, Dec. 9,1897. (Italics supplied.)

As one with us, He must bear the burden of our guilt and woe. The Sinless One must feel the shame of sin. The peace lover must dwell with strife, the truth must abide with falsehood, purity with vileness. Every sin, every discord, every defiling lust that transgression bad brought, was torture to His spirit. . . . Upon Him who had laid off His glory and accepted the weakness of humanity the redemption of the world must rest.—The Desire of Ages, p. 111. (Italics supplied.)

The weight of the sins of the world was pressing His soul, and His countenance expressed unutterable sorrow, a depth of anguish that fallen man had never realized. He felt the overwhelming tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of indulged appetite and of unholy passion that controlled the world.—The Review and Herald, Aug. 4, 1874.

Entire justice was done in the atonement. In the place of the sinner, the spotless Son of God received the penalty, and the sinner goes free as long as he receives and holds Christ as his personal Saviour. Though guilty, he is looked upon as innocent. Christ fulfilled every requirement demanded by justice.—The Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901. (Italics supplied.)

Guiltless, He bore the punishment of the guilty. Innocent, yet offering Himself as a substitute for the transgressor. The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world's Redeemer.—Signs of the Times, Dec. 5, 1892. (Italics supplied.)

All this He bore vicariously. He took it upon His sinless soul and bore it on the cruel cross.

58

There is another aspect of this question which needs to be emphasized, and that is, that Jesus not only took and bore the "iniquities of us all," he took and bore something else, something, however, which was intimately associated with our sins.

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" (Isa. 53:4). "A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" (verse 3).

Matthew refers to this passage:

"Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses" (Matt. 8:17).

The Weymouth translation reads:

" 'He took on Him our weaknesses, and bore the burden of our diseases.' "

And the Twentieth Century gives: " 'He took our infirmities on himself, and bore the burden of our diseases.' "

As He bore (Gr. phero—LXX) our iniquities (Isa. 53:11) so He bore (Gr. anaphero) our weaknesses (Matt. 8:17, Weymouth).

But let us observe further what is implied in this. Notice the words used to express the thought, both in Isaiah 53 and Matthew 8. He bore our griefs, our sorrows, our infirmities, our sicknesses. The original words are also translated pains, diseases, and weaknesses.

On this note the following in the writings of Ellen G. White:

He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which

59

man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.—Signs of the Times) June 9, 1898. (Italics supplied.)

He was unsullied with corruption, a stranger to sin; yet He prayed, and that often with strong crying and tears. He prayed for His disciples and for Himself, thus identifying Himself with our needs, our weaknesses, and our failings, which are so common with humanity. He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are, Jesus endured agony which required help and support from His Father.—Testimonies vol. 2, p. 508. (Italics supplied.)

He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. He endured struggles and torture of soul in a world of sin. His humanity made prayer a necessity and privilege. He required all the stronger divine support and comfort which His Father was ready to impart to Him, to Him who had, for the benefit of man, left the joys of heaven and chosen His home in a cold and thankless world.—Ibid., p. 202. (Italics supplied.)

It could hardly be construed, however, from the record of either Isaiah or Matthew, that Jesus was diseased or that He experienced the frailties to which our fallen human nature is heir. But He did bear all this. Could it not be that He bore this vicariously also, just as He bore the sins of the whole world?

These weaknesses, frailties, infirmities, failings are things which we, with our sinful, fallen natures, have to bear. To us they are natural, inherent, but when He bore them, He took them not as something innately His, but He bore them as our substitute. He bore them in His perfect, sinless nature. Again we remark, Christ bore all this vicariously, just as vicariously He bore the iniquities of us all.

60

It is in this sense that all should understand the writings of Ellen G. White when she refers occasionally to sinful, fallen, and deteriorated human nature. We read that Jesus took "our nature" (The Desire of Ages, p.25); He "took upon Himself human nature" (The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1128); He "took the nature of man" (The Desire of Ages, p.117); He took "our sinful nature" (Medical Ministry, p.181); He took "our fallen nature" (Special Instruction Relating to The Review and Herald Office, p. 13, May 26, 1896); He took "man's nature in its fallen condition" (Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898).

All these are forceful, cogent statements, but surely no one would designedly attach a meaning to them which runs counter to what the same writer has given in other places in her works. Notice the setting in which these expressions are used.

He took "the nature but not the sinfulness of man."—Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.

He took "man's nature in its fallen condition," but "Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.

"He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions."—Testimonies, vol.2, p.202.

In "identifying Himself with our needs, our weaknesses, and our feelings, . . . He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures."—Testimonies, vol.2, pp. 508, 509. (Italics supplied.)

61

"We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. (Italics supplied.)

The Son of God "became like one of us, except in sin."—The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 20, 1886. (Italics supplied.)

"Not a taint of corruption was upon Him."—Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897. (Italics supplied.)

It will be noted in the statements quoted above that while the writer mentions that Jesus took our nature, He Himself was not sinful, but sinless.

Whatever Jesus took was not His intrinsically or innately. His taking the burden of our inherited weakness and failings, even after four thousand years of accumulated infirmities and degeneracy (The Desire of Ages, pp. 49, 117), did not in the slightest degree taint His human nature. "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature."—Medical Ministry, p. 181. "We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. "—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.

"He voluntarily assumed human nature. It was His own act, and by His own consent."—The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887.

He voluntarily subjected "Himself to all the humbling conditions of man's nature" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 458), and "took upon him the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7); He "took on him the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16), that He was made "to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21) and that He was made in all things "like unto his brethren" (Heb. 2:17).

62

All that Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty Of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature—all was taken and borne vicariously. just as bearing vicariously the sins of the whole world did not taint His perfect, sinless soul, neither did bearing the diseases and frailties of our fallen nature taint Him in the slightest degree with the corrupting influences of sin.

Let us ever remember that our blessed Lord was sinless. "We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ."—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.

In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God, . . . "That holy thing which shall be born of thee [Mary] shall be called the Son of God." . . . Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet he without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, pp. 1128, 1129.

What a wonderful Saviour is Jesus our Lord!

III. Could Christ Have Sinned?

On this aspect of this vital question there is diversity of opinion in the Christian church at large. Some feel that it was impossible for Jesus to sin; others that it was possible. We join with the latter in our understanding

63

of this matter and, as in many other phases of Christian doctrine, eminent scholars in the church through the centuries have expressed themselves much as we do. Our position on this is well expressed by Ellen G. White:

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test.—The Desire of Ages, p. 117. (Italics supplied.)

That revered and honored theologians in the past have held the same view is evident. Note the following:

Had He been endowed from the start with absolute impeccability, or with the impossibility of sinning, He could not be a true man, nor our model for imitation: His holiness, instead of being His own self-acquired act and inherent merit, would be an accidental or outward gift, and His temptation an unreal show. As a true man, Christ must have been a free and responsible moral agent: freedom implies the power of choice between good and evil, and the power of disobedience as well as obedience to the law of God.—Phillip Schaff, The Person of Christ, pp. 35, 36.

If the truth . . . —viz., that the force of temptation was strong enough to create the consciousness of a struggle—be overlooked, then the whole curriculum of moral trial through which Jesus passed on earth degenerates at once into a mere stage performance. . . . In modern times this doketic view finds no acceptance; theologians of all schools being agreed that the forces of evil, with which the Son of Man fought so noble a fight, were not shadows, but substantial and formidable foes.—Alexander B. Bruce, D.D., The Humiliation of Christ, p. 268.

Whenever we attribute, in a proper manner and in the sense of Scripture, all the moral elements of man to Jesus, we are not to disjoin from them the freedom which is the power of choosing between good and evil; and for this very reason we are to admit it as conceivable, that be might at some time have been influenced

64

to a departure from the will of God. Unless this be supposed, the history of the temptation, however it may be explained, would have no significantly; and the expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews "he was tempted in all points as we" would be without meaning.

As Jesus was a complete man, this susceptibility and this possibility must be supposed to coexist in Him. Did they not thus coexist, he would cease to be an example of perfect human mortality.—Karl Ullmann, An Apologetic View of the Sinless Character of Jesus (1841), p. 11.

We must not understand by the term [sinlessness of Jesus] an absolute impossibility of sinning but only the actual fact of not sinning, and, what is in a rational and free nature inseparable from this fact, the highest moral perfection and holiness.—Ibid., p. 13.

IV. The Purpose of the Incarnation

As to the purpose of the incarnation, the answer appears in the texts supporting the following six points, which summarize the reasons for His coming to earth in human form.

1. He Came to Reveal God to the World.—See John 1:14, 18; 3:1-36; 17:6, 26; 1 John 1:2; 4:9.

2. He Came to Bring God and Man Together.— See John 1:51 (compare Gen. 28:12); Matt. 1:23; 1 Peter 3:18.

3. He Came to Identify Himself With Man by Name.—He is called "Son of man" some seventy-seven times in the Gospels, such as in Luke 19:10.

4. He Came to Bear the Sins of Mankind.—See Isa. 53:6, 11; John 1:29, margin; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 3:5.

5. He Came to Die in Our Stead.—See Isa. 53:5-10; Matt. 26:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 4:25; 5:6-10; 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; 2:24; 3:18.

65

6. He Came to Destroy the Devil and His Works.—See John 12:31; 16:33; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8.

V. An Unfathomable Mystery

In considering a subject of such transcendent and vital importance as the incarnation of Christ, we must ever remember that there are many aspects of it that we can never fathom. Even when we catch a glimpse of the truth, human language seems altogether inadequate to express the wonders and the beauties of the matchless and inimitable mystery of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Ellen G. White has written:

In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind can not comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear.—Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896.

Even though this is true, there are, thank God, some phases of the truth that have been revealed. And what has been made known in the Word of God is for us to study. The same author has written the following on this point:

When we want a deep problem to study, let us fix our minds on the most marvelous thing that ever took place in earth or heaven—the incarnation of the Son of God.—Manuscript 76, 1903.

Deity of Christ and Church Membership

QUESTION  5

If a Unitarian or an Arian (rejecting the trinity of the Godhead, and denying the deity of Christ) should seek admission into your church, would a Seventh-day Adventist minister baptize and receive such into membership?

Is it possible for an individual to remain in good and regular standing if he consistently refuses to submit to church authority regarding the historic doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ?
While the first question seemingly touches upon a highly important problem, it is nevertheless hypothetical—for the simple reason that an avowed Unitarian or Arian does not seek membership in an avowedly Trinitarian church while still holding his old views on the Godhead. A poll of numerous ministers of long experience connected with our denominational headquarters shows that no minister in this large group has ever been faced with such a request.

Seventh-day Adventist ministers are required thoroughly to instruct all candidates for membership preparatory to baptism. This period of instruction usually continues for some months. If a candidate persists in holding erroneous views concerning our Lord and
43
Saviour, who alone can save the sinner, then only one course could be followed: the applicant would have to be told frankly that he is totally unprepared for baptism, and could not be received into our fellowship. He would be counseled to study further until he understood and had fully accepted the deity of Jesus Christ and His redemptive power. We could not permit one who denies what we believe, and believes what we deny, to become a member, for we could never dwell together in harmony. Strife and disintegration would result.

Furthermore, the Seventh-day Adventist Church uses a uniform four-page Certificate of Baptism, which is given the candidate at the time of his baptism. On pages 2 and 3 appears a "Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists." Following article 1, which deals with the Trinity, the second article reads:
2. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, and the eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour from sin; and man's salvation is by grace through faith in Him. (Matt. 28:18, 19; John 3:16; Micah 5:2; Matt. 1:21; 2:5, 6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5: 11, 12; Eph. 1:9-15; 2:4-8; Rom. 3:23-26.)
Then on page 4 is found the candidate's "Baptismal Vow," with thirteen terse declarations to be made in the affirmative before baptism is administered, following which the certificate is signed and dated. The first of these affirmations pertains to our belief in God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The next in the list of questions to be answered, reads:
2. Do you accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and believe that through faith in His shed blood men are saved from sin and its penalty?
44
This is the procedure preparatory to baptism into the Adventist faith. That this Baptismal Certificate is authoritative, and in constant use in the church, is seen from its inclusion in our official Church Manual. It would, therefore, seem that there is less likelihood of one who holds Arian or Unitarian positions entering the Seventh-day Adventist Church than of his entering some other Protestant communion.

The second question, like the first, is largely hypothetical. Our position can be seen in the official instruction for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Church Manual, covering the duties, responsibilities, and procedures in church relationships. This book was approved and issued by the General Conference in regular session. concerning the authority and responsibility of the church in such matters, we read on pages 218 and 219 (1951 ed.):
"The world's Redeemer has invested great power with His church. He states the rules to be applied in cases of trial with its members. . . . God holds His people, as a body, responsible for the sins existing in individuals among them. If the leaders of the church neglect to diligently search out the sins which bring the displeasure of God upon the body, they become responsible for these sins. . . . If wrongs are apparent among His people, and if the servants of God pass on indifferent to them, they virtually sustain and justify the sinner, and are alike guilty, and will just as surely receive the displeasure of God; for they will be made responsible for the sins of the guilty."
On page 224, under the heading "Reasons for Which Members Shall Be Disciplined," there are listed seven definite departures, any one of which could be grounds for disfellowshiping a member. The first reads:
1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.
45
These "fundamentals of the gospel," or "fundamental beliefs," twenty-two in number, are found on pages 29-36 of the Church Manual. The second and third of these fundamentals deal with the doctrine of God, emphasizing our belief in the Trinity, the omnipotence, omniscience, and eternal existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We quote:
2. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. (Matt. 28:19.)

3. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining His divine nature, He took upon Himself the nature of the human family, lived on earth as a man, exemplified in His life as our example the principles of righteousness, attested His relationship to God by many mighty miracles, died for our sins on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father, where He ever lives to make intercession for us. (John 1:1, 14; Heb. 2:9-18; 8: 1, 2; 4:14-16; 7:25.)
The fourth of these "fundamental beliefs" stresses the nature of our salvation:
4. That every person, in order to obtain salvation, must experience the new birth. This comprises an entire transformation of life and character by the recreative power of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 3:16; Matt. 18:3; Acts 2:37-39.)
Salvation, then, comes about solely through "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." One who refuses to recognize the deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ can, therefore, neither understand nor experience that divine recreative power in its fullness. Not only is he 
46
disqualified for membership by his very unbelief, but he is already outside the mystic body of Christ, the church. And there would be nothing else for the church to do but to recognize this separation through unbelief, and to act in harmony with the instruction already referred to in the Church Manual. Section 5 of the reasons given for disfellowshiping a member reads:
Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church. 
Although the authority of the church to act in such a case is recognized, disfellowshiping a member is never entered into hurriedly, but only after much counsel, prayer, and effort to reclaim the erring one. Usually, in actual practice, either the person who loses faith in the fundamentals of the gospel finds himself so out of harmony with his brethren that he withdraws voluntarily, or his conduct is such that the church must take action in his case.

The historic doctrine of the deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is a cardinal belief of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The Historic Basis for a Misunderstanding
Seventh-day Adventists have often been misunderstood relative to their belief concerning the deity of Christ and the nature of the Godhead. The basis for this misunderstanding lies somewhat in matters of definition and historical background.

In the interdenominational Millerite movement to which the early Seventh-day Adventists had belonged, a few of the leaders were members of a denomination known as "Christians." This group had sounded their
47
no-creed, Bible-and-Bible-only rallying cry in the early nineteenth century Arminian revolt against the dominant ecclesiastico-political New England Calvinism, in which assent to the Westminster Confession of Faith was a sine qua non. In their zeal to reject everything not found in the Bible, the "Christians" were betrayed by overliteralism into interpreting the Godhead in terms of the human relationships suggested by the words "Son," "Father," and "begotten," that is, into a tendency to disparage the non-Biblical word "Trinity" and to contend that the Son must have had a beginning in the remote past. (However, these people, in spite of being called Arian, were at the opposite pole from the liberal, humanistic Arians who became Unitarians, and whose view of Christ represented Him to be a mere man.)

Some of these "Christians," committed to the Bible as their guide and making Christian character rather than belief the only test of church membership, were inclined to give a sympathetic hearing to the revivalist preaching of William Miller in the 1840's and to welcome the Millerites when other churches closed their doors to them. However, in the Millerite movement speculation on the nature of the Godhead played no important part.

The earliest Seventh-day Adventists had been Millerites, coming from various denominations, and among them were two "Christian" preachers, and possibly several lay members as well. Their proportion in our early membership is unknown, and their dwindling descendants have not molded the thinking of our membership, nor did their understanding of the Godhead
48
become a part of our essential message to the world. Today probably only a minute portion of our membership has ever even heard of any dispute as to whether Christ once had a beginning in the unmeasured aeons of the past. And even the few so-called "Arians" among us—though erring in their theoretical theology of the nature of the relationships of the God-head—have been as free as their more orthodox brethren of any thought of detracting from the glory and divine lordship of Jesus as Creator, Redeemer, Saviour, and Advocate.

Our people have always believed in the deity and pre-existence of Christ, most of them quite likely unaware of any dispute as to the exact relationships of the Godhead. Nor has our public preaching discussed Christology, but has placed the emphasis on the distinctive message of the Lord's coming. However, we have statements from Ellen G. White, at least from the 1870's and 1880's, on the deity of Christ, and on His oneness and equality with God; and from about 1890 on she expressed herself with increasing frequency and positiveness in an endeavor to correct certain erroneous opinions held by some—such as the literalistic notion that Christ as the "only begotten" Son had, in the remote ages past, had a beginning.

Why did she not make her stronger emphasis from the beginning? Doubtless for the same reason that she advised against pursuing theological controversy with respected but mistaken brethren—for the sake of unity on the main features of the message of the imminent return of Christ, which they all felt called of God to proclaim to the world. Her advice was, in substance:
49
No matter how right you are, do not stir up the subject at the present time because it will cause disunity. Quite possibly our toleration of a few variant theories has not been too high a price to pay for freedom from creedal dogmatism and controversy, and for unity of spirit and effort in our world task.