Fundamental Belief #4—God the Son: God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things.
When I originally wrote these articles for the print version of Proclamation! some articles were harder than others to keep within the space constraints. Writing a short synopsis regarding the Adventist teachings on the Son was one of the hardest. First, there is a great deal to unpack within Adventist teaching on this subject. Perhaps what made it particularly hard was the large role that this doctrine played in my personal experience within Adventism. I realize that for many people their first questions were about the Investigative Judgement or the accuracy/authority of Ellen White. For me, the teachings on the nature of the Son formed some of the earliest cracks in the carefully crafted wall of Adventist theology.
A common challenge with Adventist doctrines is that the church has not done a clear job of defining what is included and excluded by the doctrine. We saw this issue when examining the Trinity doctrine. An Adventist can believe and teach the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and fall within the belief statement. That’s a good thing. However, Adventists can also teach doctrines that are considerably different from, even directly opposed to, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and that is still acceptable within the broad range provided by the official Adventist belief statement. This is at least equally true when examining the teaching on the nature of the Son.
It is impossible to completely separate the doctrinal issues related to the nature of the Son from issues relating to the Trinity, because we can’t have an accurate doctrine of God without that consideration. I have organized Adventist teaching on the nature of the Son into three sections:
- Creation, Sin, and the Plan of Redemption
- Incarnate Christ
- Risen Christ
Creation, Sin, & the Plan of Redemption
The Fundamental Belief statement reveals very little about this aspect of Adventist doctrine of the Son, but understanding this teaching is crucial to interpreting the Adventist phrases used in describing the incarnation. Adventist doctrine is difficult to understand and challenge because any single belief is often intertwined with several others, each belief serving as part of the proof for the others. It is often necessary to look at several teachings at once to begin understanding the Adventist teachings. Understanding the nature of the Son requires some grasp of the unique Adventist teaching of the Great Controversy, which is challenging in itself because even that teaching doesn’t mean quite the same thing to every Adventist teaching about or writing on the topic.
At a general level, the Great Controversy occurs between God (the Father) and Satan. Everything about sin, salvation, the incarnation, and heaven is intermingled with this doctrine. The short version is that Satan accused the Father of demanding obedience to a Law (the 10 Commandments) that could not be kept. The rest of the universe is watching earth to see whether Satan’s accusation is true. If the Father can’t prove that His Law can be kept, the Father’s rule will be overthrown, and Satan will assume control of the universe.
Two other teachings that are closely linked to the Great Controversy are Christ being the archangel Michael and Satan’s rebellion being rooted in his jealousy of the honor and authority given to the Son. The idea that the Son is also described as the archangel Michael could be dismissed as a relatively harmless point of interpretation. There is no doubt that Michael is presented in Daniel suggesting that he is either a prophetic type pointing to Christ or another name for Christ, much as Melchizedek is viewed by some as a type pointing toward Christ and by others as a pre-incarnate Christ. In isolation, either view of Michael or Melchizedek may not be a reason for alarm. But when the teaching that Jesus is an archangel is combined with a documented history of Arianism and with a doctrine that teaches Satan’s fall was due to jealousy specifically of Jesus, there are many red flags.
Let’s look at the Adventist teaching on Satan’s fall just to be clear about what is taught here. There is probably no clearer explanation than what is provided in the February 27, 2011 Adult Sabbath School Lesson: “Lucifer, the most magnificent creature from the hands of God, was given the highest place in heaven outside of the Godhead. His honor, beauty, and intelligence were supreme; yet, sin nevertheless grew within him (Ezek. 28:12–15). The perfect peace and happiness of all creatures was greatly disturbed by this act of self-exaltation and jealousy toward Christ. “ ’I will make myself like the Most High’ ” (Isa. 14:14, NIV) was the thought that triggered dissension, rebellion, violence, and much pain to all inhabitants of heaven and then to the entire human family. “Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man, and because he was not, he was filled with envy, jealousy, and hatred. He desired to receive the highest honors in heaven next to God” (Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 145.)”
Nothing from Scripture says that Satan was specifically jealous of Jesus. That only comes from the writings of Ellen White. This is yet another example of how Adventist doctrine really is formed by her writings, despite their vehement claims otherwise. Furthermore, Adventist writings go so far as to imply that what she wrote is directly found in Scripture. This quote from Adventist.org suggests that Isa 14 supports Ellen White’s claim about Satan being jealous of Jesus, “But apparently Lucifer was dissatisfied with his status. He felt that he should be given honor equal to God, particularly the Son (Isa. 14:12-14). He permitted envious, jealous thoughts to control him.”
To be clear, here is how Isa 14:12-14 actually reads (taken from the ESV):
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ’I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God; I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”
It certainly seems a reasonable conclusion that in the Adventist teaching of the Great Controversy, Christ and Satan can be viewed as more closely equal than perhaps the Father and Son are. That certainly explains Satan’s jealousy being specifically directed towards Jesus. Also note, that none of this really makes sense with a Triune God, only with a three-member committee god, where Satan believed he belonged on that committee too (or instead of the Son).
We will revisit this Great Controversy theme, and the apparent near-equality of Jesus and Satan within that theme, in the upcoming section on the Incarnation. However, there are still several more aspects of Adventist teaching relating to creation and the plan of salvation that need to be addressed.
The Fundamental Belief sounds quite orthodox in stating that “Through Him all things were created”. However, The Clear Word Bible (TCW) presents some concerning paraphrases relating to Christ’s nature and role relative to creation. While TCW is not the official Bible of the Adventist church, it is promoted and published by the Adventist church and provides interesting insights into common Adventist understandings of passages. These examples were gathered and previously published by Proclamation! magazine:
- John 8:58 TCW changes “before Abraham was, I AM” (eternalness) to “I existed before Abraham” (allowing his prior creation)
- Col. 1:16 TCW changes “By Him all things were created” (creator) “through Him the Father created” (only a channel—not source of creation)
- Col. 1:15 TCW changes “He is firstborn over all creation” (nature) to “He has the right to be placed over all creation” (promoted authority).
- Col. 1:18 TCW changes “He is the Beginning” (source of creation) to “He existed from the beginning” (only places him in time—from his creation)
Despite the official belief statement, there appears to be at least a little hedging of the bets within Adventism. This hedging allows a wider range of views to fall within the Adventist doctrinal umbrella, and it also allows for rapid shifts in explanation when one avenue of inquiry seems to be leading to exposing doctrinal problems.
The final example of my concerns with Adventist doctrine about the nature of Christ preceding the incarnation, is the most grievous. This comes directly from a vision reported by Ellen White. It denies the Biblical Trinity; it even denies the Adventist definition of three entities operating in agreement. It also contradicts Scripture indicating the plan of salvation existed before man was created (1 Peter 1:19-20).
Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. At first the angels could not rejoice; for their Commander concealed nothing from them, but opened before them the plan of salvation. Jesus told them that He would stand between the wrath of His Father and guilty man, that He would bear iniquity and scorn, and but few would receive Him as the Son of God.
This one vision from Ellen White should be sufficient for an honest person to question, and ultimately reject, that she is a prophet from God. She directly contradicts Scripture. She strips God of His omniscience. She tears apart the concept of the Trinity. She pits the Father and Son against one another. Instead of proclaiming that God (the Father) so loved the world that He gave His Son, she turns this into a wrathful, reluctant Father giving into His Son’s love for fallen man.
Yet this vision (in its totality) is the basis for the doctrine that so many Adventists take great pride in having, the Great Controversy. To reject this vision is to repudiate everything that makes Adventism unique.
Incarnate Christ
The aspects of Christ’s incarnation covered in the Fundamental Belief statement appear entirely orthodox:
- God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ.
- Through Him … the character of God is revealed
- Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ.
- He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
- He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God.
- By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah
There Adventist doctrinal statements can’t be adequately evaluated without understanding the larger belief system of Adventism. Adventist beliefs about original sin, the great controversy, and the state of the dead all impact their beliefs about the incarnate Son.
As is the case with many mainstream Christian teachings, the official Adventist beliefs relating to original sin are sufficiently vague that the mainstream doctrine could be included within the description, but isn’t required. I will explore this considerably more in Fundamental Belief #7 on the nature of man, but the concepts associated with original sin are absent from any of the Fundamental Beliefs. This unacknowledged assumption, however, relates to beliefs about the great controversy.
Adventist doctrine teaches that we “are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil.”1 The key statements missing from their published belief statement are: we are born in sin (Isa 51:5), that we are dead in our sin (Eph 2:1), and that we are fully condemned as a result of Adam’s sin (Rom 5:18). Sin, for Adventism, is generally limited to willful disobedience of God’s Law (particularly the 10 Commandments).2 We are sinners only because of our own willful acts.3 This doctrine regarding sin leads to an ongoing doctrinal debate within the Adventist membership regarding whether Jesus’ incarnation included our sinful nature or the nature of Adam before the fall. Interestingly, that entire debate is answered by having a clear position on Original Sin.
The plan of salvation, from an Adventist perspective, requires Christ’s sacrifice + man’s obedience to the law of God.
The question about whether Jesus took on man’s nature pre-fall or post-fall nature has significant implications within Adventist doctrines. Ellen White’s vision, quoted above, presents the Adventist teaching on salvation: “that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God”. The plan of salvation, from an Adventist perspective, requires Christ’s sacrifice + man’s obedience to the law of God. This teaching of salvation impacts the understanding of salvation. If people were consistently unsuccessful at obeying the law of God before the incarnation, how would anything about Christ taking on human flesh change that ability to obey?
According to Adventist theology, a key aspect of Christ’s incarnation was to provide an example, or blueprint, for how we could also obey the Law. This raises the question of how Jesus could be the example if He was different from us. One part of that answer, which is widely taught within Adventism, is that even though Jesus was still fully divine, He didn’t use any of His divine powers while incarnate and instead relied totally on His Father for all power. Some Adventists take this reasoning to its logical conclusion; not only did Jesus need to forgo using any divine power, but He also had to share all of the same barriers and limitations that we are born having. The only way that Jesus could be an effective example is if He were exactly like is us in every way, without any possible advantages.
A related theme, mentioned in the Fundamental Belief language, is that the Son became incarnate to reveal the character of God. This is an excellent case study in how Adventist theology takes a true statement and intertwines it with several other concepts turning the truth into something just a little different. It is true that in seeing the works and hearing the words of Jesus, people were also seeing the Father (John 14:8-10). But this revealing of the Father isn’t presented in the Gospels or Epistles as a purpose of the incarnation, and it certainly isn’t further tied to the “character” of the Father. Understanding where this comes from requires going to another aspect of the great controversy. Fundamental Belief #8 specifically states that one of the key contentions in the great controversy is regarding the character of God. Underlying the entire great controversy theme is the idea that God is on trial. Satan has made accusations about God, and in order to maintain His rulership of the universe, God needs to demonstrate that the accusations are false. Without that demonstration, the rebellion started by Satan will eventually grow.
The final element I would like to address within Adventist doctrine on the incarnate Christ are the implications of Adventist theology when examining Christ’s time in the tomb. The wording of the Adventist belief statement is that Jesus “was raised from the dead” in contrast to the standard Christian description that Jesus “rose from the dead”. The seemingly small difference uncovers a very large departure in theology. Scripture describes Jesus’ resurrection through all members of the Trinity: The Father (Acts 3:15), the Holy Spirit (Rom 1:4), and the Son Himself (John 2:19-21 & John 10:17-18).
However, Adventist theology can’t reconcile their doctrines on the nature of man and the state of the dead with the teaching that Jesus raised Himself, or could have had any active part in that process. In Adventism, there is nothing conscious or unconscious of the person that continues on in death. The human body is, according to Adventist doctrine, an “indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit”. When a person dies, nothing about the person operates again until after they are resurrected. Likewise, when Jesus died on the cross, nothing about Jesus continued operating. Adventists are clear about this when discussing their view of Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross. Adventists are adamant that Jesus couldn’t have been promising the thief that he would join Jesus in paradise that day, because Jesus would be dead in the tomb.
Consider the implications of the Adventist teaching about Jesus’ time between the cross and the resurrection. For an extended period of time, there were only two members of the godhead. One can’t have a Triune God with only two persons. Can one really say that the Son is eternal if He wasn’t alive for part of that time?
Risen Christ
As orthodox as this Fundamental Belief may sound upon casual reading, the wording of this belief statement reveals some of the Adventist heresies regarding Christ. Perhaps the most visible problem with this fundamental belief is that it omits the biblically accurate and routine Christian description of Christ being seated at the right hand of the Father. Adventists generally de-emphasize this description of the risen Christ because it raises questions about their sanctuary/investigative judgment doctrine. While mainstream Christianity understands all of the statements that would reflect physical bodies in the Godhead as metaphorical, that isn’t the case within Adventism.
In Adventist theology, Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place, where the throne of God is located according to Old Testament typology, until more than 1800 years after His ascension to heaven. Christ could not have been both seated at the right hand of the Father at ascension and also waiting to enter the Most Holy Place until October 22, 1844.
The next window into Adventist belief about the risen Christ is the tense used in describing salvation. According to Scripture, Jesus Christ accomplished (past tense) the salvation of humanity. Within Adventism, however, salvation isn’t fully accomplished yet, so they can’t use past tense. Therefore they say, “Through Him all things were created [past tense]…[and] the salvation of humanity is accomplished [present tense].” This wording allows for their investigative judgment theology which has Jesus still completing the work of atonement.
Conclusion
The Seventh-day Adventist teaching about Jesus is quite different from that of historic Christianity. The denomination was founded by leaders who held Arian views, and these distortions of Christ’s nature still taint the writings, hymns, and doctrines of the organization to this day. Christ’s role as our substitute is minimized and at times is completely absent, and most of Adventism’s heretical beliefs about Jesus are not plainly or fully articulated in their public statement of belief.
Sources
- Adventist Fundamental Belief 7
- While it is possible to find more complete definitions of sin within Adventist theological writings, the commonly used definition of sin throughout Adventism is that “Sin is ‘the transgression of the law (I John 3:4)’”.
- The Adventist Bible Dictionary, revised edition, page 1042 defines sin as “Any deviation from the known will of God, either of neglect to do what He has specifically commanded or of doing what He has specifically forbidden.”
- Our Journey Out of Adventism - July 27, 2023
- 30. Adventism’s New Earth - July 27, 2023
- 29. The Adventist Millennium - July 20, 2023