SDARM & Nature of Christ

Nature of Christ: Fight over Nothing

SUMMARY The Reformists of the SDARM generally BELIEVE and TEACH: - The ‘mainstream’ Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA) Church is supposedly apostate for teaching Christ had an Unfallen nature of Adam. - The ‘mainstream’ SDA Church is supposedly apostate for rejecting the 1888 message of Waggoner and Jones, which supposedly involved an emphasis on the human nature of Christ. - The ‘mainstream’ SDA Church is supposedly apostate for abandoning its traditional teaching, which is that Jesus had the Fallen nature of Adam with the 1957 publication of Questions on Doctrine. - The International Missionary Society (IMS) condemns their rivals Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement (SDARM) for declaring Christ had ‘no evil propensity of sin’. The Reformists are WRONG because: - The ‘mainstream’ SDA Church has no official position on the nature of Christ.  - This whole dispute is largely a re-run of a dispute centuries ago at the Council of Chalcedon, and then largely repeated during the Protestant Reformation. Within Adventism, this dispute is largely expressed in terms of whether Christ had the Fallen or Unfallen nature of Adam. - The ‘mainstream’ SDA Church accepts a wide divergence of views, including both the Fallen and Unfallen nature of Adam definitions. - Contrary to popular myth, the 1888 message of Waggoner and Jones did not concern the nature of Christ. - Contrary to popular myth, the ‘mainstream’ did not abandon its official position (because it has none) by the 1957 publication of Questions on Doctrine. - Both the SDARM and IMS essentially adopt the same view on the nature of Christ – the Antiochene-Zwingli-Fallen nature of Adam, in contrast to the Alexandrian-Luther-Unfallen view.  This Fallen view is also shared and supported within a large section of the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church, including by some of its official scholars, and such views are still actively published by the official SDA Church. - In defence of the SDARM position, Ellen White herself said Christ had ‘no evil propensity of sin’. - The whole dispute demonstrates how ridiculous Reformists can be. In particular, until very recently, the Reformists have had inconsistent and very heretical views on the nature of Christ, including embracing Arianism (Jesus as a mere created being), Bitheism (denying the Spirit is a personal being) and Hindu Tritheism (rejection of the Trinty but worship of Father, Son and Spirit as three separate gods).   - The nature of Christ should not be a cause of division between the two factions of the Reform, nor between the Reform factions and the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church.  - Anyone who cites it as a point of difference, such as ex-SDARM and ex-IMS minister John Thiel, seems to be largely looking for an excuse to argue.

Introduction

The issue of Christ’s nature is one of the oldest questions in Christianity.  In fact, after the issue of circumcision and then the Trinity, it was the third great issue that divided early Christianity.  This dispute then largely repeated itself during the Protestant Reformation. 

Now those questions have largely and unavoidably been raised within Adventism.  Importantly, it is one issue that Reformists seek to claim distinction from the ‘mainstream’ and official Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA).  However, perhaps even more importantly, it is a rare issue where the Reformists themselves see distinction between their two branches – the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement (SDARM) and the International Missionary Society (IMS).

So what is this dispute all about?  What is the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church’s position on the subject, and how is its position different from the Reformist offshoots?  How do the SDARM and IMS in turn differ?

As will be outlined in this article, the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church has no official on the nature of Christ.  Moreover, both the SDARM and IMS have effectively the same view on the nature of Christ, which is to say Jesus had the Fallen nature of Adam.  This view is also held by a large number of Adventists within the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church, including a number of its official scholars, and still actively published by the General Conference.

Thus, the nature of Christ should not be a cause of division between the two factions of the Reform, nor between the Reform factions and the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church.  Anyone who cites it as a point of difference, such as ex-SDARM and ex-IMS minister John Thiel, seems to be largely looking for an excuse to argue.

Preliminary issue: Was 1888 message about the nature of Christ?

One of the primary stated reasons for the SDARM separating from the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church is supposedly the ‘mainstream’ Church’s rejection of the special 1888 message of Jones and Waggoner.  As noted by Gerhard Pfandl in ‘Information on the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement’:

‘In 1888, at the General Conference in Minneapolis, the church, they [the SDRAM] claim, rejected the message of Righteousness by Faith as proclaimed by Waggoner and Jones. God, therefore, raised up the Reform Movement to proclaim this message in clarity.’

Now some Reformists argue that the 1888 message concerned not just righteousness by faith but in fact the nature of Christ.  A good example of this is the testimony of ‘independent historic’ Adventist and ex-SDARM minister John Thiel, who explains his reasons for leaving the ‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church for the SDARM. Thiel explains in “The True Witness Testifies”:

‘By age twenty-one, I was convinced that the SDA church was no longer God’s church in that she had rejected Jesus in the 1888 message, especially in their unbelief that Jesus had come and taken sinful flesh in His task to save humanity.’ (emphasis added)

However, the linking of the 1888 message with the nature of Christ issue is a common misconception.  As explained by Gerhard Pfandl in ‘Minneapolis, 1888’:

‘Others claim that the nature of Christ was the main point of Waggoner’s message. Since in his book Christ and His Righteousness (1890) Waggoner suggested that Christ took sinful flesh with sinful tendencies, it is claimed the church has rejected the message because it has never officially accepted that Christ had sinful tendencies. However, there is no evidence that Waggoner dealt with the nature of Christ in Minneapolis. His emphasis was on the relationship of Christ’s righteousness to the law.’

Even the SDARM in its own official publication ‘The Minneapolis Conference and Its Aftermath’ itself admits the primary issue at the 1888 SDA General Conference was that of righteousness by faith:

‘The important event which took place at that conference was the presentation of a vital subject–the message of Righteousness by Faith–by two young ministers, E. J. Waggoner, and A. T. Jones, editors of The Signs of the Times.’

Thus, for the purpose of this article, the 1888 message of righteousness by faith will be dealt separately from the dispute about the nature of Christ. A separate article on the 1888 message is found on this site.

Back to the beginning: Alexander vs Antioch and the original dispute and Council of Chalcedon

The Nicene Creed of 325 AD held that the Son was ‘of the same substance’ as the Father, resulting in the eventual well-known formulation of the Trinity: One God in three persons. The English translation of this formula is imprecise, as the statement is actually one ousia (being, realty or substance) in three hypostaseis (primordial essence, principle, subject or subsistence). 

In any event, the early Christians were keen to ensure the recognition of Christ’s full divinity – the major alternative being Arianism, which is the suggestion that Jesus is just a ‘min-god’.  Similarly, the early Christians were keen to ensure the recognition that Christians continued

the Jewish faith of monotheism, the worship of just one God – the major alternative being Tritheism, which is the worship of Father, Son and Spirit (sometimes the Spirit is excluded) as separate gods.  Different persons within the Reformist traditions embrace both Arianism and Tritheism.  A separate article on the SDARM and the Godhead is also found on this site.

Now if Jesus was both fully God but fully human, what did this mean?  Is Jesus really all-powerful and all-knowing like the Father? Is Jesus everywhere like the Holy Spirit?  Did the divine Logos meld with humanity like an alloy, or merely sit beside it like entwined but separate strands of rope?  Was Mary the mother of God (Theotokos) or mother of just a man?  Did God suffer and die on the Cross?  How did Christ’s humanity and divinity work together to save humankind?

Two major traditions developed around the two great cities of Antioch and Alexandria.  The Antiochenes said ‘the two natures existed amicably, but without any interaction or interpenetration’, whilst the Alexandrians saw ‘a real interpenetration of the two natures.’  Each school had distinguishing approaches to the incarnation, interpenetration, impassibility and soteriology of Christ.

Why this is important

This examination of the early Church is important precisely because in the history of Christianity, this same debate has re-risen again and again.  It rose again during the Protestant Reformation and it rose yet again in the life of Adventism.

Antiochene school – oil and water

As a simple illustration, the Antiochenes saw Christ’s human and divine natures like oil and water – they existed in the same cup but never mixed.  The Antiochenes were more inclined to emphasize: the literal reading of the Bible, Jesus’ humanity, His temptation as a human being, His role as the new second Adam and His role as high priest in heaven.

Alexandrian school – water mixed with wine

By contrast, Alexandrians saw Jesus’ natures like water with wine – they melded so thoroughly that effectively a new and indivisible mixed substance now existed.  The Alexandrians were more inclined to emphasize: a symbolic reading of the Bible, Jesus’ divinity, the accepted notion that God did suffer indeed die on the Cross, that miracles could be divided between Christ’s human and divine sides, and the idea that only the death of God Himself and not merely a man was a sufficient sacrifice for sin.

Latin school – no position

Finally, it is important to observe there was a ‘third school’ – being the Pope in Rome and the Western Church.  However, it is important to stress at this time the Pope was not yet considered supreme ruler over Christianity (although he was the head of the Western realm), and was still very much challenged by the Roman Emperor, who by this time was based in Constantinople and supported by bishops of the Eastern Church. 

Moreover, it is important to note that at this stage, the Latin Church did not really have a strong and official view.  Pope Leo gave his own view, but it was to some extent a foot either way in both Antiochene and Alexandrian camps.

Paradoxical compromise: Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD

The Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD provided a compromise between the Antiochene and Alexandrian views.  It held:

‘…the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man… of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood… recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God.’ (emphasis added)

The compromise consisted of mutuality exclusive statements. The only way to accept the definition was to acknowledge that Jesus was both 100% divine and 100% human, and yet still just 100% one person – not 200% two persons.  Likewise, Jesus was both 100% divine and 100% human – not merely a 50% divine and 50% human hybrid.  In short, it required the acceptance of a mystery no human mind can fathom.

Not surprisingly, the Chalcedon definition was not accepted by either the Antiochene or Alexandrian schools. As a result, the eastern part of Christianity collapsed, splitting into various schisms.  In this weakened and divided state, the eastern part of the Roman Empire was prime pickings for the Islamic Empire that arose a few centuries later. Thus, it was largely as a result of this eastern collapse, which largely gave rise to the Pope of Rome as the prominent power within Christendom.

Eating our way to heaven: Luther vs Zwingli and the Protestant rematch

When the Protestant Reformation began, the old order and Catholic traditions were again up for grabs. Within that climate, the old Chalcedon dispute effectively resurrected its ugly head. 

However, this time, the vehicle for the discussion was about whether the bread of the Lord’s supper was the literal or merely symbolic body of Jesus.  On one hand we had Calvinist Huldrych Zwingli (the Antiochene equivalent) and on the other hand Martin Luther (the Alexandrian equivalent).  In two Protestant councils of Marburg (1529) and Augsburg (1530) the two sides sought a compromise like Chalcedon, but attempts at dispute resolution failed.

The SDA’s turn: Questions on Doctrine and the position without a formal position

What is the official view on the nature of Christ according to the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church?

There is no official view.

Despite claims to the contrary, the ‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church has no formal position on the nature of Christ.  As made clear by the official theologian Angel Rodriquez of the SDA General Conference’s official theological institute, the Biblical Research Institute, in his article “Does the church have a position on the human nature of Christ”:

‘For decades Adventists have been debating the question of Jesus' human nature without resolving the diversity of views that characterize the debate. I'm pleased that you did not ask for my personal opinion, but for what the church has to say about this subject. The church has officially addressed your question in an oblique way.

…Those statements attest that, first, Jesus was divine; second, that He became what He was not, truly human; and, third, that He was without sin, even though He faced severe temptations. We can make those affirmations without hesitancy because that is what the Bible clearly teaches about God's Son. However, the church has wisely not elucidated in a doctrinal statement the specific nature of Jesus' human nature.

…Any attempt to define Christ's human nature is an exploration of the mystery of the Incarnation and should be done with reverence and the realization that there is no place for human pride and judgmental attitudes. The church has allowed diversity of views on this subject and encourages its study, but it rejects attempts to impose on others our personal views. Efforts to force on others a particular understanding of the human nature of Christ usually bring disruption, divisions, and unchristian attitudes in local congregations. The exploration of this theme should result in Christian unity, love, and faith.’ (emphasis added)

So the ‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church allows for both views on the nature of Christ?

Yes.

As outlined above, the ‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church allows a wide variety of views on the nature of Christ.  In most cases, the particular vehicle for this discussion is through the idea of Jesus as either having the Fallen or Unfallen nature of Adam.   However and importantly, this is somewhat just a re-hash of the old Chalcedon controversy. 

The Fallen view is largely a re-stating of the view advocated by the Antiochene and Zwingli factions throughout Christian history.  A good exposition on the Fallen view is found in the article “What Human Nature Did Jesus Take? Fallen”, published by the Biblical Research Institute:

By contrast, the Unfallen is largely a re-stating of the view advocated by the Alexandrian and Lutheran factions throughout Christian history.  A good exposition on the Fallen view is found in the article “What Human Nature Did Jesus Take? Unfallen”, also published by the Biblical Research Institute:

Again for the avoidance of any doubt, the ‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church published both the Fallen and Unfallen article on its official theological website, the Biblical Research Institute.  Thus, the mainstream SDA Church is still very open to this issue.

Did the SDA Church abandon its official position on the nature of Christ in 1888?

No.

As outlined above, the SDA Church has never had an official position on the nature of Christ. Thus, it can hardly be accused of formally abandoning a position it has never formally had.

That said, the view later promoted by Jones and Waggoner seemed to emphasize Jesus’ humanity – Christ as having the Fallen nature of Adam. Traditionally, it has also been assumed that Ellen White adopted this position (although others debate this).

As a result, most ‘historic’ Adventists identify with a view roughly approximate with the Antiochene and Zwingli side of the debate. However and again, whilst this has been the ‘majority’ view within Adventism from the 1890s to the 1960s, it would be wrong to say it has ever been the ‘official’ view of the SDA Church.

Probably the most important point to note though, for the current discussion about the SDARM, is that the SDA Church certainly did not abandon its position – because it had no such official position to abandon! Even if it is argued that it once had such a position, as will be seen in the next section, the case can only be made in the period of 1960s onwards – not when the SDARM formed immediately after WW1 in the early 1920s.    

Did the SDA Church abandon its official position on the nature of Christ in 1957 with the publishing of the book Questions on Doctrine?

No.

The closest thing to a far accusation of abandonment on the issue of the nature of Christ was the publication of Questions on Doctrine (QOD) in 1957. 

This publication had been prepared by a committee of the General Conference out of discussions with anti-cult proponent Walter Martin.  As a direct result of these discussions, the SDA Church was controversially (to other Christians that is) declared not a cult by Martin.

The supposedly offending portion of QOD was found at page 56 of ‘Christ’s Nature During the Incarnation’:

‘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.’ 

And then on page 61:

‘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.’

The primary criticism of the above is that QOD somewhat denies the full humanity of Christ in the likeness of human flesh, by talking about Christ’s weaknesses only in terms of ‘vicariously’ as opposed to ‘innately’.  As explained by Roy Adams in his article “Theology of Questions on Doctrine: Issues Surrounding the Nature of Christ and the Atonement” on page 3:

‘The difficulty and delicateness of the subject should steer us away from passing harsh judgments on those with variant views. But QOD’s “vicarious” approach to the issue (to put it that way) is as confusing as it is unwarranted.’

Of course the SDA Church did not become ‘apostate’ by the publication of QOD.  First and foremost, as outlined above, the SDA Church has never had an official position on the nature of Christ. Thus, it can hardly be accused of formally abandoning a position it has never formally had.

Second, the above outline demonstrates just how technical this discussion is.  Much like the very first dispute in Chalcedon, there is a sense that everyone might be arguing past each other, and in fact saying largely the same thing, but using slightly different concepts and terminology.

Third, the ‘mainstream’ Church has continued to accept in full fellowship those who hold either view.  The open publication of articles representing both sides of the debate on the SDA Church’s official theological website, Biblical Research Institute, is proof of that.

Fourth, the real reason why this whole issue blew up way beyond proportion was because Martin’s colleague and co-editor Donald Barnhouse said only a ‘lunatic fringe’ of Adventists did not believe in a sinless human nature of Christ.  Conservative theologian, M. L. Andreasen, took exception to that statement.  

Finally, and most importantly, despite all the controversy, QOD’s attempted explanation is exceptionally technical.  Moreover, it makes a strong effort not to endorse one view on the nature of Christ over the other, in accordance with the longstanding Adventist view not to have a defined position on the subject.  As explained by Roy Adams in his article “Theology of Questions on Doctrine: Issues Surrounding the Nature of Christ and the Atonement” on page 4:

‘In all fairness, then--on the basis of the EGW statements QOD selected for display, we may conclude that the book managed to stay clear of adopting one side or the other in the prelapsarian- post-lapsarian debate. This is an important point to note, in view of the heatedness of the decades-old controversy over this issue.’

Does not having an official view on the nature of Christ make the SDA Church apostate

No. 

The SDA Church believes in progressive revelation and present truth.  As made clear in the Preamble to its 28 Fundamental beliefs, it is open to change and new light as it is revealed.

Perhaps surprisingly to some, the mainstream SDA had no official position on the Trinity until rather recently in the early 20^th Century.  Likewise, it appears the two Reform movements have no or at best confused positions on the nature of the Godhead. 

For these reasons, claims that the SDA Church is apostate over the nature of Christ are simply a red herring.  The only possible criticism is that regardless of what position certain individual Adventist members take, there will be some Adventists within the ‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church who take a different view.  Thus, the only criticism (which could instead be considered a compliment) is that the ‘mainstream’ Church does not make the issue of the nature of Christ a test of fellowship.

The Reformers’ internal dispute on the nature of Christ: SDARM vs IMS

By contrast to the official SDA Church, the Reformist movements do have more defined formulations on the subject of the nature of Christ.  In fact, both schisms seem to adopt the ‘traditional’ Fallen view. However, the two Reform Churches then seem to drill down to argue about proverbial angels standing on proverbial pins.

Quick overview of the SDARM view

As to the SDARM’s view, in its official statement of belief “The Godhead”, the SDARM affirm the more ‘traditional’ view that Jesus had the Fallen nature of Adam:

‘At His birth in Bethlehem, He did not take the nature of Adam before the fall, but the seed of Abraham and of David.’

The SDARM also seem to uphold the ancient Antiochene view that the human and divine natures of Christ did not mix, but remained separate, like water and oil in one vessel (as opposed to the ancient Alexandrian view of mix natures like water and wine).  For example, quoting Sister White, the SDARM (rightly in this author’s view) further state in their official statement of beliefs:

‘The Godhead was not made human, and the human was not deified by the blending together of the two natures’

Quick overview of the IMS view

A quick purview of the IMS official statement of belief “Jesus Christ” from the official IMS website demonstrates they have virtually nothing at all to say about the nature of Christ. 

However, in its “Lesson 5 The Secret Hidden from Generations”, the IMS General Conference appears to affirm Jesus’ human nature – presumably also of the Fallen viewpoint:

‘7. What does the Bible call those who deny Christ’s human nature?

1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 1:7.

Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity. His imputed grace and power He gives to all who receive Him by faith.
“The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. Man cannot overcome Satan’s temptations without divine power to combine with his instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ; He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God’s holy law, and in this way He is our example.” –(MS 1, 1892) Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929.’

Modified SDARM view – the 1987 and 1999 Resolutions

Despite being essentially similar on the nature of Christ, according to John Thiel in “The True Witness Testifies”, the SDARM have adopted slight modifications in their view of the nature of Christ, which are supposedly heretical. 

In 1987, the SDARM adopted the following resolution:

‘While He, Christ, took our fallen nature we believe in harmony with what is written that there is in Him no evil propensity of sin, but that He was tempted from without, not from within, in all points as we are, yet without sin.’ SDARM GC 1987

And in 1999, the SDARM similar affirmed:

‘Christ partook of our sinful nature (ST July 30, 1902, MM 180) and was thus encompassed with infirmities, weakness and liabilities (2T 202, 508,509; DA 49; 1SM 131, 132, 4BC 1146:4), but He had no evil propensities or evil tendencies in His human nature. Evil tendencies or evil propensities are evil leanings, inclinations and bias. These reside in our minds not in our physical flesh (AH 127,128). Christ had none of these in His mind or flesh (human nature.) The work of conversion and sanctification is the process which God uses to remove these evil propensities from our nature.’

Supposed IMS problems with the SDARM view

It is hard to determine what problem the IMS actually has with the SDARM position statements of 1987 and 1999.  There is no official IMS statement that this author can see that categorically condemns the SDARM position. 

However, as explained by John Thiel in “Loyalty to the Church of God”, for justifying his (then) leaving the SDARM to become defect to the IMS:

‘We left the SDARM Nicolici 51 Movement church on a little part of the nature of Christ. http://sabbathsermons.com/2009/08/25/the-true-witness-testifies/ We were asked why are you making such a big fuss about a tiny little thing? If one link of the chain isn’t secure, what does the chain become? It falls apart.

…The nature of Christ must be firmly seen in the organisation. If it’s not, then it’s not Jesus Christ but some other hireling. If we carefully identify the loyalty that is required, it is loyalty of the first born in heaven. That is where our loyalty is. On earth, only to those who are so loyal to the one in heaven.’

And similarly explained by Thiel in “The True Witness Testifies,” the SDARM position is supposedly ‘not God’s church but rather harboured the spirit of Anti-Christ according to 1 John.’  By contrast, ‘the IMS held to the truth of Christ’s sinful flesh.’ 

So what is the offending part of the SDARM declaration, which supposedly denies Christ truly came in human flesh?  It appears to be the SDARM statement that Jesus had ‘no evil propensity of sin’.  But is such a view heresy, especially when the SDARM does categorically affirm, ‘He did not take the nature of Adam before the fall’? 

Why this dispute between the SDARM and IMS is so ridiculous, as well as claims of apostasy against the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church

There are several reasons why this dispute between the SDARM and IMS is so ridiculous, as well as claims of apostasy against the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church.

Ellen White herself said Jesus had no evil propensity to sin

The first reason why the dispute between the SDARM and IMS is ridiculous, as well as claims of apostasy against the SDA Church, is because the SDARM’s declarations of 1987 and 1999 are arguably supported by Sister White. In defence of the SDARM position, in saying Jesus had ‘no evil propensity of sin’, Ellen White herself stated:

‘Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.’ – The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128 (emphasis added)

Thus, it appears the differences between the SDARM and IMS themselves might be minor.  Like the Chalcedon dispute many centuries ago, both parties may effectively be adopting the same position but misunderstanding each other in their use of terminology.  To call each other heretic on such terms might be as useful as discussions about how many angels can stand on the proverbial pin.

The Reformists (especially the IMS itself) has not had a very clear view on the nature of Christ

The second reason why the dispute between the SDARM and IMS over the nature of Christ is so ridiculous, as well as claims of apostasy against the SDA Church, is because until relatively recently, the Reformists (especially the IMS itself) did not have a very clear position on the nature of Christ themselves. 

As Helmut Kramer, in SDA Reform Movement at page 16 observes, some Reformists hold the heretical teaching that Jesus is just a created being – akin to Arianism:

‘Some Reform leaders hold errors taught by early Adventists. One example is the position certain leaders hold regarding the nature of Christ. Since pioneers such as Uriah Smith, at least at one point in his experience, believed Christ was a created being, some Reformers likewise hold to this teaching. To them this is the old path of the Advent pioneers and must be right. In so doing they reject the clear statements from the Spirit of Prophecy regarding this matter.’

Moreover, Kramer goes on at page 55 to note that until very recently, the IMS did not even admit that the Holy Spirit is an actual being of the Godhead:

‘The Reform Movement has never had a clear understanding of the nature of the Godhead. In the booklet, Principles of Faith, it is still stated that the Holy Spirit is a power. No mention is made that He is also a personal Being. It was not until the General Conference (IMS) session in 1978 that it was acknowledged for the first time that the Holy Spirit is actually a Person. Despite the decision to this effect, there are still leading men who strongly dispute this teaching.’

And finally, until very recently, a bizarre doctrine was taught within the IMS that said Jesus was only human, without any divinity, whilst here on earth:

‘…Even more sad is the belief and teaching of some of the General Conference leaders regarding the divinity of Christ. Until recently, Arianism, the teaching that Christ is a created being, was taught at the mission school for potential workers. As late as the General Conference Committee (IMS) session of 1980, workers were requested to teach that Christ, while on earth, was totally human without any divinity.’

The Reformist positions don’t even know if they worship one God

The third and most important reason why the dispute between the SDARM and IMS over the nature of Christ is so ridiculous, as well as claims of apostasy against the SDA Church, is because both Reformists have not yet worked out the far more important question – do they worship one God! It is all well and good to declare each other – and the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church heretic – over the nature of Christ, but the Reformists have not yet quite worked out the nature of God.

As outlined in the article on the Godhead found on this site, most Reformist seem to reject to traditional doctrine of the Trinity – one God in three persons.  Instead, they seem to embrace a version of Hindu Tritheism – the worship of Father, Son and Spirit as three separate gods. Other variations, as mentioned by Kramer above, include confusion about whether Jesus is merely a created being (known as Arianism) or whether the Holy Spirit is a personal being or just an impersonal force (a type of Bitheism). 

Thus, one comes back to John Thiel’s statement about the importance of a proper understanding of the nature of Christ:

‘We were asked why are you making such a big fuss about a tiny little thing? If one link of the chain isn’t secure, what does the chain become? It falls apart.’

One might equally ask why the Reformists of both schools seem obsessed with not only the broad question of Christ’s nature in terms of Fallen versus Unfallen views, but more minute issues.  Furthermore, what is the obsession of this topic when the Reformists haven’t worked out the more important question regarding whether they worship one God or three, given they reject the Trinity which allows for belief in one God in three?