Adventist Teaching: Yes
Biblical Teaching: Nuanced
The doctrinal theory of probation is a core teaching of the Seventh-Day Adventist eschatology and is almost identical to the Mormon teaching. By way of Ellen G. White—who the Adventist Church believes was divinely inspired and corrects inaccurate interpretations of scripture—the Adventist Church teaches that God created mankind as a test against the accusations of Satan that supposedly started in heaven prior to the creation of earth.
This is coming downstream from their Great Controversy narrative and worldview.
Adam & Eve vs. The Rest of Humanity
In Adventist theology, Adam and Eve were put in the Garden of Eden on a period of probation to test their loyalty before they could be rendered eternally secure. If they passed this test, they would be made equal with the angels; meaning, they would have been eternally secured. This belief is not unique to Seventh-day Adventism but is an area where the SDA pioneers that systematized SDA theology borrowed concepts and terminology from other individuals.
For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism Question #20 reads:
Q #20: What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
A. The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with Himself; instituting the Sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
Westminster Larger Catechism, Question #20
What the Catechism is putting forth here is coming from the larger framework of Covenant Theology that undergirds Westminsterian theology and it was this system’s construct that influenced the development of the Seventh-day Adventist flavor of Covenant Theology. The Catechism recognizes that Genesis puts forth that God gave Adam unique stipulations in Eden. He was promised reward for His obedience with the Tree of Life served as a pledge of such. But if He disobeyed, this would result in punishment.
Another example of theologians speaking this way long before the birth of Adventism is found in Jonathan Edwards Notes on Scripture where he notes:
397. Genesis 2:9 and Genesis 3:22–24. Concerning the Tree of Life.
This tree seems manifestly to have been designed for a seal of Adam’s confirmation in life, in case he had stood, for two reasons: first, because its distinguishing name is the “tree of life”; and second, because by what is said in the latter end of the third chapter, there appears to have been a connection by divine [constitution] between eating of that tree and living forever, or enjoying a confirmed, certain, and everlasting life. But yet here are those difficulties attending such a supposition. If it was so that this fruit was intended as a seal of Adam’s confirmation in life, and was by divine constitution connected with confirmed life, then it should seem that it was something kept in store, reserved by God to be bestowed as a reward of his obedience and overcoming all temptations, when his time of probation was ended.
There seems to be an allusion to this in Revelation 22:14, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.” And Revelation 2:7, “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life.” And so that it was not to be come at till the time of his trial was ended, for if he had eat of the tree before his probation was ended, confirmed life would doubtless have been as much connected with it as after he fell, and that would have defeated God’s design, which was that he should [not] have confirmed life till his obedience was tried. And if so, why was not there need of cherubim and a flaming sword before, to keep Adam from the tree before he fell, as well as afterwards? Whereas there seems to be nothing to keep him from this tree; the tree was not forbidden him, for he had leave to eat of every tree, but only the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And as there was no moral hindrance, so there seems to be no natural fence to keep him off.
Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, pg. 392-393
This is to say that the SDA Church did not originate the idea of probation. Those that affirm Covenant Theology would see no problem in recognizing that Adam and Eve were uniquely on a probationary period because they were uniquely in a Covenant of Works (CoW) with God. The CoW is predicated upon perfect obedience for the covenantal relationship to remain in tact.
The issue becomes the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s distorted version of Covenant Theology which is filtered through their extra-biblical paradigm called the Great Controversy Theme. Since they do not distinguish between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, they end up teaching that all of humanity is on probation like Adam and Eve were to see if their perfect obedience can be rewarded with eternal life—which is where their teaching on a “second probation” comes from. This effectively states that all of humanity is in the Covenant of Works no differently than Adam and Eve.
Adventism’s “Second Probation” Hypothesis
According to Ellen G. White, part of why Jesus incarnated was to grant man a second probation—a do-over to try and do what Adam and Eve failed to do:
Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave his life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation. He did not die to make sin an immortal attribute: he died to secure the right to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. He suffered the full penalty of a broken law for the whole world. This he did, not that men might continue in transgression, but that they might return to their loyalty and keep God’s commandments, and his law as the apple of their eye.
Ellen G. White, Special Testimony to Battle Creek Church, pg. 32 (PHO86 32.1)
The Bible teaches that Jesus as the Second Adam fulfilled the obligations that Adam failed to uphold. Since Adam was the representative of humanity in Eden (Romans 5:12), when He sinned we all sinned “in Him” resulting in all of Adam’s fallen progeny being born dead in sins and trespasses (Colossians 2:1). Jesus as the Second Adam was not born in the fallen line of sinful Adam. As the New Man, He fulfilled the obligations of the Covenant of Works that Adam failed to uphold which is why scripture tells us that those who have trusted in Christ are free from the condemnation of the law (Romans 8:1), no longer under the curses and threatenings of it (e.g. do this and you’ll live, do that and you’ll die) (Galatians 3:13), and have died to the law (Romans 7:4).
Believers are not in covenant with the law like Adam and the Second Adam were which is also why Scripture tells us that we’re not “under law” but “under grace” (Romans 6:14). Instead, the fallen dead sinner that places their faith in Christ is transferred from the fallen, condemned family of Adam, into the gloriously redeemed family of the Second Adam. As the believers new representative, He is also their perfect law-keeper who met the righteous requirements necessary to be seen as righteous in God’s sight. He then imputes those, in full, to the believers account, as if they fulfilled the Covenant of Works like He did.
Another aspect of this teaching is that probation is supposed to be for it to be determined who can and cannot be trusted to enter heaven and not let rebellion enter again like Satan did:
A second probation, purchased by the death of the Son of God, has been granted to the human race. Those who do not respect the sacrifice enough to obey the law, which in dying Christ magnified, can never enter the city of God. On earth they form habits of disobedience and rebellion, and if permitted to enter heaven, they would carry with them a spirit that would bring about a second rebellion.
Ellen G. White, Letters & Manuscripts, Vol. 15, Manuscript 23, 1900
Should God save men in disobedience, after granting them a second probation, putting them to the test in this life, they would fail to regard his authority in the future life. Those who are disloyal to Christ in this world would be disloyal to him in the world to come, and would create a second rebellion in heaven.
Ellen G. White, Review & Herald, September 28, 1897
The primary issue of a “second probation” in orthodox SDA theology stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Covenant Theology and the gospel at the behest of the Great Controversy paradigm.
Second Probation in the Bigger Picture
The period of probation was supposedly extended in 1844 when Jesus transitioned into a second phase of heavenly ministry—what they call the Investigative, or pre-advent, Judgment. Adventist’s believe they have been raised up by God to take a unique and special message to the rest of the world (primarily Christians) which involves this work of investigation and that the close of probation is coming soon. One must get to a sinlessly perfect state—with the help of God—before the close of this probation because man will have to stand in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.
Many Adventists often present their belief about probation as the simple idea that the opportunity for salvation is available now but will eventually close, therefore all humanity is currently on probation. However, this is only part of their teaching which doesn’t actually represent it fully. They also claim that probation continues even after a person comes to Christ, where, like Adam was being tested to see if He would remain sinless, you are also being tested to see the same.
God will test all, even as He tested Adam and Eve, to see whether they will be obedient. Our loyalty or disloyalty will decide our destiny. Since the fall of Adam, men in every age have excused themselves for sinning, charging God with their sin, saying that they could not keep His commandments. This is the insinuation Satan cast at God in heaven. But the plea, “I cannot keep the commandments,” need never be presented to God; for before Him stands the Saviour, the marks of the crucifixion upon His body, a living witness that the law can be kept. It is not that men cannot keep the law, but that they will not.
Ellen G. White, Review & Herald, May 28, 1901
Only those who achieve sinless perfection will be rewarded with eternal life which is where the central issue lies. According to their doctrine, a person is pardoned but placed on “parole,” with final justification ultimately depending on one’s ability to perfectly keep the Ten Commandments—a teaching that contradicts the biblical message of salvation by grace through faith.
