Religious Liberty
Let us start with a story about religious freedom:
I’m a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. That means, among other things, that I keep the Bible Sabbath….I’d hired (a man) to trim my fields….I never asked him to work during what I consider to be God’s Sabbath hours….As I was driving my van to pick up my friend, I got to thinking about the situation….We are not of the same faith. Our worldviews are dissimilar in several areas. But what if I want him to believe as I do? What if I could make hard-and-fast rules that would force him to observe my Bible Sabbath? Some well-meaning Christians promote just such a concept. They want their government to stand behind their Christian dogmas, saying that to make our country great once more, we need to add political punch to religious beliefs….
I turned to my friend and said, “Let me ask you something. This Sabbath thing that I’m so focused on. What if I could get enough people in Washington, D.C., to see things my way; to convinced them that doing work on God’s holy Sabbath—work that could easily be accomplished on any other day of the week—not only goes against Bible teaching, but is a criminal activity? What if I could make the Sabbath doctrine the law of the land and have the power to dictate what you can and can’t do on Saturdays? Would you be OK with that? He thought for just a moment, and then shook his head. “No,” he said. “That wouldn’t be right.”….
“And,” I pressed, “what if, because of what Scripture says to me concerning how I’m supposed to live my life, I convinced lawmakers to ignore whatever civil rights you might have once had and require you to behave the way I practice my faith? Would that be OK?” Again, my friend thought for a long moment. “No,” he said, “that wouldn’t be right either. Religion is personal.”
On that we could agree 100 percent. And on that concept we must hang our every belief and every dogma. Religious practice is personal, not corporate. Religious convictions must derive from personal conviction….
Look at the world in general. At last count, there were around 4,200 religions, and about a third of them were Christian. This group bases their beliefs on the very same Bible we hold in our hands as we march into church on whichever day we’re convinced is the Sabbath. Yet our religions can be strikingly different, promoting worldviews that vary greatly. To those who desire to make adherence to religion-based principles the law of the land, the question must be addressed as to whose religion and which interpretation of doctrine is the one on which we should construct those laws….A TV preacher’s? A pious politician’s?...
The country in which I live—the United States of America—has done a pretty good job of keeping church and state separate….And those who don’t call themselves Christian are free to work out their own salvation without government intervention. Religion is, and always should be, personal….That’s the very essence of religious liberty. (Charles Mills, Liberty, March/April, 2019, pp. 21-23)
Religious liberty is a great principle to live by in normal, peaceful times, but the reality is that we don’t live in normal, peaceful times.
Since 1947, just after the dawn of the atomic age, members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have put out the Doomsday Clock, which shows what they believe is just how close humanity is to destroying itself….Since 1947 it has been changed 23 times, with the clock’s recent resetting at two minutes to midnight, which represents a high threat level. Says the organization: “In 2017, world leaders failed to respond effectively to the looming threats of nuclear war and climate change, making the world security situation more dangerous than it was a year ago.”…
Some say that drastic steps need to be taken—or else….If that weren’t frightening enough, what about asteroids?...Astronomers have warned that the earth can face potentially devastating consequences from an asteroid hit….Even worse, in a world today where travel across continents is so common, the ability to spread disease is easier than ever….Dangerous disease outbreaks are a part of our daily existence and, given the right circumstances, could threaten our existence. Time magazine ran a cover article (May, 2017) titled: “WARNING: We Are Not Ready for the Next Pandemic.” And if natural pathogens are not terrifying enough, humans can do a pretty nasty job themselves….Gram for gram, biological weapons are the deadliest weapons ever produced….Rapidly producing and weaponizing biological agents is surprisingly easy….
The real issue isn’t whether or not any of these are credible threats. What matters only is the perception that any one might me. Let people fear these potentialities,…and…the masses will acquiesce to whatever power promises to save them from impending doom….Who, faced with the prospect of nuclear annihilation,…wouldn’t opt for safety over liberty?...In the event of an emergency, freedom takes a back seat, and the greater the emergency the farther back it gets seated….
And, in anticipation of whatever awaits us, the United States government has, believe it or not, a plan for what to do in case of, among other things, a zombie apocalypse….”From responses to natural disasters to a catastrophic attack on the homeland, the U.S. military has a plan of attack ready to go if either incident occurs,” says a CNN report. It has also devised an elaborate plan should a zombie apocalypse befall the country.”
The unclassified document, titled “CONOP 8888-11 COUNTER- ZOMBIE DOMINANCE,” was put together in 2011 as part of a larger program for general training in regard to any kind of natural emergency. The report said it found that “the hyperbole involved in writing ‘a zombie survival plan’ actually provided a very useful and effective training tool.” In other words, it was deemed an entertaining way to deal with what would need to be done in case of any kind of emergency. However, said the report in one place: “Domestic law enforcement agencies will address any…attacks involving zombies until martial law is declared.” Until martial law is declared? That’s the point. Under a dire enough emergency,…a new set of law comes into play, and freedom will be among the first casualties. (Clifford Goldstein, Liberty, March/April, 2019, pp. 15-16)
The Supreme Court
Significantly, groundwork is being laid in this time of relative peace for new sets of laws.
During the past few decades a religious movement has gained widespread political power with a clearly stated agenda—to dismantle the establishment clause, which arguably requires separation of church and state. This foundational constitutional protection, which has guaranteed the right to equal treatment of all Americans regardless of religious belief has never been in greater danger. Since the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for the first time in history proponents of this movement have a majority weight on the Supreme Court….
The most open and vocal proponent of this anti-establishment clause agenda on the Supreme Court has been, since the death of Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas is unapologetic about his views. He joined Scalia in dissenting opinions that explicitly rejected the well-established legal doctrine that the government must be neutral, not favoring one religious position over another. Justice Thomas believes that it is not a violation of the Constitution for government to favor “religion over irreligion” and “monotheistic religions” over others….
This rejection of the principle of governmental neutrality toward all religions blatantly violates nearly 200 years of American political philosophy….If Thomas’ stated position were to become the law, it would again place all nontheistic and polytheistic religions—Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, and others—at an official legal disadvantage. It would, in essence, make them second-class citizens in American national life….He has explicitly stated that in his view the Constitution does not prohibit a state government from establishing an official state religion…He believes the establishment clause gives state governments official constitutional license to establish their own state churches….
Thomas has become one of a majority of five with apparently similar views….A careful look at the expressed positions of the conservative members of the Court forces the conclusion that they have the same basic objectives—to increase the rights of a select group of Christians to control the religious discourse in this country, and to promote the rights of that group to religious practice at the expense of all others….History also demonstrates that state establishment inevitably destroys the right to free exercise for all people, even for members of the majority. (Sonja DeWitt, Liberty, March/April, 2019, pp. 26-31)
Recent Developments
Now let us move away from legal interpretations of the Constitution to the grassroots, the attitudes of ordinary people in our society, because, believe it or not, that is where the impetus to deny religious freedom will come from—not from the Supreme Court or a Republican or Democrat president. The following is a very revealing article:
The waters are stirring more than ever throughout American communities. They have been for quite a while. One afternoon way back in the mid-1980s I was startled to see curious brochures placed beside weekly service bulletins on the welcoming table at my local church. As I flipped through the pamphlet, it was apparent to me that some zealous individuals had taken upon themselves to judge the spiritual merits of all the hopeful candidates running for a variety of municipal and state offices.
Candidates were graded on how they were perceived to align with a particular religious checklist. Some candidates were summarily dismissed, the not-so-subtle implication being that no conscientious Christian could possibly vote for them. Others were praised and heartily recommended….
Yes, the signs that something uncomfortably powerful was already in motion were resonating in society back then and have not abated. Such phrases as the “moral majority,” “Christian coalition,” and “the Religious Right” have become increasingly familiar terms in the public lexicon….Shrewd politicians and campaign strategists were quick to see the benefits of courting churches and communities of faith. In turn, some faith leaders and laypeople became vulnerable to the lure of political power and influence.
And so began the dance: a romance of compromise, labeling, and polarization that would eventually stain all participants. Good intentions snowed under by human weakness and temptations of temporal power….The fusion of a nationalistic agenda of faith and identity politics was emerging while a considerable section of the faith community and astute politicians played each other like fiddles….
What is wrong with this picture?...Standing before Pontius Pilate, Jesus had said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Regardless, fueled by talk media, whose hosts can seem as much entertainers as political pundits, a curious hybrid of political conservatism and religion has evolved to keep the airwaves humming in a puzzling dialogue of alarm, frustration, anger, and pet mantras. Individuals are labeled and demonized while the devoted audiences are kept on edge in a constant state of irritation and angst. One thing is certain: such broadcasters know their demographic and which hot-button issues to push….
By 2004 the country was in the throes of another election; and I remember casually running into friends…at a local shopping mart….The wife suddenly and pleasantly said out of the blue, “I don’t know how any Christian could vote for a Democrat.” Rather stunned by the statement, and knowing full well that for decades Christians freely voted Democrat or Republican, I said nothing….The courtship between political conservatism and wide strains of the faith community, charged by talk radio/media rhetoric, had morphed into its own type of religion….
Myriads of young people have grown up in this unsteady climate, with the perception that Christianity and a particular strain of political conservatism are one and the same….In a 1996…article: “If God blesses us only as Republicans or Democrats, both politics and religion are in trouble.” In America, somehow many have forgotten that Christianity is neither Republican nor Democrat: there are believers on both sides of the political spectrum….
In a recent…article: “It is the strangest story: how so many evangelicals lost their interest in decency, and how a religious tradition called by grace became defined by resentment….Christianity is love of neighbor, or it has lost its way.”…The hypocrisy, polarization, hate speech, shameless pandering for political influence, and compromised principles have dragged the name of Christ through the mud. For what? Dominance, temporal power, a place in government, seats on the Supreme Court, an effort to create one’s own kingdom….
Almost flying under the radar in this tense contemporary climate are the influential objectives of dominionism—the theocratic idea that regardless of theological camp, means, or timetable, God has called conservative Christians to exercise dominion over society by taking control of political institutions. This school of thought emerged in the 2000s and is essentially seeking through religious/political influence to build their version of a Christian civilization in America.
The theological basis for this is the evangelical dispensational belief that our job is to prepare the world for Christ to set up His millennial reign on earth, and America and Israel are the major players in this distorted view of the great controversy.
Consider colonial New England in the 1600s and the unfortunate pilloried citizens locked into wooden stocks in the town square as punishment for lapsed church attendance. Perhaps this was a fortunate embarrassment; not so the individual who could have their tongue punctured by a metal auger for repeated transgressions of profanity. This was a curious sense of piety and justice dished out by early colonists who themselves had fled religious intolerance in Europe.
Or consider an ailing Roger Williams escaping through the winter woods, laden with drifting New England snow….He respected individual conscience. To Williams, a forced religion was no religion at all.
The tragedies that occur when religion and political power unite stain the pages of history. All people, no matter their belief systems, race, or political persuasions, bleed the same. The humanity toward others is trampled when mortals play God. I do not recognize the Christ infused into today’s political/religious quagmire. He bears no resemblance to the Christ of the New Testament….That Jesus is obscured by today’s religious/political power struggles….
My point here is not to tear down individuals or political parties, but to caution that in attempting to establish moral ground in our nation we may actually be driving people away from God….It’s almost like this modern offshoot has scarred the name of Christ and Christianity to the point that many followers of Jesus have suggested believers use terms other than “Christian” or “Evangelical.”…
“Political partisanship has hamstrung evangelicalism’s ability to pursue what is supposed to be the core of its mission: to share the good news of the gospel,”…in a 2018 Religion News Service article….One young believer stated, “I feel that I am in a constant battle with my dad to simply remind him that poor Black people are people. Muslims escaping Syria are people. And they have inherent value and dignity as children of God.”
In April of 2017 the prominent Egyptian talk show host Amr Adib sat speechless after he watched a colleague interview a Coptic Christian widow whose husband had just been killed in a terrorist attack….The grieving woman spoke of the attacker in words that stunned the host and millions across the airwaves: “I’m telling him, may God forgive you, and we also forgive you.”…It is hard to hate at the foot of the cross. I recognize that Jesus. Please, give me my religion back. (Ed Guthero, Liberty, Sept/Oct, 2019, pp. 10-13)
Evangelicals Today
But to understand this movement we must go back 150 years. Another important religious event was unfolding as we were becoming a legal denominational entity during the Civil War, the development and formation of the National Reform Association. Their stated mission was to make Christianity the legal religion of the land, through a Constitutional amendment. Those forming the National Reform Association said that the sin of the nation was leaving God out of the Constitution. They said that this sin made allowance for slavery, and God was punishing the nation through the Civil War for not including Him in the Constitution.
This movement gained strength during the next decades, and they began promoting Sunday legislation. It is very significant that Ellen White devoted a whole chapter in Fundamentals of Christian Education to the danger of political involvement. A. T. Jones had to go to Congress to speak against the adoption of a Sunday law. A century later this movement has revived and has captured the loyalty of many sincere Christians.
Now, how has all this impacted the Seventh-day Adventist Church? There is a fascinating story in the book of Ezra. The Israelites were rebuilding the temple after the Babylonian captivity. Near them were the Samaritans, a product of the intermarriage of heathen colonists with the remnant of the ten tribes left in Galilee. They claimed to worship the true God by using idols to depict God. The story is told in Ezra 4:1-3. “Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel; Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither. But Zerubbabel , and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.”
So their nearest neighbors offered help and were refused. Why? The reason for this refusal is found in Deut. 7:2-4. “And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” This is reemphasized in Deut. 14:2. “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.”
Zerubbabel knew these warnings, and he knew that they had just returned from captivity which was caused by ignoring these warnings. This would have brought idolatry back into Israel. So they had to choose between a very helpful alliance and obedience to God. Their choice was to refuse to enter into a covenant with idolaters.
In the 1950s our leaders were approached by our theological neighbors, who also believed in the authority of Scripture and the second coming of Christ, but who rejected the claims of the fourth commandment. These neighbors told our leaders that Christians had misjudged Adventists by calling them a cult, and they offered to help us prove that we were genuine Christians. They stood by our side as friends and brothers.
Just as in Israel’s case, we were given specific inspired counsel about how to deal with this request. “It is not the open and avowed enemies of the cause of God that are most to be feared. Those who…come with smooth words and fair speeches, apparently seeking for friendly alliance with God’s children, have greater power to deceive….And especially today, while earth’s history is closing, the Lord requires of His children a vigilance that knows no relaxation.” (PK 570, 571)
But apparently our leaders did not read Ezra 4, Deut. 7, and PK 570. We gratefully accepted the help of these evangelical friends. We adjusted some of our teachings to meet their requirements, and we were no longer labeled as a cult. Instead of rejecting their offer as Zerubbabel did, we joined hands with the evangelicals and have endured controversies and chaos ever since.
But what does this have to do with Desmond Ford being a liberal?
After the 1950s there was much debate about whether we had done the right thing. Some leaders opposed Questions on Doctrine, and it was eventually not reprinted. Then in the late 1970s a respected professor from Australia came on the scene in the United States and became a sought-after scholar in seminars and camp meetings. Desmond Ford was making a major impact on our understanding of righteousness by faith.
The reality is that Desmond Ford was not a liberal. He believed in the full authority of Scripture; he quoted from Ellen White often; he was a defender of the Sabbath; he was a strong health reformer; he had high standards; he was a role model for sanctified living. Desmond Ford was a conservative evangelical, building on the foundation of our compromises in the 1950s. He expressed better than anyone before him in Adventism the essential hallmarks of the evangelical gospel: we are born sinners; Christ had an unfallen nature; justification is the only requirement for salvation; no one can be sinless before the second coming of Christ.
If there is any one thing we need to learn from his experience, it is that we have much more to fear from evangelicals than from liberals. Liberals or progressives can be easily identified: some deny a six-day creation; some relegate Ellen White’s counsel to the nineteenth century; some promote gay rights. But evangelicals are so much like us and share many of our values.
The evangelical Christians who share our values are the ones joining hands with Catholics; the ones who would like to legislate morality; the ones who would break down the separation of church and state.
The evangelical gospel appeals to the more liberal side of Adventism: sanctification is not important for salvation; sinlessness is impossible; we do not vindicate God or hasten Christ’s coming; standards are based on culture.
Evangelical politics appeals to the conservative side of Adventism: they are opposed to abortion and homosexuality; they emphasize the ten commandments; they are getting Christians elected to public office; they like conservative radio and media.
Desmond Ford was a conservative evangelical, and his beliefs are now being advanced at the highest levels of Adventist scholarship, as witnessed by the four books published in 2018. Ford is having much more impact on Adventism now than when he was alive. Evangelical theology and evangelical politics are destroying the very purpose and mission of Adventism for which we were called into existence as the remnant which will produce the 144,000 sealed ones who will be translated.
Protestants, Evangelicals, and Adventists
As we finish this study, I think it is very important to know the difference between liberal Protestant positions on crucial subjects and conservative evangelical positions on the same subjects.
SCRIPTURE
Liberal position – Scripture is culturally dependent, and not all applies to us today. Bible writers wrote out of their own culture and beliefs, and much of Scripture has to be adapted and changed in our culture.
Evangelical position – Scripture is verbally inspired, and has full authority for us today.
SALVATION
Liberal position – Salvation is by God’s grace, based on love. Mankind is basically good, and God accepts our best efforts to serve Him. Most people can be assured of salvation.
Evangelical position – All are automatically condemned at birth. We are saved by justification, not sanctification.
PROPHECY
Liberal position – Prophecies apply only to the local areas of the writing prophet. Most prophecies are the best educated guesses of the prophet.
Evangelical position – Prophecies apply specifically to various dispensations of history. All of the Old Testament prophecies must be literally fulfilled in the final dispensation.
CREATION
Liberal position – Life and mankind arrived by theistic evolution, as God guided the evolutionary process over millions of years.
Evangelical position – Life and mankind arrived by God’s creative acts in a six-day period. Life on earth has a relatively short history.
SECOND COMING
Liberal position – We cannot expect a soon return of Christ. We must help society to gradually better itself.
Evangelical position – Christ will return literally to earth after a secret rapture. He will then set up His millennial reign on earth.
TRUTH AND SOCIETY
Liberal position – Unity will come only by recognizing diversity of cultures and beliefs. All views have equal value in their own culture.
Evangelical position – Religious freedom applies only for true Christians, using the principle of dominionism. Morality can be achieved through Christian legislation.
Now it is important to compare the Seventh-day Adventist positions on these subjects to both the liberal and evangelical positions.
SCRIPTURE – Scripture came to us by thought or concept inspiration, and has full authority over our lives.
SALVATION – Both justification and sanctification are equally important in the salvation process.
PROPHECY – Throughout history there has been a consistent method of salvation by grace through faith. Old Testament prophecies now apply to the Christian Church as applied in the Book of Revelation. Israel is no longer significant in the fulfillment of these prophecies.
CREATION – Life on earth was created in six days, and has existed in a relatively short time period.
SECOND COMING – Christ will return literally to earth, with no secret rapture. The millennium will be spent in heaven.
TRUITH AND SOCIETY – Religious freedom applies to all persons and beliefs. Truth can only be promoted by persuasion.
There are clear differences of the Adventist positions on these subjects as compared with both Liberal and Evangelical beliefs. However, Adventist positions are much closer to Evangelical beliefs, which makes it attractive for Adventists to be favorable to Evangelicals in general. We have actually been borrowing some of their positions, particularly on salvation issues.
Great Controversy Conclusions
Because of our identification with some Evangelical positions, in recent years we have been quite sympathetic to both Evangelical beliefs and Evangelical politics. I believe that both trends are very dangerous to the message and the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It may be helpful to review some key predictions of what lies ahead of us in the United States, as portrayed in The Great Controversy. As the lamb will come to speak as a dragon, our greatest danger will not come from the liberal Protestant churches or even from the Catholic Church, but from our theological neighbors, known as conservative Evangelicals, who, like us, believe in the full authority of Scripture and the soon return of Christ. Reflect carefully on the following indicators of how our religious freedoms will be lost.
HOW THE LAMB WILL SPEAK AS A DRAGON [All inspired quotations below from Great Controversy, pages 443-445 & 592]
- Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience.
- So apostasy in the church will prepare the way for the image to the beast.
- The Bible declares that before the coming of the Lord there will exist a state of religious declension similar to that in the first centuries.
- But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine.
- To secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed—however important they might be from a Bible standpoint—must necessarily be waived.
- The ministry of the evangelical Protestant denominations is not only formed all the way up under a tremendous pressure of merely human fear, but they live, and move, and breathe in a state of things radically corrupt, and appealing every hour to every baser element of their nature to hush up the truth, and bow the knee to the power of apostasy.
- When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.
- The “image to the beast” represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas.
- Political corruption is destroying love of justice and regard for truth; and even in free America, rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance.
The basic story is very familiar. The Greeks were determined to conquer the independent city of Troy, but they were having great difficulty. They laid siege to the city for ten long years with no success.
Finally they came up with an unusual strategy. They constructed a huge wooden horse, hid a select force of men inside the horse, rolled it up near the walls of the city, and pretended to sail away as if they were giving up on the siege. The Trojans, with more curiosity than caution, pulled the horse into the city as a trophy of victory. That night the Greek soldiers crept out of the horse and opened the gates of the city for the Greek army which had sailed back under cover of darkness. The city of Troy was taken and the war was over. The strength of Troy’s defenses were breached by deception and curiosity. We may be well prepared for a direct attack, but totally unprepared for an unexpected diversion.
There is another story for World War II. The French had faced invasion from Germany in World War I and they determined never to let that happen again, so they built a line of concrete fortifications, obstacles, and weapons in the 1930’s on the borders with Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and Luxembourg.
The Maginot Line was impervious to bombings and tank fire. Seemingly there was no way that the Germans could invade France again. So what did the Germans do? They ignored that line completely and invaded France from the north through the Low Countries and the Ardennes forest, where the French thought the rough terrain would be an unlikely invasion route. Meanwhile a German decoy force sat opposite the Maginot Line to occupy the attention of the French. The major problem with the Maginot Line was the false sense of security it gave France.
Have we had Trojan horses and Maginot Lines in the recent history of Adventism? I submit that we have had exactly the same problem of curiosity and a false sense of security, and we have been successfully invaded while our guard was down. Adventist truths have been under attack from the very beginnings of the church, and we prepared our defenses carefully to withstand a frontal assault. We were able to respond very effectively to objections to our doctrinal beliefs. We had well-defined responses to Catholicism and liberal Protestantism. So the master strategist, Satan, devised a Trojan horse to attract our curiosity and lower our sense of danger.
We are not the only church to believe in the absolute authority of the Bible and the soon coming of Jesus, Who would destroy Satan’s rulership of Planet Earth. Our evangelical friends seem to be much like us in personal salvation by God’s unmerited grace through faith, as well as a strong drive for soulwinning. We feel that we can learn so much from them in the effective growth of churches, attractive worship methods, and the retention of youth. We have fought the enemy of worldly standards and lack of faith known as liberalism for many years. But we have been blind to the equally dangerous enemy of conservative evangelicalism. So our curiosity and our sense of doctrinal security allowed us to let the Trojan horse of evangelicalism right into the heart of Adventist beliefs, and the danger for us is the same as for the people of Troy, which is the total destruction of Adventism as the remnant church of prophecy.
So let us take a very close look at this Trojan horse that is sapping the life out of Adventism. What is the heart of this well-defined set of beliefs regarding salvation?
THE EVANGELICAL GOSPEL
There are five major issues at the root of this gospel:
1. Involuntary sin – This is the belief that all became sinners simply by being born.
2. The unfallen nature of Christ – This is the belief that the humanity that Christ took upon Himself was the sinless nature of Adam as it was before the Fall, or that He had a hybrid nature, partly fallen and partly unfallen.
3. Salvation by justification alone – This is the belief that the ground of the Christian’s salvation is justifying righteousness only, as distinct from the transforming, empowering righteousness of regeneration and sanctification, which are only results of salvation.
4. Justification is exclusively declarative, and not transformative – This is the belief that justifying righteousness only declares a believer righteous, as distinct from actually making him righteous.
5. The imperfectability of Christian character – This is the belief that even through imparted divine strength, perfect obedience to the divine law remains impossible for the Christian in this life.
In light of these beliefs of the evangelical gospel, it becomes imperative that we understand the true gospel. Following are a few brief responses to the evangelical gospel:
1. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4) Ellen White calls this the clear definition of sin, the true definition of sin, and eight times she calls it the only definition of sin. In commenting on this verse, she says it means to wilfully transgress the law of God in thought or word or action. (ST April 30, 1896) “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17) “Jesus said unto them [Pharisees], If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see, therefore your sin remaineth.” (John 9:41) The sin for which we are condemned and lost is never involuntary or a state of birth.
2. “It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity, to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.” (DA 49) Christ did not exempt Himself from our nature so that He could be tempted as we are, from outside and from His own nature.
3. “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” ( 2 Thess. 2:13) Justification and sanctification are both necessary parts of one saving process. Justification is not more important than sanctification.
4. “Having made us righteous through the imputed righteousness of Christ, God pronounces us just, and treats us as just….Therefore being justified by faith.” (1SM 394) Justification can never be limited to declaration alone. It is always a transforming process.
5. “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor. 10:5) “Everyone who by faith obeys God’s commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.” (IHP 146) One of Satan’s most accepted lies is that perfect obedience to God is impossible as long as we have fallen natures.
WHY CHARACTER PERFECTION?
It is very important to remember that full character maturity is not a requirement for salvation, as demonstrated by the thief on the cross. He certainly was not spiritually mature, but he surrendered his life in faith to God, willing to do or be whatever God wanted him to be. This is what God asks of us if we desire to be saved. Mature character perfection is for a completely different purpose.
“The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of His people.” (DA 671) It is not our honor or our salvation that is involved here, but God’s name and His character. He has promised that He will perfect His people. Can He really do it?
“The honor of His throne is staked for the fulfillment of His word unto us.” (COL 148) Whenever God promises something, He puts His name behind His promise. His throne was at stake when Christ came to our earth, and His throne is at stake in what He will do through the last generation.
We must remember Satan’s challenge against God and His law. “Satan declared that it was impossible for the sons and daughters of Adam to keep the law of God, and thus charged upon God a lack of wisdom and love. If they could not keep the law, then there was fault with the lawgiver.” (ST Jan. 16, 1896) Satan’s charge was clearly leveled against fallen man’s ability to keep God’s law, so God has devised a response to Satan which will be so clear that not one question will be left in any mind in God’s universe for the rest of eternity.
Revelation 7:1-3 tells us that the winds of destruction will be held until God’s people are sealed in their foreheads. So what is this seal? It is “a settling into the truth, both intellectually and spiritually, so they cannot be moved.” (FLB 287)
In a special vision, Ellen White saw the angels of Revelation 7 getting ready to let the winds go in her lifetime. “While their hands were loosening, and the four winds were about the blow, the merciful eye of Jesus gazed on the remnant that were not sealed, and He raised His hands to the Father and pleaded with Him that He had spilled His blood for them. Then another angel was commissioned to fly swiftly to the four angels and bid them hold, until the servants of God were sealed.” (EW 38) The reason Christ did not come in her lifetime, and has not come in our lifetime, is God’s mercy. He will never send His remnant into the cataclysmic struggles of Planet Earth while they are unprepared,, and the only way they can be prepared is by receiving the seal of God.
These people are facing the greatest challenge ever seen by the people of God. They are facing the close of human probation and Satan’s last desperate attempt to destroy God’s plan of salvation.
“If there was ever a people in need of constantly increasing light from heaven,, it is the people that, in this time of peril, God has called to be the depositaries of His holy law and to vindicate His character before the world.” (5T 746) This demands a full understanding of the plan of salvation and our place in the completion of that plan.
“Every character will be fully developed, and all will show whether they have chosen the side of loyalty or that of rebellion. Then the end will come. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people.” (DA 763) Note that God does the vindicating of His own name, but He will do it in the characters of His people. The fully mature development of both the righteous and the wicked is necessary for the final vindication of God’s character and His law.
THE EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT
What is this Trojan horse that has insinuated itself into the heart of Adventism? We can trace its beginnings in the United States to a new-to-Protestantism method of interpretation of prophecy called futurism. This method was actually begun by Catholic scholars to deflect the Protestant identification of the Catholic Church as Babylon and the pope as antichrist. All the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were placed in the future with a yet unknown individual as the antichrist. In the Protestant version the seventieth week of Daniel 9 was placed in the future, the Old Testament prophecies of the restoration of the Jewish nation would be literally fulfilled, the temple would be rebuilt, the battle of Armageddon would be the final battle between the Jews and the heathen; also included is a secret rapture of the faithful so they will not have to go through the horrors of Armageddon. These beliefs are shared by a number of conservative Protestant churches who believe in the absolute authority of Scripture and the soon coming of Christ, and who emphasize evangelistic fervor and church growth—all of which are shared by Adventism.
Now the interesting thing about the evangelical movement in the United States in the last forty years is that it has morphed into the political arena. During the early 1800’s there were several political parties which settled into two parties, the Whigs and the Democrats. Soon the Whig party disintegrated and was replaced by the Republican party. These are our parties today, but the positions of these parties have changed with time, so that our parties are not even close to what they were fifty or one hundred years ago. Today these parties have become so polarized that labeling and demonization have become the norm. If you don’t agree with “my” party you are the enemy.
The evangelical movement has immersed itself in modern power politics. In the 1950’s religion and politics began to form alliances. Billy Graham and other evangelicals began to promote anticommunism. One nation under God became a catch-phrase. Religious leaders began to promote free enterprise and big business. They talked about the United States as a Christian nation, and there was even a proposed constitutional amendment protecting school prayers in public schools.
As evangelical theology has become increasingly linked with politics, an interesting thing has taken place. Since evangelicals were primarily conservative, their political leanings became exclusively conservative, and evangelical theology began to take second place to conservative politics. Evangelicals saw conservative politics as their only mechanism to effect moral change in America. Modern society has been damaged by godlessness and lawlessness, with absolute truth being replaced by “whatever works for me,” and the boundaries of sexuality being hopelessly blurred. So evangelical conservatism joined itself permanently to conservative politics as the only way to defeat moral degeneracy and save the United States for the promised future of Jesus setting up His millennial kingdom on the earth.
Since Adventists share many concerns about America with evangelicals, it was very easy to agree with them about conservative politics being the only way to nullify the corrosive influence of liberal religious beliefs combined with liberal politics. Once again our defenses against liberalism outside our walls allowed us to ignore the dangerous Trojan horse of conservative religion and politics invading our minds and our churches. If only we would have followed Ellen White’s wise inspired counsel to bury political questions, we might not have opened the doors of the Trojan horse so widely.
Suddenly a new issue took center stage in the religious/evangelical alliance with politics—abortion.
(Now I want to make clear that Adventism is opposed to abortion on demand as a birth control option.) I am talking here about how abortion has become a political issue. In 1968 even Christianity Today (an evangelical magazine) refused to call abortion sinful. In 1971 delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention allowed abortion under certain defined circumstances, which was reaffirmed in 1974 and 1976. But in 1979 opposition to abortion became a rallying cry for evangelicals due to the influence of a Catholic activist who coined the term Moral Majority and saw the effectiveness of the abortion issue in defeating some prominent liberal politicians in 1978. This resulted in the modern Religious Right and the Catholic/evangelical Protestant alliance, which believes that morality can and should be a matter for political legislation. In 1984 a New York governor said, “Are we asking government to make criminal what we believe to be sinful because we ourselves can’t stop committing the sin? The failure here is not Caesar’s. The failure is our failure, the failure of the entire people of God.” Make no mistake, the use of civil power by apostate Christianity is making coercion a substitute for conversion and will lead directly to the formation of the image to the beast. It is very significant that in August, 2018, a state-like dinner was held at the White House for one hundred evangelical leaders to celebrate evangelical leadership, especially in politics.
It would be well for us to remind ourselves that religious liberty means two different things for Adventists and evangelicals. Adventists want to allow freedom of conscience for all, especially minority religious beliefs. We advocate freedom for Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, and even atheists. Evangelicals and conservative Catholics advocate liberty for their version of Christianity, since they believe that is the only way of salvation, while other beliefs are “heathen” and do not merit special protection.
The disturbing reality is that the same people who stand strongest against abortion and stand for moral values are the same people who want to unite with conservative Catholics to restore a Christian dominionism that will trample on religious freedom for minorities. Evangelical theology has been hidden inside evangelical politics, and is the greatest danger our church has faced from outside Adventism. How tragic that evangelical theology has penetrated so deeply into Adventist theology that we are promoting it at the highest scholarly levels and we are marginalizing those who believe in genuine Adventism as fanatics and fringe groups.
This is the Trojan horse that is fascinating Adventism right now, and we allow it in our midst at the peril of our reason for existence. We have formed our Maginot Line against attacks by the enemy, and Satan has bypassed our carefully prepared defenses by appearing to be our friend and ally, since we are also opposed to abortion and homosexuality. We are being dragged into the muck of political involvement.
We don’t seem to realize that the evangelical message and evangelical politics are broken cisterns. They are the false prophet of Revelation—Babylon—with their hands stretching across the gulf to form the image to the beast. Can we really trust and ally with a movement because it supports a few strands of truth? The army outside the walls is also hiding inside the horse while we sleep on.
We desperately need to return to our Adventist pioneers who refused to get involved with party politics.
They stood for moral issues like temperance and religious liberty. They opposed errors in society like slavery, even defying immoral laws like the Fugitive Slave Act, but they never supported the political parties of their day and they refused to get involved in the dirt of power politics.
We are here for two purposes, first and foremost, to prepare our characters to receive the seal of God and put the final nail in the coffin of Satan’s lies, and second, to prepare our hearts to be ready for the latter rain and take the truth of God to every corner of Planet Earth. Matthew 24:14 will see its fulfillment as the gospel is taken to the whole world so that God will finally be able to say in Revelation 12:14, “Here are they that keep my commandments.” May that day come very soon.
Much has been written and said about the Evangelical - Catholic alliance that has shocked many observers. It would have been declared to be impossible just a few decades ago, but perhaps just about anything is possible in the nineties. To restore morality and Christian values in our decaying American society, some Evangelicals and Catholics have decided that their differences aren’t so large as previously believed, and they have united on common beliefs to present a more united front in order to change our society.
Seventh-day Adventists are not a part of this new unity, because we believe that doctrines are vitally important to faith, and doctrinal differences cannot just be swept under the rug so we can pretend they don’t exist. But the question remains, Are there more subtle linkages between Adventists and Evangelicals than most Adventists realize? Are we in danger of slowly becoming part of the Evangelical Christian world without even realizing it? Let us examine some recent public statements.
What Is the Evangelical Gospel?
In the April, 1997 Adventist Review there appeared an article with the title “Will the Real Evangelical Adventist Please Stand Up.” In it were these statements: “I consider myself a true evangelical Adventist. I hope you do too.... I wish everyone in the church were an evangelical Adventist, because inherent in the word ‘Adventist’ should be the concept of ‘evangelical’ ” "What is it, then, to be evangelical,” and particularly to be an “evangelical Adventist?” We need to know what that means? We can’t just use a word and assume that everyone knows what it means. The first thing to understand is that “evangelical” is not a synonym for “evangelistic.” Now Evangelicals are evangelistic in their outlook, as they endeavor to lead people to the new birth. But the term “evangelical” is broader than that, and it defines a certain group with definite beliefs.
A few weeks after this article appeared in the Adventist Review an individual wrote, “As a Christian broadcaster at KARM radio, I come into contact with many of other denominations who call themselves ‘evangelical Christians.’ I feel a very definite connection with these dear brothers and sisters as we look at the cross. They and I are all saved by faith in Jesus... This article gave me the confidence to move forward, proudly claiming the title of an evangelical Christian.” (June 12, 1997)
Perhaps we need to understand a bit of history right here. Before 1955 nothing was ever mentioned about being an evangelical Adventist. But then some discussions took place between the leaders of our church and the Evangelical leaders Barnhouse and Martin. Since that time Adventists have been a little more comfortable with the term “evangelical,” and coincidently, there has been considerable turmoil in the Adventist Church over the meaning of the gospel.
To be completely fair with the evidence, we need to ask an Evangelical what is meant by the term “evangelical." Kenneth Samples has written some very fair and objective articles about what he has seen happening in the Adventist Church. but what I am most interested in is his statement of the differences between evangelical and traditional Adventism.
By the mid 1970’s, two distinct factions had emerged within SDA. Traditional Adventism, which defended many pre-1950 Adventist positions, and Evangelical Adventism, which emphasized the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith. This controversy soon gave way to a full-blown internal crisis which severely fragmented the denomination...
The major doctrinal issues which united this group [Evangelical Adventism] were:
1) Righteousness by faith: This group accepted the Reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith included justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ’s own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ’s human nature was like that of Adam’s before the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ’s imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven...
5) Authority of Ellen G. White: Ellen White was a genuine Christian who possessed a gift of prophecy. However, neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a doctrinal authority....
The following positions were taken by Traditional Adventism in response to the doctrinal debates:
1) Righteousness by faith: Righteousness by faith included both justification and sanctification. Our standing before God rests both in the imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ (God’s work for me and in me). Justification is for sins committed in the past only.
2) The human nature of Christ: Jesus Christ possessed a human nature that not only was weakened by sin, but had propensities toward sin itself. His nature was like that of Adam after the Fall....
3) The events of 1844: Jesus entered into the second compartment of the heavenly sanctuary for the first time on October 22, 1844, and began an investigative judgment. This judgment is the fulfillment of the second phase of Christ’s atoning work.
4) Assurance of salvation: Our standing before God rests in both the imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ;... As Jesus, our example, showed us, perfect commandment keeping is possible.
5) The authority of Ellen G. White: The spirit of prophecy was manifest in the ministry of Ellen White as a sign of the remnant church. Her writings are inspired counsel from the Lord and authoritative in doctrinal matters....
As the above doctrinal comparison showed, the differences between these two factions were indeed significant. The differences could essentially be reduced to:
1) the question of authority (sola scriptura vs. Scripture plus Ellen White), and 2) the question of salvation (imputed righteousness vs. imparted righteousness). [Christian Research Journal, Summer, 1988]
In another article entitled “The Recent Truth About Seventh-day Adventism,” Kenneth Samples traced a bit of history.
The Adventists had released a publication previous to Martin’s, entitled Questions on Doctrine (QOD). This controversial volume affirmed, among other things, that Adventists did not regard Ellen White’s writings as an infallible or canonical authority, and that salvation was solely a gift of God’s grace-not the result of works. QOD also repudiated such commonly held traditional Adventist doctrines as the notion that Christ had inherited a human nature affected by the Fall, and an understanding that last-days believers would achieve sinless perfection. QOD was a clear statement of what would later be known as evangelical Adventism....
Evangelical Adventists were united in their understanding of righteousness by faith: It was justification only; sanctification was but the accompanying fruit… A vocal and perfectionistic segment within Traditional Adventism has classified Evangelical Adventism as a “new theology,” which destroys Adventism’s true identity. [Christianity Today, February 5, 1990]
In the first article quoted from, Kenneth Samples had a concluding analysis and appeal for Adventism.
Presently, however, it would appear that traditional Adventism is at least aberrant, confusing or compromising biblical truth (e.g., their view of justification, the nature of Christ, appealing to an unbiblical authority). It must also be stated that if the traditional camp continues in its departure from QOD, and in promoting Ellen White as the church’s infallible interpreter, then they could one day be fully deserving of the title “cult,” as some Adventists recognize..... Our criticism of Adventism should not be interpreted as an attack from an enemy, but rather concerned words from a friend, who earnestly prays that the present leaders of SDA will honor Scripture and the gospel of grace above their own denominational distinctives.
The bottom line in all of this is that Adventism is being asked to be part of mainstream Evangelical Christianity. When Walter Martin wrote his book in the 1950’s, Adventism was not included among the cults because of the positions we took in Questions on Doctrine. We are being warned that if we renege on the points we conceded then, we will be placed back in the “cult” category. The issue is becoming rather direct: Will we be Adventist or Evangelical?
Because of the controversy aroused by the book Questions on Doctrine, Walter Martin became a little skeptical of what was really happening in Adventism, so he contacted the General Conference after 1980. calling for the Church’s official statement reaffirming or denying the validity of the positions taken in that book.. This is the answer he received from Dr. Richard Lesher, a vice-president of the General Conference. “You ask if Seventh--day Adventists still stand behind the answers given to your questions in Questions on Doctrine as they did in 1957. The answer is yes.” (Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 edition, p. 410) In this book, Martin discusses Adventism under the title “The Puzzle of Seventh-day Adventism.” He says that the turbulence within Adventism “is more extensive than any turmoil in the organization’s history.” It is tempting to look through rose-colored glasses at the good things that are happening in the Adventist Church, and assume that all is relatively positive and peaceful. But as others view us from outside, that is not what they see, and many Adventists are extremely concerned about the turmoil of the last twenty years.
The question remains: Should we all be evangelical Adventists? Is this the everlasting gospel which must be proclaimed to all the world before Jesus comes? Or is this the most subtle deception Satan has ever unleashed on Adventism, in an all-out attempt to derail the mission of Adventism right on the borders of the Promised Land?
Righteousness By Faith
In the Review article urging all Adventists to be evangelical Adventists is the following question: “What does an evangelical Adventist believe?” Unfortunately, two answers are given to this question. Answer #1: “That by faith in Him and what He has accomplished for me and what He is doing in me, I am accepted in Christ right now, deemed perfect, holy, and righteous in the sight of God.” Answer #2: “Justification is, technically, not to be 'made worthy,' but to be 'accounted worthy.' Whatever change God brings about in us, our salvation must always be based upon what He has done for us. The Lord declares us worthy.”
Compare these answers with the comparison between Evangelical and Traditional Adventists by Samples. The Evangelical position is that we are accepted by God through justification alone, which is what Christ does for us. It is a judicial act of God by which He declares us righteous. The Adventist position is that we are accepted by God through justification and sanctification, which is God’s work for us and in us. In other words, when He declares us righteous, He makes us righteous at the same time. Answer #1 above is the Adventist gospel, while answer #2 is the Evangelical gospel. Surely such opposite answers to the same question will only lead to more confusion and misunderstanding among most Adventists.
To be absolutely sure we are understanding the Evangelical gospel correctly, let us dig a bit deeper. Recently John Ankerberg hosted a discussion among leading Evangelicals regarding the unofficial meeting of the minds between Evangelicals and Catholics. They were very concerned that this union betrayed the gospel. They said that regarding the gospel, we must not negotiate, but we must be narrow. They said that truth takes precedence over tolerance. They believed that the document “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” was too vague and compromising. The issue for these pastors and scholars was the gospel itself. For them, the gospel, “by faith alone,” meant justification declared apart from sanctification. That is about as simple and direct a statement that can be asked for. This is God’s work for us, not in us. The Evangelical position is very clear on this point.
Perhaps it would be well to note in passing that the understanding of E. J. Waggoner on this point was quite different. In his book, Christ and His Righteousness, he said, “To justify means to make righteous, or to show one to be righteous.” (p. 51) “Let us first have an object lesson on justification, or the imparting of righteousness.” (p. 57) The gospel message of 1888 understood justification to be much more than an outward declaration of righteousness. When Christ declares us just, He makes us just at the same time, which he does by imparting His righteousness to us. The Evangelical gospel is in direct opposition to the 1888 gospel.
In another Adventist Review article we find the Evangelical gospel again. “Though what Christ has done for us once and for all at the cross (justification) remains experientially inseparable from what He does in us (sanctification), what he has done ‘for us’ and what He does ‘in us’ are still two different aspects of the gospel that must be kept theologically distinct.” Now just why must they be kept distinct? “From the foundation of accepting personally that Jesus ‘bore our sins,’ we have a born-again experience that leads to regeneration and renewal in Christ. Yet the new birth and the new life aren’t what save us; rather, they’re what happen after we become saved.” This is precisely the Evangelical gospel. The new birth and regeneration do not save us, hut they occur after we have already been saved. They are the fruit of salvation rather than the cause of salvation. Two questions must then be asked. How long after we have been saved will they occur? Are they essential to the saving process, or are they something nice to have as a result of being saved? “Once we accept what Christ has accomplished for us, we go from condemnation to acceptance, from alienation to reconciliation-and these legal transformations, all based on Christ's death, lead to a born-again experience. When we’re no longer condemned by God.. .our life changes, and that change… begins with the new birth.” [“Shocked by Isaiah 53” May, 1997]
The Evangelical gospel teaches that we are accepted by God and reconciled to Him by being declared righteous. The new birth is not part of the process which leads to acceptance and reconciliation. Justification by faith is the legal declaration that we are forgiven, and that alone saves. Everything else, including the new birth, regeneration, renewal, and sanctification, is the result of already being saved. In other words, anything that happens inwardly, experientially, does not save. This means that even if there are serious problems with our inward experience, we are still saved, as long we remain legally justified. This is pure Evangelical Christianity, which is quite foreign to the Adventist understanding of the gospel.
Perhaps it might be useful to again compare this gospel with the 1888 understanding of the gospel. A.T. Jones asked a very important question. “Will the ten commandments accept any doing from anybody that comes short of God’s own idea of what is right doing? No... .When the ten commandments will accept nothing short of that, how are the requirements of the commandments to be met in any man’s life who has not the mind of God? It cannot be done.” The Evangelical answer to this question is that we must be covered by Christ’s imputed righteousness. Since we will never be able to keep the commandments in this way, we must be declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s death on the cross. But Jones’ answer is quite different. “Then is it possible for any man to render to the ten commandments what only they will accept, without having the mind of Jesus Christ itself?.. .Therefore, it follows that I must have the personal presence of Christ Himself. What is it that brings to you and me the personal presence of Jesus Christ? The Spirit of God.” (1893 General Conference Bulletin, pp. 245-246) We will be able to be completely obedient to God’s law by having the mind of Christ within us. This is the personally experienced presence of Christ which comes to us through the work of the Holy Spirit. This sounds very much like the new birth and regeneration. This very important question receives two quite different answers from the Evangelical and the 1888 perspectives.
There is a very practical aspect of the Evangelical gospel which is stressed often by those who espouse it. Most often a statement is quoted from the book Steps to Christ. “The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts.” (pp. 57-58) This statement is used to support the Evangelical belief that we do not lose our accepted standing with God (the imputed righteousness of Christ) when we sin. As long as we do not reject Christ we remain saved, even while sinning. As long as the tendency of our lives is gradually upward, we are not lost by occasional misdeeds. Some have even suggested that David was not in a lost condition while he was committing adultery with Bathsheba and plotting the murder of her husband. I believe that this inspired sentence is badly taken out of context and misused to support the Evangelical gospel.
The preceding sentence says, “If the heart has been renewed by the Spirit of God, the life will bear witness to the fact.” The following sentences read, “Our lives will reveal whether the grace of God is dwelling within us. A change will be seen in the character, the habits, the pursuits. The contrast will be clear and decided between what they have been and what they are.” The question that Ellen White is addressing is very simple: How can I tell if I have been converted or born again? How can I be sure that my heart has been renewed by the Holy Spirit? The answer is: By the tendency of the habitual words and acts, not by occasional good deeds or misdeeds. I will not be able to tell by one or two good things that I have done, or one or two mistakes or slips that have occurred. I can know if I have had a genuine new birth experience by the overall tendency of the life. This paragraph does not, I repeat, does not address at all my current status of acceptance while I am involved in a sin. It is not answering the question: Am I in a saved condition while I am sinning? It is addressing the issue of how we can test a person’s claim that he has been born again. The only way you can be sure is by a genuine change in the character and habits.
Perhaps an illustration will help. Had David been born again? How could you tell? By the tendency of his habitual words and acts. When he was fleeing from Saul, he did not always do everything just right-there were misdeeds-but did that mean that he had never been born again? Of course not; the tendency of his life showed that he had experienced a genuine new birth. When he refused to take the life of Saul-a good deed-did that prove that he was born again? By itself it would not; we would need to observe the tendency of his life. Now when he was involved in his “occasional misdeed” with Bathsheha, did that mean that he had never been born again? No, it did not. His new birth had been proved by a life of obedience. But when he was involved in this sin, excusing and rationalizing what he had done, was he accepted by God (in a saved condition)? This is the important question for our consideration. Some Evangelicals will say that he was saved during this time, based on the Evangelical gospel, hut what does God say?
“It was when he was walking in the counsel of God, that he was called a man after God’s own heart. When he sinned, this ceased to be true of him until by repentance he had returned to the Lord.” (PP 723) “David trembled, lest, guilty and unforgiven, he should he cut down by the swift judgment of God.” (PP 722) When would David no longer be guilty and unforgiven? When would he again be accepted and saved? When he confessed his sin, with heartfest repentance. In passing we note that David only came under conviction of his great sin and need for repentance after a personal confrontation with a prophet of the Lord.
To summarize, we can know that we have had a genuine new birth because of the general tendency of the life. The reality of our new birth is not based on an occasional good deed or misdeed. Our claim to be Christians must be judged by our habitual words and acts. But the sentence from Steps to Christ is being used to prove that I am still in a saved condition while I am sinning, as long as that sin is not habitual. Indeed, this may be the most misused statement on this subject in the Spirit of Prophecy.
Because of a false gospel, buttressed by misunderstandings of Romans 7 and the above sentence, and driven by a desperate need to feel saved while experiencing more than occasional misdeeds, some believe that David was in a saved condition all during his sin against Bathsheba and Uriah, and many believe that we are in a saved condition while we are participating in known sins.
I believe that a false assurance of salvation is currently the most serious error in righteousness by faith currently being taught in Adventism. Some time ago our most serious error was legalism, but the pendulum has swung dramatically. False assurance is going to cost the eternal salvation of more Adventists than legalism has ever cost. We are literally talking about hundreds of thousands of sincere Adventists who trust what they hear and read. I, with countless other Adventists, want to have the assurance of acceptance with God, and when the Evangelical gospel offers this to us, based on apparent evidence from inspiration, it is very easy for honest, well-meaning people to grasp false assurance, much as a drowning man will grasp anything that floats.
Please notice how different is Ellen White’s perspective on the issue of salvation while sinning. “Their constant stumbling and falling reveal that they have not maintained a stern conflict with their besetting sins. They have not depended wholly upon Christ, because they have not realized that they are in peril of being overcome by these sins.... If we could understand how deeply we injure our own souls and cause unhappiness to those around us by giving loose rein to unsanctified thoughts and unholy actions, we would strive to put them away. We would cooperate with God in working out our own salvation. It is the inclination to excuse our moral defects that leads to the cultivation of sin. We must never forget that God ascribes sin to the one who transgresses--Satan triumphs when he hears the professed follower of Christ offering excuses for his defects of character. Sin unrepented of, unconfessed, can never be blotted from the hooks of God’s record. Through faithful, thorough confession of sin, the heart is cleansed from its moral impurity. There must be a forsaking of the sins the Lord has reproved, before the soul can stand acquitted before God, humbled and repentant, realizing that he has served Satan, pleased him, glorified him, and dishonored his Lord.” (Signs of the Times, Dec. 13, 1899) Stumbling and falling is not just an occasional misdeed to be passed over lightly or excused. The only remedy for sin is confession and forsaking of it. Only when we have forsaken the sin we are involved in can we stand acquitted before God. We cannot be sinning and be acquitted before God at the same time. One gospel teaches that we can be saved while continuing to fall into sin, and one gospel provides healing from all sin.
The Human Nature of Christ
A very important difference between the Evangelical gospel and the Adventist gospel is in understanding how Christ met and overcame temptation during His life on earth. This issue has tremendous significance for how we meet temptations in our daily lives. In the book Questions on Doctrine is this statement: “Although born in the flesh, He… was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam.” (p. 383) The word “exempt” appears in a quite different context when James Cardinal Gibbons referred to the doctrine of Mary: “She alone was exempt from the original taint.” (The Faith of Our Fathers, 88th edition, p. 171) Do Adventists really want to say that Jesus was exempt from inherited tendencies? Do we want to hold the Immaculate Conception doctrine, just one generation removed? Literally, the only difference between the Catholic and Evangelical teaching is one generation. Instead of Mary, Jesus is the one who got a special exemption. Sometimes we try to cover up the equivalence of these teachings by saying that Jesus had a Miraculous Conception, but words are only a disguise for the reality that these teachings are identical.
L. E. Froom, one of the main contributors to Questions on Doctrine, answered the question “How did He escape the taint of sinful heredity?” in this way, “There is but one answer: His human nature came into being by a direct and miraculous intervention, the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.. divine, creative miracle brought to pass this new union of Godhead with Humanity, begun in the womb of Mary, which assured freedom from the slightest taint of sin. The human element was not determinative in that origin.” (“The Tremendous Truth of the Virgin Birth,” No. 1, pp. 3-4; No. 2, p. 15) This says that Jesus’ human nature was not inherited from Adam through Mary, but it was specially created in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. He avoided sinful heredity by eliminating the hereditary process. In this way He could be free from “the slightest taint of sin.”
However, books and articles written in the last few years deal with the nature of Christ in a slightly different way. They recognize that Christ was not exempt from the entire hereditary process, and so they select certain parts of Christ’s nature which were inherited and they select other aspects of inherited nature from which He was exempt. It is currently very popular to say that Jesus was affected but not infected by sin. It is currently fashionable to say that Christ accepted our innocent infirmities (hunger, pain, sorrow, etc.) but not our tendencies to selfishness, pride, jealousy, anger, and all the other negative aspects of a fallen nature. The bottom line is that Christ took a partly fallen and partly unfallen nature. This is currently the “official” position in our colleges and universities. In its practical effects, this position comes out exactly the same as the position in Questions on Doctrine. It is not hunger and pain which cause our temptations and inner struggles; it is the fallen tendencies oriented to self which pull us in the direction of sin. If Jesus never experienced these pulls from within, then it would be absolutely impossible for Him to be tempted in all points as we are. He could never feel the needs and drives and emotions which come directly from the negative tendencies of a fallen nature. The Christ of Evangelical theology is a long way off from the human condition in which we all struggle for victory. If Christ was truly exempt from the real fallenness of fallen nature, then we are simply dealing with the most sophisticated version of the Immaculate Conception doctrine that human minds have been able to invent.
It is of some interest that a few voices from outside Adventism have seen things from a different perspective. Dr. Harry Johnson, in his book The Humanity of the Saviour, defines fallen human nature as the nature “which has been affected by the sin and rebellion of previous generations, a nature which produces temptation in all of its seductive power, a nature with dreadful power and potentialities for evil.” He says that this “fallen human nature...was assumed by the Son of God at the Incarnation, and that ‘sinlessness,’ understood in terms of obedience, and an unbroken relationship with God, refers to the incarnate life of Jesus.” Christ “assumed what was imperfect, but He wrought out of it a life that was perfect.” (p. 27) What a refreshing breath of fresh air in the superheated theologizing which looks for loopholes to exempt Christ from our human condition. Christ simply entered our human reality at the place where it was 4,000 years after Adam’s fall. He truly became our Elder Brother and our Near Kinsman. This is the position which most Adventists believed and taught until the 1950’s, when we began to search for ways to escape the “cult” label and be included in mainstream Evangelical Christianity.
Another voice from outside Adventism, J.A.T. Robinson, said, “Traditional theology, both Catholic and Protestant, has held that Christ assumed at the Incarnation, an unfallen human nature... .But, if the question is restated in its Biblical terms, there is no reason to fear, and indeed the most pressing grounds for requiring, the ascription to Christ of a manhood standing under the effects and consequences of the Fall. At any rate, it is clear that this is Paul’s view of Christ’s person, and that it is essential to his whole understanding of His redeeming work.” (The Body, a Study in Pauline Theology, pp. 37-38)
To put it very simply, the question is, Was there a break or alteration in the heredity which Mary passed on to Jesus? Was Jesus exempted from part of that heredity? The answer in Evangelical Christianity and Evangelical Adventism is "Yes." In this view a break is demanded to protect Christ from being a sinner by nature. The real issue, of course, is the definition of sin. If sin is the fallen nature with which we are born, then we must go to any length of theorizing to protect Christ from being tainted with the sin of our fallen nature. It is always the definition of sin which drives conclusions on the nature of Christ. In pre-1950’s Adventism this definition of sin did not exist, so Adventism was very comfortable with the conclusion that there was no break in the hereditary line of Christ. To the question, "Did Christ receive a normal heredity from Mary?" the Adventist answer has always been "Yes."
If Christ did not take our fallen nature, then who in the universe has proved that obedience to God’s law is possible in a fallen nature? You and I certainly have not. One of Satan’s major charges against God and His law is that fallen human beings cannot obey God’s law. If Christ did not take our fallen nature, then who in the universe has yet proved that Satan is a liar? If no one has disproved Satan’s claim, then we are not one step closer to the end of the great controversy than we were when Adam and Eve sinned in Eden. What is at stake here is whether the Atonement provided by Christ really can restore a sinful world to perfection and harmony with God’s law for all eternity. Can Christ really be our Saviour if Satan’s charges remain unanswered?
One very thoughtful author in current Adventism has offered these words for our reflection. “The most urgent post-Fall issue is not perfection, as is assumed, but the integrity of the spirit of prophecy and of Adventism itself. Deep feelings can be expected when leaders seek to enforce a position (pre-Fall) identified with the continuing disintegration of the Advent faith that threatens our movement.” The nature of Christ is not a minor issue, and it cannot he set aside as irrelevant. Our understanding of Christ’s human nature has a great deal to do with our understanding of the mission of Adventism and the issues in the great controversy between Christ and Satan.
An Appeal From the Past
When Elder Robert Pierson retired from the Presidency of the General Conference, he pled with our leaders and our educational institutions to be loyal to the pillars of our faith. “Already, brethren and sisters, there are subtle forces that are beginning to stir... .There are those who wish to forget the standards of the church we love. There are those who covet and would court the favor of the Evangelicals; who would throw off the mantle of a peculiar people; and those who would go the way of the secular, materialistic world....Fellow leaders, beloved brethren and sisters, do not let it happen! I appeal to you as earnestly as I know how this morning. Do not let it happen! I appeal to Andrews University, to the seminary, to Loma Linda University. Do not let it happen! We are not Seventh-day Anglicans, not Seventh-day Lutherans. We are Seventh-day Adventists! This is God’s last church with God’s last message.” (Adventist Review, October 26, 1978)
The question comes back to us with full force? Are we to be Evangelical Seventh-day Adventists? Is this the way Adventism will fulfill its mission as a movement of prophecy? Or is this Satan’s plan to deceive “the very elect” and derail Adventism right on the borders of the Promised Land? It is always the hidden danger that is most likely to trip us up, and I believe that this is the greatest hidden danger we are now facing. Where did the real danger to the inhabitants of Troy lie? Was it from the armies outside the walls, or the innocent-looking wooden horse they had just pulled within the city gates? Where no danger is obvious, the greatest danger exists. We are inviting Evangelicalism within our gates right now, and we are urging all Adventists to be Evangelical. As we read articles and listen to sermons, are we in danger of saying "Amen" in all the wrong places? We need to be more perceptive listeners and readers, so that the difference between Truth and Error is sharply apparent. We can only complete our mission and fulfill our destiny if we are real Seventh-day Adventists. Let us never dilute our gospel with a gospel which is really no gospel at all, but the most clever counterfeit Satan has ever devised to confuse Christians and discredit God.