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.
FOUR DANGEROUS BOOKS
Something happened in 2018 which I have not seen in the thirty years that I have been presenting my seminars. My emphasis has been focused on two themes. 1) Our message, the everlasting gospel, righteousness by faith, the 1888 message, how salvation works, contrasting with the false evangelical gospel. 2) Our mission, why we exist, what Christ called this church to do, the great controversy, what issues still have to be settled, the vindication of God’s character and government, preparation for the seal of God and the close of probation.
Both our message and our mission are controversial and have been called divisive. There is nothing new about that, but 2018 saw a frontal assault on everything I and others teach. This is actually an all-out war to destroy our message and our mission once and for all.
Four books came off the presses in 2018: two from Pacific Press Publishing Association, one from Pacific Union Conference’s Oak & Acorn Publishing and one from Andrews University Press. The title of the most significant book is God’s Character and the Last Generation, written by twelve Seminary professors, edited by Jiri Moskala and John Peckham. The term “last generation theology” has been coined in the last twenty years to describe our real message and our mission.
The book was reviewed in Ministry by Jud Lake from Southern Adventist University. “In my view, the authors have provided a solid biblical alternative to LGT that is not only intellectually satisfying but also spiritually uplifting….The book as a whole is a major contribution to Christian thought on the end of time and an important corrective to misunderstandings about the vindication of God’s character….Preachers will find plenty of ideas for biblical sermon series….God’s Character and the Last Generation is a landmark work that will inspire a new generation of Seventh-day Adventists to give glory to God alone and proclaim the soon return of Jesus with hope and assurance.”
So we will spend a little time reviewing this “landmark work” to know what is being said. The book can be summarized by two major emphases: false statements about Last Generation Theology and a false gospel borrowed from evangelical Sundaykeepers.
Last generation theology advocates perfectionism, which maintains that humans can become absolutely sinless. This tends to place the emphasis on human works and suggests that one might reach a point prior to glorification when one is perfectly “sanctified” and thus no longer in need of the imputed righteousness of Christ….Some emphasize external obedience and focus on abstaining from committing sins by the sheer, disciplined exercise of one’s will….They no longer need the work of Christ on their behalf. (pp. 18-19)
Last Generation Theology does not emphasize human works. It emphasizes human surrender. We will never be beyond the need for Christ’s righteousness. In fact, we will need it more than ever. Willpower alone will never overcome sin.
E. J. Waggoner was the effectual father of the Seventh-day Adventist version of the socalled last generation theology….God risking His vindication on the performance of His church is one of the more uncertain moments in the doctrinal history of E. J. Waggoner. (pp. 25, 29)
The reality is that God has always risked his vindication on the cooperation of His people. Consider the stories of Job and Abraham and Moses and John the Baptist and Paul. The last generation is simply one more example of cooperation with God which vindicates His name and His government.
Even though Andreasen never considered the perfection of the last generation to be meritorious, his teaching contributed in the church to the presence of a strong element of unwitting legalism. (p. 35)
M. L. Andreasen is always singled out as the source of legalism in the church. The reality is that legalism was a problem in the 1880’s that Waggoner and Jones tried to correct. Andreasen simply followed their lead in trying to combat legalism.
Edward Heppenstall…defined sin as a state of being….Sin has been dethroned, but it still remains. Through the Spirit, God awakens and develops the desire for full freedom from sin,…but the full actualization of that desire will occur at the return of the Lord….Consequently, we will always need to ask for forgiveness. (p. 37)
This marks the beginning of the entrance of original sin into Adventist theology. Original sin teaches that we are sinners from birth and will continue in sin until the second coming. Thus we will never fully keep the commandments on earth. This teaching is a total denial of some very clear Ellen White statements.
We sin both voluntarily and involuntarily….Sin is a lack of conformity to the will of God, either in act or state, into which we are born (original corruption)….Those who limit sin to the sins that they consciously and voluntarily choose are the ones who are minimizing the problem of sin! (pp. 48-49)
Minimizing sin is really saying that everything we do is sin, meaning that we can do nothing but sin.
Sinning has always been about choice, from Adam to David to Christ to us.
Other Adventists…state that justification means more than imputation of Christ’s righteousness; it also includes the process by which Christ actually makes us righteous. According to this view, justification is primarily to “make righteous,” not just to “declare righteous,” or else it would be only a legal fiction….Proponents of this view seem to adopt major Catholic arguments against the Reformers in the sixteenth century….Some Adventists maintain that…acceptance by God is based on Christ’s infused righteousness. (pp. 64-65)
Here “making righteous” in justification is called Catholic and is labeled as “infused righteousness.” LGT does not teach infused righteousness, and certainly does not teach Catholic righteousness by works. It is so easy to label your opponent’s view as Catholic in order to discredit it.
The original Hebrew and Greek words for “justify”…do not mean “make righteous” but “declare righteous.”…Abraham was not made righteous but was accounted righteous. (pp. 66, 69)
Justification being declared righteous only contradicts the Bible, Ellen White, and Jones and Waggoner.
True believers, justified persons, are still sinners…even after conversion through those works wrought in them by the Holy Spirit. In the words of Martin Luther, we are…at the same time just and sinner. (p. 78)
This theology means that conversion does not eliminate sin; it just eliminates condemnation for our continued sinning.
The basis of our justification is always the imputed righteousness of Christ (what Christ has cone for us, outside of us),…not His imparted righteousness (what Christ is doing in us; sanctification), which is always partial, always “fall short” of the glory of God. (p. 81)
All these phrases are exactly what Desmond Ford taught at Pacific Union College. His false gospel is now being repeated by leading scholars.
Sanctification is the ever-developing, ever-incomplete fitness for heaven….Our sanctification is always progressive, always partial; it always “falls short” of the glory of God….Since we are…at the same just and sinners till our glorification,…we are in constant need of justification for our pardon and atonement in our sinful state….All human beings are sinful even when they are doing what God has asked them to do, because all have sinful, defiled natural depravity from birth that taints everything. (pp. 84-85, 96)
If this is true, then Satan has won the argument. It is his claim that we can never stop sinning as long as we live, even when we are obeying God (Sabbathkeeping, returning tithe, overcoming temper and lust) we are still sinning. If this is true, then why should we even try to obey?
LGT affirms the insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, and the added value of one’s obedience to the experience of salvation. Such obedience is unmistakably meritorious. In no uncertain terms, LGT…denies the complete sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice to save humanity and effectively win the great controversy….The LGT perspective is clear about the role of obedience, sanctification, and perfection in one’s salvation: without perfect obedience, there cannot be salvation. Sanctification and obedience are not so much the fruit of justification and salvation as they are the cause of salvation. (p. 105)
LGT never teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient or that obedience is meritorious or the cause of our salvation. Perfect obedience is the result of sanctification and never the cause of salvation.
One can never speak of total sinlessness or of being without sin….Selfishness…is still present in a Christian’s life….All that human beings do, however good and righteous it may be, is tainted by selfishness and sin….It is therefore misguided to speak of…the possibility of attaining a sinless life on this earth. (pp. 109-110, 115)
If we can never be without sin then there can be no close of probation; then all our teachings about the seal of God and the mark of the beast and Christ ending His mediatorial work of forgiving sin are all false.
Obedience and good works will always remain important, but never enough to be necessary for our salvation….Obedience to God, although required of the believer, is never to be considered a condition for one’s salvation….All human obedience, however good and wholesome it may be, is tainted by human selfishness. (pp. 113-114)
If obedience is not necessary for salvation or a condition for salvation, then why would we ever ask a person to give up a career over Sabbathkeeping?
Every human being comes into the world as a sinner separated from God….Adam and Eve’s sin…imputed guilt…to every human being—everyone is de facto born a sinner separated from God and lost. (p. 119)
This is simply Catholic original sin which was transmitted through Luther and Calvin to modern evangelical Christians, and through them to Adventists.
Do newborn infants need a Savior? Did Jesus need a Savior when He was born?...affirmative to the first question and…negative to the second. (p. 167)
If babies need a Savior because of their fallen natures, then it is mandatory that Jesus could not take our fallen nature. Then He could not be tempted from His own nature like we are, and He certainly could not be tempted in “all points” as Scripture says.
Did Jesus’ human nature really need to be exactly like ours for Him to function as our example?...No, Jesus did not need to be exactly like us to function as our example….He did not…need to be exactly like us , burdened with inherited inclinations to sin. It was enough for Him to become fully human….If Christ’s nature was not exactly like ours, did He have an advantage over us?...Purity of nature could certainly be considered as an advantage….Christ’s advantage affords salvation to humanity. (pp. 168-169)
If He did not have inherited inclinations to sin, how can He show me how to overcome my inherited inclinations? Here it is clearly stated that Christ had an advantage over us. Satan would immediately claim that Christ proved only that Adam could obey; that Christ proved nothing about us being able to obey. Thus Satan’s claim that the sons and daughters of Adam could not obey has been disproved by no one, meaning that Satan was not fully defeated by Christ’s life and death.
By Christ’s atoning death, Satan was decisively and definitely defeated…After the cross God is not at risk at all….Christ’s victory is not in jeopardy, threatened, or in peril….There is no way that God could thereafter lose the great controversy….Christ’s blameless life and death already provided the full and sufficient grounds for the vindication of God’s character….The cosmic vindication of God is the exclusive result of the sacrificial death of Christ….He decisively and once for all defeated Satan. (pp. 195-197)
If Satan was totally defeated by Christ, then why have we experienced 2,000 years of absolute misery and persecution? This would make God responsible for all the wars and atrocities of the past and the terrorism of today.
It is not the case that Jesus is making additional atonement as our Intercessor and our great High Priest in heaven….He is actually not making the final atonement but applying to us the results of the cross….The last generation of believers has no power to determine the time of probation’s close by their performance….The activities of the last generation, as presented by the defenders of LGT, seem to be self-centered, focused on the accomplishments and perfect characters of that group. Last generation theology language is very anthropocentric….The work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary should be understood as the application of the benefits of the atonement already made on the cross, and not as a continuation of the work of atonement that began on the cross….The focus of LGT is on our characters and our actions instead of being God-centered people….Last generation theology unacceptably downgrades and reduces the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross and its efficacy. It is Jesus (and not the last generation saints) who irrevocably, permanently, irreversibly, and irretrievably defeats Satan, vindicates God, and secures eternity for the entire universe. (pp. 201-203, 206-207)
We are told here that that there is no final atonement in the Most Holy Place. This means that we are still in the Holy Place aspect of the atoning process. The statements about being human –centered instead of God-centered and downgrading the death of Christ are exactly what evangelicals have been hurling at us for 100 years, and now they are coming from our Seminary professors!
Jesus delays His coming as God desires to save everyone….The more people who make decisions for God, the sooner God could close the time of probation….Our actions have no power to “push” forward His coming….Nowhere in the Bible or in Ellen G. White’s writings is there a statement that the last generation of the faithful will defeat Satan and that by living perfect lives they will finally vindicate God and cause the finishing of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the closing of the great controversy. (pp. 215-216)
To say that the delay in Christ’s return is due only because God wants to save more souls sounds nice until we realize that every year that goes by ten times as many souls will end up in hell. Since more babies are being born every minute, should Christ wait indefinitely for them? Why does Ellen White say that all heaven is waiting to see us vindicate God’s name? If we cannot hasten or delay the second coming, then why did Ellen White say that we would have to remain on earth many more years because of insubordination?
In chapter 24 of The Great Controversy…there is nothing in this whole chapter showing that Ellen G. White taught that, before the close of probation, God’s people will reach the state of sinless perfection….There is nothing in this whole description that points to a state of absolute sinlessness for God’s people after the close of probation….Nowhere does Ellen G. White indicate that they will have to go through that time without their Savior….Ellen G. White…rebuffs the idea that she taught that the last generation will be in a sinless state during the time of trouble….God’s people will not, during the time of trouble, reflect the image of Christ absolutely perfectly….Ellen G. White did not hold the idea of the sinless perfection of the last generation during the final crisis….Nowhere does she teach that God’s people will reach a particular state of absolutely sinlessness before the close of probation and that, after the close of probation, they will no longer have sin in any shape or form….She constantly insists that sinlessness is unattainable in this life. God’s people will never reach a sinless state as long as they are in this flesh. (pp. 227-232)
This is a total denial of the meaning of the close of probation. In light of the repeated statements about what Ellen White did not teach, the following are just a few of the statements of what she did teach. “None could share the refreshing unless they obtain the victory over every besetment, over pride, selfishness, love of the world, and over every wrong word and action.” (EW 71) After the close of probation, “God’s people fear that every sin has not been repented of.” (GC 619) “If the people of God had unconfessed sins to appear before them they would be overwhelmed…They have no concealed wrongs to reveal, their sins have gone beforehand to judgment and have been blotted out.” (GC 620) “There was no sin in [Christ] that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble.” (GC 623) “There will be no atoning blood to cleanse from sin.” (PP 201) Everyone who by faith obeys God’s commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.” (IHP 146) “[Christ] came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in His power His people might also live lives of sinlessness.” (RH April 1, 1902)
Good deeds are important for the salvation of others but not for our salvation. (p. 249)
This is pure evangelical teaching. They teach that good works (obedience) have nothing to do with personal salvation, but are useful for witnessing. However, Christ showed “that men and women, through His grace, might also live lives of perfect obedience. This is necessary to their salvation.” (RH March 15, 1906)
In the final chapter of this book the issues are summarized as follows:
- Sin is being born with a fallen nature
- Justification is being declared righteous only
- Sanctification will never be completed and we will never become sinless
- Satan charged that Adam and Eve could not keep the law (the reality is that he charged that the sons and daughters of Adam could not keep the law)
- If Christ took our nature He would need a Savior
- Christ’s death fully vindicated God with no need for a final atonement vindication
- A sinless final generation dishonors the glory of God – He wins with or without us
As you have read the excerpts from this book, you have had the “privilege” of sitting at the feet of Desmond Ford. This book is exactly what he taught at Pacific Union College and still teaches. Now his theology is being taught at the highest levels of Adventist scholarship to a whole generation of aspiring pastors. This may be the most dangerous development I have seen in thirty years. Now more than ever we need to become fully intelligent and mature in our understanding of Adventism’s message and mission, because right now the “very elect” are being deceived.
Another book was written by George Knight with the title End-time Events and the Last Generation. This was a full attack on M.L. Andreasen’s book on the sanctuary. Knight’s book said that human beings have nothing to do with completing the great controversy (which makes COL 69 meaningless). Of course this demands a repudiation the messages of Jones and Waggoner (despite Ellen White saying that their message was the beginning of the loud cry, and to reject their message was to reject Christ who was the giver of their message). The book recognizes that Ford and Heppenstall taught the same gospel. Simply put, what we are witnessing in these books is just the fruit growing on the tree planted in the 1950’s and watered by Ford in the 1970’s.
Another book was published by the Pacific Union Conference entitled In All Humility: Saying No to Last Generation Theology. A few excerpts follow.
The Bible is not as clear on some aspects of eschatology as many think, and…numerous questions will remain unanswered as long as we are in this world. In addition,, we must also recognize that Ellen White’s comments are not always totally clear and that at times they may even seem somewhat inconsistent….This should not worry us unduly, as long as we have a proper understanding of her role as a “lesser light.”
There will, undoubtedly, remain many questions, and we may never find satisfying answers to all of them. However, we are not left with only question marks. There are a number of crucial things we can be absolutely certain about:
-
- We are sinful and will remain sinful as long as we are in this world.
- The goal of sinless perfection is beyond our reach. However, we have the promise that when Christ comes we will be…changed into perfect beings.
- From our human perspective it may seem that He has delayed His coming, but God has determined the time of the return of His Son.
From this book we learn that Ellen White is not clear about end-time events, that we will remain sinful until Jesus returns, and that there has been no real delay in Jesus’ coming. These are exactly the same concepts we have encountered in the two previous books.
These books raise extraordinary challenges to the very heart of Adventist eschatology. If these concepts become mainstream in Adventist theology, all that we have taught about what the real issues are as God brings the great controversy to an end must be restructured. The importance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the remnant church of prophecy is virtually eliminated. Our beginnings in 1844 and our endings in the great time of trouble are not very significant. We are just one of many voices, each having some small aspect of the real truth about God, His character, and His government. Since Ellen White is not a reliable roadmap to the future, we might as well join with our evangelical colleagues, since our gospel seems to be the same as theirs, in proclaiming the soon return of Jesus to set up His millennial rule on earth.
As we speak, the very elect are being deceived. Now is the time, as never before, to know who we are and what we believe. The entire future of the Adventist movement is in our hands, and will be decided by our faithfulness or unfaithfulness to the calling of this movement into existence one hundred seventy-five years ago.
Why another study on righteousness by faith? Aren't there many other subjects we could profitably study? Why do we need yet another study on the gospel?
First, because the gospel is the heart of everything we are as Christians. Even if we've got everything else right, but are not clear about how we are saved, our correctness on doctrine won't matter much. There will be many, many people in heaven who will get their wrong doctrines straightened out in heaven. God will have lots of kindergarten classes in heaven, teaching people about all the simple things in the Bible that they didn't understand very well, but no one will be there whose heart is not surrendered to God. Everyone who is in heaven will first have learned to yield his life to God here on earth--everyone. We must be sure that we are absolutely certain about how salvation works.
Second, the errors on righteousness by faith keep coming at us from all angles. Challenges to the gospel of the Bible keep coming. It seems like a new error is developed every year or two, which demands our thoughtful response. It is very clear that Satan has made it his priority to confuse the gospel of the Bible, the only gospel which can save us from destruction. It has become very hard to stay away from the ditches on both sides of the road of salvation. Either we are trapped in legalism, trying to earn our right to heaven, or in cheap grace, claiming salvation while doing nothing to meet the most basic conditions of salvation. These ditches are very easy to fall into and hard to escape. Because of this confusion we must continue to study the basic truths of how salvation works.
The Challenge
An independent ministry published a while back a special issue of its flagship magazine....To my dispirited disappointment, its definition of the everlasting gospel was that "every man, woman, and child must die daily. We must surrender our will moment by moment to God-- the heart united with His heart, the mind united with His mind--only then can we think the thoughts and live the life of Jesus."
Here we are in the twenty-first century--more than 113 years after 1888--and this is how some still define the everlasting gospel? Isn't the everlasting gospel the good news that Jesus, the God-man, lived a life of perfect obedience to the law and then died as my substitute in order that I, by faith, can claim His perfect righteousness as my own, a righteousness that comes only by faith in His righteousness--a righteousness credited to me apart from "the works of the law"?...
Through the power of God's Spirit a believer can, indeed, die to self daily and, indeed, think the thoughts and live the life of Jesus. That's good news too. But the moment these internal actions be- come conditions for justification, the moment they become the means by which a person is saved, the good news gets blunted-- like with a sledgehammer.
Although the magazine's editors would be shocked to realize it, its theology is just like Roman Catholicism....Notice how humanistic, how sinner-centered, this understanding of the gospel is. We must die daily, we must surrender our will, we must do this, we just do that. The argument that it's God doing the works in us, and thus not our own, doesn't let them off the hook....It's still the people, themselves, doing these works, and if these works justify them, then they're saved by faith and works, period.
God does work in us so that we can become righteous; that's an undeniable part of the Christian experience. But no matter how righteous we become by what God does in us, our salvation still comes only from what God has done outside us, in the life and death of Jesus. Our hope of salvation must never remain centered upon ourselves, or what happens within; instead, the righteousness that saves us--the obedience that redeems us and the holiness that justifies us--always remains external to us, a righteousness that exists in heaven itself, "the righteousness of God" Himself.
It's too bad about that magazine....There's no Christ on their cross, which means that whatever good they offer comes burdened with the unbearable weight of salvation by works, which is no gospel and, certainly, not the "everlasting" one. (Clifford Goldstein, Adventist Review, November 22, 2001)
Response
Clifford Goldstein is directly challenging the gospel that some are teaching. Before we analyze this challenge, it might be well to notice some letters that came in to the Review after this column was printed.
Did Clifford Goldstein say there were no conditions to salvation?... There are certainly conditions that human beings must meet to gain salvation, and some of them can be difficult to meet, but meeting those conditions does not count for merit, does not qualify us for heaven, and does not constitute payment for, fitness for, or title to heaven. All of these things are gifts to us; all are based initially, always, and solely on the righteousness of Christ. The conditions merely guarantee that heaven's population is limited to those who think it's a good idea to have Jesus in charge. (Auburn, WA)
It is a matter of record that in recent years some who have been most eloquent in preaching the cross have left the denomination, carrying their entire church with them. I like what I once read: If legalism has killed its thousands, antinomianism has killed its ten thousands. There must have been a better way to express what Goldstein was trying to say. I am not sure that it is accurate, by merely quoting from just a piece of an article, to say that "they" believe in righteousness by works. (Orlando, FL) (Adventist Review, January 24, 2002)
Another response was printed in the Review shortly thereafter.
According to Goldstein's new view of the gospel,...Christ should have addressed Nicodemus in something like the following manner in John 3:3-8: "Nicodemus, you are a master of Israel, but what you need to understand [Mr. Pharisee/Legalist] is that you are justified by faith alone, outside of and apart from what happens inside of you. There are no conditions to your being justified or retaining justification other than your believing. This is the essence of the gospel. Once you understand this objective gospel, we can talk about being born again and the heart change that comes." Now this sounds like good news (almost)! Trouble is, the Master Teacher did not say it this way. Instead He insisted ( another must?) that Nicodemus be born again with water (cleansing) and with the Spirit.
An unpublished letter to Clifford Goldstein made these comments.
Regarding sanctified obedience having no part in man's salvation, as I follow your teaching to its logical conclusion, a few questions arise. If the Holy Spirit's work in us and its resultant obedience does not enter into salvation's picture because both are "works," whether or not it is God working in us, then do we have to DO anything, by His grace, to avoid receiving the beast's mark?...Why is "every man" judged "according to his works," if works, the inward working of the Spirit which produces both inward and outward righteousness, have nothing to do with his salvation?...If there is a truly definitive "Christless Cross," it is found in the theology that denies the essential (saving) work of His indwelling Spirit. It is a direct contradiction of the gospel of Jesus Christ; it is hailing Him as Savior while denying His Lordship with a kiss; and it is presumption. No father worthy of the name would attempt to raise his children without conditions of obedience. The Creator of the heavens and earth not only has conditions of obedience, He fills us with His own power of love to obey Him, to bear His image to the world, and to vindicate His name before the onlooking universe. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is full of conditions that have a direct bearing on our salvation. It is so clear, I cannot think how good minds become confused over this issue.
Analysis
Now, statements and counter-statements are not enough. All they illustrate is that there is much confusion about the gospel. What we desperately need to know is what the Bible says about the gospel, not just what human beings think about the gospel. So we are going to go back over this column by Clifford Goldstein (hereafter listed as CG) and do some analysis. We will also be referring to a response by Larry Kirkpatrick (hereafter listed as LK) on December 8, 2001 on his website (greatcontroversy.org). He begins his response in the following way.
From time to time we read articles that astonish us.... It really takes your breath away. The chief editor of our denomination's world-wide Adult Sabbath-School Bible Study Guide thinks what most of us understand to be the authentic gospel of Seventh-day Adventism is another gospel than the one he holds. The amazing thing is, he is exactly right as to that point; it is--and decidedly is--a different gospel.
CG challenges the view that "every man, woman and child must die daily. We must surrender our will moment by moment to God." His challenge is strong and direct: "Here we are in the twenty-first century...and this is how some still define the everlasting gospel. Isn't the everlasting gospel the good news that Jesus, the God-man, lived a life of perfect obedience to the law and then died as my substitute in order that I, by faith, can claim His perfect righteousness as my own, a righteousness that comes only by faith in His righteousness."
No one will oppose his belief that Jesus' perfect life and His substitutionary death is the foundation upon which our salvation is built. This is the incredible good news of the gospel. But right in CG's challenge is the statement that faith is necessary for salvation. Then the gospel is more than the life and death of Christ. Many people believe that Christ lived and died, but they have no faith in His saving power, and they will not be saved. The only way in which the gospel becomes good news for us personally is when we, by faith, accept His life and death in place of our sinful lives. Does this not make faith an essential condition of our salvation? Faith has no merit, and it cannot be the basis or cause of our salvation, but we will not be saved without faith.
Ellen White put it this way: "He is pardoned on condition that he receive Christ, confessing and repenting of his sins and becoming renewed." (Loma Linda Messages, pp. 103-4) "He has laid down conditions in His Word, and we should diligently, interestedly, with heart and mind, set about the task of learning these conditions, lest we make some mistake and fail to secure our title to the mansions above." (5 T 543) "We should know what we must do to be saved....We must meet the conditions laid down in the Word of God or die in our sins. We must know what moral changes are essential to be made in our characters, through the grace of Christ, in order to be fitted for the mansions above." (5 T 535)
As we look at some Bible verses, we are looking for conditions specified by God to take advantage of Christ's substitutionary life and death. "The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:15) Here repentance is a condition of salvation. While we fully understand that faith and repentance are gifts of God and come directly from the Holy Spirit, we must make personal choices to appropriate these gifts and use them to access the plan of salvation. There is a human aspect to the good news of the gospel.
Hebrews 11 is known as the great faith chapter. "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous....Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed....By faith Moses,...refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God." (Hebrews 11:4,11,24,25) It was through faith that Abel was counted righteous. Sarah didnt produce a son any more than we can produce salvation, but because of her faith, God performed the miracle. Moses refused and chose, by faith. Faith was a condition of the mighty works of God through all these heroes of faith.
John makes the conditions even more explicit. "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7) Notice that the text does not say that the one who does righteousness has already been declared righteous, and that this is just a fruit of his being righteous. Doing and righteousness are one and the same thing.
Paul describes the steps to salvation very clearly. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7) How are we saved? By washing, by regeneration, by renewing, by the Holy Spirit. All of these are steps in the salvation process, not results of the salvation experience. This is a crucial defining point in our study of the gospel. The evangelical Christian gospel teaches that all of these things are the inevitable result of accepting Christ and being saved. In other words, once we stand justified and saved, we will experience all these resuslts (which they call sancti fication) in due time, just as we will experience glorification in due time. This means that salvation does not depend on our experiencing regeneration and renewal, but on "being justified by his grace" apart from the new birth experience. But this text places regeneration and renewal as necessary steps in justification and salvation. Without these steps, we are not saved.
Ellen White says it clearly. "Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us." (SC 63) The work of the Holy Spirit in us is part of the ground of our salvation. "There must be an entire, unreserved surrender to God, a forsaking and turning away from the love of the world and earthly things, or we cannot be His disciples." (RH August 31, 1886) Surrender and forsaking seem to be definite conditions of being Christians. "God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul." (1 SM 366) "Salvation means to us complete surrender of soul, body, and spirit." (ST Nov. 15, 1899) It is crystal clear that surrender precedes justification. There is simply no salvation without surrender. Is surrender a condition of salvation then? It is not an option, it is not a result, it is a necessary step before we can be justified and saved. Incidentally, faith and surrender are one and the same thing. There is no genuine faith without heart surrender. Any faith without surrender is the kind the devils have, who believe and tremble. Surrender is the only way we can receive Christ's righteousness. Then perhaps surrendering the will and dying daily are vital parts of the everlasting gospel!
CG says, "But the moment these internal actions become conditions for justification, the moment they become the means by which a person is saved, the good news gets blunted--like with a sledgehammer." Let's look into inspiration again. "Implicit obedience is the condition of salvation.(ST Nov. 15, 1899) "The great gift of salvation is freely offered to us, through Jesus Christ, on condition that we obey the law of God." (ST Dec. 15, 1887) "Self-denial is the condition of salvation." (Bible Echo, Dec. 9, 1895) Do these conditions really blunt the good news like a sledgehammer?
Let us take one more look at the conditions named in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. Faith, repentance, surrender, obedience, self-denial. Do we begin to hear some peole shout, "Legalism"? The problem comes when we confuse the conditions of salvation with the means of salvation, which is exactly what CG did. The means of our salvation is Christ's life and His death on the cross. That's the only means of salvation we will ever have. God's grace sent His Holy Spirit searching for us before we even knew anything about God. Alll of these things are the means of salvation. The conditions of salvation are simply the things that we do in response to God, showing that we like God's means. We yield to His way of salvation rather than to our selfish wills. Conditions are not meritorious; means are meritorious. Conditions do not earn anything; they simply say, "I want to be part of the family. I want to be adopted. You have done everything you can do to save me, and now I choose to be part of Your plan."
When you are taking a trip by car, the engine and the fuel are the means of getting to your destination. But is something else necessary if you are going to get there? Do you have to get into the car, get behind the steering wheel, work some pedals on the floor and some levers to get there? Those are the conditions of your travel. But if there is no gas in the tank, you could sit behind the steering wheel for a month and you would never get anywhere. Fuel in the tank and an engine under the hood are the means, the cause, of your trip. The conditions of your trip involve getting into the car.
"When we exercise faith we obey and when we obey we exercise faith, but neither earns us salvation. Jesus' death counted to us and the work of His Spirit in us is salvation." (LK) If we separate faith from obedience, then we must answer the question, "How much later does obedience come?" Does it happen a minute later than faith, or an hour later, or a month later? If obedience is only a fruit of faith, then we can just sit back and wait for the fruit to appear. If God will just take away the temptations that I am bombarded with, then obedience will come as an inevitable fruit of my faith. Do you begin to see how much allowance this kind of thinking makes for continued sinning in my life--until God sees fit to remove the temptations? No, faith and surrender and obedience are synonymous. They happen together, and they are conditions of salvation.
CG continues, "Notice how humanistic, how sinner-centered, this understanding of the gospel is. We must die daily, we must surrender our will, we must do this, we must do that. The argument that it's God doing the works in us, and thus not our own, doesn't let them off the hook....It's still the people, themselves, doing these works, and if these works justify them, then they're saved by faith and works, period." These are very strong, even sarcastic comments. Let us see how they square with Scripture.
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." (Gal. 2:20) Being crucified with Christ sounds very much like dying daily, because the verse is about daily living in the flesh. Notice also who is living this daily Christian life. It is Christ living in me Who produces any good works that are ever going to happen in my life. Perhaps it is important here to differentiate between two kinds of "good works." A person who is not crucified with Christ can do good works in the eyes of fellow human beings. Being a good moral person is a noble thing, but it is a work of the flesh, produced by human motivations for human ends. A "good work" which is approved by God as part of His salvation plan is only a work which Christ does in us. The only "good work" the Bible knows of is the work of Christ living in us. It is never Christians themselves doing good works.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12-13) How are we to "work out" our salvation? God both wills and does in us. My working will produce absolutely nothing apart from God. As far as we allow, God will work in us to obey Him.
"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:...Whereunto I also labor, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Col. 1:27-29) Our striving is of value only as Christ is living in us and working in us. Any work which has relevance for eternal life will be a work produced by Christ in our lives.
"But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." (Mark 13:11) Who are we to depend on for "good words" to be spoken? We are to serve as mouthpieces for the Holy Spirit.
While we can choose to serve and obey God, we simply cannot carry out our choices. Romans 7 is very true for us in our own abilities. The good that we want to do, we do not carry out. Those things we do not want to do are the very things we end up doing. While we may want to obey God, it is simply not in our power to carry out our desires. True good works are possible only by God's grace and power. We ourselves can never do the kind of good works which are relevant to the salvation process. On the basis of Scripture, we must reject CG's contention that "it's still the people, themselves, doing these works." If they are truly good works, they are God's works which we are allowing Him to carry out in our lives.
CG continues, "But no matter how righteous we become by what God does in us, our salvation still comes only from what God has done outside us, in the life and death of Jesus. Our hope of salvation must never remain centered upon ourselves, or what happens within; instead, the righteousness that saves us--the obedience that redeems us and the holiness that justifies us--always remains external to us, a righteousness that exists in heaven itself."
LK responds, "But our hope of salvation has never been centered upon ourselves or on what Christ does in us. Can we be fair at this point too? All we hold is that those inspired statements that say that God works in us, that salvation includes an inward experience of regeneration, that 'Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us,' must be honored for what they tell us--no more, and no less. Al l we say is that a critical part of our salvation, besides what has happened outside of us, is also, according to inspiration, what happens inside of us."
In a recent Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, (March 18, 2003) CG's perspective found a practical application. In discussing the faith of Abraham, the author concluded, "However much Abram's life was a life of faith and obedience, it was not a life of perfect faith and perfect obedience....The righteousness that saves us is a righteousness that is credited to us, a righteousness that is...imputed to us. This means that we are declared righteous in the sight of God, despite our faults; it means that the God of heaven views us as righteous even if we are not." Here we have come face to face with the extreme danger of this understanding of the gospel. lt teaches that since we are saved by external righteousness alone, ongoing faults and unrighteousness in our lives are not relevant to our salvation. It says that we remain justified and saved while these faults and sins remain unconfessed and unsurrendered. If Abram remained justified while he was lying about his wife, then I can remain justified while lying to or about my wife. This gospel allows some unconfessed sin to remain in the life of a justified Christian, since the righteousness that saves us "always remains external to us." This is the heart and soul of the evangelical gospel which promises salvation apart from surrender and obedience, and which has led to so many unfortunate excesses in the popular churches today.
Some years ago the Adventist Review (August 12, 1982) reported a similar experience outside the Adventist Church. "Father Zacharia, pastor of the...Coptic Orthodox church,...experienced what can only be described as an evangelical conversion....Zacharia has been teaching that justification is 'a mere verdict of righteousness' without any inward renewal, or righteousness of character. That is, when God justifies sinners He declares them righteous without making them righteous." The Review article concluded that this view of justification "separates what the Reformers refused to separate, namely, the new status and the new life, justification and regeneration, the work of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit....Justification is not a legal fiction that leaves the justified sinner unchanged. For God justifies the sinner only if he is in Christ....New status, new life, new creation--we must not separate these blessings. They belong together and are given to all who are in Christ."
In his concluding thoughts about the magazine CG is criticizing, he says, "When some Adventists are trying to meld evolution with our faith, these people aren't; when some Adventists are questioning our prophetic message, these people aren't; when some Adventists are buying into the subjective and secularist-premised notions of historical criticism, these people aren't; when some Adventists are doubting the prophetic ministry of El len White, these people aren't. All of which is commendable, except for one technicality: there's no Christ on their cross, which means that whatever good they offer comes burdened with the unbearable weight of salvation by works, which is no gospel and, certainly, not the 'everlasting' one."
Two points are important here. First, he admits that "these people" strongly oppose the many attacks on the Adventist message during recent years, most of which have come from within Adventism. They have remained faithful to the foundations of the Adventist message. But since "these people" do not accept his version of the gospel, CG says that they have "no Christ," salvation by works, and "no gospel."
LK comments, "But the author of the article thinks that their gospel is a works-gospel, and rejects all their consistency on all their other points with the suggestion that they are presenting the issue of salvation in a misstated manner. This is his giant conundrum, the inexplicable corner he has painted himself into, his riddle and dilemma. Namely, if these folk to whom he refers are consistent in all these other points, isn't it possible that they are being consistent here too? Isn't it possible that they are rightly interpreting the Bible and Ellen G. White in their understanding of what the everlasting gospel is?"
Second, CG rightly points us to the importance of the gospel--the way of salvation. It is supremely important that we explain and defend the true gospel as our first priority. No matter how correct we may be on other issues, if our understanding of the gospel is faulty, our salvation may be in jeopardy. If CG is right that we have a gospel of salvation by works, does it really matter that we are right on all those other issues? If we truly believe in salvation by works, we are lost. CG has done us a real service by pointing us to the heart and soul of Christianity--the gospel message. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important than understanding the gospel correctly. If we don't know the gospel, our knowledge of creation and evolution means nothing.
Adventism believes very strongly in soul-winning and evangelism. But if our evangelism and Bible studies are based on a false gospel, evangelism may be the most dangerous thing we can do, because it will bring tares into the church and make people a little more comfortable on their way to hell. If we assure people that their salvation is entirely external to themselves, that they are declared righteous prior to an internal making righteous, that God will take care of major internal changes down the line somewhere, in due time, then their baptism into the church may be the most dangerous thing they have ever done in their lives. The only hope they have is that God will be able to overrule the false gospel by which they were brought to Christ, and point their sincere hearts to the real cross of Calvary.
In a later Adventist Review column (Jan. 23, 2003) CG pressed his position even more strongly.
I am saved by a righteousness that exists outside of me, a righteousness that is credited to me independent of my own personal righteousness....I can't imagine how anyone who knows the Lord, who has even seen a glimpse of God's righteousness as revealed in Jesus, could believe that whatever the Holy Spirit is doing in their lives is good enough to gi ve them saving merit before God....How could anyone drawing near to Jesus believe that whatever is happening in them justifies them in any way? This idea is so alien, so repugnant and antithetical to all that I have experienced over the years, that I'm amazed that people actually believe it. Without wanting to be judgmental, all I can think is that these folks, (have) never experienced justification by faith themselves.
In another Adventist Review article (Sept. 25, 2003) J. David Newman expressed this same understanding of the gospel in these words.
Salvation is made up of two parts--grace and transformation.... Grace is what saves us....It is outside us and is given to us freely when we place our trust in Jesus. Transformation begins to take place the moment we receive grace. Transformation takes place inside us. We always look to grace for the assurance of our salvation.
In other words, transformation, while it always follows our reception of grace, is not part of the saving process. Transformation is a result of salvation rather than the method of salvation. In this understanding of the gospel, grace remains essentially separate from transformation. No matter what protestations to the contrary, transformation in the new birth experience is removed from the saving act.
I believe that the columns by CG constitute an open declaration of war on the true gospel of Jesus Christ. He is saying exactly the same thing that Desmond Ford was saying some 25 years ago: Let's get our gospel straightened out so we can accomplish our mission. CG's understanding of the gospel is exactly what Dr. Ford was trying to convince Adventism of during those years. This evangelical understanding of the gospel will destroy Adventism just as surely as if we were to accept evolution in place of creation.
Seeds and Fruits
Now it is always true that fruit does not grow out of nothing. Fruits always come from seeds planted, and seeds usually appear innocuous and harmless. But we know that some seeds produce flowers while other seeds produce weeds. What were the theological seeds that have produced the evangelical-gospel fruits in the Adventist Church?
In 1979 there was a furor of discussion over justification, sanctification and the new birth. One hundred forty-five leaders in Adventism were called to headquarters to study these subjects and produce a document reflecting our position on righteousness by faith. The document was titled "The Dynamics of Salvation,'" and appeared in the Adventist Review July 31, 1980. Most of the conclusions in this paper were sound, but there were some seeds in it which have produced fruit.
In a section entitled "The New Status in Christ," we find five points--Justification, Reconciliation, Forgiveness, Adoption, and Sanctification (in the sense of consecration). Strangely enough, there was nothing about the new birth or transformation in this section. Then these sentences appeared, "But even if we slip and fall, our sins are not entirely like those of the unredeemed....As long as we stand in the faith relationship with God, we retain our new status as His sons and daughters." Now it is true that if we slip and fall and repent we retain our status in Christ. But what if we slip and fall and don't repent? What if we rationalize or defend or cherish our sin? Then do we retain our status in Christ? There was no discussion of this important distinction in this document. A seed was planted.
The next section was entitled "The New Life in Christ." Here we find New Birth and Restoration. This should not be in a separate section from "The New Status in Christ." This implies that once we are saved we will discuss the new birth and new life. The new birth was separated from justification and forgiveness. A very important seed was planted, separating salvation from the new birth.
In the discussion of growth (the usual meaning of sanctification), sanctification is equated with the works we do and the fruit we bear. Now sanctification is a result or fruit of salvation which comes along after our salvation has been accomplished. In this section there is nothing about sanctification being as much a gift of grace as is justification. Another important seed was planted.
Inspiration tells us, "Through faith in My name He (the Father) will impart to you the sanctification and holiness which will fit you for His work in a world of sin, and qualify you for an immortal inheritance in His kingdom." (ST June 18, 1896) Notice carefully that we do not produce sanctification or holiness. These are God's gifts of grace through faith, and they are necessary to qualify us for heaven. In other words, they are part of the salvation process, not just fruits of an accomplished salvation. "If the character which we develop during our probation is according to the divine Pattern, it qualifies us to receive the welcome, 'Well done.'" (1 MR 201) We are not qualified for heaven by justification alone. Both justification and sanctification are gifts of God and are necessary to salvation. One is not a condition and the other a result.
There is so much confusion on this subject right now that one sentence bears repeating. Sanctification is a gift of grace; it is not totally or partially a work of man.
In the document we have been considering, when obedience is discussed there is no mention of obedience being a condition of salvation, which is so clearly outlined by Ellen White. Seeds were planted in this statement (largely of omission and misplacement) which have made the evangelical gospel seem to be mainstream in Adventism. Deadly seeds always bear deadly fruits.
What's So Amazing About Grace?
Philip Yancey is perhaps the most popular writer in Christian circles today. His book, What's So Amazing About Grace? has been hailed by some as the top Christian bestseller. Among non-Adventist authors, he is likely the most popular in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As evidence of this, in 2001 the Avondale College Church (Australia), with the approval of the South Pacific Division, invited him to speak on grace. These presentations were then broadcast over satellite to 180 locations throughout the division.
In 2002 Kevin Paulson reviewed this book (available on www.greatcontroversy.org). Following are some of his most important comments.
Yancey's book has doubtless contributed to what might be called the "grace saturation" in numerous books, sermons, articles, Sabbath School lessons, and other features of contemporary Adventism. The word "grace" now rivals the word "relationship" in the church's popular vocabulary....Sadly, though, his book on the subject might have better been titled, Only Half of Grace....
The following Bible verses give the other half of grace, verses without mention in the nearly 300 pages of Yancey's book. "And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work." (2 Cor. 9:8) ..."Thou, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 2:1) "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." (Titus 2:11-12) ..."Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear." (Heb.12:28)...
Why does Yancey make no mention of Jesus' parable of the man who sold all he had to purchase the field with a hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)? Or the merchant who did the same in order to buy a pearl of great price (Matt. 13:45-46)? What about the parable of the talents, in which the diligent use of God's gifts decides our eternal destiny (Matt. 25:14-30)?...
In the Prodigal Son story,...Yancey...(implies) that repentance or the lack thereof made no difference to the father in Jesus' story....It remains true that the prodigal left the pigpen and his sinful life before his father took him back. We don't read of the father traveling to the city where his son partied, apologizing for the "legalistic" rules which drove the son away, then offering the son an unconditional invitation to return, irrespective of how he lived. Jesus taught no such gospel, no such perversion of divine grace. Likewise, in referring to the pa able of the servant forgiven for the ten thousand talents, Yancey fails to mention the Bible's clear teaching that the servant's forgiveness depended on his willingness to forgive another....
(Yancey) writes: "Jesus' kingdom calls us to another way, one that depends not on our performance but His own. We do not have to achieve but merely follow. He has already earned for us the costly victory of God's acceptance" (p. 72)....At one point he quotes favorably one who writes of "God's unconditional grace and forgive- ness" (p. 15), and quotes another who insists how grace comes with "no strings attached," demanding "nothing from us but that we shall await it with confidence and acknowledge it in gratitude" (p. 26)....
Like so much of evangelical Protestantism, as well as some within Adventism, Yancey teaches a salvation doctrine based on an "umbrella" view of God's forgiveness, a canopy supposedly covering past, present, and future sins--all at once....
Yancey, like so many others, makes no distinction between what we do in our own strength and what the sanctified Christian does through God's strength...."Jesus proclaimed unmistakably that God's law is so perfect and absolute that no one can achieve righteous- ness. Yet God's grace is so great that we do not have to" (p. 210).... "It is our human destiny on earth to remain imperfect, incomplete..." (p. 273). At one point Yancey writes that Jesus replaced the categories of "righteous" and "guilty" with "sinners who admit" and "sinners who deny" (p. 182)....
The fact is that if one accepts the doctrine of unconditional forgiveness and its Siamese twin--that sin can't be overcome even through God's power--all aspects of Christian living will suffer....Yancey's book ...offers the reader a half-gospel--freedom from guilt without freedom from sin. Only half of grace. Jesus presented the full gospel of Scripture in one very brief sentence, stated to the adul- terous woman thrown at His feet: "Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). Yancey's book focuses on the first half of this sentence. The other half it denies.
It is truly alarming that so many Seventh-day Adventists have allowed themselves to be taken captive by this book and its author. For those who were once "people of the Book" to let the Bi ble's unerring standard be held hostage to flowery words and emotional stories, is a crisis of no small magnitude....Yancey's book is a revealing commentary on the continuing fall of Protestant Babylon....
But unless, in Ellen White's words, we "preach Christ in the law," (RH March 11, 1890) neither will be correctly understood. The same Jesus who declared, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35) also stated, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31). "Love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13:10) because only if the law is fulfilled can we be sure true love is present. The new covenant of grace, identical throughout Scripture and never mentioned in Yancey's book, defines the inner core of the Christian's relationship to God: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer. 31:33).
Inspired Postscript
None need fail of attaining, in his sphere, to perfection of Christian character. By the sacrifice of Christ, provision has been made for the believer to receive all things that pertain to life and godliness. God calls upon us to reach the standard of perfection and places before us the example of Christ's character. In His humanity, perfected by a life of constant resistance of evil, the Savious showed that through cooperation with Divinity, human beings may in this life attain to perfection of character. This is God's assurance to us that we, too, may obtain complete victory....The holiness that God's Word declares he must have before he can be saved is the result of the working of divine grace as he bows in submission to the discipline and restraining influences of the Spirit of truth. Man's obedience can be made perfect only by the incense of Christ's righteousness, which fills with divine fragrance every act of obedience. The part of the Christian is to persevere in overcoming every fault....Glorious is the hope before the believer as he advances by faith toward the heights of Christian perfection. (AA 530-533)
As the mind dwells upon Christ, the character is molded after the divine similitude....We contemplate His character, and thus He is in all our thoughts. His love encloses us....His image is imprinted upon the eye of the soul, and affects every portion of our daily life, softening and subduing our whole nature....We have become transformed in character; for heart, soul, mind, are irradiated by the reflection of Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. Here again there is the realization of a personal, living influence dwelling in our hearts by faith....Jesus is to us an abiding presence, controlling our thoughts and ideas and actions....Jesus Christ is everything to us-- the first, the last, the best in everything; it is the warp and woof, the very texture of our entire being. (MYP 159-161)
It is by unceasing endeavor that we maintain the victory over the temptations of Satan....No one will be borne upward without stern, persevering effort in his own behalf....There are hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil that must be o vercome....We are to form habits of thought that will enable us to resist temptation. We must learn to look upward....A storm is coming, relentless in its fury. Are we prepared to meet it?...We need now the sword of the Lord to cut to the very soul and marrow of fleshly lusts, appetites, and passions...."Like as he who called you is holy, be ye ourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:15-16 ARV)....Now is the time to put forth earnest effort to overcome the natural tendencies of the carnal heart....Only as we see our utter helplessness and renounce all self-trust, shall we lay hold on divine power....All our good works are dependent on a power outside of ourselves; therefore there needs to be a continual reaching out of the heart after God....Perils surround us; and we are safe only as we feel our weakness and cling with the grasp of faith to our mighty Deliverer. (8T 313-316)
I submit these statements to you as the true gospel of Jesus Christ. What we have been analyzing is a half-gospel, and it may be the most dangerous thing that Satan has ever devised to destroy our hope of salvation. Our salvation, bought for us by the blood of Jesus, awaits our complete and total surrender to God, so that He can transform our life by His grace. May His grace and His gospel be real for each one of us.
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.