Dale Ratzlaff, a prominent ex-Adventist minister, has written: “Does the SDA doctrine of the cleansing of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment distort, undermine, or contradict the one and only new covenant gospel of grace?” (The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, p. 319)
Exactly why has there been such opposition to the teaching of the investigative judgment? Less than two years following 1980, former Adventist professor Smuts van Rooyen was asked in an interview, “What do you see as being wrong with the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment?” He replied:
Letme answer that by reading a statement from Ellen White. She wrote this in the book The Great Controversy. “Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven…there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon the earth.”
What the investigative judgment boils down to in practice is this: When John Doe confesses the sin of impatience, that sin is not cancelled, but recorded. The blood of Jesus has simply transferred the sin from John to the sanctuary. In the judgment John must face that sin again. If by that time he has not overcome the sin, it remains against him. This then makes it imperative that John overcome every sin he has ever confessed. He must, in fact, reach perfection….Now perfectionism is a terrible thing and it leads to devastating insecurity in one’s Christian experience, but perfectionism is an integral part of Mrs. White’s investigative judgment doctrine. (“Interview with Smuts van Rooyen,”Evangelica, May, 1982, p. 14)
So the real issue is not 1844, but righteousness by faith, specifically the teaching of victory over all sin before Jesus comes. Some years later, Morris Venden wrote: “The dialogue concerning the investigative judgment…within our church today seems primarily an attempt to settle on our beliefs concerning sin and righteousness and salvation.” (Never Without an Intercessor, pp. 7-8)
In his most recent book, Desmond Ford wrote the following: “I would also strongly recommend Woodrow W. Whidden’s book Ellen White on Salvation.” Ford’s wife Gillian was very explicit: “It was Ford’s emphasis on righteousness by faith that led him to see the necessity for reinterpretation of the SDA scheme of prophecy.” (For the Sake of the Gospel, pp. 85, 153)
It is very clear that all discussion of the investigative judgment and the final atonement and the most holy place is really about the gospel and the method of salvation. For Ford and others who hold to this salvation theology, the following are their key points:
Involuntary sin—the belief that all become sinners simply by being born.
The unfallen nature of Christ—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].
Salvation by justification alone—the belief that the ground of the Christian’s salvation includes justifying righteousness only, as distinct from thetransforming, empowering righteousness of regeneration and sanctification [which are only results of salvation].
Justification as exclusively declarative and not transformative—the belief that justifying righteousness only declares a believer righteous, as distinct fromactually making him righteous.
Imperfectability of Christian character—the belief that even through imparted divine strength, perfect obedience to the divine law remains impossible for the Christian in this life. (Kevin D. Paulson, “Righteousness By Faith and the Sanctuary Doctrine,” Adventists Affirm, Summer, 2009, pp.18-19)
There is also the question of whether the atoning ministry of Christ was finished on the cross. The “finished work of Christ” concept here considered goes beyond the simple truth that Jesus died for the whole world and brought an end to the Old Testament sacrificial system. Here are some sample statements: “Jesus Christ took away your sins…two thousand years ago.” (Desmond Ford quoted in Conflicting Concepts of Righteousness By Faith, p. 82) “God forgave us 2,000 years ago….And with His death, it is finished.’” (Steve Marshall, Blessed Assurance, p. 21)
Logically, this theory leads to the belief that all our sins—past, present, and future—have already been forgiven, and that once a person accepts Christ, future sins are forgiven just as surely as past ones. Adventist advocates of this teaching have used such terms as “overarching forgiveness,” “the umbrella of eternal grace,” and have illustrated the concept by a man wearing a black suit with a white umbrella overhead. One author believes salvation to be based on justification alone, declaring the “the righteousness God produces in us…has no saving value.” (Jack Sequeira, Beyond Belief, p. 170)
Ford insists that the final blotting out of believers’ sins takes place when one accepts Christ, without any need for a a future blotting out of recorded sins in a heavenly judgment. Because objectors to the sanctuary doctrine tend to believe our sins have already been removed by Christ on the cross, and thus need not be removed either from the heavenly sanctuary or the Christian’s earthly life, sanctification is thus reduced to an unspecified, never-completed work which functions only as proof that a person has been justified.
The definitions we give for sin, justification, sanctification, the basis of salvation, and God’s ultimate requirements for His people, exert tremendous logical force on our conclusions concerning such key Adventist doctrines as the sanctuary, the Sabbath, the remnant-church theology, and much more. If one accepts the evangelical gospel, with its “justification-alone” salvation and belief in the imperfectability of Christian character, the notion of a heavenly tribunal investigating the thoughts and deeds of professed Christians is both needless and noxious. Salvation has been completed at the cross, and all that is necessary for the Christian is to accept this finished reality.
Those seeking to blend key features of the evangelical gospel with the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine must of necessity compromise features of both systems in order to achieve such a synthesis. [This is what has been happening over the past twenty years by the most respected pastors and teachers in the church, in a desperate attempt to blend two incompatible belief systems, so that we can avoid being labeled a cult.] But neither
Scripture, the writings of Ellen White, nor simple logic allow for such harmony. The consequences of such efforts will continue to be tension, inconsistent assumptions, and a precariously brokered peace. [What we are calling “unity in diversity” in actuality is “disunity in disagreement,” with much suspicion on both sides.] And in the end…such efforts must fail. (Kevin Paulson, pp. 27, 37,38)
What Is Sin?
Since the basis for opposite gospels is the meaning of sin, let us refresh our memories about what is at stake here. Ellen White stated, “Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is ‘the transgression of the law.’” (The Great Controversy, p. 493) When Ellen White made that statement, was she making a theological statement, or was she simply being devotional? When it comes to theological issues like sin and salvation, some interpreters have already decided that since Ellen White was not a trained systematic theologian, the statements in her books merely constitute a devotional description.
The Bible tells us that Jesus came to save us from our sins, which means that our understanding of sin is interrelated to other issues like justification, sanctification, and the high priestly ministry of Christ in the holy and most holy places. The interpretation of sin touches in practical issues like the nature of temptation and the possibility of developing a perfect character in this sin-filled world.
We are going to look at “paradigms” for a little while. A paradigm is a pattern of thinking to explain observed data. It is usually based on unproved but reasonable assumptions. One paradigm says that the earth is the center of the universe, while another paradigm says that the earth is on the edge of one galaxy.
The Ptolemaic paradigm did not morph into the Copernican paradigm by the accumulation of adjustments to itself. Rather, it was replaced by a paradigm that was diametrically opposed to it and completely incompatible with it. As Leonard Brand…stated, “Putting the sun in the middle of the universe is one option, and putting the earth in the middle is another. One can’t make a compromise between them; we must choose one or the other.” How does this relate to the issue of the interpretation of sin? The correct understanding of sin…must be placed in the correct paradigm. If this does not take place, then one cannot come to the correct understanding….
The early church fathers…were heavily dependent on Greek philosophy for their understanding of the doctrine of God, the doctrine of man, and…the doctrine of sin….Augustine [says]…”God sovereignly predestines everything that happens, including both sin and evil…and salvation and righteousness.”…The magisterial Reformers like Luther and Calvin tended to accept Augustine’s views on this matter. Also some Adventists tend to base their view of sin, justification, and sanctification on the view of the Reformers.
[How did this paradigm influence the meaning of sin?] “The newborn infant as well as the middle-aged person…is corrupt and guilty because of the connection with Adam.” Augustine stated that…after the fall “people are free to sin but not free not to sin.” Thus sin, righteousness, salvation, and damnation are all the results of God’s decision, not yours. If you cooperated with God and are saved, it’s because He decided, and if you are lost, you had nothing to do with it. The doctrine of original sin has its basis in the doctrine of predestination as interpreted by Greek philosophy….Under the Greek philosophical paradigm expressed by Augustine, freedom not to sin does not exist. Moreover, if that is the case, then to define sin as transgression and hold a person accountable for it makes absolutely no sense if the person was merely carrying out the irresistible will of an omnipotent God. (Karl Tsaltabasidis, “What Is Sin?” Adventists Affirm, Summer, 2009, pp. 43-45)
Now let us look at an inspired analysis, from the writings of Ellen White. “It is Satan’s constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. His sophistry lessens the obligation of the divine law and gives men license to sin.” (The Great Controversy, pp. 568,569) Thus, the enemy’s mission statement includes misrepresenting the nature of sin because he knows that the end result will be a lessening regarding the obligation of the divine law.
“The teachings of the heathen philosophers…exerted an influence in the church. Many who professed conversion still clung to the tenets of their pagan philosophy….Serious errors were thus introduced into the Christian faith. Prominent among these was the belief in man’s natural immortality and his consciousness in death.” (The Great Controversy, p. 58) On account of the body/soul dichotomy, the experience of salvation takes place in the timeless soul that has no causal connection with the body. Furthermore, the body is where original sin reigns. Within this paradigm, condemnation is the result of having sinful flesh, which includes impulses, tendencies, and desires.
The immortality of the soul, as it is considered within the paradigm of Platonic philosophy, assumes the absolute sovereignty of God and the total depravity of man. While in this totally depraved state, man’s condition is hopeless. He is born into this world already guilty and condemned for Adam’s sin. The only freedom he possesses is the freedom to sin. He is incapable of even choosing not to sin. Augustine taught that God chooses some out of the human mass of perdition to receive the gift of faith by grace and leaves others to their deserved damnation.
The implication is clear, that sin has nothing to do with the transgression of the law. If God has decreed you to be righteous, then you cannot resist His will. The concepts of freedom, choice, and sin must be interpreted within the Greek philosophical framework, and when that is done, one is either saved or lost by God’s eternal decrees. Sin is forever divorced from choice and character development has already been fixed by God.
“To many minds the origin of sin and the reason for its existence are a source of great perplexity….There are those who, in their inquiries concerning the existence of sin, endeavor to search into that which God has never revealed….Others, however, fail of asatisfactory understanding of the great problem of evil, from the fact that tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealings with sin.” (The Great Controversy, p. 492)
In the predestination paradigm, “the salvation of heaven depends upon nothing which we can do in this life; neither upon a present change of heart, nor upon present belief, or a present profession of religion.” (The Great Controversy, p. 538) The immortality of the soul, original sin, and total depravity lead directly to the conclusion that sin has nothing to do with choice. Thus, the root cause of the notion that sin is divorced from choice lies in the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and divine decrees that spring from the Greek philosophical paradigm. The consequences for Christology and lifestyle issues are enormous. The data can only be interpreted by either one system or the other but not by a blending of the two.
The great controversy paradigm is very different from the predestination paradigm. It opens to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious. “The sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ’s work in behalf of man….It opens to view the plan of redemption….It is of the utmost importance that all should thoroughly investigate these subjects.” (The Great Controversy, pp. 488,489) If the plan of redemption itself must be interpreted from within the sanctuary doctrine, then by logical consistency, the doctrine of sin must also be understood from the same paradigm.
“Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator….Their characters must be purified from sin….Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven…there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth.” (The Great Controversy, p. 425)
This passage is clearly in opposition to several areas already discussed under the Greek philosophical paradigm…In the previous paradigm, guilt and Condemnation arise from simply having sinful flesh which includes tendencies. These have been received by inheritance and are not eliminated by conversion….If sin is to be put away by “the grace of God and their own diligent effort” then human beings must have freedom to sin as well as not to sin. This means that the biblical paradigm does not support the idea of total depravity and the bondage of the will….This definition of temptation and sin can only make sense in light of the great controversy theme where individuals have complete freedom. (Tsaltabasidis, pp. 52,53)
The following statement has great implications for sin, temptation, victory, and Christology. “Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ. Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation….This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble. It is in this life that we are to separate sin from us.” (The Great Controversy, p. 623) This passage indicates that sin as transgression is the only definition that will work.
In the following passage Mrs. White stated that contamination and defilement come only when a person is free not to sin. Christ’s “victories make it possible for us to conquer….No man without his own consent can be overcome by Satan. The tempter has no power to control the will or to force the soul to sin. He may distress, but he cannot contaminate.” (The Great Controversy, p. 510) “Willfully violating one of God’s requirements…silences the witnessing voice of the Spirit and separates the soul from God. ‘Sin is the transgression of the law.’” (The Great Controversy, p. 472)
Once the sanctuary/great controversy theme is discerned as the paradigm, the only definition of sin that works is transgression….Putting away sin does not refer to the sinful flesh but to the deeds of the flesh. Inheriting a sinful nature from Adam does not contaminate our character, neither does it make us guilty; it’s transgression that does that. Also, inheriting sinful flesh does not destroy a person’s ability to choose to be free from sin….Ellen White’s insistence that “our only definition of sin” is “the transgression of the law” is in fact a theological statement….She rejected the Greek philosophical paradigm that produced natural immortality, total depravity, and the doctrine of divine decrees which sees sin as totally divorced from choice, and when she referred to putting away sin by cooperating with the grace of God…her statements assume that human beings possess genuine freedom to choose whom they will serve….Judgment only makes sense if sin is defined as transgression…. It is no more possible to blend the two paradigms than it is to use the earth and the sun as models at the same time in order to explain planetary motion. Just like the correct definition of sin, one must choose in which paradigm to work. (Tsaltabasidis, pp. 55,56)
The great controversy theme must be the foundation and guide to our reasoning. It is very strange but very true that an irreconcilable division between two vastly different and opposite claims still remains in the great controversy theme as interpreted by some Adventist teachers. In the true great controversy paradigm sin has fundamentally two components: 1) the weakening effect of Adam’s transgression, passed down to us through the law of heredity in a fallen, sinful, sin-prone human nature, of which none are guilty, and 2) our own sinful choices and acts, for which we are responsible and liable. The only thing we inherited from the fall of Adam, and as a consequence of his fall, is a weakened human nature, the fallen sinful flesh. However, in no way do we receive any guilt or condemnation from, or deserve any punishment for, Adam’s sin. To believe this would necessitate accepting the Roman Catholic, as well as the Protestant, teaching of the dogma of “original sin.” Subsequently, we would be compelled to believe in and practice the error of infant baptism.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we are born sinners, and that “original sin…is universal. Every child is therefore defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam’s disobedience….Hence baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man, in order to attain the kingdom of heaven.” (Cardinal James Gibbons, Faith of our Fathers, p. 311) The Augsburg Confession of Protestant Princes reads, “Since the fall of Adam, all men…are born in sin, which places under condemnation and brings eternal death to all who are not born again by baptism and the Holy Ghost.” (J.A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, part 1, p. 597)
The Nature of Christ
The teaching of “original sin,” stemmed from Greek paganism, and was further channeled by…Augustine…into the Roman Catholic Church and held by the majority of Protestants…It is the false belief in “original sin”…that logically requires that Christ assume the human nature of man before the fall, to ostensibly free Him from the presumed guilt of “original sin.” The next logical step, of course, is accepting the false belief of the immaculate conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus, so that He could receive a sinless human nature….False belief about the nature of sin leads to false belief about the nature of salvation….Whatever conclusion is reached regarding the effect of the fall of Adam, (and the nature of the sin transmitted in that fall), will also logically determine our conclusions on the human nature of Jesus Christ….Norman Gulley wrote that the two conflicting understandings of the human nature of Christ “spring from two different understandings of what constitutes sin.”…
He became one of us in that He took on, at His incarnation…the same weakened, fallen, human raw material…that we have as a result of the fall. Sinless human nature before the fall could not die, but sinful human flesh after the fall could die….At His incarnation, Christ took on the fallen weakened nature of humanity, the “sinful flesh,” the same humanity of the men and women He came to save. That was the whole point of Him condescending to become a man….Jesus took on the same “sinful flesh” of the fallen human nature to which we are subjected and defeated the power of sin in that same fallen, human, sinful flesh. As Jesus relied on and received God’s strength to do all that He did, so we can, in complete surrender to Christ, experience victory and salvation from sin.
It may be surprising to many that the most eminent Protestant theologians of the second half of the twentieth century…have openly declared Christ’s human nature to be that of man after the fall….During 100 years, 1852-1952, Adventists taught the post-fall human nature of Christ as the undisputed…Adventist position….Today, a majority of Protestants, and increasingly (for the most part, unwittingly) in the SDA church today, have accepted that Christ took the human nature of Christ before the fall. (Daniel Ferraz.“The Humanity of the Son of God Is Everything to Us,” Adventists Affirm, Summer, 2009, pp. 68-74)
A few Ellen White comments are relevant here. “The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. This is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our study….And the study of the incarnation of Christ is a fruitful field, which will repay the searcher who digs deep for present truth.” (Youth’s Instructor, Oct. 13, 1898) “The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam.” (Review and Herald, Feb. 24, 1874)
To shift the Seventh-day Adventist Church from its consistently held…position from 1852-1952 on the fallen human nature of Christ represented a formidable task…One of the strongest and most active proponents of this…new anti-Adventist interpretation, proposing the pre-fall human nature of Christ, was LeRoy Edwin Froom….When Barnhouse and Martin discussed with the QOD trio “the problem of the Incarnation,”…they were assured that “the majority of the denomination have always taught the humanity of Christ to be without sin, holy and perfect, despite the fact that certain of their authors have on occasion, succeeded into getting into print, opinions completely contrary and repugnant to the majority of the church.”…
Apparently, QOD did not significantly improve Barnhouse’s perception of Seventh-day Adventists. He is reported to have said: “All I am saying is that the Adventists are Christians. I still think their doctrines are about the screwiest of any group of Christians in the
world.”…
[In summary], the Bible teaches that we inherited the effect, and not the guilt of, Adam’s sin. Adam transmitted…a weakened, fallen, human nature, with an inclination to sin….We have fundamentally, two basic theological systems upon which to build. There is the Roman Catholic/Calvinistic/Evangelical grid, whose predominant claims are: the Augustinian sovereignty of God, we are all born sinners, need infant baptism, will continue sinning until the Lord returns….Romans 7 describes a converted man,…Jesus was born with a sinless human nature like Adam’s before the fall, His human nature was not like ours. Therefore, the crucial descriptions of salvation, the “new birth,”…being a “new creation,”…having Christ “dwell” in us,…are incapable of being rightly understood….
Then there is the Adventist form of Arminianism, which maintains that we were all born with a endency toward sin; however, if we live completely surrendered and dependent on God as Christ was, we can experience salvation “from” our sins now….”Christ in you, the hope of glory.”…Jesus is our substitute and our example of victorious living….Jesus was born with a fallen human nature like Adam’s after the fall, His human nature was like ours….Thus, crucial descriptions of conversion can be rightly understood….
Attempting to resolve the debate over Christ’s human nature cannot be done by amalgamation of the pre-fall and post-fall interpretations. It is a question of one or the other. QOD was the ultimate Trojan horse that “officially” opened the floodgates of Catholic and Calvinistic theology into the divinely established Seventh-day Adventist belief system. This book effectively seeks to reverse a hundred years of…Adventist teaching on the fallen human nature of Christ….This part of our church history…will help us understand the internal disunity regarding our Christian standards, our remnant identity,…the reasons for the delay of Christ’s second coming. (Ferraz, pp.77-87)
The stakes are extremely high as Jean Zurcher pointed out in Touched With Our Feelings. “If we are mistaken about the human nature of Jesus, we risk being mistaken about every aspect of the plan of salvation. We may fail to understand the redemptive reality of the grace bestowed upon humans by Jesus to set humanity free from the power of sin.”
Ellen White warns us, “In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity.” (Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929)
Why, then, do some strategically placed conservative Adventists…persist in holding to the pre-fall view?...1) Respect for authority….What is assumed and taught through the church’s established channels—especially if its promoters appear gracious, deeply spiritual, and otherwise faithful to classic Adventist teachings—is easy to accept and take for granted. Such persons often ask themselves, silently if not vocally, “How can so many good, intelligent, obviously committed Seventh-day Adventist Christians be mistaken?”…
2)Negative associations with the post-fall view….The assumption has been widely promoted…that belief in post-fall Christology is a trademark of critical, anti-denominational malcontents more interested in throwing rocks at the church than in doing God’s work….
3)Pious revulsion to the thought of Jesus experiencing fallen, fleshly temptations….The idea of our pure, spotless Saviour having anything that could be called “sinful” is abhorrent to certain ones….To think of wicked desires pulsing through the nerves and senses of their unblemished Lord, even if thoroughly resisted by a sanctified will, is deeply disturbing. Knowing their own penchant to yield to such urges,…they don’t want the incarnate Christ anywhere near such struggles. (Kevin D. Paulson, “Why Some Conservative Adventists Remain Confused About the Human Nature of Christ”)
Justification and Sanctification
What bearing do the issues of sin and the nature of Christ have on the daily experience of salvation, which we know as justification and sanctification? The following two letters were sent to Ministry, one from a Catholic priest and one from a Lutheran pastor. Both letters referred to the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church. The priest commented, “It details a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ Jesus.” The Lutheran pastor said, “Roman Catholics and Lutherans now agree on the essence of justification by grace through faith.” He referred to “Benedict’s wonderful paper on justification which he gave last year.” (Ministry, May, 2010, p. 4)
Are the commonly held false views of sin and the nature of Christ blurring the lines between Catholicism and Protestantism on the practical issues of the gospel, like justification by faith? The truth is, the Adventist gospel is not the typical Catholic gospel or the typical Protestant gospel, which may be why it is not liked by either group. Ellen White states, “It is by continual surrender of the will, by continual obedience, that the blessing of justification is retained.” (1 SM 397) This theme is repeated throughout Scripture, and it places a major emphasis on sanctification in this gospel. The following letter is an example of the unique Adventist understanding of the gospel. “Here is where many Protestants and Catholics fail equally, substituting church traditions for the standard of God’s Word….Christians are fully justified from the first moment they believe, on the basis of Christ’s works and none of their own. Yet this free gift may be lost if we fail to appropriate the other blessings that come with it: conviction of God’s will and the power to carry it out.” (Ministry, May 2010, p. 4) In other words, justification without sanctification is a false gospel.
Johnny…loved sledding. One snow-white day Johnny climbed a hill behind his house that he had never sledded down before. It was steep, so he knew he’d really fly….His mom was out in the backyard and saw the sled bearing her son speeding down the hill. Then she saw the half-hidden, neck-high barbed-wire fence that he was speeding toward. “Lie down,” she screamed. Against the blinding white snow Johnny didn’t see the fence nor any reason to lie down. ut he heard his mom’s command, and he did what he had always done: he obeyed. Lying back on the sled, he flashed under the fence and into his mom’s arms….
Johnny brings us face-to-face with a question in our relationship with God: Are we to obey God even when we don’t understand why?...Does a trust relationship with God ask for obedience even when we don’t understand God’s commands?...We all have one great pressing need in common: the need to base our faithfulness to God on His utter, unwavering, unfailing faithfulness toward us. Sometimes that means obeying without understanding; being willing to act before the fact. (Adventist Review, June 27, 2010, p. 23)
The truth that obedience comes before complete understanding because we trust God sets the Adventist gospel apart from all other versions of the gospel. Remember, righteousness is supposed to be by faith, and it is always connected with our response of total, unquestioning obedience. This is why only the Adventist gospel can honestly speak of true Christian perfection. True Christian perfection is seen most clearly in Christ. His pure attitude motivated His absolute obedience resulting in a complete oneness with the Father. Ellen White applies this to our experience. “This sacrifice was offered for the purpose of restoring man to his original perfection: yea more…to give him an entire transformation of character.” (Ms. 49, 1898)
The imparted righteousness of Christ is the work He does in us, of changing us into His image, a oneness with Him. This is what being perfect in our sphere truly means. It is to be perfectly one with Him. Our attitudes are changed, motivating obedience in us to reflect Him fully….We grab everything of Christ we can get a hold of, denying that which shadows His glory. By beholding we become like Him and are changed into His glory….
Scientists have recently discovered a way to make the first 100 percent completely flat and smooth surface on machined and highly polished glass. It is so flat and smooth that when two of these thick sheets of glass are slid one over the other, displacing all the air, the bond between the molecules becomes so great that it is near impossible to separate the two sheets of glass. They are truly one….The righteousness that He wants to impart to us is the perfect oneness we can have through His Spirit’s leading. Obedience motivated by genuine love allows Him daily to grind and polish us until we are so absolutely bonded as one in Him that we will be nearly impossible to separate. (Adventist World, Dec. 2009, p. 31)
This unique and precious Adventist understanding makes it especially difficult to hear the previous editor of the Adventist Review say, “The issues frequently heard involve…Christ’s human nature and Christian perfection. A small but vociferous minority continue to urge the ideal of sinless perfection. They do not have the support of church leaders, however….If we are to speak of uniqueness concerning Adventist doctrine, then it is in the configuration of doctrines rather than in individual beliefs.”
This doesn’t square with inspired counsel, however. “There is as great difference in our faith and that of nominal professors as the heavens are higher than the earth.” (2 SG 300) Raymond Cottrell wrote, “Were Seventh-day Adventists to yield their distinctive teachings in order to win and wear the robe of theological respectability, they would doubtless be accepted by other Christian bodies, but in so doing they would be traitor to the truths that have made them a people….They would no longer be Seventh-day Adventists.”(Review and Herald, May 15, 1958)
“Satan is now using every device in this sealing time to keep the minds of God’s people from the present truth and to cause them to waver. I saw a covering that God was drawing over His people to protect them in the time of trouble; and every soul that was decided on the truth and was pure in heart was to be covered with the covering of the Almighty.” (EW 43) “We need to be enlightened in regard to the plan of salvation.
There is not one in one hundred who understands for himself the Bible truth on this subject that is so necessary to our present and eternal welfare.” (RH Sept. 3, 1889)
The promise of the most holy place is the promise of perfection of character, a perfection from all sins, both known and unknown. By ignoring the two apartments and teaching only the blessing of the first apartment is in essence saying that there is no difference. It is marching back toward Egypt and back before 1844. It is attempting to close the open door and to open the closed door. “The enemies of the present truth have been trying to open the door of the holy place, that Jesus has shut, and to close the door of the most holy place, which He opened in 1844.” (EW 43)
The only special truth that Adventists have that is not taught by any other denomination is the message of the final atonement—the cleansing of the sanctuary. “The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers.” (EW 254) “Everything that is imperfect in us will have been seen and put away. All envy and jealousy and evil surmising and every selfish plan will have been banished from the life.” (3 SM 427)
But why should all this be delayed until 1844? The only sensible reason is that God is seeking to prepare a people whose unqualified conquest of evil in their lives will forever demolish the charges of Satan against God’s government. The final atonement has been held off until the end of time because only then will God have a totally perfected people. God could use a man like Martin Luther in a previous era—one who drank beer and hated Jews—but He cannot accept such performance from believers at the close of the great controversy. Time has lingered through Inquisition and Holocaust, slavery and segregation, because God continues to wait for a generation whose unbroken triumph over sin will forever silence the charges of the adversary. What some have called “last generation theology” is, therefore, the logical and essential corollary of the 1844 ivestigative judgment doctrine.
STILL UNDER GRACE
Now all this is high theology, in fact, higher than the highest human thought can reach. I want to close with some encouraging thoughts.
God’s first statement to the fallen world was Genesis 3:15. Despite their sin, the Lord immediately gave to Adam and Eve the promise of redemption. It is worth noting that only after this promise was given, only after grace and salvation is revealed, does the Lord pronounce judgment on Adam and Eve. The promise of salvation came first, followed by judgment. Only against the promise of the gospel does judgment come.
The very concept of the gospel carries within itself the concept of condemnation—a condemnation we don’t have to face. That’s the “good news.” Though we have violated God’s law, and though God will judge those violations, in Christ Jesus we are spared the condemnation that this judgment would certainly bring. In Revelation 14 the “eternal gospel” comes first, followed by the announcement of judgment, just as in Genesis 3. Judgment is there, but not before the gospel. Thus, the foundation of our present truth message has to be grace, the good news that though we deserve condemnation, we stand pardoned, purified, and justified through Jesus.
From Israel there is more good news. To ancient Egyptians, a person’s name was a very real part of a person. Their houses, although primarily mud brick, were constructed with stone doorposts and lintels. On the doorpost was inscribed the name of the person who lived inside. Even if the house was destroyed, the chance of the name existing through the survival of the stone was very good.
When God required the Israelites to paint the blood of the Passover lamb on the doorposts and lintels, He was asking them to cover their names with the blood of the Lamb. Their names on stone did not ensure their future life; only the blood of the Lamb could do that. We need to learn the same lesson. It matters where our name is written. The only important book is the Lamb’s Book of Life. To have our names written in that book we need to accept the Lamb’s blood, which takes the place of our own.
Of course, there is more to our walk with God than this, but it all starts here. The Israelites began their exodus out of Egypt by putting the blood of the Passover lamb over their names, and then they began their journey with God. It is the same for us. Our path may be long and hard, but we can begin our journey with our names covered with the blood of the Lamb.
In the previous article, we noted that Norman Gulley will allow Jesus in His humanity to be like us in every way except sin. Because he defines sin as fallen nature, he must insist that Christ did not take our fallen nature, or at least those aspects of our fallen nature which constitute sin. This leads to some very interesting ideas, as he expressed them in his articles in the Adventist Review.
Immaculate (Miraculous) Conception
Norman Gulley believes that Jesus took both a fallen and an unfallen nature. "It was fallen in being deprived like ours, but unfallen in not being depraved like ours." (AR, April 26, 1990) Now, since the normal laws of heredity do not allow for the inheritance of "deprived" but not "depraved" characteristics, Gulley has come up with a solution to this problem. He does not favor the solution devised by Catholicism, known as the immaculate conception. "Rather than this immaculate conception, it is the miraculous conception that is designated by Scripture." (AR, Jan. 25, 1990) In other words, Mary's genetic deficiencies were altered by the Holy Spirit so that she would pass on a totally unique heredity to Christ, completely unlike the heredity we receive from our parents.
This sounds like a reasonable explanation of a difficult problem. The question we must ask is, Is it in harmony with inspiration? Paul says in Rom. 1:3, "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Gulley's solution is that Christ was made partially but not completely of the seed of David. The clearest statement on the subject in the Spirit of Prophecy is in DA 49. "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." Is there even a hint here that Jesus' heredity was similar to, but not exactly like other men? Ellen White emphatically states just the opposite, that His heredity was just the same as His ancestors. One of Christ's ancestors was Seth, and Ellen White says of Seth, "Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents." (PP 80) Whatever Seth received through heredity, Jesus received through heredity. This is the only possible conclusion that can be reached from these passages, and it is due only to a preconceived assumption about the nature of sin that these statements are not accepted at face value.
Harry Johnson, in his book The Humanity of the Saviour, says it most simply and pointedly, "There is no evidence to suggest that the chain of heredity was broken between Mary and Jesus." (London: The Epworth Press, 1962, p. 44) This is the crucial point. Gulley asserts that the chain of heredity was partially broken. Where is the evidence for this, outside of a theological assumption?
One of the reasons that the doctrine of the immaculate conception was developed in the Catholic Church was to protect Jesus from any taint of sin. If Mary did not have a fallen nature, then of course Jesus could not inherit a fallen nature from her. Now Protestants rejected the doctrine of the immaculate conception on the basis that it was not found in Scripture, but was based on a theological assumption about the nature of sin. But Protestants had the same problem to solve as Catholics. Because they shared the view that the fallen nature is sin, Protestants also had to protect Jesus from any taint of sin. They did this in the way that Gulley suggests, that Mary's fallen nature was only partially passed on to Jesus. In the womb of Mary a special miracle was performed so that no sinful tendencies or drives would be passed from Mary to Jesus. Gulley calls this the "miraculous conception."
The real question is, Are we going to accept the simple, straightforward statements of inspiration or the involved theological reasoning we have just surveyed? We as a church profess to repudiate the doctrine of the immaculate conception, but at the most critical point we fall back on its explanation for Jesus' birth. While we reject Mary's sinlessness, and we reject the teaching that Mary passed nothing on to Jesus through heredity, we eagerly accept a partial blockage of the hereditary line when it comes to desires and tendencies. This is simply a modified and more subtle version of the immaculate conception. Are we really sure that we are out of the Church of Rome? Gulley's "miraculous conception" is really a direct descendant in the theological line of the immaculate conception.
Gulley's reasoning here leads to a very strange idea just a few sentences later. "He must be one with us in nature, but not one with us in sin (nature or acts)." (AR, Jan. 25, 1990) This comes out saying that Christ must be one with us in nature but not one with us in nature or acts. Strange reasoning, indeed!
How Was Jesus Tempted?
Gulley asserts that there was nothing sinful within Jesus to respond to Satan's temptations. He says that Jesus could only be tempted to use His sinless passions and drives in an unlawful way. "Nowhere do inspired sources speak of Satan appealing to some fallen inclination within Jesus, for He was sinless by nature." (AR, Feb. 1, 1990)
Let us look at a few inspired sources. "The victory gained was designed, not only to set an example to those who have fallen under the power of appetite, but to qualify the Redeemer for His special work of reaching to the very depths of human woe. By experiencing in Himself the strength of Satan's temptation, and of human sufferings and infirmities, He would know how to succor those who should put forth efforts to help themselves." (RH, Mar. 18, 1875) Now just where does the strength of Satan's temptations reside? Inspiration tells us that "his (our) strongest temptations will come from within, for he must battle against the inclinations of the natural heart." (Christ Tempted As We Are, p. 11) If our strongest temptations come from our battle against the inclinations of the natural heart, and if Christ experienced within Himself the strength of Satan' s temptations, then obviously those inclinations were within Christ also. 1f we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us....He endured every trial to which we are subject." (DA 24) Our trials are clearly daily trials, from the cradle to the grave, and if Jesus would have been exempted from these daily, inward trials, Satan would declare the insufficiency of the power of God on that point.
Because of his presuppositions about the nature of sin, Gulley has a very interesting theory regarding Jesus' temptations. "Because His humanity was sinless, Jesus could not experience the inner sinful urgings of sinful humans. But it was necessary that He, as our example, experience an equivalency in intensity while remaining a sinless human.... But through a 40 day intensification, His gnawing hunger became equivalent to the worst sinful drives ever experienced by humans… The human became so emaciated and stressed out, through a nearly six week fast, that His consuming passion to eat became equivalent to sinful passions of men." (AR, Feb. 1, 1990) This theory, that the sinless nature of Jesus was augmented supernaturally during the forty day fast, that His sinless passions were intensified until they were as strong as the passions of the worst sinner, is just that--a theory unsupported by any evidence from the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy. It is difficult to know how to respond to this theory, since it is so bereft of inspired statements to support it, and it lies in the realm of speculation and supposition. To suggest that gnawing hunger can be intensified so that it can somehow be equivalent to our tendencies to selfishness, pride, jealousy, anger, despair, etc.; and to imply that Christ's victory over hunger teaches us how to deal with our sinful tendencies, is surely reaching to the limit to concoct a theory, unsupported by any evidence, in order to maintain a cherished presupposition. The evidence is far more persuasive for another point of view. Rather than Jesus' sinless appetite being intensified to be like our sinful appetites, Jesus was bringing His inherited sinful appetite under the absolute control of the Spirit during the fast so that forever after, He and fallen man could have total victory over sinful appetite.
In his footnotes, Norman Gulley gives credit to Steve Wallace for developing this "insight" about Christ's temptations. It should be noted here that the viewpoints expressed by Gulley and Wallace on the nature of sin and the nature of Christ are remarkably similar, so much so that there is no important difference between their viewpoints.
Likeness
Gulley believes that Jesus being made "in the likeness of sinful flesh" in Rom. 8:3 should be compared to the brazen serpent Moses lifted up in the wilderness. "Just as that brazen serpent only looked like a serpent, so the sinless Jesus only took the 'likeness of sinful flesh.'" (AR, Feb. 8, 1990) It is of some importance that the same word, in exactly the same form in Greek, is used in Phil. 2:7 in the phrase, "in the likeness of men." Would Gulley want to say that Jesus only looked like a man, but He wasn't a real human being? It would seem far more logical and contextual to interpret Rom. 8:3 by the parallel expression in Phil. 2:7, rather than reaching to a completely different Scriptural author and context for an explanation. "Likeness" simply does not mean "unlikeness," no matter how much our presuppositions would like it to be so.
Perfect Obedience?
The theological rubber hits the practical road at the point where all of this is applied to our personal experience. Can the born-again Christian, with Christ dwelling within, perfectly obey the law of God? Can a justified and sanctified Christian live without sinning? Gulley's answer to these questions is clearly, Not before glorification. "Sinless in nature, sinless in life--both were demanded by the law." (AR, Feb. 8, 1990) Since we can never be sinless in nature, then it follows that we cannot perfectly obey the law. "Clearly man is still corrupt, in spite of Christ's life and death. And this corruption in nature continues until the Second Advent." (AR, Feb. 15, 1990) Notice that man is corrupt because of having a corrupt nature. In spite of victory over temptation, reflecting Christ's image, and being willing to die rather than commit a wrong act, the whole man is still corrupt and sinning and guilty, needing "substitutionary intercession" all the way to the second coming. "Christians never obey as did the perfect Adam.... Even our best works of obedience and worship are tainted by our corruption....This is because of the carnal nature, which taints even our best works." (AR, Feb. 15, 1990)
Gulley believes that if Christ would have had a sinful nature, He could not have perfectly obeyed the law. The only way He could have a perfect character to keep a perfect law was by His taking a perfectly sinless nature. Thus perfect obedience is tied tightly to perfect nature. No one with a sinful nature can perfectly obey the law or be sinless.
Is this Seventh-day Adventist righteousness by faith? Let us check the words of inspiration. "We are to place our will on the side of the Lord's will, and firmly determine that by His grace we will be free from sin." (RH, Aug. 1, 1893) "To everyone who surrenders fully to God is given the privilege of living without sin." (RH, Sept. 27, 1906) Please remember that all these statements describe those who have no choice but to live in a sinful nature until the second coming. "He (Christ) showed that it is possible for man perfectly to obey the law." (FLB 114) "Christ took humanity... that He might show men and women that they could live without sin." (UL 303) "Christ came to this earth and lived a life of perfect obedience, that men and women, through His grace, might also live lives of perfect obedience." (RH, Mar. 15, 1906) "Christ died to make it possible for you to cease to sin." (RH, Aug. 28, 1894) "Those who are truly sanctified by a knowledge of God will render perfect obedience to God's requirements." (RH, Sept. 3, 1901) "...proving that its precepts could be perfectly obeyed through His grace by every son and daughter of Adam." (RH, Mar. 1L4, 1895) Clearly inspiration teaches that fallen men and women can perfectly obey the law. There is no hint of the necessity of a sinless nature before perfect obedience is possible.
Norman Gulley places great emphasis on Ellen White's statement that our "religious services" are so defiled by ''passing through the corrupt channels of humanity'' that they cannot be of value with God "unless purified by blood." (6BC 1078) Could it be that the assumption that the corrupt channel is fallen nature, is not valid? Ellen White says that "Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God." (Ms. 57, 1890; Ms. Release 1211) Could corruption be related to disobedience rather than to hereditary equipment? In other words, what corrupts our fallen channels is chosen disloyalty. Ellen White says that the true Christian "is without a spot of guilt upon the conscience, or a taint of corruption upon the soul." (7BC 909) Even though we must live constantly within the restrictions of a fallen nature, we may be free from even a taint of corruption. If the corrupt channels of our humanity refer to our corrupted channels rather than our fallen nature, then her statement makes perfect sense.
Please reread the statements by Gulley at the beginning of this section and compare them carefully with the inspired statements. The discrepancy is so obvious that further comment would be redundant.
Our Sinless Substitute
Heb. 2:14,15 tells us that "through death" Jesus would "destroy him that had the power of death" and would "deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Verse 17 tells us that the only way Christ could do this was "to be made like unto his brethren," not in some things but "in all things." Inspiration further tells us, "The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam." (RH, Feb. 24, 1874) It could not be accomplished if Christ took unfallen Adam's place, or if He took no one's place (partially like Adam and partially like us). To be our sinless Substitute, He had to overcome the liabilities of our fallen nature. What had become an irresistible force to man, Christ must make a conquered power. Even though this statement from the SDA Bible Commentary is not inspired, it shows a deep understanding of Christ's redemptive act. "Christ met, overcame, and condemned sin in the sphere in which it had previously exercised its dominion and mastery. The flesh, the scene of sin's former triumphs, now became the scene of its defeat and expulsion." (Vol. 6, p. 562)
The issue of the Incarnation was, Could God really overcome sin in Satan's ultimate stronghold, the fallen human heart? If human weaknesses and tendencies and desires could be subject to God's law, then Satan would lose his greatest battle, and the great controversy would be truly decided. But if God would exempt His Son from some human tendencies, then would the great controversy be any closer to its conclusion than when Satan was expelled from heaven?
When Jesus prevailed, a loud voice was heard in heaven proclaiming, "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of 'Our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down." (Rev. 12:10) Do we really want to rob Jesus of His great victory under the guise of making Him our "sinless Substitute"? Will we continue to deny Him the full salvation that He wrought not only over acts of sin but over fallen, weak, sinful human nature, in which Satan thought he reigned supreme since the fall of Adam? Let us allow Christ to be truly our sinless Substitute as well as our holy Example. Let us be very careful to keep the hub of our faith in dead center, or we will be in jeopardy of losing everything that Adventism stands for. Only the real Christ, providing a real atonement, can lead His church through to final victory.
In January and February of 1990 readers of the Adventist Review were asked to consider again the subject of the human nature of Jesus Christ. In a six-part series entitled “Model or Substitute,” Norman Gulley asked the question, “Does it matter how we see Jesus?” In concluding the first article in his series, Gulley stated, “Jesus is to Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs what the hub is to spokes in a wheel. You can perhaps get by with a bent spoke or two, but when the hub is off-center, the wheel is in jeopardy. That is our doctrinal predicament today in the church.” (AR, Jan. 18, 1990) How well stated. A faulty understanding of who Jesus is and what He accomplished will skew one’s understanding of righteousness by faith, the gospel, and the very mission of the church. We must indeed exert every effort to be sure that the hub of our faith is not off-center. When we are dealing with the heart of our reason for being Christians, we dare not evade the issues or ignore potentially controversial ideas.
The Issue Is Sin
Although the series was designed to consider the evidence regarding the human nature of Christ, such evidence is not really the determining factor in our conclusions regarding the nature of Christ. The real issue is the evidence regarding the nature of sin. Whatever conclusion is reached regarding what sin is will determine our conclusions on the nature of Christ. Gulley recognized this point when he said that the two conflicting views on the nature of Christ “spring from two differing understandings of what constitutes sin.” (AR Jan. 25, 1990)
We must not underestimate the importance of this issue. Our conclusion regarding what constitutes sin will affect not only the nature of Christ, but what justification and sanctification are designed to accomplish and whether or not perfection of character and sinless living are legitimate possibilities or fanatical fantasies. Richard Taylor recognized this point many years ago in his book, A Right Conception of Sin. “The question of sin is so basically related to the nature of God and the plan of redemption, it is the one doctrine by which all others can be reduced to their simplest significance. Furthermore, it forms the surest and most logical measuring stick by which the accuracy of those doctrines can be detected. The doc?trines relating to sin form the center around which we build our entire theological system... Many, perhaps most, of the errors which have protruded themselves into Christian theology can be finally traced to a faulty conception of sin. Because someone’s notions of sin were a bit off color, his entire trend of reasoning was misdirected... To reason from a false premise is to start an endless chain of false conclusions. Therefore we say that one who does not have correct views of sin is not apt to have correct views of any other fundamental question. This will especially be manifest in regard to his theory of the atonement and God’s method of redeeming man.... And to insist on correct views of sin is to make it impossible to stray very far from essential truth.” (Beacon Hill Press, 1945, pp. 9-11)
Sin or Effects of Sin
One of the reasons that this subject has seemed so confusing is because of a lack of simple definitions. Nothing seems to be said about the difference between the effects of sin and sin itself. Adam’s sin has had many effects on this planet. Death reigns in the human, animal, and plant kingdoms, suffering and pain fill our days, nature reveals the dominance of tooth and claw, and the earth itself is full of the violence and tragedy of sin’s curse. Although the effects of sin are far-reaching and ultimately lethal, no one ascribes personal guilt or condemnation to the effects of sin. No plant, animal, or human is guilty because of being caught in the deadly effects of sin.
On the other hand, the concept of sin is associated with guilt, condemnation, separation from God, judgment, and the second death. Our focus, as we discuss righteousness by faith or the nature of Christ, must be on sin itself rather than the effects of sin. Ultimately, God will remove all the effects of sin from His universe, but our focus in studying the Biblical gospel must be to understand what sin is, and how it can be forgiven and cleansed right now. In the current debate, the issue is man’s fallen nature. Is fallen nature part of sin itself, or one of the effects of sin? Our conclusions regarding the nature of Christ will be determined by the answer we give to this simple question.
Original Sin
We are indebted to Dr. Gulley for stating his position clearly and succinctly. After listing the three major definitions of sin as act, relationship, and nature, he asks, “Is it possible that sin includes all three definitions? Might sinfulness (nature, broken relationship) and sins (acts) be considered as cause and effect?” (AR, Jan. 25, 1990) In other words, the sin of having a fallen nature is the primary sin, which leads inevitably to the secondary sin of breaking the law.
Gulley further explains that this is the Augustinian view of sin. In this view, a person is a sinner by nature at birth, already under condemnation by God, therefore he commits acts of sin inevitably, for which he receives added condemnation. Perhaps the most precise explanation of this view of sin was given centuries ago by John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. “All are originally depraved....Guilt is from nature....Even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb suffer... for their own defect....Men are born vicious....We are all sinners by nature.” (Book II, ch. 1, #5,6,7,8,9,10,27)
One who believes that this is the correct position must also believe that sin is continuous from birth to the grave. Since we are born with fallen natures, and keep them after the new birth, our primary sin is constantly a part of our lives, even though we may choose not to commit various acts of sin. Thus from birth to death we are constantly sinning, and we must have continuous forgiveness for our continuous guilt.
This understanding of sin, which Gulley admits was not part of early Adventist theology, presents several problems. How does an infant receive personal forgiveness for its personal guilt, when there is no consciousness either of guilt or forgiveness? Who chooses for the baby? After we rise from the waters of baptism, we are just as much sinners as we were before the new birth, because our primary sin of nature has not been removed by conversion. After the close of probation, when the censer of forgiving grace has been cast down, we are still sinning by nature. Even though we may choose to die rather than sin in act, we are still just as guilty of the primary sin of nature as we were when in open rebellion against God, and we need continuous forgiveness of that sin as much as ever. How is this forgiving grace supplied when the work of mercy for sinners has closed, and all must stand in God’s sight without a Mediator, with no ongoing intercession for our sins? (EW 48,71; GC 614; SR 403) Obviously there is no possibility of sinless living as long as we keep these fallen, sinning natures, despite the inspired testimony that we can “live lives of sinlessness.” (RH, April 1, 1902; II-IP 146) The Augustinian view of sin may have a rich tradition in Christian history, but it is impossible to blend this view with the Adventist understanding of the great controversy.
Romans 5
The primary Scripture evidence Gulley provides for his thesis is the comparison between Adam and the human race in Romans 5. Based on this comparison, he states, “This state of sin, or sinful nature, is itself in need of salvation long before the first conscious act of sin....Those wanting to confine sin and death to personal sinning apparently overlook this comparison.” (AR, Jan. 25, 1990) This is a strange conclusion, since a straightforward reading of the text leads to exactly the opposite conclusion.
The clearest summary of the entire chapter is verse 18. “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Gulley insists that we understand the parallelism in this passage. In fact, he has overlooked the most obvious parallel. Because of Adam’s sin all men were truly condemned. Because of his rebellion, Adam was subject to immediate annihilation (the second death), and the entire human race was thereby subject to the same condemnation and annihilation. But the second half of the verse tells us that Christ reversed that penalty for the same all men condemned by Adam. In other words, the corporate condemnation brought by Adam is cancelled by the corporate justification brought by Christ. Because of His atoning death, all men have been freed from Adam’s condemnation.
Inspiration tells us that Christ’s death “restored the whole race of men to favor with God.” (1SM 343) E. J. Waggoner commented on this verse nearly a hundred years ago. “As the condemnation came upon all, so the justification comes upon all...the free gift comes upon all.” (ST, March 12, 1896)
This straightforward understanding of Romans 5 completely destroys the false concept of original sin which has misled Christians for most of the Christian centuries. This chapter says absolutely nothing about being sinners by nature. In fact, it says that we have been freed from whatever condemnation Adam brought into the world. Because Christ is the true head of the race, although we are born with all the effects of sin in and upon us, we are not born either guilty or condemned.
Gulley believes that the clearest support for original sin in the Old Testament is found in Ps. 51:5. Once again, the text says nothing about being sinners by nature. To be “shapen in iniquity,” and conceived “in sin’ tells us only about the effects of Adam’s sin upon the race. It says nothing about what constitutes sin and personal guilt. Because of Adam’s sin we are all born in a sinful environment with a sinful nature, but we must have much clearer evidence to prove that sinful nature constitutes sin.
One of Gulley’s most misleading arguments goes like this: “If a baby dies a few hours or days after birth, it is still subject to the second death-the condemnation death-even though it has never broken any commandment. If this were not so, then babies who died would not need a Saviour.” (AR, Jan. 25, 1990) Romans 5 completely destroys his premise that a baby is subject to the second death. To say that all babies need a Saviour has become one of the most misleading clich's in current thinking on righteousness by faith. Because of the atonement, the entire race has been freed from automatic condemnation because of Adam’s sin. Now, we have to live with the ongoing effects of sin until they are finally removed by the recreative aspect of the atonement at the second coming and the end of the millennium. All of this has indeed been accomplished by the atonement provided through Christ. But the common understanding of “needing a Saviour” carries with it implications of personal forgiveness from personal guilt. Yes, a baby needs a Saviour, a suffering planet needs a Saviour, blind men and lame men need a Saviour, but not in the sense of personal forgiveness for personal sin and guilt. Once again, we are confusing the effects of sin and sin itself.
Fallen Nature and Sin
As stated earlier in this article, the key issue is whether fallen nature is one of the effects of sin or is sin itself. Let us ask this question in light of some of the clearest texts in the Bible on the subject of sin. 1 John 3:4 tells us that “sin is the transgression of the law,” and it ties this to “whosoever committeth sin.” The entire context deals with our choice to sin or not to sin. Nothing is said or implied about an ongoing inevitable state of sin preceding our actual transgression of the law.
Eight different times Ellen White says something very similar to the following statement. “The only definition for sin that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law.” (ST, Mar. 3, 1890; 1SM 320; 7BC 951; GC 493, etc.) If 1 John 3:4 is really the clearest Biblical definition of sin available to us, then why are we searching so desperately for more obscure passages needing a healthy dose of reinterpretation to support a different definition of sin? Is it because we have accepted an unbiblical definition for sin from major thinkers such as Augustine, and now we are trying to justify this unsound belief from unclear texts which have nothing to do with defining sin? Is not this similar to the practice of some who try to support the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness from scattered texts which must be forced by reinterpretation to say what they do not really mean?
Romans 14:23 says that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Once again the context speaks of doubt and faith, both clearly within the domain of conscious decision-making. James 4:17 tells us that “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Here sin is restricted to knowledge and choice. The clearest texts describing sin say nothing of fallen nature being an inevitable, ongoing state of sin which overrides our choice to sin or not to sin. To say that sin is nature is to say that we are sinning even when we are choosing not to sin. Could it be that this understanding of sin as something inevitable and ongoing has greatly dulled our sensitivity to real sin (transgression of God’s law) so that now we have come to accept specific transgressions as simply expressions of the greater sin of having a fallen nature? In other words, we have come to accept sinning as a normal part of life and even Christian life.
Some want to define sin as a broken relationship or separation from God. Isa. 59:2 describes the relationship between sin and separation. “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God.” It is sin that separates us from God, that breaks our relationship with Him, rather than the other way around. Ellen White tells us that when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, this “was the transgression of God’s immutable and holy law, and it separated man from God.” (SC 33) Yes, sin is indeed a state, but it follows the decision to sin against God, and it continues as long as the heart remains unrepentant. As long as we remain in a state of sin, no forgiveness is possible and we are lost. The state of sin is not an acceptable and necessary condition for the Christian, as we are currently being taught.
Those who want to prove that fallen nature is sin itself rather than an effect of sin have simply not proved their case. Being born into this world means several things. It means that we are subject to hunger and thirst, weariness and pain, suffering and death. It means that the planet we live on may try to destroy us. It means being born by sinful parents, receiving a sinful nature, and living in a sinful environment. But it does not mean being born guilty of sin or condemned because of depravity. Although we receive all of the effects of sin, including a fallen nature, we are not guilty of sin. The effects of sin must be separated from sin itself.
Because we are born with fallen natures in a fallen world, we are naturally predisposed to commit acts of sin. The act of sin occurs, not when the deed is done, but when the decision is made by the mind to harbor thoughts or motivations which are contrary to God’s will. The decision to sin, unless repented of, leads inevitably to a state of sin, which is separation and estrangement from God. The state of sin leads to increasing rebellion and darkness until it is night in the soul.
Original Sin and Adventism
Near the end of his article (AR, Jan. 25, 1990) Norman Gulley quotes several statements from Ellen White to show that human nature was corrupted because of Adam’s sin, and he concludes that every man is born a sinner and separated from God. All these statements prove is that every man is born with the effects of Adam’s sin deep within his nature. The conclusion that man is a sinner by nature comes, not from the Bible or from Adventism, but straight from Babylon. Its roots reach back to Augustine in the Roman Catholic Church, and have been transmitted to mainline Protestantism through the writings of Luther and Calvin. Today evangelical Protestants champion this view of sin, and they have been quite eager to see this view become part of Adventism. It is mind-boggling to realize how successful their attempts have been. The evangelical view of sin is accepted within the highest levels of Adventist scholarship today, and has even penetrated into various levels of conference leadership. Many pastors and laymen have accepted its validity, and the result is a deepening crisis in Adventist theology.
The evangelical position on sin makes it impossible to accept the long-standing Adventist position that Christ took our very nature of sin, triumphing over sin in that dangerous nature, and pointing the way for every human being caught in sin’s deadly effects to escape by God’s forgiving and transforming grace. Adventism has long believed that Christ could be both our Substitute and our Example in this simple way. Now, because of the evangelical position on sin, we are being told that Christ could not be our Substitute if He really took our fallen nature from birth. Instead of a simple and straightforward gospel, we are now forced to devise rather complicated devices to allow Christ to take part of human heredity while being exempted from certain hereditary traits.
This new-to-Adventism view of sin also makes it impossible to make significant statements about the possibility of overcoming sin totally before the close of probation. Once again, clarity and simplicity have been sacrificed for the sake of compromise with non-Adventist belief systems. We are searching for theological acceptance, but is the price far too high?