Ellen White and Sola Scriptura

One of the fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformation was sola scriptura, a Latin phrase which means, “by Scripture alone”. In the face of the medieval Catholic Church which placed equal weight on Scripture and church tradition–a practice which continues to this day–the Reformers saw the need to strip away the layers of error added to the Bible through the “inspired commentary” of the Pope and the traditions of the church. They argued that the Bible should be its own interpreter, and that if any church body was able to control it by claiming to be its sole infallible interpreter, then God’s Word would effectively be overruled by the traditions and insights of fallible men. Indeed, the Pope is said to be endowed with “situational infallibility” which allows him–a fallible human–to be totally infallible when it comes to matters of biblical interpretation.

It might come as a surprise that some Adventists claim the same role for Ellen White, and the arguments used in support are quite similar. While her claim for infallibility in the Testimonies is not new (see 8MR 18.1), there has been an effort by church leaders over the years to soften the claims made for her ability to comment on Scripture without error. This was particularly evident during the 1950s when cult expert Walter Martin began an investigation into Ellen White’s role in the Adventist church. One of the particular points he questioned church leaders about concerned whether she was an “infallible interpreter of Scripture”, arguing that if she was effectively used this way, she would be functioning no differently than the Pope.

In July of 2006, Adventist theologians from around the world met in Izmir, Turkey for the second International Bible Conference to address topics they considered important for maintaining theological unity within the church (see Adventist Review summary here). One of the speakers, P. Gerard Damsteegt, associate professor of church history at Andrews University, presented a paper entitled, “The Adventist Theologian, the Three Angels’ Messages, and the Unity of the Church”. I’ve obtained a copy of this paper and it offers important clues into the discussions taking place behind closed doors among Adventist theologians. For Adventists who thought their church was moving away from Ellen White’s role as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, the conclusions of this document will come as a surprise.

Read More...

Which Sins are Forgiven?

How is it possible for a perfectly just and holy God to forgive sinners? This is the question that lies at the heart of the doctrine of justification, and is answered by the apostle Paul in Romans 3:21-26:

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

The apostle Paul uses a legal term–justification–to demonstrate how God is able to simultaneously be holy, just, and to have fellowship with sinners. God’s holiness prevents him from simply overlooking sin and he would be unjust if he did not bring judgment against it. Being rich in mercy, God provided a way for sin to be forgiven through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, securing fellowship with his sinful children while simultaneously preserving his holiness and justice.

But exactly which sins are forgiven–past sins or all sins (past, present and future)? Adventists have historically come down on the “past sins only” side of this argument, leading to a situation where future sins can disqualify the believer from salvation. This is the essence of the investigative judgment teaching which asserts that even one unconfessed sin will leave the sinner without salvation (for previous articles on this topic, please see The Experience of Salvation and The Gospel, 1844 and Judgment).

Adventists are not alone in teaching this, however.

Read More...

Union with Christ

What does it mean to be in union with Christ and what are the repercussions of this somewhat mystical concept? As a new Christian, I heard others talk of being “joined to Christ” or in “union” with Christ, but I didn’t really understand what they meant.

My idea of this union became more fully developed when I considered my relationship with my wife. It seems obvious, but before our wedding, we did not enjoy the full benefits of the marriage relationship. For example, we were “on our own” when it came to most of the duties of daily life, including caring for ourselves, preparing meals, and keeping our living spaces clean. We were not able to enjoy uninterrupted companionship throughout the day and at night. Much of the “effort” of living was duplicated in parallel, while the trajectories of our lives were growing closer together until they would meet on the day of our wedding.

Prior to being married, it was difficult to imagine what was ahead of us, but this did not stop us from becoming lost in our imagination about what the future held. I distinctly remember thinking how wonderful it would be to not be forced to say “Goodbye” at the end of the day but instead, enjoy uninterrupted companionship throughout the night.

Looking back through the lens of over 10 years of marriage has given me perspective on what the marriage union entails. The benefits of this union are far greater than what I imagined they would be, and reflecting on them provides insight into what Christians mean when we say we are united to Christ.

Read More...

Lenski on Salvation

“To add anything to Christ as being necessary to salvation, say circumcision or any human work of any kind, is to deny that Christ is the complete Savior, is to put something human on a par with him, yea to make it the crowning point. That is fatal. A bridge to heaven that is built of 99/100 of Christ and even only 1/100 of anything human breaks down at the joint and ceases to be a bridge. Even if Christ be thought of as carrying us 999 miles of the way, and something merely human be required for the last mile, this would leave us hanging in the air with heaven being still far away.” R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles

$3 Worth of Gospel, Please

This short passage was highlighted recently on Justin Taylor’s excellent blog, Between Two Worlds. The passage is taken from D. A. Carson’s Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians, penetrating to the heart of what has infected much of Christianity today, much less Adventism and Former Adventism:

“I would like to buy about three dollars worth of gospel, please.

Not too much — just enough to make me happy, but not so much that I get addicted.

I don’t want so much gospel that I learn to really hate covetousness and lust.

I certainly don’t want so much that I start to love my enemies, cherish self-denial, and contemplate missionary service in some alien culture.

I want ecstasy, not repentance;

I want transcendence, not transformation.

I would like to be cherished by some nice, forgiving, broad-minded people, but I myself don’t want to love those from different races — especially if they smell.

I would like enough gospel to make my family secure and my children well behaved, but not so much that I find my ambitions redirected or my giving too greatly enlarged.

I would like about three dollars worth of the gospel, please.” (pp. 12-13)

These are penetrating words. May they lead us to greater self-examination so that we desire repentance, transformation, and gospel truth in Jesus at the expense of worldly security and comfort. In short, may we desire much, much more than $3 worth of gospel.