For the Gospel Forum

Sin & Grace in the Christian Life

2007-08-20T23:11:30-08:00

On this week’s White Horse Inn radio program (free download here), an important question with implications for current and former Adventists (and all Christians) is addressed: Is the salvation of Christians who die with unconfessed sin in peril? For those who grew up in the Adventist church and were taught the historic doctrine of the investigative judgment, the answer is an unequivocal “Yes”. Ellen White taught that if even one unconfessed sin was found in the heavenly record books, the professing Christian’s name would be blotted out from the Book of Life and their eternal salvation would be forfeited. For example, in The Great Controversy, she wrote, “All who have ever taken upon themselves the name of Christ must pass its searching scrutiny… Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned, and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner in the day of God… Words once spoken, deeds once done, can never be recalled. Angels have registered both the good and the evil. The mightiest conqueror upon the earth can not call back the record of even a single day. Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe. Though they may be forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to justify or to condemn.” (The Great Controversy, 1940 edition, page 552). Flying in the face of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, Ellen White taught in this passage a view of justification held by many of her day–God will forgive past sins, but for the present and future you are on your own. Under this teaching, if a professed Christian commits a sin at any point, the sin will not be covered by Jesus unless the believer specifically recalls the sin and asks for forgiveness.

Maybe some of us think this teaching is a leftover relic of another era, or maybe it is completely confined to the historic branch of the Seventh-day Adventist church. But is this really the case? Reflecting on his own Christian (non-Adventist) upbringing, Michael Horton, one of the hosts of the White Horse Inn, says, “In the circles in which I was raised, salvation was free for something like the first 60 days. ... There was this ‘grace period’ where the convert was lavished with good news–Christ died for sinners, no matter how big, Jesus paid it all. Wow, Jesus paid it all! Ah yes, but then came the ‘all to Him I owe’ part...just after I thought it was all of Christ, all by grace alone, suddenly the bills showed up together with all the fine print.” Horton later asks the rhetorical question that inevitably arises when discussing God’s unmerited favor, “If grace is free, won’t that lead to laziness, or license [to sin]?” Horton concludes that this fear is the reason for all of the “fine print” which turns the good news upside down.

Exploring these ideas further, the staff of the White Horse Inn conducted interviews of random evangelical Christians attending a Christian conference, asking the question, “What happens to Christians who die with unconfessed sin?” The answers may sound very familiar to some of us with ties to the historic Adventist church.

“What happens to Christians who die with unconfessed sin?”

First answer: “Uh...unconfessed sin...I think they’re in trouble.”

Second answer: “I think they’re going to hell.”

Third answer: “He [Jesus] knows we’re gonna mess up...but if we’re trying to do right and we’re trying to live right and for the right reasons, then I believe we’re really going to go to heaven.”

Fourth answer: “I do believe there is a common grace, and there’s also specific grace, and I believe if someone is a follower of Christ, and they happen to die before they said their last prayer, I’m sure God is a little more understanding than we make Him out to be.”

Fifth answer: “I know there are some people who believe that the moment you sin, you lose your salvation. I don’t believe that you immediately lose your salvation. I believe that if you die with unconfessed sin as a believer...there are two judgments...some of our works will be burned up and there are believers who will be saved as through fire, but they’re still saved...I think there are different degrees of reward in heaven just as there are different degrees of punishment in hell.”

Sixth answer: “Unconfessed sin? We go to hell.”

Seventh answer: “A lot of Christians still have problems and faults, but Jesus told us that we’re not under condemnation.”

Eighth answer: “Only the Lord knows, and He knows our hearts, and I would never want to stand in judgment of anyone else–only God would know what their eternal salvation would be.”

Ninth answer: “I really believe that God only knows the answer to that.”

Tenth answer: “If I’ve done everything that I know to do, intellectually and spiritually, according to His word, then God will take care of the rest–that’s what He promised.”

Eleventh answer: “There’s lots of sins I’ve committed that I haven’t confessed. God sees all of those and they are washed in the blood of Jesus Christ...we need to confess our sins regularly, but every Christian has sins that they have not confessed and if you die without confessing every little sin, surely you will be covered by the blood of Jesus Christ.”

Twelfth answer: “I think we’re all sinners...if you get hit by a bus and you committed a sin the second before you die...I don’t think God looks at you and says, ‘Whoops, missed one! Whoops, send him downstairs.’ I think God looks at your heart–he looks at your heart and actions together.”

Listening to these answers makes one wonder whether these Christians believe that God grades on a curve, but of course, He does not. He holds us to the highest standards of righteousness and only perfection will suffice (Matthew 5:48). He does not give us an “A for effort” or give us a free pass to heaven because we had “good intentions”. As shown by the last answer above, some hold to the hope that Jesus “looks at the heart” to see our good intentions. But even if the basis for our salvation is limited to the condition of our hearts, the Bible says we are doomed: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV)

Returning to Ellen White for a moment, here is what she wrote in 1890 about the relationship between human effort and God’s grace:

“...when it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and he makes up for the deficiency with his own divine merit” (The Signs of the Times, (ST June 16, 1890).

While this quote is concerning enough on its own merits, it was subsequently used to support a works-based system of salvation in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary under the explanation of, ironically enough, Romans 8:1. “The good news of the gospel is that Christ came to condemn sin, not sinners (John 3:17; Rom. 8:3). To those who believe and accept the generous provisions of the gospel and who in faith commit themselves to lives of loving obedience, Christ offers justification and freedom. There may yet be deficiencies in the believer’s character, but ‘when it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit’ (ST June 16, 1890). For such there is no condemnation (John 3:18).”

The parallels between the evangelical Christians quoted above and the statements of Ellen White are difficult to miss. Both place the burden of salvation at least in part upon the sinner, effectively diluting God’s grace. If grace requires some application by the sinner in order to cover sins, then, as Paul says, “grace is no longer grace” (Romans 11:6). All who teach such a method of salvation effectively offer grace with one hand while taking it away with the other, implying that Jesus’ blood is sufficient to cover sins, so long as the sinner makes the application of it. Such teaching effectively subjects the work of Jesus to the effort of man, elevating the sinner into the office of co-savior.

Underlying much of this teaching is a subtle denial of original sin. The Bible says that by one man (Adam), the whole world is in slavery to sin (Romans 5:12). The Psalmist echoes this, saying, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5). Ephesians 2:1-3 says that we arrive in this world “dead in our sins” and are by default, “children of wrath”.

If we must make continual application of Jesus’ blood by remembering unconfessed sins, we effectively deny the doctrine of original sin. Our belief is that by praying for forgiveness each time we sin, we will be restored to the perfection of Adam and thus, for a time, be fit for translation into heaven. But if Adam’s original sin is still standing against us, no amount of our own efforts in remembering unconfessed sin will ever be enough. Even if we remembered all of our sin, we would still have Adam’s sin to deal with–the sin the Psalmist says was already present in our mother’s womb. Sin is therefore a condition of our fallen humanity, not just a cosmetic defect.

This situation requires more than just human effort, it requires divine intervention. Just as by one man sin entered the world, so too by one Man does sin leave–through the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:12-17). “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19 ESV) The good news is that forgiveness does not depend upon our effort to remember unconfessed sins, but solely upon Jesus and His perfect saving work. This is indeed blessed news for those who have failed miserably to keep themselves clean by exercising their memory of sins in prayer.

Let us live and be motivated by this good news! If our faith is in Him, Jesus has paid it all, and nothing more is owed!

In his concluding remarks, Horton summarizes the problem and offers words of hope. “Stop thinking of yourself as if it’s you AND God. It’s not you and God, it’s you in Christ who is God and man. God sees you in Christ, and because you are in Christ, He sees you as righteous. That’s the good news not only for the beginning of the Christian life, it’s the good news for the middle of the Christian life, and it’s the good news for the end of the Christian life. If you die with that message in your heart and in your mind, and just throw out all the “fine print” that you got in all the sermons that told you “no payments until [later]"–if you just throw all that stuff out [and] cling to Christ...you will die well. And if you will die well, you will live well.”

We end the same way Horton does, reflecting upon Edward Fisher’s words from his book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity.

The law says, “Thou art a sinner, and therefore thou shalt be damned,” (Romans 7:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:12).

But the gospel says, No; “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”; and therefore, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, (1 Timothy 1:15, Acts 16:31).

Again the law says, “Knowest thou not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God; be not deceived,” (1 Corinthians 6:9) And therefore thou being a sinner, and not righteous, shalt not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the gospel says, “God has made Christ to be sin for thee who knew no sin; that thou mightest be made the righteousness of God in him, who is the Lord thy righteousness,” (Jeremiah 23:6).

Again the law says, “Pay me what thou owest me, or else I will cast thee into prison,” (Matthew 18:28,30).

But the gospel says, “Christ gave himself a ransom for thee,” (1 Timothy 2:6); “and so is made redemption unto thee,” (1 Corinthians 1:30).

Again the law says, “Thou hast not continued in all that I require of thee, and therefore thou art accursed,” (Deuteronomy 27:6).

But the gospel says, “Christ hath redeemed thee from the curse of the law, being made a curse for thee,” (Galatians 3:13).

Again the law says, “Thou are become guilty before God, and therefore shalt not escape the judgment of God,” (Romans 3:19, Romans 2:3).

But the gospel says, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son” (John 5:12).

The Lure of Sabbath Deception

2008-08-15T12:27:05-08:00

Are Christians who meet together to worship God on Sunday deceived? Historically, the Adventist church has answered this question in the affirmative. “Sunday-worshipers”, as they are often labeled by Adventists, are obviously misled because they ignore God’s clear command to worship on Saturday, citing the Fourth Commandment as evidence (Exodus 20:8-11). And if those who worship on Sunday are deceived, someone must be guilty of promoting this deception. As such, it is perhaps not surprising to see an Adventist conclude that Christians who believe the Fourth Commandment supports Sunday “Sabbath” observance are guilty of promoting great deception. This is sadly the conclusion of a recent Adventist Review article by journalist Mark Kellner entitled “The Lure of Sabbath Deception”.

The stimulus for Kellner’s article was a sermon series he heard on the radio by Alistair Begg, pastor of Parkside Church near Cleveland, Ohio. In this series, Begg argued for a continuing role of the Old Testament Sabbath for Christians. Because Christians worship together on Sunday, Begg belives the Sabbath principle should continue to apply to this day. To an Adventist, Begg’s teaching is part of the great deception about the Sabbath that has been promoted in Christianity since the fourth century rule of the Roman emperor Constantine. Adventist prophetess Ellen White claimed that Christians would one day be tested on their loyalty to God on the basis of their day of worship—those who worship on Saturday will be eligible for heaven while those who worship on Sunday will not.

Kellner revives this Adventist teaching in his criticism of Begg. “So how did [Begg] move from dogmatic insistence on honoring the fourth commandment to an about-face on the God-specified day?” Begg’s answer, of course, is that the day of worship was changed from Saturday to Sunday in the first century as a result of Jesus’ Sunday resurrection. Striking at the heart of Adventism’s view of early Christian history, Begg stated that Constantine did not change the day of worship 300 years after Christ’s death, but merely endorsed a widespread and long-standing Christian practice. Kellner, obviously not moved by this argument but providing no evidence of his own, writes, “Such assertions, however, lack much in the way of actual historical proof...”. Nevermind that over one hundred years earlier, former Adventist preacher D.M. Canright provided ample historical evidence to support Begg’s conclusions.

Not surprisingly, Begg reported receiving harsh criticism of his position from Adventists, some even accusing him of not being a Christian. Kellner casts doubt over the truthfulness of Begg’s account, saying, “...there’s little way of proving that such a charge was made”. Perhaps Kellner chose his words poorly, but the way the article reads, Begg’s honesty is at least implicitly questioned. Kellner proceeds to counter the Adventist criticism of Begg by citing the Adventist fundamental belief statement that “the universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ.”

While Kellner is willing to give Begg the title of “Christian” with the one hand, he endeavors to take it away with the other. “To be sure, God will hold responsible those who don’t keep the Bible Sabbath when it is plainly revealed that Sundaykeeping is a counterfeit. But to multiple millions—and even perhaps to Alistair Begg himself—there is justification for ignoring the Bible’s clear command, at least for now.” It is left to the reader to decide whether Begg is really a Christian, but we can be sure that if he has ignored the Bible’s “clear command”, he will be “held responsible” for his actions. For those who know the Adventist version of end-time events, the underlying message is fairly obvious. If Begg rejects the teaching of God’s Word about the Sabbath when it becomes “plainly revealed”, he will receive the mark of the beast. The only hope is that God will not make Sunday “plainly revealed” as a “counterfeit” during his lifetime so that Begg won’t be held accountable for accepting Satan’s false Sabbath and receive his mark.

Turning his attention toward other Christian teachers, Kellner presses home his point. “...there is an added level of concern now—a lure, if you will, of deception about the Sabbath.” Listing a group of Christian authors who have written about the Sabbath as it applies to Sunday, Kellner claims that a great deception is unfolding before our eyes. Satan is using these Christian authors to lure more people into false Sabbath worship so that apparently, more people will be lost by receiving his mark. In a sarcastic tone, Kellner singles out the noted Christian author Marva Dawn. “The lures posed by radio expounders such as Begg, Tony Evans of the Urban Alternative, and some Christian authors—including Marva Dawn (author of several books on ‘keeping Sabbath’ without keeping the Sabbath)—appear to be that one can freely choose how to observe a commandment of God without adhering to what God dictates.” Using the same logic, an orthodox Jew could just as easily include Kellner among a list of authors who write about the Sabbath without actually keeping it the way God prescribed. One wonders what Kellner does with the very clear list of commands God gave to the Israelites about how the Sabbath was to be observed, much less the commands to observe festivals and holy days.

Concluding the article, Kellner leaves his audience with the take-home message. What are we to do with this growing evangelical Christian interest in Sabbath—interest that is clothed in the world’s greatest deception? “The opportunity for Adventists, in their words and in their living witness, is to present Sabbath, and Sabbathkeeping, as not only delightful, but attractive. It may surprise many to see who shows up when we treat the Sabbath as a true delight, and share that delight with the world.” The centerpiece of Adventist evangelism is here on vivid display—it is all about the Sabbath. Non-Christians and Christians alike need this precious message, because without it, they may stand condemned. If the Sabbath is made attractive enough, people will begin to realize that they should be keeping it and thereby avoid God’s condemnation.

It’s tragic, but what’s missing from all of this is Jesus. If only Adventists had the same zeal for converting people to Christ that they have for converting them to a day of worship. Sadly, the most precious message of Christianity has been replaced in Adventism by the worship of a day. The day was never meant to be the object of worship or the dividing line between believers, but a sign pointing the way to Jesus, who deserves all worship. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17, see also Romans 14:5-6) The apostle Paul’s teaching is straightforward. All who would divide the body of Christ over a day of worship have missed his point. While Christians hold fast to the substance of Christ, Adventists continue to direct people to his shadow and in so doing, risk missing the Savior who can redeem them from their sin, even their sin of imperfect Sabbath-keeping.

Ellen White and Sola Scriptura

2007-11-03T15:03:55-08:00

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.

In his paper, Damsteegt labors to reconcile the Reformation principle of sola scriptura with Ellen White’s extra-biblical writings. Under the heading, “The Meaning of the ‘Bible Only’”, he explains in a heavily-footnoted sentence how Ellen White viewed the principle of sola scriptura: “An analysis of Ellen White’s use of the phrase ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ reveals that she contrasts it with human ‘views and ideas,’ erroneous traditions on the Sabbath and the Law of God, opinions of scholars, scientists, theologians, ‘sayings and doings of men,’ ‘human wisdom,’ false visions, views of the churches steeped in popular theology from which the early Adventists separated themselves, the ‘religions of fable and tradition,’ ‘imaginary religion,’ ‘a religion of words and forms,’ and ‘tradition and human theories and maxims’.” Damsteegt follows this by stringing together several additional Ellen White quotes, driving home his main point:

“This expression ‘the Bible only’ she [sic] never used for contrasting her own writings with the Bible. In Ellen White’s mind there was perfect harmony between the Bible and her writings because ‘the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and the author of the spirit of prophecy.’ Therefore ‘it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word.’” (emphasis mine)

The logic here is simple–if God is the author of Scripture and he also speaks through Ellen White, there cannot be any contradiction between her words and the Bible. While many Adventists have hesitated to make such a sweeping conclusion, Fundamental Belief 18 recognizes Ellen White as “a continuing and authoritative source of truth”, which is essentially the same as Damesteegt’s view, albeit more general in nature.

Where this gets tricky for Adventists is in their desire to refrain from calling Ellen White’s writings an “infallible commentary” on Scripture because they realize this would put her in the same category as the Pope. But Damsteegt apparently has no trouble doing this in the company of his fellow Adventist theologians behind closed doors, and indeed, this seems to be his whole purpose. Having already placed her (using her own definition of sola scriptura) above the opinions of scholars, scientists, theologians and human wisdom, he says, “This unique relationship between the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy has given the latter (Ellen White) a place above all extra-Biblical sources. Consequently in Bible study, the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy hold a superior position over other research tools” (emphasis mine). In a circular way, Damsteegt quotes Ellen White for support: “it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word” (Great Controversy, vii), placing her squarely into the role of Scripture’s infallible interpreter. Damsteegt is not concluding aything new here, but is merely reiterating the claims Ellen White made for herself. Driving this point home to his Adventist colleagues, he writes, “Theologians have a serious obligation to see that their influence will preserve the unity of the church by upholding its end-time message and mission.” Translation: we need to be unified as theologians behind the idea that the only acceptable theological insights are those which Ellen White has already blessed.

Damsteegt’s proposal sounds very similar to the “Profession of Faith” in the Tridentine Creed used at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent:

“The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I most firmly admit and embrace. I likewise accept Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy Mother Church has held and does hold, whose [office] it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures; I shall never accept nor interpret it otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (emphasis mine) Source here.

What’s more, it is no surprise that Catholics use essentially the same argument Adventists do for the Pope’s infallibility in interpreting the Bible as the guardian of the church’s so-called ‘Sacred Tradition’:

“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the
apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’ Indeed, ‘the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.’ This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine wellspring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.” (Code of Canon Law, paragraphs 77-78, 80-81) (emphasis mine)

While both Adventists and Catholics claim the Bible as their infallible rule of faith and practice, both churches ironically look outside the Bible to obtain an infallible interpretation. Rome looks to tradition and the Pope for support while Adventists look to Ellen White. While many Adventists consider such practices out of style or no longer officially promoted, it is clear from Damsteegt’s conclusions that it is very much alive and promoted at the highest levels of the Adventist church today.

Returning again to the work of cult expert Walter Martin, it is important to examine what he said in an interview on the John Ankerberg show in January 1985, when he and then-editor of the Adventist Review, William Johnsson were interviewed. Martin recounted a question he asked then-director of the White Estate, Robert Olson, about whether Ellen White was an infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture. Olson refused to answer directly, saying she was “the authoritative voice” of the church. Upon hearing this, Johnsson said, “I’ll give you my answer. She is not the infallible interpreter of Scripture” “You’re sure of that?”, countered Martin. “I’m sure of it”, said Johnsson. Wanting further clarification, Martin asked, “That is your position or the denomination’s position?” At this point, realizing he was getting into a difficult spot, Johnsson backpedeled, “I think we ought to go to the official Statement of Beliefs”. To support his belief that Adventists were bound by Ellen White for their interpretation of Scripture, Martin cited a June 3, 1971 Review and Herald editorial which concluded, “the Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted”, an obvious reference to the role of Ellen White.

After repeated unsuccessful attempts in the ensuing months to get a straight answer on this issue, Martin concluded, “If Seventh-day Adventism depends upon Ellen White’s reputation rather than upon the gospel of grace alone, its classification as a cult will be well earned before the next twenty years has passed” (Adventist Currents, October 1985).

As Damsteegt’s paper testifies, Adventist theologians continue to effectively characterize Ellen White as an “infallible interpreter” of Scripture. One wonders what Walter Martin would say if he could examine the evidence today, now over 20 years since his 1985 prediction.

One thing is certain, the Bible identifies no need for an external source outside of the Holy Spirit to protect or interpret its message. Jesus said, “the Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and the prophet Jeremiah proclaimed, “Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29 ESV). God’s Word cannot be broken from its purpose and it will go wherever it pleases by the power of the Holy Spirit, without requiring an external “infallible” tradition or interpreter. Indeed, the prophet Isaiah says, “...so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11) ESV.

Summarizing this situation in his 1988 assessment of Adventism and the role of Ellen White, Kenneth Samples, a Christian apologist and close associate of Walter Martin, wrote, “Unfortunately, many Adventists see the writings of Ellen White as an infallible shortcut to scriptural understanding. Adventists must understand that if they elevate Ellen White to the position of infallible interpreter, then the dramatic irony of the ages has come true – SDA has a Pope.” To the degree that Adventist theologians continue to promote such a view among themselves and the church body believes them, I cannot find grounds to disagree. Just as Catholics must free themselves from the rule of tradition if they are to stand upon the solid ground of sola scriptura, Adventists must contend with the weight of Ellen White’s legacy and continued promotion by church leaders who know the price of “Scripture alone” but are unwilling to pay it.

Law and Gospel, part IX

2007-03-04T08:17:48-08:00

In part VII and part VIII, we discussed the doctrine of justification by faith alone. While most Protestant Christians will endorse this Reformation understanding of justification, some believe this doctrine makes the law obsolete, citing the sixth chapter of Romans: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:14 ESV). While the Bible teaches that the Christian is no longer under the condemnation of the law, it does not imply that the moral precepts of God’s law are worthless. Some believe that those who acknowledge an ongoing purpose for the law in the Christian life are one step away from embracing legalism. But is it legalistic to acknowledge the moral qualities embedded in God’s law? Does a Christian nullify his salvation and return to a works-based mindset if he asks, having been washed in the blood of Jesus, what God requires of him?

If the Christian seeks to maintain his justification by works of the law, as many within Adventism have historically taught, he clearly contradicts Scripture:

“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Galatians 2:20-21 ESV)

“For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20 ESV)

Attempting to maintain a state of justification or salvation by works of the law is a heresy the Galatian church was guilty of, drawing the apostle Paul’s strongest rebuke. It is curious to note that his treatment of the Galatians was much stronger than the way he addressed even the blatantly immoral Corinthians!

“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3 ESV)

Having established that we are in no way justified by keeping the law and that law-keeping does not maintain our justification, the natural question becomes “What is the purpose of the law in the life of a Christian?”

We would be mistaken to discard the law as worthless in the Christian life. Indeed, without the law as our schoolmaster, we would never have known what sin was and we would not have seen our need for a Savior (Galatians 3:23-26).

But the law does even more than this. The moral standards contained in God’s law guide the Christian who has already received justification through faith in Jesus. Obedience does not precede faith, but follows it.

“What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:15-16 ESV)

The Christian interacts with the law in a fundamentally different way than the non-Christian. For the nonbeliever, the law can only arouse sin and rebellion. As it is written, “The strength of sin is the law.” (1 Corinthians 15:56 KJV) But the believer sees the law fundamentally differently, having died to its condemnation so he can live for Christ. He desires to be conformed to God’s will (sanctified) as a result of being secure in Christ and through no power of his own, but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

“For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Galatians 2:19-21 ESV)

“And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” (1 Corinthians 1:30 ESV)

“And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6 ESV)

We receive the desire to obey God’s will out of gratitude, not out of fear, a feeling of obligation, or even “trying to do the right thing.” The law is holy, just and good, and one who is saved by grace should not attempt to minimize God’s law, but rather uphold and rejoice in it, even though this will always be done imperfectly.

“Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Romans 3:31 ESV)

“For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.” (Romans 7:22-23 ESV)

The relationship of the Christian to the law is magnificently summarized in Romans 8. Answering the rhetorical question “Is a Christian who falls short of God’s law condemned?” the apostle Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit says:

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4 ESV)

As John MacArthur writes in his commentary on this passage, “Nothing is dearer to God’s heart than the moral and spiritual excellence of those He has created in His own image–and nothing is dearer to them. He does not want them to have only imputed righteousness but practical righteousness as well. And that is also what they want. It is practical righteousness about which Paul speaks here, just as he does in the opening words of his letter to the church at Ephesus: ‘[God] chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him’ (Ephesians 1:4).

It is God’s great desire that believers live out the perfect righteousness He reckons to them when they are saved–that they live like His children and no longer like the children of the world and of Satan...the purpose of the gospel is not to make men happy but to make them holy. As the Beatitudes make clear, genuine happiness comes to those who belong to Christ and are obedient to His will.”

Those who disagree with the ongoing purpose of God’s law in the Christian life will contend that the stance outlined here is just another form of veiled legalism. It may be argued that because keeping the law cannot merit salvation, acknowledging and living by its moral precepts is pointless.

But as MacArthur rightly concludes, “The Christian’s obligations to God are not another form of legalism. The person who is genuinely saved has a new and divine nature that is, by definition, attuned to God’s will. When he lives by his new nature in the power of the Spirit, his desire is God’s desire, and no compulsion is involved. But because the believer is still clothed in the old self, he sometimes resists God’s will. It is only when he goes against God’s will and against his own new nature that the divine commands and standards seem burdensome. On the other hand, the faithful child of God who is obedient from the heart can always say with the psalmist, ‘O how I love Thy law!’ (Psalm 119:97)”

Five Facts About Me

2008-02-16T16:17:49-08:00

This video composed by Lane Chaplin was made in response to being “tagged” on YouTube to share five facts about himself. Instead of posting the usual mundane personal trivia, he laid bare the truth about himself as seen through the lens of Scripture. These facts are not really unique to Lane but are shared by all who are convicted by the depth of their depravity and the magnitude of God’s gracious forgiveness. Please watch this video and ask yourself whether God’s grace is your most precious possession, and if it is not, please prayerfully consider the magnitude of your sin and your desperate need for what the apostle Paul called “the washing of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:4-8).

Link to video.

The Hidden Gospel

2006-12-09T01:10:37-08:00

Is the gospel hidden from view in the Adventist church? This blog report describing an Adventist evangelistic crusade in Chattanooga, implies that it is. “We recently attended a big crusade in Chattanooga. It’s like watching the world series and it’s our team against everyone else. [You] should’ve heard the AMENS when the speaker shared truths that are peculiar to our denomination. However, on the one night that we heard the speaker focus on the gospel, the amens were few and far between. Something’s WRONG with the picture when we are more excited about 29 doctrines than about Jesus Christ!”

The blog author makes a very good observation about the current state of affairs in a large part of the Adventist church. Preaching the gospel has taken a back seat to the special truths of Adventist eschatology and prophecy. The loudest amens are reserved for any teaching that affirms Adventism as the remnant church, while the gospel which has the power to save souls remains obscured from view.

A major reason for this may be that many Adventists perceive the gospel as something every Christian church has access to and has been preaching since the time of Christ. As such, this message has become so familiar as to be almost boring. Built into this mindset is a belief that if Adventists can’t point to their unique doctrines, the church won’t look any different than the other Christian churches that have historically been referred to as “Babylon.”

The apostle Paul knew nothing of these denominational distinctives and his inspired testimony is just as applicable to today’s church as it was when he penned it to the Romans:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” (Romans 1:16-17 ESV)

As long as denominational distinctives are placed at the forefront, the gospel will remain hidden and the “power of God for salvation” will be in short supply.

An Appeal to our Adventist Friends, part 5

2006-12-02T08:05:25-08:00

The teachings of the historic Adventist church as found in the writings of Ellen White have fundamentally obscured the biblical gospel. At its most basic level, the historic Adventist doctrine of justification is ironically in agreement with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Ellen White said “When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit” (My Life Today, pg. 250). This idea of justification implies that man’s “best service” must be combined with Christ’s divine merit to “make up for the deficiency” in the character of the believer, as if the believer can contribute anything to his own salvation. This is no different than the false teaching that prompted the Protestant Reformation. At the Council of Trent, the version of justification promoted by Ellen White was vigorously defended by the Roman Catholic church, pronouncing condemnation upon anyone who disagreed with it. “If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification...let such a one be accursed!” (Council of Trent, Canon IV)

If you are an Adventist, we do not bring these things to your attention to ridicule or condemn you. We are truly concerned for your salvation if you adhere to the historic teachings of Adventism or if your understanding of the gospel has been clouded by the teachings of the Adventist church. You may be surprised to learn that the historic teachings of Adventism on justification and the gospel are more in line with Roman Catholicism than with Protestant Christianity. This difference is critical to understand because it is the heart of the gospel and it puts true faith in Jesus into sharp focus. Without acknowledging what God has done for humanity by reconciling us to Himself freely through Jesus apart from our “best efforts,” we cannot have genuine faith. If we believe that our effort in any way adds to salvation apart from what Jesus has already obtained on our behalf, we have fundamentally distorted the gospel. If righteousness could be obtained through our own effort, Jesus died for no purpose (Gal. 2:21).

<span style="float: right; padding: 0 0 0 1.5em"><img src="http://www.forthegospel.org/gfx/cross.gif" alt="bible"></img></span>If you have not done so already, we most sincerely pray that you will place your faith in Jesus Christ outside of your own efforts, acknowledging your sinful condition and your utter incapacity to save yourself. “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). Turn from your sin (including the sin of believing you can earn God’s favor) and put your faith in the Savior, who will cleanse you of all unrighteousness—past, present and future. Recognize that God made him to be sin who knew no sin (Jesus), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21).

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:5-6). We pray that the Adventist church will turn from a gospel of works intertwined with grace and awaken to the biblical gospel of righteousness by faith alone, in Christ alone, by His grace alone, and for His glory alone. The salvation of souls depends on it.

Re-inventing Ellen White for Kids, part 2

2008-02-09T11:30:51-08:00

Previously, we discussed a new project of the Ellen G. White Estate aimed at re-defining the life and work of Ellen White for the youngest generation of Adventists. In the January-March 2008 issue of Ellen White: Visionary for Kids, an article by Kessia Reyne Bennett was published entitled ”My Friend Ellen”. Bennett is an Assistant Evangelism Coordinator for the Oregon Conference and writes of her upbringing in Adventism, particularly regarding the impact Ellen White played in her spiritual life. Writing about the relationship to the Adventist prophetess, Bennett writes: “My friendship with her began about 11 years ago. I was a teenager at the time and had just moved 500 miles to learn more about faith and the Bible and the Adventist message. I was starting at a new school in a new place—and I felt plenty of awkwardness trying to navigate the unfamiliar hallways and social networks. I was always glad when I could spend the weekend with my new friends at Hockinson Heights Church. It was there that I first heard about Ellen, though it was several weeks before I met her personally. And when I did, I thought that she and I would be friends for a long time.”

The reverence shown here for “Ellen” is very similar to the way Christians speak of finding Jesus Christ for the first time, which makes reading the rest of this article particularly troubling. Instead of speaking about Jesus as the revealed Son of God who is able to save and keep his sheep, Bennett places the prophetess in a mediatorial role between herself and Jesus. “Most of the reason that I liked Ellen was that she was a devout Christian. It seemed she had nothing to say that wasn’t about God, and when she talked about Him it was like she really knew Him—and I could sense it. It was inspiring, really. ... The other reason I liked Ellen was that she talked straight. Flattery is annoying, and she never flattered anybody. She was always real and always concerned about what mattered. If you were too caught up in yourself, Ellen would let you know. If you were neglecting what Jesus had asked of you, Ellen would remind you of your responsibility.”

The message for the young children reading this article is clear: make friends with Ellen White so you can be reminded of what Jesus has asked you to do. But wait! Hasn’t Jesus already spoken clearly enough? Doesn’t the Bible tell us that “long ago” God spoke by the prophets, but in “these last days” he speaks to us directly through his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2)? Apparently not in the mind of Ms. Bennett and all who would saddle the next generation of Adventists with another voice competing for their attention, ultimately drowning out the voice of the Son who has already spoken with forceful clarity.

Bennett gives us a peek into what results from listening to the competing voices—as she says it, reading Ellen White gave her a “guilt complex”. “It started to drive me crazy! And besides, she was so old-fashioned and a lot of good Christians had never read anything Ellen had written . . . I was friendly on the outside but angry on the inside, hoping I’d never run into her again.” For Bennett, these feelings of guilt did not last long. Now we reach the real heart of Bennett’s message. “But when I heard people talking bad about her, calling her a liar and fake and a cheat, it kind of woke me up. Because I knew that what had bothered me about Ellen White was her truth-telling.”

The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that it can be easily transposed to any number of “prophets” who carry similar messages aimed at inducing guilt, modifying behavior and speaking for God. Consider the dietary and behavioral restrictions placed on Mormons. Should a young Mormon “wake up” to the truth of Joseph Smith’s ministry simply because others are critical of his message?

But there is more to the story here. Bennett seems intent on keeping the kids who are reading her article from thinking critically about Ellen White, long before they reach the age where they may gain the necessary skills to do so. She writes, “...I read up on the criticisms of her ministry and the responses too. Eventually I became convinced that the critics were wrong: Ellen G. White was a faithful messenger of Jesus. Her love for and commitment to Him was so evident on every page, and she never said anything to me that contradicted the Word. I couldn’t hold against her my hardheartedness, I couldn’t hold against her the way other people quoted her, I couldn’t hold against her her faithfulness.”

The message couldn’t be more clear. Ellen White is infallible, never contradicts Scripture, and is absolutely essential to understanding what Jesus wants you to do. Nevermind that the poor children are potentially dead in their sins and enemies of God, needing to be reconciled to the Father through the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s beside the point. Instead, the children need to discover their “friend” Ellen, who will tell them exactly how to be “good” boys and girls if they listen well, unless they harden their hearts against her.

Jesus vs. Theology

2008-01-28T08:17:01-08:00

It’s popular in some Christian circles these days to downplay the importance of studying theology in favor of focusing purely on Jesus, as if a pursuit of greater theological understanding stands in opposition to a simple relationship with Christ. Pursuit of greater theological understanding is seen as an empty intellectual exercise which undermines a personal “experience” with Jesus.

This is not a new development. In 1993, when asked about the trend to minimize theology in favor of “just Jesus”, Dr. R.C. Sproul gave this answer:

“My first question to people [who believe that] is, ‘Who is Jesus?’ As soon as you start to answer that question, you are into theology. The person who says to me, ‘I’m not interested in theology’ doesn’t realize that what he’s saying is that he’s not interested in God. Because if we have any understanding whatsoever of the character of God, that’s theology. ...to be against theology...is a denial of our own humanity, because we can’t even relate to God unless we know something about Him.” (source: Interview from 1993 on The White Horse Inn)

The great danger here is in reducing Jesus to a private experience to the exclusion of seeing him as an objective, historical truth. To the extent that Christians see Jesus through personal insights gained from private revelation (either from their own minds or through the minds of an extra-biblical prophet), they minimize the historical and objective reality of the Jesus of Scripture and they send the message that the “true Jesus” is anything we need him to be. Said another way, if all of us claim to know the “true Jesus” but we come to widely different conclusions about the meaning of his earthly ministry, some (or perhaps all) of us have missed the point.

Hebrews 1:1-3 says, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” The apostle John describes Jesus as the pre-existent Word (John 1:1) and the “Word made flesh” (John 1:14). Given this, we need to listen to what Jesus says about himself and what the Word says about him. We should not endeavor to minimize the importance of theology because in so doing, we reduce Jesus to a “feeling” or a self-help tool, rather than seeing him as the lamb of God who takes away our sin (John 1:29), through whom we have reconciliation to the Father (2 Corinthians 5:11-21).

James White talks with an Adventist

2008-01-13T17:28:37-08:00

An interesting exchange took place on 4/14/2005 between the Christian apologist James White (not to be confused with Ellen White’s husband) and a Seventh-day Adventist on White’s Internet radio call-in program The Dividing Line. The caller did not initially identify himself as a Seventh-day Adventist and quoted several texts to support the doctrine of soul sleep. White picked up immediately on the caller’s theological position and the following exchange took place:

White: “Would you be coming from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective?”

Caller: “Absolutely, I am a Seventh-day Adventist.”

White: “Well, this particular issue would be one that we would certainly disagree on, but far more importantly, would you be one of those Seventh-day Adventists who holds to the Investigative Judgment?”

Caller: “Oh absolutely.”

White: “I would put that as being as false a gospel as Rome’s. Personally I don’t see any difference between the Investigative Judgment and the grounds that this places one’s relationship to God on, and what Rome teaches.”

[...]

White: “The reason I went to the [Investigative Judgment] and asked you where you’re coming from is because I tend to think (unfortunately) that a lot of these discussions, especially with a believing conservative Seventh-day Adventist, misses the point. Because to me, I could sit around and talk with a Roman Catholic about papal infallibility (which I’ve done) ... and it would be like talking to you about the claims Ellen G. White made concerning her prophecies, her writings and her relationship to Scripture. But, if that’s all I ever discussed, I’m not doing you any favor. Because the real issue—and the issue that I always get to with Roman Catholics—is the issue of what the gospel is (which is most important). That’s why I raised the issue. Because to me, you can be a non-Seventh-day Adventist and believe what you believe about the afterlife, but to be a Seventh-day Adventist—what’s uniquely definitional [and] what addresses the specific issue of the gospel is the issue of the Investigative Judgment. That’s why I raised the issue, that’s why I mentioned it.

[White gives the caller the opportunity to explain the Investigative Judgment. The caller explains the historic Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844.]

White: “What did Ellen G. White say was the basis upon which Christ would decide to apply his atoning sacrifice [to the sinner] or not?”

Caller: “Well, the biblical answer is ‘by faith’. I don’t know which quote of Ellen White you might be referring to.”

White: “So that’s all? Why would there be an examination of their lives if the only ones being examined were those who had believed in [Jesus] anyway?”

Caller: “Well, God doesn’t need to do this examination for His benefit...in other words, He already knows...He’s omniscient.”

White: “Right...”

Caller: “But the heavenly hosts are not. The books are opened not only for the Lord to examine, but the books are really opened for the heavenly hosts to examine the books to see that God’s judgment has been righteous.”

White: “And what books are these?”

Caller: “The book...the Book of Life...the Lamb’s Book of Life.”

White: “But how do you get in there? How do you get into the Lamb’s Book of Life?”

Caller: “By faith.”

White: “By faith alone? It’s not an examination of your life?”

Caller: “Well, by faith you appear in the Lamb’s Book of Life.”

[White asks the caller whether he’s read a book by the Adventist W.H. Branson entitled, In Defense of the Faith, written in response to D.M. Canright. The caller says he has not. White quotes from the book in the section about the cleansing of the sanctuary.]

White (quoting Branson): “Someone may say, ‘I thought that when Christ forgave my sins, he took them clear away.’ Yes he did, as far as you were concerned. He promises to make us white as snow, but this does not mean that the sins are finally disposed of. He takes them from us, but the record is still there. We are free because we’ve accepted him as our substitute and sin-bearer, but the record of sin is held in the sanctuary. ... Another may ask, ‘Why couldn’t Christ have immediately blotted out the sins of the people? Why wait until 1844?’ We reply, there must come first an investigation of the records. This is essential. [Consider] a man who has accepted Christ. His sins have gone on before him into the sanctuary. But Christ cannot blot those sins out of the record until the man’s life is finished or until probation closes for him. Why not? Because he may not continue in faith and we are told in Ezekiel 33:12-13 that if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, all the righteousness that he has done shall not be remembered. If he does not continue in faith, all his past sins will come back upon him again. Jesus does not plead before the throne of God in the final judgment for one who has died in sin. He cannot plead his blood on behalf of one, who, though once a Christian, refuses to continue in grace. Thus, before the Lord can blot out the sins from the record books, a very careful examination has to be made to see whether those who accepted Christ have remained true. It is not the beginning of the race that gives assurance—it is the successful finishing. ... During the judgment, the names of those who were once Christians but who have given up their faith in Christ are blotted out of the Book of Life. ... God must out of necessity, have a log by which he will test men’s lives, a standard by which they will be measured. And if so, surely in this solemn hour, when court week has already begun and cases are already being tried, it behooves every man to inquire seriously what that standard is, and to take the necessary steps to bring his life into harmony with it before his name is called. ... Do not allow yourselves to be deceived, therefore, into believing that nine points of the law will suffice, and the Sabbath point can be dropped out as non-essential.”

White: “Does it not follow, then, that a person can believe in Christ but if they do not, for example, follow Ellen G. White’s understanding of the Sabbath law, then Christ will refuse to apply his blood to that individual in the Investigative Judgement?”

Caller: “Well, Seventh-day Adventists don’t believe...well...they believe that [Sunday worship] is the Mark of the Beast...in other words, for the last 2000 years, Sunday-keepers who did so, fully believing they were in God’s will, that will not be counted against them.”

White: “Is that what Ellen G. White believed?”

Caller: “Yes...it’s only when the Mark of the Beast comes before the world and is enforced by law that people are faced with a choice as to whether they take the seal of God—the seventh-day Sabbath or Saturday—or the Mark of the Beast, which would be Sunday-keeping. So it is an issue that will be before the world shortly, but it is not something for which people will be condemned in ignorance.”

[...]

White: “So to boil this all down...fundamentally, would you agree or disagree with the assertion that whether Christ applies his atoning sacrifice depends upon your continuance in faith?”

Caller: “Yes it does.”

White: “OK. Obviously then, Seventh-day Adventist theology does not have a concept of monergistic election to where God has an elect people and he infallibly saves those elect people not based upon what they do, but based solely upon his purpose and grace.”

Caller: “Well that’s a topic unto itself, but I believe in what you would probably call ‘Arminianism’ and I believe that we have a choice as to whether we follow Christ or not.”

White: “OK, so you would take the Arminian perspective on that and I don’t know if you’ve listened to the program before...”

Caller: “I believe that we’re faced with a choice, and that choice is either to accept Christ’s righteous blood or to reject it, and to reject it is to be lost.”

White: “And to accept Christ’s righteous blood, though, is not enough if you do not continue and if your life does not measure up to the standards that are going to be used [in the Investigative Judgment].”

Caller: “Faith without works is dead.”

White: “I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that. I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t misrepresenting [the Adventist position].”

Source here, starting around minute 21.

A few things strike me from listening to this.

1. How quickly White identified the most important issue with Adventists is whether they are holding to the authentic gospel message. This is exactly what we’ve been saying on 4TG since we started the site over a year ago.

2. How readily the caller talked about faith in the blood of Jesus, but in reality his definition of faith is necessarily linked to performance and specifically Sabbath-keeping. It is by these external measures that one will be judged righteous and worthy, and bestowed with a reward for perseverance. Salvation is no longer a gift, but a reward.

3. How the blood of Christ is rendered impotent in the face of the works a professed Christ-follower must perform in order to appropriate the benefits of the atonement. Put another way, Christ can only apply his blood to a person who is actively keeping himself “in the faith”. The sovereign grace of Jesus Christ is powerless to save the person who does not keep himself in grace and this makes perfect sense because “God helps those who help themselves.”

4. How intertwined the Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment is with the Arminian belief that sinners are faced with a decision to accept or reject Christ. In this view, God does not act unilaterally to save sinners, instead, he waits until the sinner decides to place himself in a position to be saved. And if that decision can be held until death (or the close of probation), backed up by perfect obedience and Sabbath-keeping, God will be moved to apply the blood of Jesus.

Folks, this is scary stuff and this should remind us how closely linked and interdependent Adventist theology is with Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism. Ironically, both Roman Catholicism and Adventism have constructed theological systems that appeal to man’s natural desire to earn salvation. To the degree that anyone follows these systems faithfully, they have accepted a false gospel and their faith may be in themselves instead of Christ.

As the apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians, “...we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. ... For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. ... I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Galatians 2:16-21 ESV)

Let us pray for those who are still putting their faith in a false gospel, that they may turn from it and embrace Truth.