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.

Continue reading...

In the baptismal examination of the American Methodist Church, the following question is found:

“Q. What is meant by justification?
R. Justification means to be made righteous.”

Notice in this answer that the sinner is “made righteous”. This language is imprecise and unfortunately leads to the false conclusion that righteousness is inherent to the justified Christian rather than being derived from Christ’s righteousness, which is external to the Christian. It is on this point that the Protestant Reformers disagreed with Roman Catholics who taught that the sinner was justified based on inherent (in the sinner) rather than imputed (outside the sinner and in Christ) righteousness. Taken further, If one believes righteousness is inherent in the Christian, salvation is a reward for being found righteous, whereas if righteousness is externally derived from Christ, salvation is a gift of God to sinners who do not deserve it.

Consider just one article from the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, where the main tenets of the Protestant Reformation were comprehensively denounced:

“If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.” (Canon XI)

From this statement we see that Catholics who hold to the sinner’s inherent righteousness necessarily consider salvation a reward rather than a unilateral and unmerited gift of God. What’s more, anyone who believes their justification comes solely from God’s unmerited favor has a curse (anathema) pronounced upon him! If by using the word “inherent”, Adventists and American Methodists mean the same thing as the Catholics in describing the sinner’s righteousness, they are necessarily moved into a position where their salvation is at least partly a reward for their good works and not completely a gift of God’s unmerited favor.

Moving on to the next question of the Catechism for American Methodists, we find:

“Q. How are we made righteous?
R. On two counts: we are forgiven for past sins through the blood of Christ; and we are empowered for holy living through Christ, in his Church, by the Holy Spirit; that is, we are pardoned and born again.”

The identical concern we wrote about previously regarding the Adventist understanding of justification is applicable here: “The implication that the sinner requires continual justification is at odds with what the Bible says in describing justification as a one-time event (Rom. 3:21-28, Rom. 5:1, Rom. 8:30. Rom. 10:4, Gal. 2:16, Gal. 3:24). ... The historic teaching of Protestant Christianity–that we are declared righteous by receiving Christ’s imputed righteousness–is thus clouded....”

The Protestant Reformers recorded their understanding of justification and imputation in the Westminster Larger Catechism as follows:

“Q70:  What is justification?
A70:  Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners,[1] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[2] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[3] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[4] and received by faith alone.[5]

4.  Romans 3:24-25
5.  Ephesians 2:8
6.  Ephesians 1:7”

The distinction between inherent and imputed righteousness is probably the greatest difference between Protestants who are true to their Reformation heritage and those who have unwittingly endorsed a Roman Catholic view. The concern here is not so much that Protestants have joined Catholics (which many of these Protestants would be surprised to learn), but that so many have given up the precious truths recovered through conviction, bloodshed and sometimes death at the Protestant Reformation. While seeing themselves as the inheritors of the Reformation, many Adventists and non-Adventist Protestants have taken leave of the very truth that lies at the center of their right standing with God. If we neglect the precious truth of justification by faith alone, we must admit that we can never really know whether we are saved (because we could fall into sin at any time–sin which may not be covered by God’s future forgiveness), and we find ourselves in agreement with Ellen White, who said, “Those who accept the Savior, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved” (Christ’s Object lessons, p. 155).

Instead of being uncertain and merely hopeful about what lies ahead in the Christian life, let us make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). May our faith be in Jesus Christ, who is the source of our imputed righteousness and who is able to complete the work he began in us (Philippians 1:6).

Thanks Greg for another outstanding post.

There is nothing more important as the basis for our joy and assusrance in living the Christian life than this very basic doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

We now know where Ellen White got her theology. It is directly from John Wesley. Wesley is regarded as a hero of the faith, but how is he or Ellen White any different than the Roman Catholic Council of Trent?

If we lose the doctrine of imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness to our account, we have no gospel, except another gospel which is no gospel at all (Galatians 1).

The good news of the gospel is that the moment we are born again, ALL SINS, past, present, and future have all been paid for by the precious blood of the Lamb.

As the old gospel song says “The account was settled long ago”.

If this is not true, then no one would ever have any assurance of salvation.

Stan

When he wrote in 1772 the well-know hymn “Amazing Grace”, John Newton had behind him a life of slave trading, profanity, gambling, and it was somehow a common sense statement to affirm that the grace He received from God was “amazing”. He had the appearance of a “wretch” as he calls himself “That saved a wretch like me”. In his mouth the words sounds naturally, fitted with the image people have regarding a “sinner”, and consequently the grace of God saving such a despicable person looks indeed amazing.

There is one thing to look at people like John Newton and stand in awe of God’s grace, and another thing to look at ourselves, who claim to enjoy the same grace God gave to Newton, but have a hard time seeing ourselves as “wretched”. In the same proportion that we see us as being better persons than John Newton, we will see the grace of god as less amazing. Still God’s words puts us on the same level with John Newton, affirmations which are quite offensive for our pride:

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Rom.3:10-12

Worthless, no one seeks for God, no one does good, not even one, are not words employed to love the messenger. But since we have a single Savior, Jesus Christ, and a single way of salvation, by faith alone, apart from works, recognizing our worthlessness is a sine qua non part of our faith.

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 Rom. 3:22-24

Only when we start seeing ourselves as God sees us, not as “seekers for God” as is the common view of any respectable person who has at least a little religious interest. The problem of forgiveness becomes a real problem only when it dawns in the conscience of the sinner that he’s not a seeker and God does not give grace according to who’s “seeking” for Him. “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” Rom 9:16.

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.

The “past sins only” leaves the problem of future sins depending on the degree of “seeking” God in the future, on exertion, on what the believer will do improving his present justification. Either the justification is what God does for the sinner apart from works, or is connected with his future works, with his ability to confess sincerely all his sins to God in order to receive again and again the justification he loses every time he sins. Every time he sins, he’s again condemned, justification being a repeated action, similar to a process. 

In his Systematic Theology, answering the question “Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?”, Charles Finney answers

Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God...If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true...In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground. (p. 46)

No wonder that such grace ceases to be “amazing”, the believer loosing and regaining favor with God according to the circumstances he determines by his choices. If he sins, he knows that he’s rejected and condemned by God until he confesses and to the degree of the sincerity of his confession he can hope that he’s forgiven. His trust is no longer in Jesus Christ’s righteousness imputed to his account solely through faith, but on his subjective ability to regain his justification. Charles Finney’s denial of the atonement, original sin and his rejection of reformed doctrine of justification should be a red flag for anybody who’s not depending solely on Christ’s merits for his justification, and who leave the future sins to be resolved by sanctification.

Moving on to the next question of the Catechism for American Methodists, we find:

“Q. How are we made righteous?
R. On two counts: we are forgiven for past sins through the blood of Christ; and we are empowered for holy living through Christ, in his Church, by the Holy Spirit; that is, we are pardoned and born again.”

The above teaching leaves open the door for human ability and cooperation with God’s grace (usually looked as a power given in order to remain holy and retain justification by good works) to play a partial role in salvation. The believer imparts the glory of his salvation with God, and God’s grace loses his capacity to “amaze” the sinner who looks at himself and his ability to pursue salvation, unable to join John Newton in his “wretched” confession and praise of God’s grace.

Gabriel

Quote from Charles Finney:

“Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God...If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true...In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground. (p. 46)”
---------------------------------------------------------

This statement by Finney is also the gospel according to Ellen White and the SDA church. Is it any wonder that there seems to be very little difference from SDA churches and many other Arminian churches? In fact, many former SDAs that I know, can’t help but see the similarities to the Sunday churches that they visit and the SDA churches. Unless the gospel of grace is defined in sharp detail according to what the Bible clearly teaches, there will be mass confusion on so many issues.

Charles Finney is the poster boy and hero for the majority of evangelcial churches. He invented the altar call. He essentially denied the basic truths of the Christian faith, yet Finney is who modern evangelists hold up as an example!

This is why the great Reformation truths as taught by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli must be uncompromising.

Sadly, many who leave Adventism don’t seem to understand why these Reformation truths are important.

Stan

I found an old and beautiful poem written by Ralph Erskine which is in the public domain and can be found in a free Google Book. I’ll post it partially; it was entitled “"The Believer’s Principles concerning Justification and Sanctification, their Difference and Harmony”; I was delighted to read it, hope it will be a blessing for others.

Kind Jesus spent his life to spin
My robe of perfect righteousness ;
But by his Spirit’s work within
He forms my gracious, holy dress.

He as a Priest me justifies,
His blood does roaring conscience still;
But as a King he sanctifies,
And subjugates my stubborn will.

He, justifying by his merit,
Imputes to me his righteousness ;
But sanctifying by his Spirit,
Infuses in me saving grace.

My justifying righteousness
Can merit by condignity :
But nothing with my strongest grace
Can be deserv’d by naughty me.

This justifying favor sets
The guilt of all my sin remote’;
But sanctifying grace deletes
The filth and blackness of its blot.

The former is my Judge’s act
Of condonation full and free ;
The latter his commenced fact,
And gradual work advanc’d in me.

The former ‘s instantaneous,
The moment that I first believe ;
The latter is, as Heav’n allows,
Progressive while on earth I live.

The former pardons every sin,
And counts me righteous, free, and just;
The latter quickens grace within,
And mortifies my sin and lust.

My righteousness is infinite,
Both subjectively and in kind ;
My holiness most incomplete,
And daily wavers like the wind.

So lasting is my outer dress,
It never wears nor waxes old :
My inner garb of grace decays
And fades, if Heav’n do not uphold.

My righteousness and pardon is
At once most perfect and complete;
But sanctity admits degrees,
Does vary, fluctuate, and fleet.

Hence fix’d, my righteousness divine
No real change can undergo ;
But all my graces wax and wane,
By various turnings ebb and flow.

I ‘m by the first as righteous now,
As e’er hereafter I can be;
The last will to perfection grow,
Heav’n only is the full degree.

The first is equal, wholly giv’n,
And still the same in ev’ry saint;
The last unequal and unev’n,
While some enjoy what others want.

My righteousness divine is fresh,
Forever pure and heavn’ly both ;
My sanctity is partly flesh,
And justly term’d a menstrual cloth.

My righteousness I magnify, ‘
‘Tis my triumphant lofty flag;
But pois’d with this, my sanctity
Is nothing but a filthy rag.

I glory in my righteousness,
And loud extol it with my tongue ;
But all my grace, compar’d with this,
I underrate as loss and dung.

By justifying grace I ‘m apt
Of divine favor free to boast;
By holiness I ‘m partly shap’d
Into his image I had lost.

The first to divine justice pays
A rent to still the furious storm ;
The last to divine holiness
Instructs me duly to conform.

The first does quench the fiery law,
Its rigid cov’nant fully stay;
The last its rule embroider’d draw,
To deck my heart, and gild my way.

Though all my graces precious are,
Yea, perfect also in desire ;
They cannot stand before the bar
Where awful justice is umpire:

But, in the robe that Christ did spin,
They are of great and high request;
They have acceptance wrapt within
My elder Brother’s bloody vest.

My righteousness proclaims me great
And fair ev’n in the sight of God ;
But sanctity ‘s my main offset
Before the gazing world abroad.

More justifi’d I cannot be
By all my most religious acts;
But these increase my sanctity,
That’s still attended with defects.

My righteousness the safest ark
Midst ev’ry threat’ning flood will be;
My graces but a leaking bark
Upon a stormy, raging sea.

My righteousness is that which draws
My thankful heart to this respect:
The former then is first the cause,
The latter is the sweet effect.

Christ is in justifying me,
By name, The Lord my righteousness ;
But, as he comes to sanctify,
The Lord my strength and help he is.

The former does annul my woe,
By God’s judicial sentence past;
The latter makes my graces grow,
Faith, love, repentance, and the rest.

The first does divine pard’ning love
Most freely manifest to me;
The last makes shining graces prove
Mine int’rest in the pardon free.

My soul in justifying grace
Does full and free acceptance gain;
In sanctity I heav’nward press,
By sweet assistance I obtain.

The first declares I ‘m free of debt,
And nothing left for me to pay;
The last makes me a debtor yet,
But helps to pay it ev’ry day.

My righteousness with wounds and blood
Discharg’d both law’s and justice’ score;
Hence with the debt of gratitude
I’ll charge myself for evermore.

Ralph Erskine (1685- 1752)

[quote author="GABRIEL PROKSCH"]I found an old and beautiful poem written by Ralph Erskine which is in the public domain and can be found in a free Google Book. I’ll post it partially; it was entitled “"The Believer’s Principles concerning Justification and Sanctification, their Difference and Harmony”; I was delighted to read it, hope it will be a blessing for others.

Kind Jesus spent his life to spin
My robe of perfect righteousness ;
But by his Spirit’s work within
He forms my gracious, holy dress.

He as a Priest me justifies,
His blood does roaring conscience still;
But as a King he sanctifies,
And subjugates my stubborn will.

He, justifying by his merit,
Imputes to me his righteousness ;
But sanctifying by his Spirit,
Infuses in me saving grace.

My justifying righteousness
Can merit by condignity :
But nothing with my strongest grace
Can be deserv’d by naughty me.

This justifying favor sets
The guilt of all my sin remote’;
But sanctifying grace deletes
The filth and blackness of its blot.

The former is my Judge’s act
Of condonation full and free ;
The latter his commenced fact,
And gradual work advanc’d in me.

The former ‘s instantaneous,
The moment that I first believe ;
The latter is, as Heav’n allows,
Progressive while on earth I live.

The former pardons every sin,
And counts me righteous, free, and just;
The latter quickens grace within,
And mortifies my sin and lust.

My righteousness is infinite,
Both subjectively and in kind ;
My holiness most incomplete,
And daily wavers like the wind.

So lasting is my outer dress,
It never wears nor waxes old :
My inner garb of grace decays
And fades, if Heav’n do not uphold.

My righteousness and pardon is
At once most perfect and complete;
But sanctity admits degrees,
Does vary, fluctuate, and fleet.

Hence fix’d, my righteousness divine
No real change can undergo ;
But all my graces wax and wane,
By various turnings ebb and flow.

I ‘m by the first as righteous now,
As e’er hereafter I can be;
The last will to perfection grow,
Heav’n only is the full degree.

The first is equal, wholly giv’n,
And still the same in ev’ry saint;
The last unequal and unev’n,
While some enjoy what others want.

My righteousness divine is fresh,
Forever pure and heavn’ly both ;
My sanctity is partly flesh,
And justly term’d a menstrual cloth.

My righteousness I magnify, ‘
‘Tis my triumphant lofty flag;
But pois’d with this, my sanctity
Is nothing but a filthy rag.

I glory in my righteousness,
And loud extol it with my tongue ;
But all my grace, compar’d with this,
I underrate as loss and dung.

By justifying grace I ‘m apt
Of divine favor free to boast;
By holiness I ‘m partly shap’d
Into his image I had lost.

The first to divine justice pays
A rent to still the furious storm ;
The last to divine holiness
Instructs me duly to conform.

The first does quench the fiery law,
Its rigid cov’nant fully stay;
The last its rule embroider’d draw,
To deck my heart, and gild my way.

Though all my graces precious are,
Yea, perfect also in desire ;
They cannot stand before the bar
Where awful justice is umpire:

But, in the robe that Christ did spin,
They are of great and high request;
They have acceptance wrapt within
My elder Brother’s bloody vest.

My righteousness proclaims me great
And fair ev’n in the sight of God ;
But sanctity ‘s my main offset
Before the gazing world abroad.

More justifi’d I cannot be
By all my most religious acts;
But these increase my sanctity,
That’s still attended with defects.

My righteousness the safest ark
Midst ev’ry threat’ning flood will be;
My graces but a leaking bark
Upon a stormy, raging sea.

My righteousness is that which draws
My thankful heart to this respect:
The former then is first the cause,
The latter is the sweet effect.

Christ is in justifying me,
By name, The Lord my righteousness ;
But, as he comes to sanctify,
The Lord my strength and help he is.

The former does annul my woe,
By God’s judicial sentence past;
The latter makes my graces grow,
Faith, love, repentance, and the rest.

The first does divine pard’ning love
Most freely manifest to me;
The last makes shining graces prove
Mine int’rest in the pardon free.

My soul in justifying grace
Does full and free acceptance gain;
In sanctity I heav’nward press,
By sweet assistance I obtain.

The first declares I ‘m free of debt,
And nothing left for me to pay;
The last makes me a debtor yet,
But helps to pay it ev’ry day.

My righteousness with wounds and blood
Discharg’d both law’s and justice’ score;
Hence with the debt of gratitude
I’ll charge myself for evermore.

Ralph Erskine (1685- 1752)

Thanks Gabriel,

This really blesses me tonight.

Earlier tonight I heard an interview on the White Horse Inn that Michael Horton had with a Roman Catholic scholar. Very depressing to hear this RCC scholar deny the very basics of the gospel. This RCC scholar articulated the exact same doctrines that I was taught growing up in Adventism--that you can’t ever be sure of your salvation, and that you are justified until you commit a sin such as eating meat on Friday, and unless you confess this sin, you will be lost. You keep losing and regaining your justification.

The link is http://www.whitehorseinn.org

Stan

Matthew 18:21-33 and Matthew 6:15 are pretty clear that our being forgiven is contingent on our forgiving others. 

[quote author="glennspring"]Matthew 18:21-33 and Matthew 6:15 are pretty clear that our being forgiven is contingent on our forgiving others.

Hi Glenn,

Again, if a person is truly regenerate, and born again, God will give him the power to be willing to forgive. The natural unregenerate man cannot truly forgive his enemies.

Stan