For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Romans 2:13

How somebody understands this affirmation of Apostle Paul is revelatory about his or her position regard justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28). At first glance, this text seems to teach righteousness by works of the law, and consequently is one of the texts preferred by Roman Catholics apologists in attacking the protestant concept of Sola Fide, faith alone.

This text appears in the context of the first part of the epistle to the Romans, which starts with Romans 1:18

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. Rom. 1:18

and develops this theme until the middle of chapter 3,

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20

The text under consideration appears in the middle of the argument, and is instrumental in building Paul’s case of proving that God’s wrath is above Jews and gentiles alike, that the Jews are under the same condemnation as the Gentiles in spite of their apparent superior morality acquired by their fidelity to the law. Instead of boasting to be better than the Gentiles who had no God and who had not pledged adherence to God’s revealed law, the Law just proves that they are the as sinful as gentiles are, and instead of justifying them, the Law is condemning them with the same righteous condemnation which they think only Gentiles deserve.

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.  We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.  Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Rom. 2:1-3

The question appears: why the Law, instead of being a blessing, becomes a curse? The answer is given in the text under consideration: because the Law can justify only those who keep it, and keep it perfectly, not those who are listening to it only. The doers of the Law will be justified. The Law pronounces a blessing for all who are faithfully keeping it.

But since the Law reflects the perfection of the Lawgiver, it requires perfect obedience, pronouncing a curse on the slightest departure from the right course.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Galatians 3:10

Notice that the curse is not for those who keep the law, but for those who don’t: “don’t abide”. And keeping the law to a certain degree is insufficient, because it is necessary an abiding “by all things written in the Book of the Law”. You must obey the Law perfectly, 24 hours per day, in every little aspect, otherwise you are under a curse.

There is no need to go further to understand that, except Jesus, no man is keeping the Law perfectly, and instead of the blessing, he is under the curse. Jews, even by their partially abiding by the law, were under the same curse as Gentiles, because they were not able to keep it perfectly.

The obvious conclusion is that even if theoretically justification by works of the law is possible, since the doers of the Law will be justified, nobody will be justified by the works of the law, because there is no such person who keeps the Law according to God’s perfect standard. Romans 2:13, the text under discussion describes a hypothetical situation, because nobody is a doer of the Law. Consequently, nobody can be justified by the works of the law, because nobody is keeping perfectly the law.

The good news is that we are still justified by the works of the Law, and we can be doers of the Law, but these works are not our works, are Jesus’ works. Jesus perfectly kept the Law for our benefit, and his perfect obedience is imputed to us, in order for us to be justified. To this righteousness we contributed nothing, no works, it is apart from works in the sense that it is apart from our works. But it is attested, confirmed by the Law, because it is a Law righteousness, based on Jesus’ works.

Of maximum importance is to understand that Christ’s righteousness which is able to satisfy perfectly the requirements of the Law is not the righteousness worked in us, by the Holy Spirit, in sanctification. Our sanctification is imperfect and cannot satisfy the full requirements of the Law. Only Christ’s holy and perfect life, which is external to us can satisfy these requirements. Understanding that we are justified exclusively on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed, external to us is the essence of Sola Fide, justification by faith alone. The “alone” was and it still is the point of dispute between protestants and romano-catholics. The protestants maintained that our acceptation before God, our entrance in the Kingdom depends exclusively on Christ’s imputed righteousness, external to us, his perfect life of obedience and not even partially on our sanctification, our personal obedience.

As far as my personal experience and knowledge of Adventist theology there are two views about “the doers of the law” in Adventism.

1. Traditional, conservative view, shared by historic Adventists: the doers of the Law are believers who are indwelt by Christ who’s the author of good works. They are truly fulfilling the Law, because the believer’s works are not his own, but Christ’s and consequently perfect, rising to the level required by the Law. The saints will be able to stand before God’s judgment based on Christ’s sacrifice for their pasts sins, and Christ’s perfect obedience worked in them by the Holy Spirit. After the judgment is over, the saints will keep their blameless state during the time when Christ will no longer be a Mediator before His second coming. In short, there is a combination of what Christ did for the believer (death for his pasts sins) and what Christ is doing presenting in the believer (perfect obedience).
2. Evangelical, close to the protestant view. The difference between this view and the precedent consists in an acknowledgment that what Christ is working in us is not perfect. At this point they are in harmony with the protestant view of sola fide. But it is still not the protestant view, because the view sees our obedience, as imperfect as it is, is made perfect by Christ’s blood. The imperfection is cleansed by an application of Christ’s blood, and in this way, Christ’s obedience worked in us combined with Christ’s blood makes our obedience acceptable before God. Our acceptance at the bar of judgment and our living without Mediator is seen as based on our sanctified obedience, made perfect by Christ’s blood.

This second view is closed to the concept of sola fide, since it attributes to the working of God’s grace our acceptance before God. We can find it in the writings of Ellen White

The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary, but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor, who is at God’s right hand, presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God. All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the merits of Christ’s propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned.  {1SM 344.2}

But this view still fails short of sola fide, because it is still our obedience, worked by the Holy Spirit, which is made acceptable before God. It is still a righteousness which is not entirely apart from works of the Law, our obedience to the Law. It is a combination of something which is apart from the Law (what Jesus did for us on the cross, his blood) and something which is not apart from the Law, our sanctified obedience. It is not exclusively what Jesus did for us, as the reformers understood it.

As far as I can speak from my experience, this text is constantly used by Adventist apologists in a similar way Catholic apologists use it in order to accuse those who are embracing sola fide of departing from the teaching of the Bible. I personally listened to sermons in which this text was used as a demonstration that even the Apostle Paul does not endorse the “sola” from “sola fide”. I listened to sermons that were made in order to put to rest any doubts that Adventists may be wrong regarding their understanding of justification by faith. Sadly, this attitude betrays a misunderstanding of the gospel message, obscuring from the eyes of the listeners the beautiful truth that our only hope is in Christ’s righteousness worked for us in Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Even Ellen White said that our only ground of hope is not alone in Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, showing her departure from sola fide.

So we have nothing in ourselves of which to boast. We have no ground for self-exaltation. Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us.  {SC 63.1}

Instead of putting our hope and trust partially in our sanctified works, sola fide maintains that our only ground of hope is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, because it is a righteousness apart from works, apart from our holy living, perfect and sufficient.

My desire for Adventism is to finish it’s transition to sola fide. It moved in the right direction, but it still fails short of a clear affirmation of sola fide.

Soli Deo Gloria

Gabriel

In 1994 a group of Evangelical and Romano Catholic leaders declared their unity on the subject of the gospel in a document entitled Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) They received a lot of criticism from other evangelical leaders and theologians as John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, John Ankerberg, especially because the document said nothing about sola fide, faith alone. The critics insisted that sola fide is essential for the message of the gospel, since it is in fact an expression of the truth that our justification is based on the righteousness of Christ alone. In response to this objection, the signatories worked and came with another document, entitled Gift of Salvation (GOS),which affirms that we are justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9801/articles/gift.html

Justification is central to the scriptural account of salvation, and its meaning has been much debated between Protestants and Catholics. We agree that justification is not earned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God’s gift, conferred through the Father’s sheer graciousness, out of the love that he bears us in his Son, who suffered on our behalf and rose from the dead for our justification. Jesus was “put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Romans 4:25). In justification, God, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so.

One evangelical signatory of GOS called the last statement the greatest breakthrough in Roman Catholic-evangelical dialogue in the last one hundred years. He hears here a clear affirmation of sola fide. Here is the commentary of RC Sproul who disagrees with this evaluation.

What is conspicuous by its absence in this affirmation is the word imputed. If the document stated that justification is “on the basis of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone,” then we would have an evangelical affirmation.

Remember that the chief aspect of justification disputed during the Reformation was the ground of our justification. According to the Reformers it is the imputed righteousness of Christ; according to Rome it is the infused righteousness of Christ. Both sides claimed that justification is based on the righteousness of Christ. They differed sharply and persistently over the question of imputed versus infused righteousness.

What is the difference? For Rome the infused righteousness of Christ, the grace of justification, is “poured into the soul” sacramentally. A person can be neither just nor justified without this infusion. But still the person must cooperate and assent to this infused righteousness to such an extent that righteousness actually inheres in the person. Only when the person is inherently just by the help of the grace of Christ’s infused righteousness will God declare the person just.

Hence the issue was this; Is our justification based on the righteousness of Christ in us or the righteousness of Christ forus? Luther insisted that the righteousness by which we are justified is a righteousness that is extra nos, “apart fronm us.” He called it an iastitiam alienum, an “alien righteousness.”

The Reformation doctrine is one of synthetic justification, meaning simply that we are justified by virtue of something added to our person that is not inherently ours. In contrast, the Roman view is one of analytical justification, by which we are declared to be just because analysis indicates we truly are just.

The great controversy of the sixteenth century over imputed versus infused righteousness is side-stepped in GOS. An orthodox Roman Catholic could in good conscience subscribe to this statement as long as the nature of Christ’s righteousness (imputed or infused is left unspecified. R. C. Sproul, Getting the Gospel Right, page 65

As you can see from above, even catholics can affirm in good conscience that we are saved exclusively on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, apparently affirming sola fide, but their understanding of it sees the infused, internal process of sanctification as being part of the ground, of the basis of justification. In this view, we are not justified before God apart from our works, apart from anything good we did or we will ever do, without works that no man may boast (Ephesians 2:9, Romans 3:27). You must sweat, cooperate with God’s in advancing in your sanctification and this cooperation is rewarded with justification. It is no longer a gift, apart from anything you did, but a reward for your cooperation, your work.

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.  And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Rom. 4:4,5

In order for salvation to be a pure gift from God’s amazing grace, any type of working must be excluded as far as justification is concerned. We stand before God’s holy eyes naked, and the only robe we can claim is Christ’s spotless robe of His righteousness. We receive this robe instantly, we receive it as something we don’t have, we didn’t earned, and it is sufficient to cover us and pass us through the judgment. It is sufficient to give us free entrance into heaven and also in assuring us any other blessing obtained for us by Christ.

This cannot be true if we are looking at ourselves as being “doers of the law” who will be justified. We are deceiving ourselves because we are working for our salvation, for our justification, for gaining acceptance before God, for a status of righteousness. There is plenty of room for boasting in this arrangement, because our justification is something we earned by our good works. It doesn’t matter if these good works are made under the guidance and influence of the Holy Spirit, they are still ours, they reflect our assent and cooperation with the Holy Spirit, and the righteousness by faith we think we will receive is not by faith alone, apart from works.

Instead the good news is that Christ is our Substitute both in the face of the penalty for our sins, hanging and dying on the cross for our sins, and He’s also Substitute as regarding God’s holy requirements. He is the single one who is the doer of the law, who kept the law perfectly and when we put our trust in Him alone, he transfers to our account his obedience. Now we are counted as doers of the law, and are justified before God on the ground of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone. We are simply beggars before God, who came naked before God’s holiness with a naked hand of faith, simply receiving what Jesus obtained for us in his life, death, and resurrection.

Gabriel

“The doers of the law who will be justified” can easily qualify as the most clear, obvious declaration that justification is by the works of the law. No wonder that it was and it is still used by Roman Catholics apologists as a heavy weapon against the protestants who claim that justification is by faith alone.

Robert Sungenis, a former protestant converted to catholicism rebuts Michael Horton, professor at Westminster Seminary, California using Romans 2:16 as the first weapon in the order of attacking the gospel. He says:
http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/justification/horton-rebutal.htm

If you ask Dr. Horton how he deals with Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:6-13 9 (that those who do good works will be justified and receive eternal life), he will answer something like this: “Oh, Paul didn’t really mean that one can receive justification and eternal life for good works. It only appears that way. Actually, Paul was setting up an impossible task for man in order to drive him to the next chapter where he teaches that only faith without works will justify.” I know he will say this because I’ve heard him speak on Romans 2. But notice what he’s done. Without any indication from Paul that he is setting up an impossible task, Dr. Horton imposes such a disclaimer on the text of Romans 2.

After affirming this, Sungenis challenges Horton

Now here is the fair question for Dr. Horton: Does Paul claim anywhere in Romans 2 that his teaching (that those who do good works will be justified and receive eternal life) is hypothetical? Dr. Horton knows that the answer to this question is no. Paul never even hints that his teaching in Romans 2 is hypothetical. He speaks as plainly in Romans 2 as he does in Romans 3.

If Sungenis is claiming that Paul does not explicitly say that Paul is presenting a hypothetical situation in Romans 2, he will be right. But Sungenis is claiming that the concept of hypothetical situation is not present even implicitly in Romans 2 and 3, that Paul never hints about this claim.

Sungenis is a graduate of Westminster Seminary where Horton is a professor. He is aware of the protestant interpretation of Romans 2 and 3 and he has no good excuse for what he’s ignoring in his commentary. He seems to forgot that Romans 2:16 is part of a long argument of Paul which starts in chapter 1 and ends in chapter 3. Sungenis has nothing to say about the conclusion of this long part of Paul’s epistle, which affirms

What then? Are we Jews any better off?  No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

“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.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.  For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Rom.3:9-20

After affirming that the doers of the law will be justified, Paul concludes that nobody will be justified by doing the law, by the works of the law. And his conclusion is based on the reality that “all”, without exceptions, Greeks and Jews are under sin. The Jews, even if they have the law, and apparently the chance to justify themselves by obeying the law, are instead under it’s condemnation rather than justification because they are sinners. They are not doers of the law, there is no such person. Emphatically, by repetition, the apostle Paul brings this truth to our ears:

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.”

Not even one Jew, not even one righteous person, not even one doers of the law. Instead of bringing justification, the law brings condemnation, bringing the knowledge of the universality of sin, and the reality of the impossibility of justification by the works of the law. Paul implicitly affirms that when he says that the doers of the law will be justified, he’s presenting a hypothetical situation, not because the law cannot justify, but because that according to law’s standards, nobody is raising at the level required.

Paradoxically, this bad news is the preamble of the good news. Without the good news, we will be left without hope. But there is a but

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. Rom. 3:22,23

Once nothing can come from us, once we became aware that we are not seeking after God, we do nothing good, we are in the position of despairing of ourselves and of anything good possible coming from inside us, we are prepared to hear the good news of the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law, something we attain not by our attempts to keep the law, but by receiving what God gives us in Christ by faith in Him. We are prepared of looking at Christ alone for our salvation not to what comes from us. Believers are not in a better position than unbelievers, because even after being regenerated we have nothing good in ourselves (Rom. 7:18). We are sanctified but our sanctification still not raises to the level of fulfilling the law, the two great commandments. We still don’t love God will all our hearts and minds, and our neighbor as ourselves. the good news of what we have in Christ, of what God gave us in Christ, of God’s gift is our only hope our entire life, and it is hope enough.

...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 Rom. 3:24,25

Instead of coming before God with something from us in order to be accepted by a holy God, we come with a naked hand in order to receive by faith what God put forward, his gift, the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. This is a liberating experience, our repentance being genuine because it is motivated by true sorrow for sin and gratitude for what Christ done for us, not by the goal of obtaining forgiveness because of it. Obedience also is guided by the same gratitude. Far from eliminating obedience, justification by faith alone is the only basis for true obedience, motivated by love, by God’s gifts.

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
We love because he first loved us. 1 John 4:10, 19

Gabriel

Gabriel

Thanks for the good post. While reading it I was reminded of the conversation between protestant Lady Jane Grey (England’s “Nine Day Queen") and Bloody Mary’s archbishop, Feckenham, two days before he watched her die for the faith in the Tower of London.

Quoting here from the Reformation by Nichols:

“In the exchange over justification, Freckenham tried to trip her up by accusing her of rejecting good works, so clearly required of the Christian, “It is necessary unto salvation to do good works also; it is not sufficient only to believe,” he told her. She returned, “I deny that, and I affirm that faith only saves; but it is meet for a Christian to do good works, in token that he follow the steps of his Master, Christ, yet we may not say that we profit to our salvation; for when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants, and faith only in Christ’s blood saves us.” Luther could have scarcely put the doctrine of justification by faith better. . . (Two days later upon the scaffold) “I here die a true Christian woman and I trust to be saved by the blood of Christ, and by none other means.”

Bob

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 25 June 2008 09:02 AM

Far from eliminating obedience, justification by faith alone is the only basis for true obedience, motivated by love, by God’s gifts.

Gabriel, good observations and thanks for your posts on this important topic.

I highlighted your sentence above because it addresses something that repeatedly comes up when we discuss justification by faith alone. It’s common for Adventists to be critical of Christians who emphasize the sufficiency of Jesus’ atonement for all of their sins (past, present and future). The thinking is that by emphasizing grace, Christians give themselves “license” to live a life of sinful disobedience to God. Wrapped up in this is the implied belief that Adventists are more faithful than other Christians in their obedience to God, particularly as it pertains to the fourth commandment. But Paul’s argument here in Romans 2 should give pause to anyone who claims to keep the law better than others.

“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?” (Romans 2:1-3 ESV)

Adventists who believe they are part of God’s remnant church because they keep the fourth commandment should take a hard look at this passage. They will find their Sabbath-keeping does not place them in a favorable position in God’s eyes, and it may be quite the opposite. Unless they have been born again and received God’s grace for all of their sins (past, present and future), even their “keeping” of the Sabbath condemns them!

Gabriel, as you pointed out in your prior posts, Adventists and Roman Catholics use Romans 2:6 to create a doctrine of works-based righteousness. At the very least, this use of Romans 2:6 creates a contradiction within Paul’s own teaching on justification by faith because he is very clear that salvation is by faith, not by works of the law (see for example Romans 3:21-25 and Galatians 2:16-21). Adventists and Roman Catholics would have us read Romans 2:6 in isolation and then build a doctrine of salvation around it, but of course this is a violation of basic principles of biblical interpretation where Scripture must be read in context and compared with other texts. If there are passages that plainly show Paul’s teaching that justification is by faith and not by works of the law, we cannot use Romans 2:6 to overturn them because a contradiction is created in this process. We cannot pit one text against another because the unity and trustworthiness of the Bible would be lost.

So what does Romans 2:6 mean? Instead of Paul making obedience a condition for salvation as Adventists and Roman Catholics teach, Paul is arguing here that 1) nobody is perfectly obedient to God’s law, so nobody will be justified by their obedience and 2) Christian obedience flows out of justification. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and we work out that faith in grateful obedience to him, even though that obedience will always be imperfect. Said another way, we are saved by faith and we proceed to walk in the works God has prepared for us. Paul uses an identical argument in Ephesians 2:8-10. “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. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” When either verses 8-9 or 10 are emphasized in isolation, a “cheap grace” antinomianism or a works-based righteousness emerges.

I’m convinced that many of us who have left Adventism could do a better job of articulating our desire to be obedient to God, not as a condition of salvation, but as a consequence of it. We can rightly be criticized for emphasizing grace to the exclusion of obedience. The New Testament does not minimize the role of obedience in the lives of Christians; if anything our need for obedience is magnified in light of the more perfect revelation of God we have received in Jesus Christ (see Matthew chapters 5-7, for example). To the extent that we minimize or ignore Christian obedience, we present a distorted view of the gospel which has the power to save and sanctify us.

Geoffrey B. Wilson summarizes these concepts in his commentary on Romans 2:

Romans 2:2
“If the Jew commits the same sins as he condemns in the Gentiles, let him not imagine that either privilege or profession can secure him against the just condemnation of God. ... Man must judge by the outward aspect, and he is often deceived by it; it is otherwise with God (1 Samuel 16:7).”

Romans 2:6
“As the actions of men afford an infallible index of their character, therefore this forms the unchanging standard by which God judges them. (Proverbs 24:12; Matthew 16:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 22:12).

It must be remembered that this is not an exposition of Paul’s Gospel, but it is what he regarded as an essential preliminary to it. The Apostle is preaching the full rigour of the law to those who sought to be justified by it. (Romans 10:1-3) ... The believer’s union with Christ is shown by his good works, the reward of which is the reward of [God’s] grace. (Isaiah 26:12, John 15:5)”

Romans 2:7
“The righteous are now described in terms of the principle stated in the preceding verse (see also verse 10). In this passage it does not fall within the scope of the Apostle’s purpose to explain the dynamic from which these good works spring (for that, see Romans 3:21).

His present design is to prove to the Jew the complete impartiality of the Divine administration. If this section is interpreted as teaching salvation by works, the Paul is involved in a hopeless self-contradiction. Against this, it is sufficient to note that the heavenly aspirations which characterize the righteous are not found in a hard and ‘impenitent heart.’ (verse 5) They are the fruit of a restored relationship. (Ezekiel 36:26-27) It is true that many idly dream of ‘glory and honour and immortality,’ but obedience and perseverance are the invariable marks of those who cherish a living hope. (Colossians 1:22-23) ‘Patient continuance in well doing’ is an indispensable condition for the attainment of eternal life. (Matthew 24:13; Hebrews 3:14)”
(Source: Romans, Geoffrey B. Wilson, pp. 36-38)

Greg

Thanks Gabriel for another excellent topic and post. 

Justification is the great divide between true protestantism and false Roman and SDA views.  The big “aha” moment for me was when I read Geoffrey Paxton’s “Shaking of Adventism”, where he outlined so well how SDA’s gospel was practically the same as Rome’s gospel. When I realized that SDA was wrong at the basic core idea of the gospel, it was then that I could no longer be an SDA. I could not belong to a church who was wrong on the basics of the gospel.

For Luther and the other reformers, there was even a more basic doctrine than justification, and that is the doctrine of monergistic regeneration. The latter doctrine guarantees that when a person is sovereignly regenerated by God, then, it is guaranteed that God will also declare that person justified and righteous in Christ.

Greg makes an excellent point above:

“I’m convinced that many of us who have left Adventism could do a better job of articulating our desire to be obedient to God, not as a condition of salvation, but as a consequence of it. We can rightly be criticized for emphasizing grace to the exclusion of obedience. The New Testament does not minimize the role of obedience in the lives of Christians; if anything our need for obedience is magnified in light of the more perfect revelation of God we have received in Jesus Christ (see Matthew chapters 5-7, for example). To the extent that we minimize or ignore Christian obedience, we present a distorted view of the gospel which has the power to save and sanctify us.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a key point.  When I first left SDA and embraced the doctrine of justification, I admit I was guilty of what Greg mentioned.  I remember when John MacArthur’s book “The gospel according to Jesus” came out in the early 80’s which was a book counteracting the heresy of “No Lordship salvation”, I was uncomfortable with his message. I thought John was preaching a gospel of works, and even Michael Horton thought the book was too heavy handed and might subtlely be bringing back works in the back door. MacArthur subsequently clarified things better by publishing “The gospel according to the Apostles”.  But the point MacArthur really makes, is that when a person is regenerated and justified, then good works and obdience will inevitably follow. I am no longer afraid of hearing MacArthur talk so much about obedience, even though I think at times, he might be guilty of overemphasizing law over grace. However, the difference between MacArthur and the law teaching of SDA’s, is the BASIS of the teaching. Traditional SDA’s have no assurance of salvation, because they don’t understand the very basic doctrine of regeneration and justification, whereas MacArthur’s teaching streams from the assurance of knowing one is regenerated and justified forever.

Stan

Thanks for joining in on this thread, Bob, Greg and Stan

The accusation of downplaying obedience or even excluding it always accomplished the preching of the true gospel. And it is understandable as long as the accusation comes from people who had not yet to the point of despairing their righteousness. Two days ago I corresponded on email with my former professor of Hebrews from the theological seminary, working to dispell misunderstandings regarding the necessity of obedience. After recognizing that I’m not believing that obedience is optional, like the believer is free to obey or not obey God, we were still unable to reach an agreement on the place where obedience stands in relationship with justificaiton. After recognizing that I despair my obedience which, due ot its imperfeciton is still filthy rags, abomination in God’s holy eyes, I continued to affirm that at the end of the day, when all is done and said, my only hope is Christ’s robe of righteousness which covers my sin, his imputed righteousness. He had not yet replied to this e-mail. Why it should be so hard to recognize that you cannot rely on your obedience, even sanctified obedience? He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness Titus 3:5

This despairing of personal righteousness is what I long to see in the life of my Adventist friends. This awareness that before a holy God their personal righteousness is insufficient, their obedience failing short of God’s expectation. At the same time, I understand that this is in great part not a realistic expectation as long as someone is bound to rely partially on his sanctification for passing the Investigative Judgment, a built in condition of this system.

Gabriel

I want to update my previous post, to his credit, my former professor answered my email, agreeing with me that the price of our salvation at the judgment is Jesus’ sacrifice. He affirms also that our deeds are not the ground of salvation, but constitute the evidence of salvation. So far so good.

What perplexes me is the second part of his email dealing with the parable of the judgment of sheep and goats from Matthew 25 which I cannot harmonize with the first part. I don’t have any doubt that in his view he sees no contradiction. In dealing with Matthew 25 he affirms that the verdicts at the judgment are given according to worthiness (reflecting Jesus), and not according to the credit given in the past.

I think it is possible to agree with my former professor if he will not use the word “worthiness”. The judgment is according to works in the sense that God’s verdicts are in harmony with the evidence of being justified by faith alone, evidence consisting of good works. Since we are justified not by a profession of faith but by possessing true faith, the good works will constitute the evidence of our justification by being the evidence of the fact that our faith is genuine, that is not a mere profession.

But my professor introduces the term “worthy” which is an equivalent of merit. Of course, by this he does not understand merit in the absolute sense, it is worthiness produced by cooperation with God’s grace. The grace is necessary, and we can’t be worthy without it, but grace refers to the power of God in sanctification which combined with human effort, results in the verdict. The problem is that my former professor is willing to use a synonym for “merit”, which implies that our merit, our worthiness has a play in the judgment.

I’m glad Stan mentioned The Shaking of Adventism, great, very good and useful book. For understanding the similarities between the Adventist and Romano Catholic views of justification and the gospel, it is priceless. And it is available online for free, http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/shaking/

My former professor’s views of the final judgment is in harmony with the classical Adventist formulations found in The Shaking of Adventism, chapter 7, namely that my acceptance at the final judgment is depending on the inner renewal.

In preparation for this book, this author conducted an extensive survey in the United States in 1976 on the topic of justification by faith and the seminary student. Eleven schools were surveyed with a multiple-choice questionnaire. Question six was:

My acceptance in the final judgment will be based upon
(a) my character.
(b) the character which Christ has worked out within me.
(c) the forgiveness of sins.

Sixty-six percent of the Seventh-day Adventist Andrews University Seminary students who filled out the questionnaire answered with (b): “the character which Christ has worked out within me.”

The problematic aspect of his statement is that he’s not clear how we are justified apart from works, from the moment we believe, and the judgment is only revelatory. He insinuates that my faith in the credit will not help me in the judgment since I’m not a sabbatarian. The question is: if I’m not a sabbatarian like himself, does this prove that I don’t have true faith? Something like this is implied in his statements. According to his views, he’s not willing to shake hands with me and take a stand together on Christ’s imputed righteousness as the ground of our salvation, since we part ways regarding our views of obedience and sanctification. 

I’m sad because also he affirmed that Luther had not the complete gospel because he rejected anabaptism and Saturday sabbatarianism. For me this is very discouraging because the gospel is about Christ and his perfect work, not about the correct view about baptism and sabbatarianism. Disagreements between Christians about these subjects existed during the time of the reformation, but they had never been considered at the same level as the gospel of justification by faith alone, excluding people from salvation. They pertain to the domain of sanctification and there is enough room for diversity here. But from the Adventist point of view, if these things are part of the gospel, being wrong about baptism and the sabbath is the same as having an incomplete gospel, even a false one, affecting the eternal salvation. Luther may be excused for his lack of knowledge, but I can’t.

Here I must stop before getting too emotional. Suffice to say that I’m grieved that in the name of having an up-to-date gospel, elements who are not part of the gospel are introduced in the message, to the degree that people cant’ shake hands and stay together on the ground of justification. On surface level, agreement is affirmed, but beneath there is enough disagreement to keep people away from fellowship in the gospel.

Gabriel

Gabriel

I thought I’d share some ramblings on this great question about justification, specifically the one posed to the seminary students.  Here’s my end notes from an old e-mail on this topic that I wrote to a friend a few years ago.  I was very glad that you mentioned this question, because I had questions about the results from Andrews. 

End notes

* What a question!! Answer b is the same case Jesus presented about the man wearing his own clothes to the Wedding Banquet (Matt 22) Everyone was invited, and people came, “both good and bad” (v.10).  Their characters were not an issue in deciding their salvation!  The question for them and for us is, have we by faith received the King’s robe, thereby identifying ourselves as guests of the King? Putting on the robe is a bit like wearing gang colors or a military uniform. It identifies us corporately.  Jesus assured us that believers will not come into judgment (John 5:24) so Christians have nothing to fear.
Jesus redeemed us from sin (Matthew 1:21, Galatians 4:4-5 and Hebrews 2:14-17).  Yet, we are sinners, and liars if we deny it—see 1 John 1:8!!  At the moment of our salvation, when the Holy Spirit is given as a deposit guaranteeing our salvation, our characters are far from perfect.  Same with the great saints of the Bible (see Hebrews 11) who at the end of their lives were still waiting to be made perfect!) Thank God that 1 John 1:9 follows 1 John 1:8!!  While we wish for perfect characters right now, we look forward in faith to the day when Jesus will finally complete the good work He has begun in us (Phil 1:6).  Meanwhile, from the moment we receive Jesus, and for our entire lives on this earth (and in the judgment, for those who insist!) our salvation is assured not by the character Christ is working out within us, but by the fact that we have by faith received Him as Lord and Saviour. 

Our fallen, sinful nature causes us to fail repeatedly.  Despite our failings, we are complete in Christ (Col 2:10).  Although we are enthralled with the beauty of Jesus’ character, He was born Holy (Luke 1:35); we were not. 

The correct answer would be anything that Christ only can provide, ie, forgiveness of sins, His grace, the deposit of His Spirit in our hearts guaranteeing our inheritance, etc.  Our characters may certainly improve as we walk in the Spirit, but we are saved not by reference to our characters, but by reference to wearing Christ’s robe and being “in Him” corporately.  Steeped in Sinai based theology, I initially answered b, too. What I read about the investigative judgment had confused me. I believed I was on probation until I could develop a perfect character and that I would eventually have to stand before God without Jesus as Mediator.  I assumed these teachings were Biblical, but they’re not. 

I’ve heard many Adventists say the same thing as the Judiazers were saying:  “Sure, have faith in Christ, but then you must also keep the law.” See Acts 15, where the Christian church assembled a council in Jerusalem to deal with these teachers who insisted on teaching the law of Moses to new believers. 

In order to make sense of the new testament, you have to know who the Judiazers were, and what they were teaching.  This is easy for SDAs to understand, because Judiazers taught the exact same thing as the SDA church in regard to the old covenant law.  In a devious twist that has confused millions, Ellen White said “Satan declared that human beings could not keep the law.” Review and Herald, September ______________- article Without Excuse.  Thinking Satan is the one who says they can’t keep the law, they naturally argue that we can (and must) keep the law.  She develops this point that we must keep the old covenant (specifically the 10 commandments) perfectly no less than 15 times throughout her nearly 100,000 pages of writings.  If you want an earful from Paul on his opinion of these teachers of the law, read the three short chapters of the book of Titus—just a page or two before the book of Hebrews.

In reality, the scriptures teach that human beings cannot keep the law.  See Acts 15: 10, where Peter, under influence of the Holy Spirit, declares that neither we (Christians) nor our fathers (believing Jews) could bear the law.  See also 1 John 1:8 Ellen takes the position of scripture (given by the Holy Spirit through Peter), attributes it to Satan, and then forces Adventists to argue against scripture. 

Questions on sanctification always arise here, and in fact drove the Protestant Reformation.  This is a discussion worth pursuing in the near future.  We’ve now come nearly full circle, to the where this paper began . . . 

Bob

Excellent points Bob!

Folks, there is an excellent discussion of this topic on tonight’s (6/29) edition of the White Horse Inn which can be downloaded at http:/ /www.whitehorseinn.org They do a good job in clearing up the misinterpretations of scripture that are wide spread in the Christian church as well as the SDA church.

Stan

BobJ - 27 June 2008 09:04 PM

In a devious twist that has confused millions, Ellen White said “Satan declared that human beings could not keep the law.” Review and Herald, September ______________- article Without Excuse.  Thinking Satan is the one who says they can’t keep the law, they naturally argue that we can (and must) keep the law.  She develops this point that we must keep the old covenant (specifically the 10 commandments) perfectly no less than 15 times throughout her nearly 100,000 pages of writings.

Unfortunately this statement has a kernel of truth in it, namely that God is not in the business of making fun or mocking people when he asks them to keep perfectly the law. It is not God’s game to ask us the impossible just to humiliate us and break us down in order to teach us a lesson about our true nature.  This truth about God is understood by Adventist who jump to the conclusion that God’s requirements are attainable, that the law could be kept as it should be, perfectly and so on.  Confronted with the idea that God ask people to accomplish an impossible task is for many the same thing as affirming that God is a mocker, playing vicious games with people, humiliating them unnecessarily.

But God is not a mocker even if he asks us to accomplish an impossible task. he’s not a mocker because he cannot ask us anything less than perfection. His requirements for mankind are designed for man as was created by God, being attainable by Adam and Eve in their innocent state. The sin brought in the inability to measure up to the standard, and man in his fallen condition found these requirements impossible. But they were not impossible for him before the fall, perfectly in the reach of his abilities. People must think in terms of the fall when they look at God’s commands, which were designed for them in the original state.

The question arises about God’s fairness in not adapting himself to man’s fallen state and require something which can be done by him. The answer is that God can’t be less than perfect and requiring less than perfection will be an act of injustice because less than perfection means sin. Saying that God will be satisfied with something less than perfect obedience implies that God is satisfied with sin.  And this cannot be. God is holy, holy, holy, and he cannot make rules which approve sin, he cannot formulate a law less than holy, righteous and good.

Gabriel

Gabriel,

Thank you for your excellent posts on righteousness by faith alone.  Your statement, “Saying God will be satisfied with something less than perfect obedience implies God is satisfied with sin,” is most biblically-accurate.  Truly, God requires nothing less than perfect obedience to His revealed will to humankind.  Our Adventist friends frequently tell us that we should simply do the best we can. 

Unfortunately, our doing the very best we can will not save us.  We are in desperate need of a Substitute (someone who stands in our place).  We have absolutely nothing of merit to aid in our salvation.  Indeed, we are completely at the mercy of God.  Salvation is a gift to be received, not a goal to be achieved.  To God alone belongs all the glory!

Dennis Fischer

Gabriel, I echo Dennis’ thanks for your posts.

It is not enough to claim a higher level of obedience as evidence of one’s “fitness for salvation”. Any claims made for righteousness based on commandment-keeping outside of Christ’s perfect righteousness will bring condemnation, not salvation. “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it” (James 2:10). “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse...” (Galatians 3:10). Adventists offer proof of their remnant status on the basis of keeping the “whole law”, but they neglect to see their own failure to keep even the fourth commandment. The law should not embolden a sinner to feel as if he has attained a special status, it should humble him into acknowledging that he is utterly lost because of his failure to keep it. If the law has done its work, the remedy is all the more precious—Jesus Christ and his perfect law-keeping on behalf of sinners who are guilty of breaking it all. He exchanges his righteousness for our unrighteousness (2 Corinthians 5:20-21), reconciling sinners to a God whose holiness consumes all who look to their own obedience rather than Jesus’ substitutionary obedience and atonement.

Greg