Since the current Sabbath School Lessons in the Seventh Day Adventist Church deals with the question of the meaning of atonement, I found it properly to translate my resignation letter (written in Romanian, my native language, since I’m a Romanian guy living in Romania) and make it public because it’s related to the issue of the finished atonement. Hope that it will clarify the questions regarding the meaning of the expression “finished atonement” in both the evangelical camp and the adventist camp.

To the Pastor and the board of the SDA Church

The following letter contains my personal reasons which are at the heart of why I’m no longer an Adventist. After reading this letter I hope it will become clear to you and to the board of the church that I’m no longer Adventist at heart and you will show the necessary respect for my religious freedom and will not continue to keep me a member of your church against my decision to resign my membership in the Adventist Church.

Until the mid fifties of the 20th century, the SDA Church was classified in the same category with the Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons and other Pseudo-Christians churches.  The Church dedicated itself to the task of correcting her bad image and to demonstrate that her particular understanding of the gospel is in harmony with the gospel of the Reformation, in line with the gospel of Luther, Calvin, Zwingly and the evangelical world, in contrast with the gospel of the Romano Catholic Church and the above mentioned groups. Truly, the gospel is the decisive factor which establishes if the existence of the SDA Church is justified (or vindicated).

In the 60s of the 20th century, Walter Martin, a well-known cult expert, had placed Adventism in the same category with the Mormons and Jehoiva’s Witnesses because of the rejection of the finished atonement accomplished by Jesus on the cross, Arianism, legalism rooted in the Sabbath-Sunday-Mark of the Beast theory, and the belief that Jesus possessed a fallen human nature. Coming in contact with some leaders of the SDA Church, after some exchanges and the publication by the Adventist Church of the book Questions on Doctrine, supposedly an official and authoritative formulation of the present faith confession of the church, Walter Martin re-evaluated his attitude toward the Adventist Church, removing the label cult, recognizing that she is part of the historic orthodox Christianity.

It’s noteworthy to mention that Walter Martin had not changed his previous evaluation of the early Adventist Church, the Adventism of the pioneers, seeing it as heretical and cultic because of the reasons previously mentioned. He had modified his position exclusively in correspondence with the contemporary Adventist theological stance represented by QOD (Questions on Doctrine), perceiving it as different in the points previously mentioned than the historic Adventism understanding of the pioneers. He had considered that the Adventist Church had renounced to the idea that on the cross Jesus just started the process of atonement which will be finished after 1844 in another work of cleansing and atonement for sins according to the model of the Old Testament mosaic sanctuary, containing 2 types of services, one daily and one annually (Day of Atonement). The Adventist position is that in 1844 the Day of Atonement begun in order to complete the process of atonement left unfinished by Jesus after the cross. Nevertheless Walter Martin, being assured by the QOD that Adventist now believe that the atonement was finished on the cross and whatever Jesus is doing in the heavenly sanctuary is only an application of the benefits resulting from his already finished work of atonement on the cross, concluded that indeed the church departed from his previous position, and removed the label cult.

At this point a parenthesis is required in order to understand the evangelical-protestant perspective regarding the finished atonement on the cross. Essential in this understanding is the biblical formula “once for all”, repeated especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. A simple reading of this epistle will be sufficient to see that there is a repeated contrast between the Aaronic priesthood, pertaining to the Old Covenant, and the Melchisedechian priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, the priesthood of the New Covenant. This contrast is seen especially between the plurality characterizing the Old Covenant (OC) and the singularity characterizing the New Covenant (NC)

For example, in the OC there were many priests, in the NC there is a single priest, in the OC there were many sacrifices, in the NC there was a single sacrifice. The superiority of the NL becomes evident in the fact that the sacrifice of Christ obtained an eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12) in the same way his priesthood is eternal.

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Hebrews 10:14

A finished atonement means that the punishment for sin was suffered by Christ once and for all, making in this way “perfect for all time” the true believers. In the same way that Christ’s offering was once for all time, irrepeatable, what he accomplished on the cross for the believer, the righteousness imputed is irrepeatable. When the naked hand of faith receives Christ, to the believer is given what the Lord Jesus obtained on the cross and he becomes perfect for all time. From now on, before God the believer is perfect, covered in Christ’s robe of perfect and spotless righteousness. Jesus Christ sin not dying repeatedly for the believer’s sins after every “serious” sin, He died once for his past, present and future sins.

It results that the believer is justified not only for the present moment, but also for the future, perfected for all time. The continuous intercession of Jesus Christ assures a permanent, uninterrupted application of the benefits of the salvation he obtained by his perfect life lived and a perfect sacrifice, cleansing continually the believer’s life, saving him to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25) those who approach God through Him. There is a difference between progressive sanctification, an internal process, and justification, a one time event.  This is why it may be affirmed in the present that “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1)

Now, today, when for the first time the sinner believes, he is blessed with the promise that the future will bring no condemnation to himself. In spite of the fact that he will sin in the future being guilty before God and under a right condemnation, he is covered from in Christ’s robe of righteousness, nobody and nothing being able to separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Nobody can bring charges to him because Jesus died and intermediates for him, and after God already pronounced him righteousness, who can contradict him?

Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Romans 8:33,34)

All of these are rhetorical questions pointing to the reality of the perfect assurance which the believer has in Christ.

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38,39)

The assurance of salvation lies in the accomplishment of a perfect atonement on the cross, which assures to the believer a blameless status before God which assures him that he had escaped from the future wrath of God, the future judgment. Not that there will be no future judgment, but the believer had already been judged, dying with Christ under God’s condemnation and raised together with Him to eternal life, being already seating in heavenly places.

These realities are confirmed clearly by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John, chapter 5, where he talks about the judgment by which it is understood the eternal punishment.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life John 5:24

Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. John 5:28-29

It is in the present time when the believer passes from death to life, from a resurrection of judgment and death to a resurrection of life. It is like he is a student who had already passed the final exam, keeping in his hands the positive result of his exam. These are the benefits of a finished atonement which the believer shares from the first moment of faith.

Walter Martin believed that Adventism stood in line with the evangelical gospel, but the events related with Desmond Ford’s case, his expulsion from ministry, together with the firing of many other Adventist pastors who shared his views regarding the Sanctuary, brought him second thoughts. Martin became aware of the possibility that the Adventist Church may have a different position than what he believed was expressed in QOD regarding the finished atonement on the cross.

He was well informed about the controversies QOD brought immediately after its publication, especially those stirred by M.L. Andreasen, the recognized Adventist expert in the Sanctuary doctrine. Interesting is that Andreasen shared Walter Martin’s opinion regarding the significance of QOD for the traditional position of Adventism, both viewing it as a departure from the traditional and accepted fundamental belief of the church. In spite of having different feelings than Martin about the book, condemning it in harsh language (as a sold out of Adventism to the evangelicals, a sign of the final apostasy), the irony is that Andreasen confirmed indirectly the conclusions of Walter Martin regarding Adventism, based on his perception that there was a real change iin rapport with the pioneer’s position.

In Martin’s eyes, the Adventist Church at its origins could not be considered a protestant evangelical church, and as far as there is no real change in the Adventist theology, especially regarding the atonement, the SDA Church could not claim to be evangelical, in line with the Reformation. In Walter Martin’s eyes QOD brought a real change and Andreasen’s opposition coupled with his lost of credentials brought a welcomed confirmation. Walter Martin was satisfied that officially the church sustained QOD both in theory and practice, taking a stand on its side, but the management of Desmond Ford’s case made brought him second thoughts about this subject.

He noticed that the theology of Desmond Ford who led to his exclusion from ministry does not said in essence nothing different than what Walter Martin believed that was stated by QOD: Jesus Christ entered into the Holy of Holies of the heavenly sanctuary immediately after his resurrection and ascension in the first century AD, not in 1844 as previously was believed, after he accomplished a finished atonement on the cross. Ford’s lost of job for taking a position which Martin perceived to be in harmony with QOD had raised questions about the validity of Martin’s assessment of the situation.

Walter Martin noticed also that the writings of Ellen White were used as a theological arbiter against Desmond Ford. Consequently, the cult expert questioned the General Conference regarding Ellen White’s status, if she is or she is not the infallible interpreter of the Bible. Martin offered a clear example: when disputes appear regarding the interpretations of some texts, has Ellen White the final word? He received no answer form the General Conference, and his suspicion that the writings of Ellen White were used as an infallible interpretation of the Bible grew. A lack of answer worried him, especially because he was very clear in stating that Ellen White should not be a feminine Pope if Adventists want to be numbered between the evangelicals. Otherwise they are in the same category with the mormons and their prophet, Joseph Smith.

At the same time, Walter Martin noticed that QOD was no longer in print, another possible sign that the church departed from QOD’s position and benefited illegally from the positive evaluation of Walter Martin. Even if he received messages that the book still represented the official position of the church, Martin insisted for a reprint coupled with an official explicitly approval, otherwise he will be under the duty to rewrite the chapter about Adventism from his book Kingdom of the Cults, reclassifying the Adventist Church between the cults. A premature death prevented him to formulate his conclusions of his re-evaluation started in the years of Ford’s crisis.

Yet recently, the SDA Church reprinted QOD, albeit not without modifications. The original content was not modified, but notes were added together with a historical introduction written by the well-known theologian Dr. George Knight, many years professor of Adventist history at Andrews University. His notes and the introduction confirmed Walter Martin’s fears, stating that what for many loyal Adventists seemed to be and abandonment of the classic historical position regarding the unfinished atonement was in reality just a semantic facelift. The book represented classical Adventism reworded in order to speak the evangelical language of Walter Martin. According to Knight, even if the authors of QOD used words that apparently conveyed the impression that the atonement was finished on the cross, they only stated that only the sacrificial part of atonement was finished, the process of atonement itself, far from being finalized on the cross, continuing in the sanctuary, a process not finished yet. 

Instead of sharing in the benefits of a finished work, of enjoying a salvation and full cleansing of sins, the believer still waits for the judgment’s verdict, because the atonement is not complete and his final fate is undecided. Exactly the opposite of what Walter Martin believed that QOD stated.

Recently at the campus of the Andrews University had taken place a Conference commemorating 50 years from the first publishing of QOD. This conference confirmed what Knight wrote in his introduction to QOD. They recognized the theological changes brought by QOD regarding the human nature of Christ, but also stated that QOD changed nothing regarding the atonement. Perhaps nobody will understand perfectly were the fidelity to the specific denominational theology ends and were inappropriate concessions to evangelical start, nevertheless there is no reasons, according to the leaders involved in the conference to continue the internal division of the church regarding QOD on the atonement subject.

At the end of the Conference, a Lord’s Supper was officiated by Angel Manuel Rodriguez, George Knight, and also by Colin Standish (founder of the ultraconservative Hartland Institute and a vocal critic of QOD). In such a symbolic way it became clear the internal unity of Adventism regarding atonement, if there was need for other proofs. The tendency to reunite the dissident groups with the church proves in the best case great confusion regarding the gospel in the Adventist Church and in the worst case, a clear rejection of the evangelical gospel.

In conclusion nothing significantly changed in Adventism regarding its gospel message, confirming Walter Martin’s fears, and the classification of the Adventist Church in the evangelical group is no longer true, if it ever was.

As long as the Adventist Church will not renounce his anti-gospel position, my desires for good and my affectionate attachment toward this church in which I grew up, in which I learned to study the Bible, in which I made many friends; all these things taken together cannot compensate for the theological problems. I want to be well understood: my attitude toward members at the individual level is different than my attitude toward the theological system, toward the organized faith of the church. I’m positive toward members and negative toward their beliefs. I believe that there are Christians in the Adventist Church as there are Christians in the Roman-Catholic Church, but both churches besides teaching historical Christian doctrines reject the gospel of justification by faith alone, substituting to Christ’s finished atonement on the cross with something else. This creates irreconcilable differences between Adventism and Catholicism on one side and the true evangelical gospel on another side. For these reasons I cannot remain as a member of the Adventist Church because of reasons pertaining to the conscience. I will pray that some day we will be united again around the gospel and the present disagreement will disappear. May God bless you and the church with wisdom to understand his will regarding this life and death subject.

Soli Deo Gloria
To God alone be the glory
Gabriel

Gabriel,

What an excellent letter and summary of the conflict within Adventism.  Thanks so much for sharing!

This quote from your post is key:

“The assurance of salvation lies in the accomplishment of a perfect atonement on the cross, which assures to the believer a blameless status before God which assures him that he had escaped from the future wrath of God, the future judgment. Not that there will be no future judgment, but the believer had already been judged, dying with Christ under God’s condemnation and raised together with Him to eternal life, being already seating in heavenly places.”
------------------------------------------------------------------

Without a finished atonement there is no assurance of salvation.

However, this could also be extended to the Arminian understanding of the atonement. If Christ died for everyone in the whole world, then it would follow, that either everyone in the world would be saved, or it is left for the sinner to appropriate the benefits of the atonement. A universal atonement guarantees salvation to no one, but it only makes salvation possible, so this problem still keeps the believer from full assurance.

However, the SDA and RCC views of an unfinished atonement is worse than the arminian view.

I am amazed at God’s mercy and grace in saving people even in poor theological systems. Even in the bad systems of RCC, SDA, and some forms of arminianism, there is usually just enough of the gospel presented to have a salvific effect on the hearer, who can only come to faith by a sovereign act of God. When the bible is preached, or even read, then the soil of the heart is prepared for salvation to occur. Dr. Martin, while acknowledging the logical implications of RCC and SDA theology, said at times that practically many RCCs and SDAs are true Christians. Where Martin really drew the line was on a particular group’s view of who Jesus is and their official statements on the Trinity.

More later on QOD and my memories of Walter Martin on this topic of the SDA situation.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 24 November 2008 08:11 PM

However, this could also be extended to the Arminian understanding of the atonement. If Christ died for everyone in the whole world, then it would follow, that either everyone in the world would be saved, or it is left for the sinner to appropriate the benefits of the atonement. A universal atonement guarantees salvation to no one, but it only makes salvation possible, so this problem still keeps the believer from full assurance.

You’re right, but fortunately many Arminians are not acting consistently with the consequences resulting from their position. For example, Charles Spurgeon composed a prayer of a true Arminian, and his remark was that in prayer all Arminians are Calvinists, praying like it the answer to their prayers depends only on God’s grace and not on their or others cooperation with God. Even when asking for God’s providence, they ask God to act as the supreme sovereign of the Universe, unlimited by human’s autonomy and choice.

If the assurance of salvation suffers in the Arminian system, both systems, Adventist and Catholic, rejects assurance of salvation as being the sin of presumption. That’s why we are dealing here with an anti-gospel attitude which has far-reaching effects because Adventists have to overcome their fears. It’s one thing to have inconsistencies in your belief system, and it’s another thing to instill fear in people’s minds that they’re sinning against God, sinning of presumption, being proud, careless, if they believe that their future salvation is assured. The only safe course is to have only PRESENT assurance of salvation, and Catholics and Adventists are on the same page on this.  Both systems reject actively the true gospel and classifies it as SIN OF PRESUMPTION.

Gabriel

What a sad letter.  Unfortunately, from my perspective based on missunderstanding of Scriptures.

Pastor William Bradley:
Romans 8:23, Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

In light of our differing understandings of the Gospel I cannot possibly go by this last verse (23) without comment. It is without possibility of controversy to say that this proves that the great Apostle and preacher of “justification by faith alone” believed and taught that the plan of salvation was not finished at the cross. When I hear of the “finished work of Christ” used to dismiss the idea of judgment I wonder how far people want to take this. If what is meant is that justification is finished, I agree. But, as this verse (23) indicates our adoption is not complete, thus salvation is not complete, at least until our bodies are redeemed (glorified with immortality) at the time of the Second Coming. Salvation is not finished at the cross, it was not completed at the cross. In fact, I would say that salvation is not completed until after the investigative judgment of the lost is completed in the executive judgment at the end of the millennium. Salvation will be complete when we are finally free and at peace saved from any further threat from Satan and all who align themselves with him.

I notice that neither Gabriel or anyone else responded to this when Pastor Bradely brought it up.  Furthermore I notice that you quote the following text, “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Hebrews 10:14

This text also says, “those who are being sanctified”.  Sanctification is not complete at the cross and salvation is not complete at the cross.  Paul never taught that sanctification was completed at the cross.  Who sanctifies us?  God sanctifies us.  How does He do it?  Through the Spirit and obedience.  Obedience is not an instant thing or a completed thing at the cross.

I know that we are not going to agree on this, but I’ve considered your reasoning and I am not willing to view the rest of the Bible through the filters that you would like me to, which would be a narrow interpretation of a few texts in Romans and John.  I would rather reconcile those texts with all the texts on the subject from the whole Bible and to consider other related lessons in the Bible.  Thus I believe the Adventist interpretation in this area to be much more believable, logical and Biblical than what I hear you suggesting when you state that everything was completed at the cross.  We can agree that justification was completed… at least we have that in common.

Bill.

Bill - 29 November 2008 06:11 AM

I notice that neither Gabriel or anyone else responded to this when Pastor Bradely brought it up.

Mamma mia, we failed to give an answer to Bradley and consequently we are KO. Nobody told us that we lost our case, and we are just a bunch of losers who long ago should duck and hide because we were exposed as people who can’t be trusted because they evade the truth which pastor Bradley was so generous in sharing with us.

Here is my reply to Bradley’s last assertion

Salvation will be complete when we are finally free and at peace saved from any further threat from Satan and all who align themselves with him.

The idea convened in this statement is that we can’t be sure of heaven until we enter heaven, which means no assurance at all. Bradley overlooks that we have firm assurance that the process of sanctification will continue until we will cross the line at the second coming.

“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

“Work in you” is a clear indication of inner sanctification, and this process will become complete “at the day of Jesus Christ”, at the second coming, when our sinful bodies will make room for our heavenly bodies. And this is “sure”, according to Paul, because sanctification and glorification are rooted in justification, our right standing before God based on Christ’s perfect sacrifice for our sins which washed ALL our sins away, past, present and future. Because we are justified when we sinners, we may be sure that we will cross the line into heaven.

God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Rom. 5:8-10

Did you catch this? When we were still sinners without God and in openly rebellion to Him, Christ died for us. Now, that we are believers, justified in spite of our sins and rebellion, much more, much more we will be saved from God’s wrath. The tense of verb is future, offering to us, in the present the assurance of the future, since justification is apart from works. Basically, if we were justified despite that we were ungodly and God justifies the ungodly, reconciles enemies, reconciles sinners by Christ’s death for people who are still sinners, now that we are justified and no longer enemies, much more we can be sure of our future salvation from the wrath of God. That’s why, even if in a larger sense, we can speak of our salvation as incomplete, we are sure of our future salvation as we already are in heaven. The Bible describes the believer as being already seated in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6), because there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Rom. 8:1), no future condemnation.

Bradley’s view of salvation is the best “good news” Adventism can offer which gives us no assurance at all. Justification, even if it is acknowledged as complete on the cross, is not the basis for sanctification and glorification, rather it must be augmented by sanctification, by cooperation with God’s grace in order to bring us the benefit of eternal life. It tells us nothing different than what Romano Catholics tell people “If you will live a holy life, God will justify you, will clear up your account of sins.” In Adventism the clearing of the account of sins happens after the process of judgment closes, at the end of the believers life. In reality, Jesus wiped our certificate of debt, our recording of sins at the cross

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. Col. 2:13,14

In justification we receive the benefit of Christ’s death which is the wiping out of our sins, completely, something that Adventist place at the end of the judgment.

Bill - 29 November 2008 06:11 AM

We can agree that justification was completed… at least we have that in common.

We don’t have this in common, that’s the point for which I wrote the letter about QOD. Adventist deceive themselves if they think that they are on the same page with the evangelicals regarding the subject of finished atonement and complete justification, because justification completed at the cross in Adventist understanding does not mean that our record of debt is canceled, this happens only AFTER the judgment, AFTER the entire life lived, AFTER a long list of good works which are necessary for justification to apply. Justification based on sanctification is no justification at all; it’s spiritual bondage and something to be shunned, exposed, rejected as filthy rags. If our deeds count for eternal salvation, they will count against us when God’s perfect standard is brought to measure our sanctification.

Bill - 29 November 2008 06:11 AM

This text also says, “those who are being sanctified”.  Sanctification is not complete at the cross and salvation is not complete at the cross.  Paul never taught that sanctification was completed at the cross.  Who sanctifies us?  God sanctifies us.  How does He do it?  Through the Spirit and obedience.  Obedience is not an instant thing or a completed thing at the cross.

In case you will die this night, on what ground your faith is rooted? Is your sanctification complete? A reasonable man will answer negatively. And if your sanctification is not complete, if you’re not perfect, your salvation is not complete and you have truly assurance, but not of your salvation, rather you may be sure of your perdition. That’s the only assurance the Adventist gospel of incomplete salvation can offer, assurance of doom, of curse, of perdition. What a wonderful “good news” it is, what a wonderful message to the world that will bring joy, wonder, and all the children of God from Babylon will say “Wow, I missed all my life this good news of the Investigative Judgment, thank you for enlightening me and saved my life”

Bill - 29 November 2008 06:11 AM

I know that we are not going to agree on this, but I’ve considered your reasoning and I am not willing to view the rest of the Bible through the filters that you would like me to, which would be a narrow interpretation of a few texts in Romans and John.

I recognize that you have a larger view of this subject which makes room for your works to play into the salvation scheme. I can’t match your confidence in the ability of this gospel to save, since my sanctification is far from being complete and I can’t hope but despair of my own righteousness when I’m thinking about standing before a holy God without a mediator. Without Jesus standing between me and God’s wrath against my sin, without His life, death and resurrection being sufficient for my salvation, I have no hope. But in Him I have all things and I may rejoice in my complete salvation.

Bill, I’m not different than you are. I also find the gospel of justification by grace and works more plausible and in harmony with common sense than the gospel I find in the Bible. It’s hard to think that God justifies the ungodly, apart from works. It’s more plausible that God will justify and receive in heaven the godly, those who developed a sufficient righteousness in order to be considered worthy of being the recipients of grace. Pure grace is not what I’m normally thinking to be the reality, and I’m still learning with scars on my soul that God is not impressed by my progress in sanctification every time I fail badly to obey Him as I know I should do. Thank God for Jesus, and maybe some day God will bring you to trust completely in Christ’s sufficiency for your salvation. May this day come soon.

Gabriel

Hi Gabriel, Stan, and Bill

I hope I am reading this carefully and that my comments here will help clarify for other readers.  I think this is the same question Martin Luther struggled with in the monastery.  He had received the sacraments and expected an infused grace to help him stop sinning.  George Knight, speaking to a packed church at Loma Linda University on the 50th anniversary of QOD in 2007, said that as a new Christian he fully intended to be the first one (in the history of the earth) to stop sinning.  Both, I think, equated that goal with final assurance of salvation. 

We wish it were so easy!  I can tell you that I would love to stop sinning, do a few good deeds for charity, and have heaven all sewed up.  It’s just the way I approach everything--I try to be self reliant to the degree possible and to leave nothing to chance.

Here’s a brief quote from a book I found helpful on this question.  What is Reformed Theology: Understanding the Basics, by R. C. Sproul, pg 68:

“The dispute between justification by the “infusion” of Christ’s righteousness and the “imputation” of his righteousness is no tempest in a teapot.  It makes all the difference in the world whether the ground of my justification rests within me or is accomplished for me.  Christ fulfilled the law for me and gained the merit necessary for my justification.  This is the ground not only of my justification, but also my assurance of salvation.  If I must wait until I cooperate with the righteousness of Christ infused within me, to the degree that I become inherently righteous, I despair of ever attaining salvation.  This is not gospel or “good news”; it is bad news.”

I must admit that I also struggled with this.  If I were to try to summarize this, I would say that the righteousness that saves us is always external to us.  It is always the righteousness of Someone Else credited to me.  Yes, the Holy Spirit works within us and produces many fruits, but these fruits have no saving capacity.  I think we agree on that already, but am not certain . . .  Anyway, it is here that I have found spiritual peace, knowing that is always and only Christ, and that as a believer nothing, not even my sins, can separate me from the Lord.

A whole bunch of alarms just went off when I wrote that.  About a year ago I was sharing the words of the Father in 1 John 5 where he says “and I have given them life, and this life is in my Son” and immediately (on separate occasions) SDAs stopped me and insisted “we just have to keep the 10 commandments” and “we just have to be perfect. The one who gave me this last quote on becoming perfect then broke down and wept the tears of a lifetime.  I have never witnessed such despair.  She could not stop weeping.  She was an 85 year old lady, and it was the first time we have ever visited. 

Pastors from various denominations were interviewed at a convention and were asked, “Does a Christian lose his assurance when he sins?” The next question was “What about willful, persistent sins?” The discussion was on whitehorseinn.org.  I think it was in October, but I cannot spend more time on this right now, but will try to get the exact program (so those who wish can hear it) as soon as I can.  All pastors answered “no’ to the first question. But on the second question, you could see them separating into categories based on their understanding of justification.

I also have a bit of a testimony about this point, but it is a subjective experience.  I praise God for it, but obviously, if I were to share it and to say “that worked for me” we’d all be polythiests--Mormons and voodoo and Hindus can all say they also had a subjective experience and would claim it worked for them.  This may not be the time or place for me to share it.

Bob

This wil be a good test of my computer savvy!  I think if you click on the link below it should take you to the program where the pastors were interviewed on remaining sin. 
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=6/22/2008
It’s on track two-four of the program Repentance and Personal Transformation.
Bob

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the White Horse Inn link.

Your assessment is quite right

Stan