We know that “Christian” is the Word which signifies 1) a follower of Christ 2) someone who is Christ-like.

The Bible tells us in Acts 11:26 that this name was first used for the followers of Jesus @ Antioch of Syria.

These people who were first called Christians were/are a continuation of the lineage of God’s people, not some new group or religion.  Mostly meaning for us today that we are saved the same way in both the Old and New Testament.

How then are people “saved?” What does it mean for one to say “I am saved,” or, “I was saved...?”

Perhaps, a beginnning to explaining the answer would be to ask more questions:

1) What does it mean to be “a follower of Christ?”
2) How do we know that someone is “truly Christ-like?”

Who is a Christian today? How would we identify one?  There is a lot of talk about how we are “justified by faith alone;” yet so many of the ones preaching this do not even come close to agreement with one another, or with the Bible on their version of the finepoints of this salvation dogma! 

Is Reformation Theology or Evangelical Doctrine adeqaute in authority and in verity to explain this to us, or to judge other groups/denominations on the subject of how we are saved?

I don’t think they are.

Protestant 101 - 21 June 2009 12:39 PM

There is a lot of talk about how we are “justified by faith alone;” yet so many of the ones preaching this do not even come close to agreement with one another, or with the Bible on their version of the finepoints of this salvation dogma!

Is Reformation Theology or Evangelical Doctrine adeqaute in authority and in verity to explain this to us, or to judge other groups/denominations on the subject of how we are saved?

I don’t think they are

In spite of disagreements between Lutheran and Calvinistic branches of the reformation, both were united against Roman Catholic Church’s version of the gospel that taught the dependence of justification on sanctification and consequently it was not a once time event with eternal consequences, but dependent on man’s cooperation, with no future assurance of salvation. 

Reformers were clear that a man is justified by faith apart from works (Romans 3:38). They excluded any kind of works from interfering in justification. Justification is not depending on man’s cooperation with God’s grace, on anything that he’s doing. Justification is a gift that is given to the one who does not work, but believes in God who justifies the ungodly, not the godly (Rom. 4:4). Rome says that you need to be godly, the necessary condition to be justified. Adventists say the same. You need to keep the law, in order to be justified before God’s judgment seat. God verifies the book in order to see that your sanctification expressed in your works qualifies you as “godly.” You need to be worthy. Well, if you feel that you’re godly enough, worthy enough to qualify for justification before God’s judgment seat, good luck.

Gabriel

Protestant 101 - 21 June 2009 12:39 PM

Is Reformation Theology or Evangelical Doctrine adeqaute in authority and in verity to explain this to us, or to judge other groups/denominations on the subject of how we are saved?

I don’t think they are.

Do you remember what you said previously:

Protestant 101 - 14 June 2009 12:31 AM

Where have you seen this “constant critique” in the Adventist “camp?” Seventh-day Adventists actually have a deep respect for the reformers, and follow closely many of their teachings.

Are you now saying that justification by faith alone is one of the teachings that Adventists don’t follow closely?
The reformers saw justification by faith alone the article on which the church stands or falls. It doesn’t matter how many other doctrines of reformers you follow closely, if the central one is missing, you missed the central and essential point. In fact, you’re following reformers in non-essentials, if you indeed follow them, but failing to follow them in essentials, you fail to follow them where it truly matters for your soul.

Gabriel

Protestant 101,

From reading your website, it seems that you also believe apologetics ministries mischaracterize Mormons and JW’s.

Do you believe Mormons and JWs are Christians?  I asked you this once before, but you did not answer previously.

You seem to have a real problem with any authority except for Ellen White as determining your doctrine. You seem to have a disrespect for what Martin Luther stood for.

You come across as very angry with us and your attack mode seems to indicate that you are really fighting to defend what is really indefensible.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 21 June 2009 10:42 PM

Protestant 101,

From reading your website, it seems that you also believe apologetics ministries mischaracterize Mormons and JW’s.

Do you believe Mormons and JWs are Christians?  I asked you this once before, but you did not answer previously.

You seem to have a real problem with any authority except for Ellen White as determining your doctrine. You seem to have a disrespect for what Martin Luther stood for.

You come across as very angry with us and your attack mode seems to indicate that you are really fighting to defend what is really indefensible.

Stan

From the outset; you have struggled to malign my character this way, making me wonder what your motivation is.  As I allude to in one of those articles; this is the typical response of those who have no definitive Bible explanation to prove a point.  I have no problem with authority; only with what this website says about authority. You appear to accept no other than your own, or you wouldn’t have this website.

Apologetics cult ministries do not just do this with Adventists. I was pointing this out only, not making a judgmental statement about whether or not Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses are saved or not.  You class as “very angry” something that you cannot disprove.  Nice cop out.

Since the OP deals with the topic called The Doctrine Of Salvation, lets try to stick to that.  No need to keep discussing me, my personality, or my emotions.  Everyone knows now that you, Greg, and Gabriel don’t like me.  But now lets see you actually defend your Biblical positions.

You state that “we are saved by faith alone.” I would like to ask for some clarification please. Is this, to you, a process, an event, a mix of both, or, “how readest thou?” How many Bible texts do we need to “show” someone what salvation is, and how to be saved? Which Bible text/s would you use to tell me, for instance?

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 21 June 2009 01:03 PM

Protestant 101 - 21 June 2009 12:39 PM

Reformers were clear that a man is justified by faith apart from works (Romans 3:38). They excluded any kind of works from interfering in justification. Justification is not depending on man’s cooperation with God’s grace, on anything that he’s doing. Justification is a gift that is given to the one who does not work, but believes in God who justifies the ungodly, not the godly (Rom. 4:4). Rome says that you need to be godly, the necessary condition to be justified. Adventists say the same.
Gabriel

Wow, you are even off on the Roman Catholic end of this theology; but I will just address your charge against Adventists

“Reformers were clear” is a sad reflection of those who do not follow Jesus, they follow The Reformers.  The Reformers are not who Adventists follow.  We follow Jesus.  The Reformers were not all in agreement and it is folly to follow them so far that we lose sight of our Lord, and His teachings. Some of the Reformer’s teachings are indeed ones that we can abide in, but are they all?

You say that “Adventists say the same” as Rome, meaning that we say works are needed for salvation.  That’s actually not what we teach, and I would like to ask you to prove it, but if you use anything other than our official fundamental beliefs, as voted by The General Conference in session, it won’t be “proof,” it will be proof-texting, which is just pretexting.  There’s so much of that on this site!

Protestant 101 - 25 June 2009 05:33 PM

“Reformers were clear” is a sad reflection of those who do not follow Jesus, they follow The Reformers.  The Reformers are not who Adventists follow.  We follow Jesus.

Finally you accept our charge that adventists are not in harmony with reformation theology. You said that this is not true, claiming that adventists follow closely the reformers, all the time being well aware that, as far as justification by faith, the central doctrine of ALL reformers is concerned, you’re not in harmony with them.

How just saying that “reformers were clear” we are not following Jesus? Would you accept this kind of argumentation in case of you saying “The General Conference is clear”? Would you think that it’s a good argument if somebody is accusing you of following the General Conference and not Jesus? I don’t think so.

Protestant 101 - 25 June 2009 05:33 PM

The Reformers were not all in agreement and it is folly to follow them so far that we lose sight of our Lord, and His teachings. Some of the Reformer’s teachings are indeed ones that we can abide in, but are they all?

Reformers were in full agreement in the case of justification by faith alone, through grace alone, on account of Christ alone. It’s the central doctrine, and without it, there is no church. Reject justification by faith alone and you’re rejecting the gospel, since this is a central feature of the gospel.

Protestant 101 - 25 June 2009 05:33 PM

You say that “Adventists say the same” as Rome, meaning that we say works are needed for salvation.  That’s actually not what we teach, and I would like to ask you to prove it, but if you use anything other than our official fundamental beliefs, as voted by The General Conference in session, it won’t be “proof,” it will be proof-texting, which is just pretexting.  There’s so much of that on this site!

Let’s do something else: using only your official fundamental beliefs, prove me that you’re believing in justification by faith alone. You’ll not find this doctrine, either the expression or the idea, explicitly or implicitly. There is a statements that through Christ we are justified, but nothing about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, nothing about “alone”, sola. Roman Catholics can subscribe without problems to the statement that through Christ we are justified.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 25 June 2009 07:02 PM

Protestant 101 - 25 June 2009 05:33 PM

“Reformers were clear” is a sad reflection of those who do not follow Jesus, they follow The Reformers.  The Reformers are not who Adventists follow.  We follow Jesus.

Finally you accept our charge that adventists are not in harmony with reformation theology. You said that this is not true, claiming that adventists follow closely the reformers, all the time being well aware that, as far as justification by faith, the central doctrine of ALL reformers is concerned, you’re not in harmony with them.

How just saying that “reformers were clear” we are not following Jesus? Would you accept this kind of argumentation in case of you saying “The General Conference is clear”? Would you think that it’s a good argument if somebody is accusing you of following the General Conference and not Jesus? I don’t think so.

Protestant 101 - 25 June 2009 05:33 PM

The Reformers were not all in agreement and it is folly to follow them so far that we lose sight of our Lord, and His teachings. Some of the Reformer’s teachings are indeed ones that we can abide in, but are they all?

Reformers were in full agreement in the case of justification by faith alone, through grace alone, on account of Christ alone. It’s the central doctrine, and without it, there is no church. Reject justification by faith alone and you’re rejecting the gospel, since this is a central feature of the gospel.

Protestant 101 - 25 June 2009 05:33 PM

You say that “Adventists say the same” as Rome, meaning that we say works are needed for salvation.  That’s actually not what we teach, and I would like to ask you to prove it, but if you use anything other than our official fundamental beliefs, as voted by The General Conference in session, it won’t be “proof,” it will be proof-texting, which is just pretexting.  There’s so much of that on this site!

Let’s do something else: using only your official fundamental beliefs, prove me that you’re believing in justification by faith alone. You’ll not find this doctrine, either the expression or the idea, explicitly or implicitly. There is a statements that through Christ we are justified, but nothing about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, nothing about “alone”, sola. Roman Catholics can subscribe without problems to the statement that through Christ we are justified.

Gabriel

No.  Lets not do something else.  You say we teach the same as Rome on salvation; then prove it.  Reformers were not in full agreement on the doctrine of salvation either - something else you cannot prove.

Adventists do not follow the Reformers, we follow Jesus.  Some of their teachings we do follow, some we do not.  You obviously have no idea which ones.  Mr Authority On Adventists!

Protestant 101 - 26 June 2009 08:28 PM

Reformers were not in full agreement on the doctrine of salvation either - something else you cannot prove.

The reformers were united on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Both the lutheran and reformed branches had put in print in their confession this truth very clearly

Lutheran’s Book of Concord,

it has been unanimously taught by the other teachers of the Augsburg Confession that Christ is our righteousness not according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human nature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God’s children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness.

Westminster Confession of Faith:

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument/[color] of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

it should be clear that both the reformed and lutheran branch of reformation were united in affirming justification by faith alone. Also the baptists affirm in their 1689 Confession of Faith the same thing as the Westminster Confession

Paragraph 1. Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies,1 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;2 not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone;3 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith,4 which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.5
1 Rom. 3:24, 8:30
2 Rom. 4:5-8, Eph. 1:7
3 1 Cor. 1:30,31, Rom. 5:17-19
4 Phil. 3:8,9; Eph. 2:8-10
5 John 1:12, Rom. 5:17

Paragraph 2. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the[color=red] alone instrument of justification;6 yet is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.7
6 Rom. 3:28
7 Gal.5:6, James 2:17,22,26

Also the The Thirty-Nine Articles (1572) of the Church of England, affirm the same thing:

XI.  Of the iustification of man.

We are accompted righteous before God, only for the merite of our Lord and sauiour Jesus Christe, by faith, and not for our owne workes or deseruynges. Wherefore, that we are justified by fayth onely, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homilie of iustification.

Also, on the continent, the Belgic Confession of Faith says:

Article 22: The Righteousness of Faith

* We believe that for us to acquire the true knowledge of this great mystery the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith that embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, and makes him its own, and no longer looks for anything apart from him.

For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely.

Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God-- for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior. And therefore we justly say with Paul that we are justified “by faith alone” or by faith “apart from works."^53

However, we do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us-- for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness.

But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place. And faith is the instrument that keeps us in communion with him and with all his benefits.

When those benefits are made ours they are more than enough to absolve us of our sins.

These are confessions produced by different churches, some from the continent (lutheran Book of Concord and the Belgic Confession), some from England, like the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterian churches, and also the 1698 Baptist Confession which follows closely the Westminster Confession. Across the borders of these denominations there was perfect unity regarding justification by faith alone.

In contrast the Roman Catholic Church pronounced an anathema on this central doctrine:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-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 XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

Rome rejected justification by faith alone because it rejected the idea that for the sake of Christ’s righteousness alone we are justified, it rejected that our justification is exclusively an act of mercy. There was a clear line of distinction.

Protestant 101 - 26 June 2009 08:28 PM

No.  Lets not do something else.  You say we teach the same as Rome on salvation; then prove it.

The church had not been able to affirm justification by faith alone, as the other protestant churches did. The only alternative is that we are justified not by faith alone, but by faith plus something else. To this Rome can fully agree, because Rome condemns only justification by faith alone. If you’re not affirming this, you’re not protestant, you’re on Rome’s side.

This is especially seen in Fundamental Belief nr. 23

The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom.

Who are those “deemed worthy” to be resurrected?  Are they deemed worthy because of Christ alone, only on the account of imputation of Christ’s obedience? Are they deemed worthy, “not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them”?  Is this worthiness connected with sanctification or not?

The answer is no: those deemed worthy, those “in Him”, those “ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom”, are those who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (sabbatarian adventists, the rest of believers doesn’t qualify, in spite of their faith in Christ). The Adventists connect the worthiness for resurrection and translation with the keeping of commandments, with their particular view of sanctification, with something God “wrought in them,” with something “done by them”. The reformers excluded this internal transformation from the basis of justification, they were clear that, no matter how much a believer is sanctified, this sanctification falls short of God’s holy and absolute standard, and consequently man is utterly unworthy in himself to be accounted righteous and accepted by God. If his internal transformation is partially the basis for His acceptance, he doesn’t qualify as worthy.

As quoted above, Rome condemns protestant’s idea that sanctification is excluded as having any role in justification:

CANON XI.-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.

Protestant 101 - 26 June 2009 08:28 PM

Adventists do not follow the Reformers, we follow Jesus.  Some of their teachings we do follow, some we do not.  You obviously have no idea which ones.  Mr Authority On Adventists!

I obviously know that adventists don’t follow the central gospel element of justification by faith alone. They follow protestants in their anti-catholic position, but on different reasons than their position. They protestants opposed Rome first of all for the rejection of justification by faith alone. Adventist’s opposition to Rome matches reformers’ opposition to Rome in secondary questions as Reformer’s rejection of Rome’s claims: Rome’s claim as being the unique true church, Pope’s claim of infallibility, Rome’s priesthood, Rome’s worship of icons and statures, Rome’s mass as a sacrifice repeating the unique sacrifice of Jesus, Rome’s Rome’s view of his own extra-biblical tradition as equal in authority with the Bible, Rome’s extended Canon as including the Apocrypha, and especially Rome’s day of worship, Sunday.

Gabriel

Gabriel; I appreciate your reply - you did put some effort into this.  I have quite a few things to say about it; but am short on time, and will be for a few days or so; however, I do read replies to this topic.

I was right though, you actually do not know much about Adventists beliefs; it is so plain by your posts.  But while you are waiting for me to reply more, there is one point I see you missed in the above.  I had asked to see where the Bible says we are saved “by faith alone.” Where does it use the word “alone” in connection with the doctrine of salvation?  Your answer to this; I feel would be an important part of my answer to your above post.  I first need to understand where you are coming from.

PS, I think you, Greg, and Stan might want to consider holding off with the Anti-Adventist Guns on my understanding of salvation, until you actually do understand it better.  Here, on my beginning site, which you and your partners here have so heatedly complained about as being “in attack mode” I have talked about how I Have Found Him Whom My Soul Loveth You might want to review that more closely, even Dale Ratzlaff expressed agreement to me in an email on that - except for one small paragraph!  See if you can find it!!  Since there are three of you here replying to me; I will give you guys 3 guesses as to what portion Dale disagreed with.

Also, How I Became A Christian is a really good article to read.  There is so much you don’t know - that you think you do.  People are not Christians because you say they are, or because they are in agreement with what either of us believe.  My testimony here is based on the premise of Rev 12:11 “by the blood of the Lamb.” It will be interesting to see what faults you dredge up on these articles, but I am still proud to be a part of The Seventh-day Adventist Church, and it is my understanding that all of our official doctrines are based on “Christ and Him crucified.” Maybe, over time, you will prove me wrong; who knows?  But if you do, I would be happy to know more truth. Conversely, I will never sit still as long as there are people saying falsehoods and rumors about the Church that our Jesus has led me into.

Also, let us all take a breather, and remind ourselves of The Bible’s Main Reasons For Being Unkind.  Now that is true ATTACK MODE! The way you carry on about me here, you would probably even object to this if I told you where I first got it from!

Protestant 101 - 27 June 2009 02:46 PM

I had asked to see where the Bible says we are saved “by faith alone.” Where does it use the word “alone” in connection with the doctrine of salvation?  Your answer to this; I feel would be an important part of my answer to your above post.  I first need to understand where you are coming from.

I can hardly improve the answer John Calvin gave in his Institutes to your objection:

The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone (Rom. 4:2). They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added. Is it so? What answer, then will they give to the words of Paul, when he contends that righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous? How can it be gratuitous, and yet by works? By what cavils, moreover, will they evade his declaration in another place, that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested? (Rom. 1:17). If righteousness is manifested in the Gospel, it is certainly not a partial or mutilated, but a full and perfect righteousness. The Law, therefore, has no part in its and their objection to the exclusive word alone is not only unfounded, but is obviously absurd. Does he not plainly enough attribute everything to faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, “The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;” “Being justified freely by his grace;” “Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?” (Rom. 3:21, 24, 28). Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most childish. They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling, that they possess not even the first elements of logic. Do they think the Apostle was raving when he produced, in proof of his doctrine, these passages? “The man that does them shall live in them,” (Gal. 3:12). “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them,” (Gal. 3:10). Unless they are themselves raving, they will not say that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced only against the transgressors of them. If these passages are to be understood of the Moral Law, there cannot be a doubt that moral works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same effect are the arguments which he employs. “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3:20). “The law worketh wrath,” (Rom. 4:15), and therefore not righteousness. “The law cannot pacify the conscience,” and therefore cannot confer righteousness. “Faith is imputed for righteousness,” and therefore righteousness is not the reward of works, but is given without being due. Because “we are justified by faith,” boasting is excluded. “Had there been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe,” (Gal. 3:21, 22). Let them maintain, if they dare, that these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very children will laugh at their effrontery. The true conclusion, therefore, is, that the whole Law is spoken of when the power of justifying is denied to it. - John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion; 3:11:19

Gabriel

Quote from Protestant 101:

Gabriel; I appreciate your reply - you did put some effort into this.  I have quite a few things to say about it; but am short on time, and will be for a few days or so; however, I do read replies to this topic.

PS, I think you, Greg, and Stan might want to consider holding off with the Anti-Adventist Guns on my understanding of salvation, until you actually do understand it better.  Here, on my beginning site, which you and your partners here have so heatedly complained about as being “in attack mode” I have talked about how I Have Found Him Whom My Soul Loveth You might want to review that more closely, even Dale Ratzlaff expressed agreement to me in an email on that - except for one small paragraph!  See if you can find it!!  Since there are three of you here replying to me; I will give you guys 3 guesses as to what portion Dale disagreed with.
-----------------------------------------------
Thanks for acknowledging Gabriel’s hard work. I would like to express my appreciation for his review of the great creeds of the reformation.

Protestant, I hope you will take the time to evaluate some of this information. I hope we can have productive dialog on this topic of salvation, as no other topic is as important as this.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 28 June 2009 03:40 PM

Quote from Protestant 101:

Gabriel; I appreciate your reply - you did put some effort into this.  I have quite a few things to say about it; but am short on time, and will be for a few days or so; however, I do read replies to this topic.

PS, I think you, Greg, and Stan might want to consider holding off with the Anti-Adventist Guns on my understanding of salvation, until you actually do understand it better.  Here, on my beginning site, which you and your partners here have so heatedly complained about as being “in attack mode” I have talked about how I Have Found Him Whom My Soul Loveth You might want to review that more closely, even Dale Ratzlaff expressed agreement to me in an email on that - except for one small paragraph!  See if you can find it!!  Since there are three of you here replying to me; I will give you guys 3 guesses as to what portion Dale disagreed with.
-----------------------------------------------
Thanks for acknowledging Gabriel’s hard work. I would like to express my appreciation for his review of the great creeds of the reformation.

Protestant, I hope you will take the time to evaluate some of this information. I hope we can have productive dialog on this topic of salvation, as no other topic is as important as this.

Stan

Well; I have high hopes that we can proceed with “productive dialogue - if all sides are willing.  I have been considering the info above; as I hope you are also reviewing the info in the article I linked to entitled “I Have Found Him Whom My Soul Loveth.”

When I have time; I will post my ideas and responses to the above.  Work is keeping me quite busy for a bit here.  Till next time; remember, God loves you; and His promise is for you: Jer 29:13

Many people have reduced Christianity to the message of forgiveness alone; but this is usually the reduction of forgiveness to an act devoid of the creative element of God’s Word, devoid of the power of renewal, as promised in God’s Word.  Forgiveness, which is the essential meaning of being “justified;” (Rom.4:6-8), has come to mean only freedom from penalties; with positive reconciliation, commitment to, and service to God being rejected, for a self-centered religion, that looks out for “number one.”

That’s from the article you asked us to read. I think that in the light of what you wrote, I need to add that the distinction between justification and sanctification, Christ’s work in behalf of us and the Holy Spirit’s work in us is central to the gospel. While justification is not in itself renewal of life, it is connected with renewal of life (regeneration) and sanctification.  It’s highly important to keep those two elements (justification and sanctification) distinct, without mingling them, as it is to keep them united.

In the medieval dispute between the Roman Catholic Church and the reformers, the issue was not if a truly believer is a transformed man or not. In virtue of union with Christ, he is a new man. Both parties affirmed that there is no true believer who is not a new man, who’s not living a new life of obedience to God. The difference between them is how man’s sanctification relates to justification. Is justification dependent on sanctification? Are they mixed? Does our new life have something to do with our right standing before God? Does God accepts us partly because of something he works in us, or is Jesus’ life death and resurrection the only basis for our acceptance before God?

The answer to these questions constitute the dividing line:

1.justification is based only on what Jesus did for us in his life and death, and resurrection, and is obtained by faith alone - - the protestant answer.

faith -->> justification + works (sanctification)

2. justification is based on sanctification, or includes it, and consequently is obtained by faith plus works - - the roman catholic answer.

faith + works -->> justification

Nothing new under the sun.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 30 June 2009 10:01 PM

Many people have reduced Christianity to the message of forgiveness alone; but this is usually the reduction of forgiveness to an act devoid of the creative element of God’s Word, devoid of the power of renewal, as promised in God’s Word.  Forgiveness, which is the essential meaning of being “justified;” (Rom.4:6-8), has come to mean only freedom from penalties; with positive reconciliation, commitment to, and service to God being rejected, for a self-centered religion, that looks out for “number one.”

That’s from the article you asked us to read. I think that in the light of what you wrote, I need to add that the distinction between justification and sanctification, Christ’s work in behalf of us and the Holy Spirit’s work in us is central to the gospel. While justification is not in itself renewal of life, it is connected with renewal of life (regeneration) and sanctification.  It’s highly important to keep those two elements (justification and sanctification) distinct, without mingling them, as it is to keep them united.

In the medieval dispute between the Roman Catholic Church and the reformers, the issue was not if a truly believer is a transformed man or not. In virtue of union with Christ, he is a new man. Both parties affirmed that there is no true believer who is not a new man, who’s not living a new life of obedience to God. The difference between them is how man’s sanctification relates to justification. Is justification dependent on sanctification? Are they mixed? Does our new life have something to do with our right standing before God? Does God accepts us partly because of something he works in us, or is Jesus’ life death and resurrection the only basis for our acceptance before God?

The answer to these questions constitute the dividing line:

1.justification is based only on what Jesus did for us in his life and death, and resurrection, and is obtained by faith alone - - the protestant answer.

faith -->> justification + works (sanctification)

2. justification is based on sanctification, or includes it, and consequently is obtained by faith plus works - - the roman catholic answer.

faith + works -->> justification

Nothing new under the sun.

Gabriel

The dividing line cannot possibly be circumscribed, just as you seem to be saying here, by your particular “dividing line.” Many people haven’t a clue on the existence of words like “justification” or “sanctification.” Are you saying that such ones would not be saved?  I am thankful for Adventist teachings, all from the Bible, which do not limit salvation to just our own denomination. Knowing this gives me great assurance of not just my own salvation, but that of others. Perhaps some of what you are accusing Adventists of, is more a reflection of your own deeply held beliefs how that no one is saved, except if they believe such and such, just the way I/you see it?

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 21 June 2009 01:43 PM

Protestant 101 - 21 June 2009 12:39 PM

Is Reformation Theology or Evangelical Doctrine adeqaute in authority and in verity to explain this to us, or to judge other groups/denominations on the subject of how we are saved?

I don’t think they are.

Do you remember what you said previously:

Protestant 101 - 14 June 2009 12:31 AM

Where have you seen this “constant critique” in the Adventist “camp?” Seventh-day Adventists actually have a deep respect for the reformers, and follow closely many of their teachings.

Are you now saying that justification by faith alone is one of the teachings that Adventists don’t follow closely?
The reformers saw justification by faith alone the article on which the church stands or falls. It doesn’t matter how many other doctrines of reformers you follow closely, if the central one is missing, you missed the central and essential point. In fact, you’re following reformers in non-essentials, if you indeed follow them, but failing to follow them in essentials, you fail to follow them where it truly matters for your soul.

Gabriel

We should not look to The Reformers, as you do with Calvinism, nor hang our hopes upon them, feeling that they are somehow infallible; but we must continue in looking to Jesus constantly, and His Word for doctrinal authority, in all matters of Christian faith. We are to be Reformers, but we do not in all respects follow the Reformers.

Like our predecessors, faith is our’s to exercise, The grace of God comes to the soul through the channel of living faith, and that faith it is in our power to exercise; and it is the eye of faith alone that can look beyond the things of our discernable time and sense to estimate the worth of God’s grace, and His love.  But “faith alone” or “faith,” is not our Savior.  Jesus is our Savior: “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world;” (John 1:29), and the Bible is careful to explain how that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17).  So no matter what you try to twist the Scriptures into; we are not saved “by faith alone.” It starts with Jesus; and His faith, not ours. Faith equals access to Jesus, but it is His faith that saves us, not ours. (Eph 3: 11, 12 Eph 4:5)

Maybe you pride yourself in following the Reformers, but did all the Reformers really understand all points of the truth? The points they did understand were not attempts at trying to invent new truth; but to continue something already started, for Bible truths are eternal, “from the foundation of the world.” I personally study the Reformers constantly, and Adventists do follow the Reformers where possible, but we also continue some things they have neglected and discontinued.

IMHO, we should not look to The Reformers, as you do with Calvinism, nor hang our hopes upon them, feeling that they are somehow infallible; but we must continue in looking to Jesus constantly, and His Word for doctrinal authority, and all matters of Christian faith. We are Reformers, but we do not in all respects follow the Reformers. (2 Pet 3:18)

In 1512, just before either Luther or Zwingli had begun their work of reform, Lefevre wrote: “It is God who gives us, by faith, that righteousness which by grace alone justifies to eternal life."--Wylie, b. 13, ch. 1. Dwelling upon the mysteries of redemption, he exclaimed: “Oh, the unspeakable greatness of that exchange,--the Sinless One is condemned, and he who is guilty goes free; the Blessing bears the curse, and the cursed is brought into blessing; the Life dies, and the dead live; the Glory is whelmed in darkness, and he who knew nothing but confusion of face is clothed with glory."-- D’Aubigne, London ed., b. 12, ch. 2.

This is very much like Desire of Ages, pg. 25 “Jesus was treated as we deserve; that we might be treated as He deserves...”

The Reformers continued this line of thinking, which is not, in fact quite saying “faith alone;” but if one were to selectively quote their works, we could then come up with several different lines of theology such as “faith alone” that you could “prove” from the Bible, or writings of the Reformers. I think that the Reformers were much more united in saying we are saved by Christ alone.

Were the Reformers united on saying we are saved “by faith alone?” While the Reformers were all united on saying “The Bible, and the Bible alone;” they sometimes would see the Bible differently, and so too, when they would say something like “faith alone;” they would not always mean the same thing then either. When I read what Calvin writes about who is saved and why; it is so much different than certain other Reformation Pioneers or other modern day Protestant Pioneers. It’s kind of like the Catholics, who when they say “the Bible;” actually mean something quite different than the Protestant who says “the Bible.”

What is the Adventist view on this doctrine of “by faith alone?” Well, Those who want to accuse Ellen White of teaching a works oriented salvation might want to consider such things as the following:

SC.059.004
There are two errors against which the children of God--particularly those who have just come to trust in His grace--especially need to guard. The first, already dwelt upon, is that of looking to their own works, trusting to anything they can do, to bring themselves into harmony with God. He who is trying to become holy by his own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin. It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith, that can make us holy.
SC.060.001
The opposite and no less dangerous error is that belief in Christ releases men from keeping the law of God; that since by faith alone we become partakers of the grace of Christ, our works have nothing to do with our redemption

PP.202.004
Yet Jacob’s history is an assurance that God will not cast off those who have been betrayed into sin, but who have returned unto Him with true repentance. It was by self-surrender and confiding faith that Jacob gained what he had failed to gain by conflict in his own strength. God thus taught His servant that divine power and grace alone could give him the blessing he craved. Thus it will be with those who live in the last days. As dangers surround them, and despair seizes upon the soul, they must depend solely upon the merits of the atonement. We can do nothing of ourselves. In all our helpless unworthiness we must trust in the merits of the crucified and risen Saviour. None will ever perish while they do this. The long, black catalogue of our delinquencies is before the eye of the Infinite. The register is complete; none of our offenses are forgotten. But He who listened to the cries of His servants of old, will hear the prayer of faith and pardon our transgressions. He has promised, and He will fulfill His word.

There are deep problems with how you, along with some Reformers present “faith alone,” as some views on that seem to obscure how that Christ is our Savior, not faith.  We can see this Even in the Old Testament!

(to be continued)