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

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

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

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

Caller: “Oh absolutely.”

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

White: “Right...”

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

White: “And what books are these?”

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

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

Caller: “By faith.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

Caller: “Yes it does.”

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

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

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

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

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

Caller: “Faith without works is dead.”

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

Source here, starting around minute 21.

A few things strike me from listening to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:
The Gospel and the Investigative Judgment
The Gospel, 1844 and the Judgment - Introduction
The Experience of Salvation
The Sanctuary Truth

Greg,

Thanks for posting this exchange. How did you happen to find it? I have previously searched James White’s website under the topic of Adventism, and I had come up with nothing, so I thought White was not much interested in SDA theology.

The logical implications of the traditional doctrine as well as the revisionist history doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, are indeed frightening. Thankfully, despite the terrible theology which exists in Adventism as well as Catholicism, and semi-pelagianism, God has been gracious to save people despite their gross theological errors.

I think it is quite interesting that James White had no interest in debating soul sleep, which is a nonessential of the faith, but he zeroed in directly on what is an essential doctrine of the fatih, and that is the false gospel of Romanism and Adventism, that we are ultimately saved or lost by our works or commandment keeping. This is what the apostle Paul was zeroing in on in Galatians 1:8,9.

Stan

Stan,

I happened to search for something on James White’s site and a link to one of his old radio programs came up. It is worth listening to if you have a few minutes. He wasted no time with the side arguments about soul sleep or even Ellen White. Instead, he went straight to the gospel because, as he said, he would not be doing the Adventist any favors if he never talked about the most important issue. With so many arguments over Ellen White, the law, and unique Adventist cultural practices, it’s quite helpful to see how a prominent Christian apologist deals with the root problem of Seventh-day Adventism—the obscuring of the gospel by the Investigative Judgment. White is a well-respected apologist, and he’s engaged Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and atheists in public debate. We can learn something from how he handled this conversation.

Maybe others will criticize him for being too soft on the side issues of Adventism, but I think he handled it carefully and correctly.

Greg

James White was one of the first non-SDA scholars I had any experience with, as I attended a lecture of his while I was a graduate student at New Mexico State University (I think White lives in Arizona). I have several of his books and I’ve read a lot of the material on his website.

I haven’t found much about SDAism on White’s website, but as this call demonstrates, he is apparently well read on them/us. I wasn’t immediately aware of the book he cited that apparently defends SDAism.

I wonder what White thought of the example from the book of Ezekiel the author of that book quoted. White’s reply seemed to have dismissed it.

Hi Glenn,

You may want to listen to the earlier part of the exchange where Dr. White discusses the use of Ezekiel. Personally, I find it difficult to overturn the New Testament teaching on justification by faith alone with this passage from Ezekiel. What I do see here is the biblical imperative to repent and turn from sin. We are only able to do this because of the indicative that we are crucified with Christ, and that he bore the punishment for all of our sin (past, present and future). What great motivation we have to turn from sin and live a life of obedience when we know that we have been reconciled to the Father on account of Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:16-21)! We do not have a High Priest who will only apply his blood if we’ve been obedient enough, we have a High Priest who applies his blood even though we have not been obedient enough. Christ died for sinners, not for those who have their own righteousness (Romans 5:6-8).

Greg

Greetings forum.

Found my way here today and was interested enough by some of the threads to register and join the discussion.

I dont know where to place this post as it relates to both this thread and the one on John Wesleys doubts. Several of the comments from there illustrate the tragedy of insecurity in faith and not believing that salvation truly is a gift from God through Jesus.

However, I am concerned with the alternative presented aswell. Reformed predestination sure gives salvation peace and security to the saved, but it is at the same time an antigospel to those whom are not predestined to be saved. ‘Sorry, this entry list to the presence of God was written at the foundations of the world, and I can’t find your name on it, no luck for you.’

And also, there is to much teaching in the bible that casts doubts on it for these doubts to be dismissed right away. Not only what Ezekiel wrote, for instance in chapter 18 where he preaches Gods message thus. ‘21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die. ‘

But there is also what Jesus Himself teaches in Matthew 25; “34"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’”
And again;
“41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’”

What the people in the two groups did or did not do were used as the reasons for their respective destiny. This is not much different from what Ezekiel spoke and I do not believe that the gospel needs any major adjustments to incorporate both of these, aswell as Pauls testimony which I have seen quoted in other threads. We can rest in assurance that our God will not fail us who trust in Him. But it is also true that we can choose to reject Him even if we did trust in Him first. Though not by mistake.

I will end with a quote that I believe you will appreciate, though you may not appreciate its author.
“Christ crucified for our sins, Christ risen from the dead, Christ ascended on high, is the science of salvation that we are to learn and to teach. {8T 287.2}”

Hi vastergotland

However, I am concerned with the alternative presented aswell. Reformed predestination sure gives salvation peace and security to the saved, but it is at the same time an antigospel to those whom are not predestined to be saved. ‘Sorry, this entry list to the presence of God was written at the foundations of the world, and I can’t find your name on it, no luck for you.’

We are also concerned with such a view, and we stand beside you in condemning this teaching. However this is not the reformed view of predestination. Reformers stand beside all believers who affirm that anyone who believes in Jesus will be saved, no one true believer coming to Christ in true faith will be left out, rejected.  James White’s commentary of John 6 is very useful, I will highlight the important parts.

The blessed Lord was quite blunt with His audience.  He knew they did not possess real faith.  “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe” (v. 36).  They had seen Him with their eyes, but unless physical sight is joined with spiritual enlightenment, it profits nothing.  Often the importance of this statement is overlooked.  Verse 36 is a turning point in the chapter. Jesus now explains their unbelief. How is it that these men could stand before the very Son of God, the Word made flesh, and not believe?  Anyone who does not take seriously the deadness of man in sin should contemplate this scene.  The very Creator in human form stands before men who are schooled in the Scriptures and points to their unbelief.  He then explains the why, and yet so few today will listen and believe.

]“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.” These are the first words to come from the Lord in explanation of man’s unbelief.  We dare not engage in hopscotch across this text and ignore the very order of teaching He provides. The first assertion is one of complete divine sovereignty. Every word speaks volumes.

“All that the Father gives Me.” The Father gives someone to Christ.  The elect are viewed as a single whole, [footnote: The neuter form pa’n is used when the entire group is in view; when each individual person comes into view with reference to their response of faith the masculine participle ejrcovmeno” is used, showing the personal element of faith.] given by the Father to the Son. [footnote: Two tenses are used by the Lord in this passage: here the present tense is used, “all the Father gives (divdwsin) Me....” In verse 39, however, the perfect tense is used, “all that He has given (devdwken) Me....” ] The Father has the right to give a people to the Son.  He is the sovereign King, and this is a divine transaction.

All that are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son.  Not some, not most, but all.

All those given by the Father to the Son will come to the Son.  It is vital to see the truth that is communicated by this phrase: the giving by the Father to the Son precedes and determines the coming of the person to Christ.  The action of giving by the Father comes before the action of coming to Christ by the individual.  And since all of those so given infallibly come, we have here both unconditional election as well as irresistible grace, and that in the space of nine words! It becomes an obvious exercise in eisegesis to say, “Well, what the Lord really means is that all that the Father has seen will believe in Christ will come to Christ.” That is a meaningless statement.  Since the action of coming is dependent upon the action of giving, we can see that it is simply not exegetically possible to say that we cannot determine the relationship between the two actions.  God’s giving results in man’s coming.  Salvation is of the Lord.

But note as well that it is to the Son that they come.  They do not come to a religious system.  They are coming to Christ.  This is a personal relationship, personal faith, and, given that the ones who come are described throughout the passage by the present tense participle, it is not just a coming that happens once.  This is an on-going faith, an on-going looking to Christ as the source of spiritual life.  The men to whom the Lord was speaking had “come” to Him for a season: they would soon walk away and follow Him no more.  The true believer is coming to Christ, always.  This is the nature of saving faith.

“And the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.” The true believer, the one “coming” to the Son, has this promise of the Lord: using the strongest form of denial possible, [footnote: Here the aorist subjunctive of strong denial, ouj mh; ejkbavlw e[xw, “I will never cast out.” The idea is the emphatic denial of the possibility of a future event.] Jesus affirms the eternal security of the believer.  Jesus is the one who gives life and raises His own up at the last day.  He promises that there is no possibility whatsoever that any one who is coming to Him in true faith could ever find Him unwilling to save.  But this tremendous promise is the second half of a sentence.  It is based upon the truth that was first proclaimed.  This promise is to those who are given by the Father to the Son and to no one else. Of course, we will see in verse 44 that no one but those who are so given will be coming to Christ in faith anyway: but there are surely those who, like many in that audience in Capernaum, are willing to follow for a while, willing to believe for a season.  This promise is not theirs.

The promise to the elect, however, could not be more precious.  Since Christ is able to save perfectly (He is not dependent upon man’s will, man’s cooperation), His promise means the elect cannot ever be lost.  Since He will not cast out, and there is no power greater than His own, the one who comes to Christ will find Him an all-sufficient and perfect Savior.  This is the only basis of “eternal security” or the perseverance of the saints: they look to a perfect Savior who is able to save.  It is Christ’s ability to save that means the redeemed cannot be lost.  If it were, in fact, a synergistic relationship, there could never be any ground for absolute confidence and security.

Many stop at verse 37 and miss the tremendous revelation we are privileged to receive in the following verses.  Why will Christ never cast out those who come to Him?  Verse 38 begins with a connective that indicates a continuation of the thought: verses 38 and 39 explain verse 37.  Christ keeps all those who come to Him for He is fulfilling the will of the Father. “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” The divine Messiah always does the will of the Father.  The preceding chapter in John’s Gospel had made this very clear.  There is perfect harmony between the work of the Father and the Son.

And what is the will of the Father for the Son?  In simple terms, it is the Father’s will that the Son save perfectly.  “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” It is vital to remember that this continues the explanation of why He does not cast out the one coming to Him.  We must see this for some might be tempted to say that the Father has entrusted all things into the hands of the Son, and that this passage is saying nothing more than the Son will act properly in regards to what the Father has given Him.  But the context is clear: v. 37 speaks of the Father “giving” the elect to the Son, and v. 39 continues the same thought.  Those who are given infallibly come to the Son in v. 37, and it is these same ones, the elect, [footnote: Jesus uses the neuter pa’n again to refer to the elect as an entire group, though the fact that this group is made up of individuals is seen in their being raised to life and in their individually coming to Him.] who are raised up at the last day.  Resurrection is the work of Christ, and in this passage, is paralleled with the giving of eternal life (see v. 40).  Christ gives eternal life to all those who are given to Him and who, as a result, come to Him. 

We must ask the Arminian who promotes the idea that a truly saved person can be lost: does this not mean that Christ can fail to do the will of the Father?  If the will of the Father for the Son is that He lose none of those that are given to Him, does it not follow inexorably that Christ is able to accomplish the Father’s will?  And does this not force us to believe that the Son is able to save without introducing the will of man as the final authority in the matter? Can any synergist (one who teaches, as Dr. Geisler does, that God’s grace works “synergistically” and that man’s free will is a vitally important part of the salvation process, and that no man is saved unless that man wills it) believe these words?  Can one who says that God tries to save as many as “possible” but cannot save any man without that man’s cooperation fully believe what this verse teaches?  It is not the Father’s will that Christ try to save but that He save a particular people perfectly.  He is to lose nothing of all that He is given.  How can this be if, in fact, the final decision lies with man, not with God?  It is the Father’s will that results in the resurrection to life of any individual. This is election in the strongest terms, and it is taught with clarity in the reddest letters in Scripture.

Verse 39 begins with “This is the will of Him who sent Me,” and verse 40 does the same, “For this is the will of My Father.” But in verse 39 we have the will of the Father for the Son.  Now we have the will of the Father for the elect.  “That everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” Amazingly, many wrench this verse out of its context, misunderstand the reference to “every one who beholds...every one who believes in Him,” and say, “See, no divine election here!  Any one can do this.” But it is obvious, when the text is allowed to stand as a whole, that this is not the intention of the passage.  Who is the one “beholding” the Son and “believing” in Him?  Both these terms are present participles, referring to on-going action, just as we saw in “the one coming” to Christ in verse 37.  Jesus raises up on the last day all those who are given to Him (v. 39) and all those who are looking and believing in Him (v. 40).  Are we to believe these are different groups?  Of course not.  Jesus only raises one group to eternal life. But since this is so, does it not follow that all those given to Him will look to Him and believe in Him?  Most assuredly.  Saving faith, then, is exercised by all of those given to the Son by the Father (one of the reasons why, as we will see, the Bible affirms clearly that saving faith is a gift of God).

The entire article is here
http://aomin.org/WinSunRep.html

In conclusion, nobody who comes to Christ will be left out, because this coming is the effect, the result of God’s election. And all whom God elected will believe, and no one else, since no one else, being spiritually dead is able to come “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” John 6:44 I hope that this is helpful.

Gabriel

västergötland, welcome to 4TG. I am glad you are here and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Based on your affirmation of the believer’s security in Christ, I think we have much to agree upon. You said, “Several of the comments from [the Wesley thread] illustrate the tragedy of insecurity in faith and not believing that salvation truly is a gift from God through Jesus.” Let’s stop and think about this for a minute. From what source does the believer’s security arise? I think you will agree with me the it is only from God the Father, through the atoning blood of Jesus and by the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, this security is something utterly foreign to human understanding or human nature, since it derives from a supernatural source. If we look inside ourselves for signs of righteousness or measuring up to an external standard (like Wesley did), we will seriously question our status before God, because we will never find within ourselves the perfection that is in Christ.

The only security we have is the security given to us in Christ, which is a gift of God and not a reward for personal righteousness. This is the foundation upon which the Protestant Reformation was built. Rome said that the sinner must perform acts of righteousness to merit and maintain salvation. The Reformers discovered that the Scriptures teach something quite different—that our righteousness is as filthy rags (Romans 3:9-20) and our only hope is the exchange of our sins with Christ’s righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). The difference between the Protestant and Catholic views could not be more radically different, and we may be closer to Rome than we think if we embrace a view of salvation that leaves any part of it in our hands.

västergötland, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this and I welcome your comments anytime. Also, let us know what the meaning of your screen name is...I’m curious

Greg

Gabriel,

Such is reformed predestination and I reject it. We are told in the bible that God does not want that anyone should die. If God would say this and yet at the same time elect some to life and thereby electing others to death by not electing them to life, this would be a sign of dishonesty within God, and we do not want to go there. Thus, since predestination throws Gods honesty in question, it must be questioned.

Also, since everyone will live their lives based on what God has decided they will do and noone can do anything different, it means that humans are Gods robots. It does not really help that everyone only does what they really want to do since they did not want it of themselves but because God decided that they would want to do it and not want to do anything else. But can love exist outside of a true choise to love? Does Jesus mean what He says when He asks us to love God of all our hearts and each other as ourselves? If many of those who hear Him are inable to do so because God has decided that’s the way it is going to be?

Greg,

You wrote; “From what source does the believer’s security arise? I think you will agree with me the it is only from God the Father, through the atoning blood of Jesus and by the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, this security is something utterly foreign to human understanding or human nature, since it derives from a supernatural source.”

Life itself comes only from God, the only source of life that exists. If everything that derives from a supernatural source is utterly foreign to human understanding, we can not understand life anymore than we can understand this security. Likewise salvation is derived only through God, and must by this logic be as foreign to us as is the security it brings. Not to mention the Lord we should learn to know. As God Himself, how more supernatural do we get? Yet He will have to tell some people in the end, I do not know you, depart from me.. How unfair would it be to be rejected for not knowing God if knowing God is utterly impossible in the first place?

Then you wrote; “Rome said that the sinner must perform acts of righteousness to merit and maintain salvation. The Reformers discovered that the Scriptures teach something quite different—that our righteousness is as filthy rags (Romans 3:9-20) and our only hope is the exchange of our sins with Christ’s righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). The difference between the Protestant and Catholic views could not be more radically different, and we may be closer to Rome than we think if we embrace a view of salvation that leaves any part of it in our hands.”

Rome would be wrong for having said that righteousness can be merited. But we would be equally wrong if we embrace a view of salvation that leaves us out of the picture. Paul did write that it is by faith alone and not by works so that noone can boast, but we must not have it overrule Jesus teaching from my first post, or the observation that while forgiveness was always aviable for the prodigal son, he had to choose to go home to find out.

Västergötland is a province that I live in.

We have already discussed your objections in many places of this forum, and you may find answers to your inquiries on different threads, if you are willing to explore alternatives. Since I have my time constraints, here is my short answer.

Man lost his ability to keep the law, to love God supremely and his neighbor as himself, and the last part of Romans 7 is a depiction of man’s inability to do what is good in spite of opposite desires and resolutions to do what is good. Part of God’s saving work is to restore in man the love of God, pouring love for God in him, writing the law of God in his heart. .

Gabriel

Hi Västergötland,

I totally hear your arguments and I can say I’ve even argued this way previously. It is not with pride, but humility that I can say I was wrong to believe these things. Quite simply, there are many texts in the Bible that are simply unintelligible if we can’t bring ourself to believe that God is utterly in control of our salvation. I’ll list a few and if you have time, I’d like to hear how you see these as fitting with man being a participant in his eternal security and salvation.

Jesus:

“For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14 ESV)

“And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matthew 24:31 ESV)

“And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.” (Mark 13:20 ESV)

“But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:36-37 ESV)

Paul:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” (Ephesians 1:3-6 ESV)

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Romans 9:14-16 ESV)

Peter:

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (1 Peter 2:9-10 ESV)

Joseph:

“Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” (Genesis 50:19-21 ESV)

Luke:

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48 ESV)

Västergötland, it would help me to hear how you harmonize these texts with your understanding of man’s role in salvation and how this impacts the gospel.

Thanks,

Greg

Hi Västergötland,

I would also like to join Greg and Gabriel in welcoming you to 4TG. Like Greg and Gabriel, I struggled and fought against the Reformed doctrines of grace for many years. But I had to come to grips with the overwhelming testimony of scripture. If I believed that the Bible was inerrant and infallible, then I could no longer just keep reading on by difficult passages such as Romans 9 and the clear scripture of John 6 with the VERY WORDS OF JESUS clearly defining how salvation is accomplished.  There is just so much scripture supporting the Reformed view of predestination which the vast majority of Christendom rejects today. Ephesians 1 and 2 are crystal clear. The scriptures that you referred to that Arminians hold on to to deny the vast scriptural evidence to the contrary have reasonable explanations in light of the large portions of scripture which teach the Reformed view.

Jesus teaches the Reformed view of predestination in many different scriptures. Check out Matthew 11: 25-27, where Jesus clearly says that He is the one who chooses whom He will reveal to the Father.

The logical explanation which James White gives for John 6 is irrefutable. I have yet to hear a logical explanation of the Arminian view of John 6. They have to end up reading their own ideas into those scriptures in order to get around the plain sense of those scriptures. The only other way to interpret John 6 would be the universalist position, and indeed, many folks who understand the full force of Jesus’ statements have decided to conclude that everyone will be saved. We know from too many scriptures that universalism is false.

However, it would be wrong to argue this only from a theological head trip where one side is trying to tear down the other side. It is true that there are many true Christians on both sides of this argument. But, it is very important to be totally honest with what scripture says and to submit to its teachings even if we don’t like what the text says.

But the most important aspects of the teachings of grace and God’s sovereignty is how it impacts the way we live our Christian lives. Theology must also be practical. I cannot tell you the difference that these teachings have made in my own life, after going through many personal trials. The whole point of the John Wesley thread was contrasting the faith and assurance that escaped Wesley as well as many SDAs who follow Wesley’s teachings through the writings of Ellen White, and contrasting this faith with the faith of those who are Reformed in their view of salvation and the blessed assurance which comes trough trusting in the very promises of Jesus made in John 6 as well in so many places. John 10 says that it is impossible for anyone to pluck us out of the Father’s hand, and Jesus guarantees this assurance by saying that He and the Father are one.

As you probably know, those who have followed Ellen White’s views of salvation especially as outlined in her most detailed treatise in Great Controversy on the Investigative Judgment, will only come to despair and doubt their salvation, because Ellen White paints a bleak picture of anyone’s chance to stand in the judgment. Her teachings have led many people to despair.

If you read many of the threads on this site, you will find that we are very passionate FOR THE GOSPEL of grace that Jesus and the apostles so clearly taught.

As one who was brought up in the strictest form of SDA, I saw where the gospel according to Ellen White leads. Thankfully, God has chosen to save many folks out of Adventism despite their theology. God continues to be very gracious indeed!

Stan

Many comments at a time here. Lets see where to start.

Gabriel, since these issues have been thorroughly discussed, the question becomes, what mutual ground do we have between our different views of reality where we could meet and discuss the lesser issues of adventisms pros and cons?

Greg, another problem is that there are also many texts in the bible which become unintelligeble if we assume that Gods sovereignty means that He must be in complete controll and micromanage creation. Remember where Jesus lays out the rules for divine sovreignty in Matthew 20? He said;

25But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
26"It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,
27and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;
28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Would Jesus here tell the diciples to conform to a type of rulership which was diametrically opposite to that which applies to God? I think not. Or when Jesus was praying and pleading in the garden of getsemane, what purpose did asking God to find another way serve in the view of divine micromanagement?
Comming to think of it, Jesus as God incarnate as a human, was His will free or did He also do only that which the Father was pleased to make Him want to do?

Matthew 22, consider the parable preceding the verse you called our attention to. The King had invited a house full of guests for the wedding of his son. But the guests all excused themselves and refused to come. Are you sure this parable supports irresistible grace? The King replied by having all the former guests who refused his invitation killed. Then he sent his servants to gather in anyone they could find and invite them to the wedding feast. One of them had neglected to dress in wedding garments. Considering that many invited off from the streets were beggars and poor, it cannot be speaking about not owning a wedding garment of his own, but rather a neglect to wear the garment provided by the King. This neglect caused the man to be thrown out of the feast. Many were invited but this man was not chosen.

Matthew 24, well, both views state that at the time of the second return of Jesus, it will be chrystal clear who is for and who is against Jesus. No problems here.

Mark 13, obviously the tribulation time will be of such a character that if God would not put an premature end to it, mankind would make itself extinct. Then there would be noone around who had not tasted death.

John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
If I pick this verse and ask you to explain it, what would you say then?

Ephesians 1, Paul is thorroughly speaking of “us” and “you”, about the believers as a group. God elected that salvation would come to the church (the church as composed of all believers) and predestined its members to be adopted as sons and daughters. This is supported in chapter two where Paul writes that prior to Jesus the gentiles were outside of citicenship in Israel and thus outside of the covenant and without hope. But now through Jesus blood the two, jews and gentiles, have been grafted together to be one man and so have peace. This man, composed of all believers wether jew or gentile, is elected and predestined for sonship. Paul is not talking about the individuals who make up the ephesian arm of the man.

The same in Romans 9, God has unilaterally decided to create a covenant and provide salvation to man. Concerning the verses you pointed to, what is Paul speaking about in this part of Romans? Is he speaking about God picking individuals for salvation or is he defending Gods right to choose gentiles for salvation alongside of the jews? Is this not an argument against those who say that Israel is Gods covenant people and all gentile believers must join Israel to merit salvation? But God chooses to have mercy on the people who did not seek righteousness but who nontheless won it through faith.

Peter too defends a group of gentiles and assures them that they have become a nation of priests before God.

Joseph praises Gods resourcefullness in turning the evil acts of his brothers into a means of saving the lives of many peoples. I wonder if it was also Gods plan to fill pharaos treasury and enslave the entire egyptian people all along?

As for acts 13, dont know about that one.

I think thats well enough for one post.

Stan Ermshar - 16 January 2008 04:55 PM

Hi Västergötland,

I would also like to join Greg and Gabriel in welcoming you to 4TG.

Thank you.

Jesus teaches the Reformed view of predestination in many different scriptures. Check out Matthew 11: 25-27, where Jesus clearly says that He is the one who chooses whom He will reveal to the Father.

Only if it can also be shown that Jesus is restrictive with whom He reveals the Father to. The example I can think of was in Nazareth where Jesus did not do many miracles. But why did He not do them there? Did He not like the people or where the people of Nazareth not elected? No, He did not do miracles there because of their unbelief.

The logical explanation which James White gives for John 6 is irrefutable. I have yet to hear a logical explanation of the Arminian view of John 6. They have to end up reading their own ideas into those scriptures in order to get around the plain sense of those scriptures. The only other way to interpret John 6 would be the universalist position, and indeed, many folks who understand the full force of Jesus’ statements have decided to conclude that everyone will be saved. We know from too many scriptures that universalism is false.

Tell me, if I read Genesis 6:6 and explained it saying that God repented of making humans and wished He had not done so, am I then reading in my own ideas to get around the plain sense of the text? Or would I be reading around and trying to avoid the plain text if I say that Moses wrote this part as an antrophomorphism when he ascribed repentance to God?
I think that it is rather so that what you view as reading around and what you view as the plain reading of the text depends on what worldview and what view of God you are starting with. From a reformed point of view, every text or explanation of a text that does not account for God sovereignly electing some and not electing others implies figgure of speach or taking pains to explain away the clear meaning of the text. Not so for those who have a different startingpoint.

However, it would be wrong to argue this only from a theological head trip where one side is trying to tear down the other side. It is true that there are many true Christians on both sides of this argument. But, it is very important to be totally honest with what scripture says and to submit to its teachings even if we don’t like what the text says.

Quite right, and may I add also the humility of acknowledging that our own position may not be the ultimate guide to the galaxy.

But the most important aspects of the teachings of grace and God’s sovereignty is how it impacts the way we live our Christian lives. Theology must also be practical. I cannot tell you the difference that these teachings have made in my own life, after going through many personal trials. The whole point of the John Wesley thread was contrasting the faith and assurance that escaped Wesley as well as many SDAs who follow Wesley’s teachings through the writings of Ellen White, and contrasting this faith with the faith of those who are Reformed in their view of salvation and the blessed assurance which comes trough trusting in the very promises of Jesus made in John 6 as well in so many places. John 10 says that it is impossible for anyone to pluck us out of the Father’s hand, and Jesus guarantees this assurance by saying that He and the Father are one.

Indeed, the practical aspect is important aswell. And beyond the legalistic lack of assurance which you ascribe to John Wesley and Ellen White (rightfully or not I do not know) a free will view of reality offers a greater sence of personal responcibility. The Father will forgive but you better get on your feet and get going home. Once you decided to start going, your safe but postponing and procrastination won’t get you anywhere.

As you probably know, those who have followed Ellen White’s views of salvation especially as outlined in her most detailed treatise in Great Controversy on the Investigative Judgment, will only come to despair and doubt their salvation, because Ellen White paints a bleak picture of anyone’s chance to stand in the judgment. Her teachings have led many people to despair.

I am sure noone is served by such blanket statements. Some following