On a recent thread, the question was raised as to whether current and former Adventists could agree on the language of Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief #10 - “The Experience of Salvation.” This belief statement summarizes the Adventist position on justification and sanctification, concluding with this very reassuring statement: “Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment.” While most Christians would not have any problem with the fundamental belief statement as written, many Adventists might think twice about the promised assurance expressed in the last sentence.  Some will recall the Investigative Judgment and the cautioning words of Ellen White to never affirm one’s salvation (Christ’s Object Lessons, pg. 155), leading them to wonder how Christian assurance can be balanced with the historic teachings of the church.  But is this fundamental belief statement as conclusive as it sounds?  For more explanation, we can learn much by studying the expansion of this belief statement in “Seventh-day Adventists Believe...A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines” (online here).  A closer look at this doctrine reveals that those who seek the assurance of salvation will find it–if they stop reading before the end of the chapter–while those who try to reconcile the statement with historic Adventist teachings will also find what they are looking for by reading all the way to the end.

At first glance, we may be tempted to conclude that an undercover Calvinist penned much of the chapter explaining fundamental belief #10.  “Trying, apart from Christ, to develop the good in oneself is counterproductive.  The experience of salvation that reaches deep into the soul comes from God alone” (pg. 120).  “God’s Spirit convicts those who receive Him of the seriousness of sin by bringing them to a sense of God’s righteousness and of their own lost condition” (pg. 120).  “Although repentance precedes forgiveness, the sinner cannot, by repentance, fit himself to secure the blessing of God.  In fact, the sinner cannot even produce from within himself repentance–it is the gift of God (Acts 5:31; cf. Rom. 2:4).  The Holy Spirit draws the sinner to Christ in order that he may find repentance, this heartfelt sorrow for sin” (pg. 121).  “Through faith in Jesus, the heart is filled by His Spirit.  Through this same faith, which is a gift of God’s grace (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 2:8), repentant sinners are justified (Rom. 3:28)” (pg. 121).  “Through justification by faith in Christ, His righteousness is imputed to us.  We are right with God because of Christ our Substitute” (pg. 122).  With these statements, the authors affirm that salvation is completely the work of God, that it is God who calls and draws sinners to Himself, even providing the faith necessary to believe in Him (John 6:35-40, John 10:14-18, Mark 9:24).

The chapter continues by affirming that those who are justified will manifest good works, beginning the process of sanctification which is described in the Bible as both a present and ongoing experience (1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:4-7, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).  If we stop reading here, we find no disagreement with what the Bible teaches on the doctrines of justification and sanctification.

Where things get a little trickier is in a section entitled “Move on to perfection,” where the opening sentence reads, “What role do we, as believers, play in all this?” (pg. 128).  After reviewing the words of Paul, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” and quoting Hebrews 10:26-27, the following statements (with references) are made:

These exhortations make it evident that Christians “need more than a purely legal justification or sanctification.  They need holiness of character even though salvation is always by faith.  The title to heaven rests on the righteousness of Christ only.  In addition to justification, God’s plan of salvation provides through this title a fitness for heaven by the indwelling Christ.  This fitness must be revealed in man’s moral character as evidence that salvation ‘has happened.’” -Hans K. LaRondelle, Christ Our Salvation, pg. 77 (pg. 129)

To support this difficult quote, another statement is made that confounds the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith:

All believers who are living the Spirit-filled sanctified life (Christ-possessed) have a continuing need for daily justification (Christ-bestowed).  We need this because of conscious trangressions and because of errors we may commit unwittingly. (pg. 129)

The implication that the sinner requires continual justification is at odds with what the Bible says in describing justification as a one-time event (Rom. 3:21-28, Rom. 5:1, Rom. 8:30. Rom. 10:4, Gal. 2:16, Gal. 3:24).  Further weakening this assertion is the fact that a secondary source (LaRondelle) must be quoted to sustain it.  The historic teaching of Protestant Christianity–that we are declared righteous by receiving Christ’s imputed righteousness–is thus clouded by LaRondelle’s flawed conclusions.

Reading further, we find yet one more reference to LaRondelle:

The scriptural view that in one sense adoption and redemption–or salvation–have “already” been accomplished and that in another sense they have not yet been accomplished has confused some.  A study of the full scope of Christ’s work as Saviour provides the answer.  “Paul related our present salvation to the first coming of Christ.  In the historic cross, resurrection, and heavenly ministry of Christ our justification and sanctification are secured once and for all.  Our future salvation, the glorification of our bodies, Paul related, however to the second coming of Christ.”

“For this reason Paul can say simultatneously: ‘We are saved,’ in view of the cross and resurrection of Christ in the past; and ‘we are not yet saved,’ in view of the future return of Christ to redeem our bodies.” LaRondelle, pg. 89 (pg. 130)

The very next sentence reads: “To emphasize our present salvation to the exclusion of our future salvation creates an incorrect, unfortunate understanding of Christ’s complete salvation” (pg. 130).

A previously clear declaration of God’s salvation and justification by faith is now blurred considerably by mixing the meaning of the believer’s present “salvation” and future “glorification” (see Romans 8:15-17).  This mix-up leaves the reader questioning the security he thought he had in Christ by softening some of the greatest promises in Scripture which show that it is God who saves and sanctifies, being faithful to complete the work He began (Philippians 1:6, Romans 5:8-10, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 2:4-8, Titus 3:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2-3, Galatians 2:20-21).

Finally, the authors of this chapter conclude with a fortifying quote from Ellen White:

As long as life shall last, there is need of guarding the affections and the passions with a firm purpose.  There is inward corruption, there are outward temptations, and wherever the work of God shall be advanced, Satan plans so to arrange circumstances that temptation shall come with overpowering force upon the soul.  Not one moment can we be secure only as we are relying upon God, the life hid with Christ in God. -Ellen White, SDA Bible Commentary vol. 2, p. 1032 (pg. 130)

If the reader was not confused before, he is now, because his security has been replaced with trepidation about an overpowering force upon the soul he must contend with.  Instead of knowing the joy of being confident in Jesus’ promises, the reader may be led to believe he cannot possibly know whether he is saved and even if he is, whether his salvation will be at risk with each new attack the “overpowering force” of the devil brings.

Fortunately, the Bible clears up all this confusion in affirming that we can be confident and secure in our justification and in the promises of Jesus:

“If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died–more than that, who was raised–who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

‘For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.’

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:31-39 ESV)

Furthermore, we can sing confidently with the Psalmist “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?” (Psalm 27:1 ESV).

Posted anonymously by: Randy Gerber

Greg,

Thank-you for this presentation of Fundamental belief #10. Like so many of them, they start out sounding quite orthodox, and it isnt until you read the fine print where the works mentality of the Adventist interpretation presents it self.

It is unfortunate that just a plain and simple straight forward reading of the Scriptures is not suffice to determine Fundamental beliefs.

Somehow to get the belief to line up with what the “pen of inspiration” states, all the joy and security of salvation is sucked out of the straight forward interpetation of the Scriptural passages.

It is as if it just can’t be as simple as the Bible says it is. I mean if it was, then all Christians would have access to salvation and the “specialness” of the unique Advent message would no longer be special or unique.

That I’m afraid would be a serious blow to many in the Adventist church to realize that they might just be a peculiar people, but in the eyes of God no better that anybody else who accepts Christ as their personal saviour, and is saved by grace alone---the ongoing theme of the New Testament and the Good News of the Gospel.

In adventism the assurance of salvation is based not entirely on the objective fact of Christ’s life, death and resurrection, His righteousness counted to us, external to us, which is received as a free gift, a righteousness to which we have nothing to contribute. The base of our acceptance before God in adventism includes the internal work of the Holy Spirit.

In the same chapter “Seventh-day Adventists Believe” - “The Experience of Salvation” it is stated on page 131

The Ground of Our Acceptance With God
Neither Christlike character traits nor faultless behavior is the ground of our acceptance with God. Saving righteousness comes from the one righteous Man, Jesus, and is conveyed to us by the Holy Spirit. We can contribute nothing to Christ’s gift of righteousness; we can only receive it. No one other than Christ is righteous (Rom. 3:10); independent human righteousness is only filthy rags (Isa. 64:6; see also Dan. 9:7, 11, 20; 1 Cor. 1:30).14

Even what we do in response to Christ’s saving love cannot form the basis of our acceptance with God. That acceptance is identified with the work of Christ. In bringing Christ to us, the Holy Spirit brings that acceptance.

Is our acceptance based on Christ’s justifying righteousness or His sanctifying righteousness or both? John Calvin pointed out that as “Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable.” Christ’s ministry has to be seen in its totality. This makes it paramount to avoid speculation about these two terms by “trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. . . . Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital questions of righteousness by faith?”

Just as the sun has light and heat–inseparable, yet with unique functions–so Christ has become to us righteousness as well as sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30). Not only are we fully justified but also fully sanctified in Him.

The Holy Spirit brings the “It is finished” of Calvary within, applying the only experience of God’s acceptance of humanity to us. This “It is finished” of the cross calls in question all other human attempts to gain acceptance. In bringing the Crucified within, the Spirit brings the only ground of our acceptance with God, providing the only genuine title to and fitness for salvation available to us.“Seventh-day Adventists Believe”, page 131

As it can be seen, the answer to the question

Is our acceptance based on Christ’s justifying righteousness or His sanctifying righteousness or both?

is BOTH, clearly, the Roman Catholic gospel with which Luther fought in his days.

[quote author="GABRIEL PROKSCH"]As it can be seen, the answer to the question

Is our acceptance based on Christ’s justifying righteousness or His sanctifying righteousness or both?

is BOTH, clearly, the Roman Catholic gospel with which Luther fought in his days.

This is not the message I got. I think the first two sentences made it clear that this is not so.

“Neither Christlike character traits nor faultless behavior is the ground of our acceptance with God.”

The Catholics believed that faith plus the sacraments are what saved us. SDAs do not believe that any good works we do has the power to save us.

I just finished reading carefully the chapter on fundamentals number 10.

Here is the troubling statement:

“These exhortations make it evident that Christians “need more than a purely legal justification or sanctification. They need holiness of character even though salvation is always by faith. The title to heaven rests on the righteousness of Christ only. In addition to justification, God’s plan of salvation provides through this title a fitness for heaven by the indwelling Christ.”
----------------------------------------------------------

We are fit for heaven and “safe to save” the moment we put our faith and trust in Christ alone. The idea that sanctification is a gauge of our fitness for heaven is wrong. I know, Guibox, that they say:

“Neither Christlike character traits nor faultless behavior is the ground of our acceptance with God.”

But then the paragraph I quoted does go along with the Roman view of salvation. Adventists minimize their similarities with RCC, and always say that it is faith plus sacraments. But if you go back to the original documents from the Council of Trent, you will find that the Roman church pronounced anathema on Martin Luther’s concept of justification by faith alone. There is a book that is linked on this website called “The Shaking Of Adventism” by Geoffrey Paxton which clearly shows that the SDA view and Roman Catholic view are virtually identical.

Having said the above, the statement in that chapter taken as a whole, does not differ in substance from a lot of Arminian Christianity that I have run across. This is where I am having problems singling out Adventism alone as the propagators of muddled teaching on this subject.

There have been surveys that the good folks on http://www.whitehorseinn.org radio show have pointed to that the vast majority of so-called evangelical pastors cannot articulate the Reformation doctrine of “Justification by Faith alone”, and they end up with the same kind of muddled statements that sound like Adventism.

Of course, Ellen White did not get her teachings in a vacuum. Much of the muddled and wrong teaching came from the mixed up and even heretical teachings of Charles Finney. That is why in American evangelicalism, we have the leftovers of so much bad theology. John Wesley also had some questionable teachings mixing up justification and sanctification.

However, the sanctified life is the fruit of justification. The book of Hebrews does say that “without holiness no one will see the Lord” So it is true that holiness is not optional--it will follow justification. But the serious mistake that that chapter makes is asserting, or at least implying that it is our sanctification that determines our fitness for heaven. Then the question comes up “How much sanctification makes me fit for heaven?”

Stan

Stan,

Thanks for your thoughts regarding Sanctification.  A troubling fact I have found, not only in Adventism but in many Christian believers, is that Sanctification is something that is accomplished if only a person is to try hard enough. 

Justification is the starting point for Sanctification.  I cannot be like Christ until I am in Christ. 

It really is very simple.  Sanctification is God having His way with ME!  It is me stepping out of the way.

I often tell my children two things:

First - I don’t have to be good to be saved but I do have to be saved to be good.

Second - God loves me just the way I am but He loves me too much to leave me that way.

Sanctification is not an awareness of how good I am becoming.  It is a growing sense of how sinful I am, so I will constantly turn to and depend on Jesus Christ for my every victory.

Praise God it is not about ME!
Denise

Thanks Denise for those inspiring thoughts.

The perspective is so different when salvation is understood properly. Obedience to God becomes a joy and a privilege when it is not held over your head as a condition to meet to be fit for heaven. All true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are fit for heaven because we are born from above, and we have been adopted permanently into His family!

Stan

Denise, thanks for your thoughts and contributions to our understanding here.  I will remember to use your wording in teaching my children when they get a little older.

[quote author="guibox"]The Catholics believed that faith plus the sacraments are what saved us. SDAs do not believe that any good works we do has the power to save us.

Guibox, I think I understand where you are coming from.  Sometimes it can sound a little abrupt when we equate the Adventist doctrine of justification with what the Roman Catholics teach.  As Stan mentioned, there is an entire book devoted to this subject, written by Jeffrey Paxton in the 1970s entitled “The Shaking of Adventism.” The book can be found online here.

I just want to be clear on the definitions we are using, since as we see in the quotes above how easy the terms get mixed up.

The Catholic church vehemently opposes the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, and pronounced condemnation on anyone who espoused this view at the Council of Trent:

“If any one shall say that the sinner is justified by faith alone, in the sense that nothing else is required which may cooperate towards the attainment of the grace of justification, and that the sinner does not need to be prepared and disposed (for the reception of the grace of justification), by the motion of his own will: let him be accursed.” -Articles of the Council of Trent, Canon IV

This is in contrast to what the reformers believed:

“I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ. This is most certainly true.” -Martin Luther, The Creed, third article

The Reformation view of salvation is that it is entirely a work of God–that he both justifies and sanctifies.  In this view, justification is a legal declaration of righteousness based on the imputed merits of Jesus Christ that are accounted to the sinner through faith.  This righteousness does not merely cover past sins, but present and future sins as well.

The Catholic view is that past sins are forgiven at the moment the sinner repents and puts his faith in Jesus (justification), but future sins are not covered in this transaction.  This is why Catholics teach that there are different types of sins (mortal and venial) which can put salvation in jeopardy and that it is only through ongoing confession to a priest that a sinner’s account can stay “clean.”

If you go back and read the chapter on the Experience of Salvation above, you will notice that it does not ever speak of justification for future sins (unless I missed it).  In the traditional Adventist view, similar to that of the Catholics, past sins are forgiven when the sinner is justified, but sanctification is the perfecting of the character which allows him to keep his record “clean” and become “safe to save.” It is this mixing of justification and sanctification that gave rise to monumental battles within the Adventist church in the 1970s and 1980s over the definitions of justification and righteousness by faith.  The “Seventh-day Adventists Believe...” book reflects this since it presents the same mixture of these terms.

Here are several quotes from Paxton’s book that illustrate just how similar the historic Adventist view of justification is with the Catholic teaching:

“Justification blots out the black picture of the past, sanctification paints a bright picture for now and the future; justification clears the record, sanctification keeps the record clear....” -J.W. McFarland and J.R. Spangler, “Why You Lose What You Don’t Use,” Century 21: Institute for Better Living, p. 15

“Sanctification then is growing up into Christ; becoming more and more like Him through the impartation (actual receiving) of His righteousness.  With the passage of time we should require less emphasis on Christ’s imputed righteousness and should actually possess more and more of His imparted righteousness.” -Don Hawley, Getting It All Together, p. 35

“‘Far from being merely a forensic act of God, justification involves the most direct and transforming divine intervention in the life of the Christian believer.’ The righteousness of the believer is an alien rightesouness ... because it comes from without.  But once it is bestowed, it becomes the property of the believer as well as of Christ.  This infused righteousness immediately qualifies the believer for heaven. ... This new life-righteousness belongs to the believer only so long as he ‘allows Jesus to reign.’” -Paxton quoting E.R. Gane, “Is There Power in Justification?” p. 1-3

And continuing a quote from Paxton beginning on p. 140:

“This type of approach to the meaning of justification is quite widespread in contemporary Adventism.  From this approach to the meaning of justification it is only a short step to the idea that acceptance in the final judgment is on the basis of character renewal. If it be admitted that justification puts us right with God (which Adventism has always believed) and that justification either includes or is ‘the grace of sanctification,’ then it follows that acceptance must be on the basis of inner renewal.

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

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

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

Sorry for the long post, but hopefully this clarifies the definitions we are using and where the parallels between Adventism and Catholicism emerge on this issue.

Greg

Guibox,

I’m indebted to you with a comment on that passage, your words made me aware that what I clearly saw, it’s not so clear because the language can be misleading

You said that the first sentence

“Neither Christlike character traits nor faultless behavior is the ground of our acceptance with God.”

makes clear that sanctification is not included in the basis of our acceptance before God.

Please notice that after saying, „Neither Christlike character traits nor faultless behavior is the ground of our acceptance with God” we may ask ourselves what is the meaning of „Christlike character traits”, or „faultless behavior”. Are these traits works of the Holy Spirit (sanctification)? Or are simply works done by human power, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit? The answer is in the last sentence of the paragraph

independent human righteousness is only filthy rags

Notice the word „independent”, only works done apart, independent from the work of the Holy Spirit are considered filthy rags. This leaves open the possibility for sanctification to be a part of ground of acceptance, he eliminates only the “independent” human righteousness.

But the next paragraph seems to contradict my interpretation, saying

Even what we do in response to Christ’s saving love cannot form the basis of our acceptance with God

This seems to say that our deeds, even worked by the Holy Spirit are completely excluded from the basis of our acceptance. But this is not the only way this sentence may be understood, another meaning can be that these works ALONE cannot form the basis of our acceptance. He may be saying that sanctification ALONE cannot be the basis of our acceptance. This leaves open the idea that SANCTIFICATION plus JUSTIFICATION together can form the basis of our acceptance. The author does not exclude clearly the work of sanctification from the basis of our acceptance, which, as I said, leaves open the possibility for it to be a part of this basis. We need more information to understand his position, which he offers to us

That acceptance is identified with the work of Christ. In bringing Christ to us, the Holy Spirit brings that acceptance

Notice that it spoke of the Holy Spirit as „bringing Christ to us”. What’s this work, sanctification or justification?  The answer becomes clear later

In bringing the Crucified within, the Spirit brings the only ground of our acceptance with God, providing the only genuine title to and fitness for salvation available to us

It’s the work „within”, clearly sanctification. We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and now we have the „only ground of acceptance”, which consists of both our title to and fitness to heaven.

At this moment, I think that it’s clear that sanctification is included in the basis of our acceptance. But I will add more comments, for clarification.

Is our acceptance based on Christ’s justifying righteousness or His sanctifying righteousness or both? John Calvin pointed out that as “Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable.” Christ’s ministry has to be seen in its totality. This makes it paramount to avoid speculation about these two terms by “trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. . . . Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital questions of righteousness by faith?

John Calvin is right when he said that justification and sanctification are inseparable, as Christ cannot be divided. But, and this is crucial, sanctification and justification cannot be confused, as Christ is a distinct Person from the Father. Even if there is unity, there is also a distinction. In a similar way, justification must be seen as distinct from sanctification in regard to the basis for our acceptance, which is justification only.

The problem is that this passage does not allow this distinction, actually almost forbids us to make this distinction, placing it in the realm of speculation, which it says that must be avoided.

This makes it paramount to avoid speculation about these two terms by “trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. . . .

The author had asked the question regarding what constitutes the basis of our acceptance, justification only or justification plus sanctification, and he now asks us not to make distinction between them. Amazing! In the context of establishing the basis of our acceptance, he argues for not making a distinction! Calvin and Luther argued that regarding the basis of our acceptance, the distinction between justification and sanctification is essential, vital, and cannot be underestimated. „Sola fide”, justification by faith alone, stands or falls on this distinction. Works of any kind must be excluded.

But there is another part which seems to contradict what the author of SDA Believe said until now.

Just as the sun has light and heat–inseparable, yet with unique functions–so Christ has become to us righteousness as well as sanctification

Looking at it, it seems that the author does indeed make a distinction between sanctification and justification, apparently contradicting what he said previously, namely, that it’s not good to make distinction between justification and sanctification.  I recognize that this is confusing, but I think that, even if he allows different functions, for him, this distinction is not in the realm of the basis of our acceptance.

Now, adventists may disagree with the way I understand these passages, but I think that nobody can deny that these passages are confusing, if not antithetical to the gospel.  Being confused about the gospel is not in harmony with the adventist claim of being the heir of Reformation, even the only true church which remained faithfully to the protestant spirit. This arises the natural expectation of being clear of the gospel. What bigger treasure can the true church of Christ have, if not a clear view of the gospel?

Even David Newman, who was six years executive editor and five years editor of Ministry, the adventist international journal for pastors, recognized this confusion Talking about his conversion, he said in an interview located here
http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/01/15/interlogue-7-j-david-newman

Are there significant turning points and/or individuals in your life that have shaped you to be the you of today?

Yes, the first one was a little lady from the Caribbean back in the early 70s who attended my church in Perth, Scotland, and gave me a copy of Presenth Truth by Robert Brimsmead. I took the test, “Are You Catholic or Protestant,” and discovered that I was a very good Catholic. I ordered the back issues and have kept to this day every single issue of that magazine. I took five years of college, three years of Seminary (I worked my way though) and never discovered righteousness by faith even though I took the classes from Dr. [Edward] Heppenstall and Dr. [Hans] Larondelle. It was in that magazine that I discovered grace and it revolutionized my life.

The next big influence was Desmond Ford (and some people might disown me just by mentioning his name). I first heard him speak at a British Union pastor’s meeting in Watford, when he was studying for his PhD at Manchester University. I read every article he published and his emphasis on grace and righteousness by faith was pivotal in my experience I developed a personal relationship with him and when the split occurred in Damascus he gave me permission to reproduce his book on the Sabbath which was then out of print

Brinsmead and Des Ford are bad names in adventism, but Hans Larondelle and Heppensthal are big names. David Newman discovered the gospel in what is considered heretical stuff, in the works of notable heretics. The distinction between the protestant gospel and Roman Catholic gospel was made clear to him not by reliable adventists sources, but by those regarded as heretics. This speaks a lot about the confusion still existing in the church regarding the gospel, the clear gospel being preached by those who attracted the SDA church ban precisely for their clearness about the subject.

Stan said:

“There have been surveys that the good folks on http://www.whitehorseinn.org radio show have pointed to that the vast majority of so-called evangelical pastors cannot articulate the Reformation doctrine of “Justification by Faith alone”, and they end up with the same kind of muddled statements that sound like Adventism.

Of course, Ellen White did not get her teachings in a vacuum. Much of the muddled and wrong teaching came from the mixed up and even heretical teachings of Charles Finney. That is why in American evangelicalism, we have the leftovers of so much bad theology. John Wesley also had some questionable teachings mixing up justification and sanctification.”

I’m glad Stan mentioned this because what some FA’s sound like they’re saying is that there is a widespread, uniform Christian evangelical understanding of justification and sanctification and the Adventists are the only group out of the boat, so to speak. The reality is that this is far from accurate. And Adventism’s emphasis on and treatment of Sanctification in the Christian life is far from unique. Of course, if some FA’s are to blame for appearing to frame the argument this way, Adventism has in part created the problem by stressing it’s own unique status as “remnant” and the implication that all other Christian churches comprise Babylon. It is true that there are some unique features of Adventism. But the treatment of Sanctification isn’t necessarily one of them.

With that as a backdrop, allow me to return to the point I began to make in the previous thread--that the point of divide between Adventist theology and mainstream evangelical Christianity is not necessarily a dispute over Justification and Sanctification, or the role of the Law versus Grace.

As I suggested previously, an additional difference, although not one that is usually debated as such, is over the nature and impact of a Christian’s being “born again” and of being a “new creation”.  The reason I conducted the word search for that term in the 28 Fundamentals list was because I suspected that given my own experience in SDAism and my reading of EGW and an assortment of SDA apologia, this is a much neglected and poorly understood concept. So I was somewhat surprised to find that the phrase actually did find it’s way into one of the fundamentals (#10 in this case). Afterward I wondered if maybe this idea really deserves it’s own separate treatment and explanation as a Fundamental. But that’s for another General Conference meeting to figure out.

Because in a sense, the concept and impact of a Christian’s being “born again” is itself, much like the Justification/Sanctification, Law/Grace debates, really tangential in the final scheme of things relative to what I think is THE essential point to understand as we try to bridge the gap between mainstream evangelicalism and Adventist theology: the nature of man itself.

In Adventism there is really no distinction between the body/flesh and the spirit. Man is believed to be an inseparable unity of body and spirit equalling one soul. And both are equally polluted by sin. And remember that a key Adventist distinctive is the conditional mortality of the soul. There is no spirit or breath going up to heaven at death. The souls or spirits of sinners are not now believed to be in hell. Saint and sinner alike (except for Moses, Enoch and Elijah) everyone who’s ever lived and died has returned to dust and no longer exists. In mainstream evangelical Christianity (and even in Catholicism) the soul is believed to be distinct from the body, not the sum of the body and spirit as Adventists maintain.

Why does this matter?

Well, I believe it gets at the “safe to save” problem that Stan alluded to in the previous thread, and which I raised several threads ago as being a crucial, if not THE crucial element in Adventist theology, the center point of the Great Controvery motif.

Mainstream evangelicalism teaches (as I understand it) that the body and the spirit are, or become anyway, separate.  When we are born again, Christ gives us a new spirit--His spirit. But the body continues to be fallen and contaminated by sin. Hence the problem Paul identifies in Romans 7. The spirit is willing because it has been renewed and reborn, but the flesh, with its lusts is still with us and weak, causing us to still sin.  Because of this struggle between the renewed spirit and the still sinful flesh, Christians will still sin and need and desire forgiveness (I John 1:9), which God will continue to graciously provide.

For the evangelical, this sin struggle, while lamentable now, does not present a problem for eternity where we might damage others and reintroduce sin into the world, because at death the renewed, born again, spirit only is transported to heaven.  At the resurrection, the departed spirit is reunited with a recreated body.

In Adventist theology, because the body and spirit are one, the spirit doesn’t split off from the body and go up to heaven at death. It dies with, and inside, the body and returns to dust.  So for the Adventist, being reborn means not only the substitution of a recreated spirit for our sinful one, but a fully transformed being. Therefore, the struggle identified by Paul in Romans 7 is a far more serious one. Whether it’s the flesh or not that’s causing the problem, sin is still bad, still inexcusable, and must be overcome in order to fulfill the church’s commission to “overcome” and be “victorious” (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21) and stand before the judgment without guile and without fault (Rev 14:5; see also Zephaniah 3:13). To be reborn in Adventist theology is to overcome “through the blood of the lamb”.

But the important point is that for those living until the end, the body isn’t and its sinful tendencies isn’t assumed to be transformed, it must be, in unity with the spirit, transformed before Christ’s coming as an example to all the universe.

For those hoping to be translated, more is needed than a new spirit. Because it is one with the body the whole soul must be made new here (this also explains partly why the health message is viewed as important and vital to salvation in Adventism).

I’m not trying to defend SDA orthodoxy here, just possibly explain it. In fact I think there are some holes with regards to the transformation Paul indicates is supposed to occur when Christ comes again (I Corinthians 15). But I offer this as a rationale for why Adventist theology has a problem with justification by faith alone.

“The Internal Change. At the Second Advent we will be changed physically. This corruptible mortal body will put on immortality (1 Cor. 15: 51-54). However, our characters must undergo transformation in preparation for the Second Advent.”

This statement actually provides a weird twist to the point I attempted to make above about the nature of man.

On the one hand, Adventist theology strongly denies any notion of dualism, that the body and spirit are distinct (at least at the time of death).

On the other hand, this quote from SDA Believe suggests that our bodies are different from our characters. According to this quote, our bodies (and that would include our minds) are transformed from corrupt to incorrupt at the second coming, while our characters are not.

I’m not convinced that makes any sense (not that the “spirit goes to heaven” and gets reunited with the body at the resurrection makes any sense either).

Ultimately I may be wondering into territory that is outside the scope of human rationality, or at least my own. Normally I would say that we should be hesitant to try to factualize in any great detail how all of this is supposed to work, but it’s pretty relevant in the SDA case to why our characters must be transformed here (and hence why a two-step salvation process is necessary). And if non-SDA theology is to be a useful alternative I think it will need to explain in a better degree the basis for our future, eternal, sin-free world. 

Interesting thoughts, glenn.

However, I would be hesitant to link the SDA view of salvation with the view of conditional immortality. Based on the perspective on one view, the other may be discarded as ‘guilt by association’. There are many conditional immortalists since the Reformation and today who believe the same way Stan and Greg do concerning salvation.

By that same token, those who believe that my spirit/soul goes to heavenly bliss should very well have a gnostic view of the body. As you said, basically those who adhere to perfectionist theology or something akin will separate the character from the physical body thus negating the argument anyway.

It was thought provoking, though.

Hey Glenn,

I don’t have all the answers to your questions, but in reading over the Westminster Confession of Faith, there are few key differences between how Christians in the Reformed tradition articulate the doctrines of justification and sanctification and the way Adventists do.  Studying these differences may help you untangle the confusing belief statements you posted.

Here is how the doctrine of sanctification is stated (the original webpage also has footnotes with Bible references):

I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Notice how this statement does not divide sanctification of the flesh and the spirit–the whole man is sanctified, albeit there will always be a war between the Spirit and the flesh.

Bible references given in support of the sanctification of both the soul and the body are: 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 John 1:10, Romans 7:18-23, Philippians 3:12, Galatians 5:17, and 1 Peter 2:11.

This belief that both body and soul are sanctified is not universally held by Christians.  Some believe that the soul is sanctified while the body will only be sanctified at the second coming.  This leads to the belief that one can be a so-called “carnal Christian” who is secure in his justification and yet still embraces the flesh.  Some will even go as far as to say that Jesus is their Savior (justifying them) but not their Lord (because he hasn’t sanctified them).

The reformed position to me seems more consistent to the Scriptures, as we certainly don’t see any evidence in the Bible for denying the Lordship of Jesus after we have been saved by him.

One of the other problems I noticed in the statement above is the confusion between sanctification and glorification. If one needs to undergo a character transformation to be “prepared” for the second advent, there is an implied character standard below which nobody will be admitted into heaven, thereby denying the reality of justification where sinners are declared righteous.  Paul wrote about a glorification of the body that was to take place at the second advent which was distinct from sanctification and justification (Romans 8:18; 1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 15:51-54).  Rolling justification, sanctification and glorification into one and using the terms interchangeably becomes very confusing.  As someone said before, when the line between these doctrines is blurred, sanctification usually begins to dominate and justification by works is not far behind.

I think Stan may have more to say on this a little bit later.

Greg

P.S. guibox, I see you posted at the same time I did.  What did you think of Gabriel’s reply to your previous comments?

Lots of great posting above! Thanks Greg, Gabriel, and Glenn and Guibox for your insights.

Gabriel wrote:

“Even David Newman, who was six years executive editor and five years editor of Ministry, the adventist international journal for pastors, recognized this confusion Talking about his conversion, he said in an interview located here
http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/01/15/interlogue-7-j-david-newman”
---------------------------------------------------------

Gabriel, thanks for posting that article. I was blessed by David Newman’s testimony. Yes, I know he is now an SDA pastor, but he is trying to emphasize the gospel. His story reminds me a little of Greg Taylor’s story. It will be interesting to see where he ends up on his spiritual journey. But here is an SDA pastor who doesn’t mind saying that he learned the gospel through Brinsmead and Ford. They were certainly my mentors when I was learning what the gospel was for the first time.
----------------------------------------------------------

Glenn,

You bring up a lot of interesting points. Actually the Reformed view and the SDA view of the new birth is similar in many respects. There is the view of those out of the Dallas Seminary wing of evangelicalism which does create a dichotomy between the soul and the body. They would say that the soul is regenerated at the time of salvation, but the body is still carnal. That is why some came up with the doctrine of the carnal Christian. The spirit is saved and regenerated, but the body still is a captive of sin. Some of the people such as Zane Hodges teach that there does not need to be any fruit to give evidence of salvation.

The Reformed view as articulated by R.C. Sproul in his book “Willing to Believe” contrasts the Reformed view with the prevailing view out of Dallas Seminary. The Reformed theologians think of humans as a body-spiritual entity, and Sproul says that when we are made new creations in Christ, that means our human or bodily nature is also a new creation. This explains the greater emphasis on holiness in the Christian life that both Reformed Christians and SDAs have when compared to other evangelical groups.

However, the difference between the Reformed view and SDA is very important. The Reformed believe that when we are sovereignly created as New creatures in Christ, then this process is genuinely a new birth and an adoption into the Kingdom of God that is permanent, and holy living follows as a result. However, sanctification will never be complete in this life, and we are given glorified bodies at the Resurrection.

The Adventist emphasis seems to be that we are still fighting to hold on to our salvation, and that this new creation then has to meet at least some standard of sanctification when we come before the Investigative Judgment. There is the teaching that our human nature has to reach a certain point of sanctification in order to be safe to save.

Stan

[quote author="Greg"]P.S. guibox, I see you posted at the same time I did.  What did you think of Gabriel’s reply to your previous comments?

I can see how one can get confused by the conflicting statements and come to the conclusion glenn did.

He sums it up in this paragraph…

***In bringing the Crucified within, the Spirit brings the only ground of our acceptance with God, providing the only genuine title to and fitness for salvation available to us***

It’s the work „within”, clearly sanctification. We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and now we have the „only ground of acceptance”, which consists of both our title to and fitness to heaven.

At this moment, I think that it’s clear that sanctification is included in the basis of our acceptance. But I will add more comments, for clarification.

I would rather disagree. According to this statement then and this one quote, SDAs believe that only sanctification
is our basis for God’s acceptance. However, as was previously pointed out by Glenn, other statements blatantly contradict it. Can both sanctification and glorification be a basis of acceptance based on this paragraph and this section of SDA literature? I would have to say no.

There is no SDA that says we are saved by works or that there is anything we can do that can make God love us or accept us anymore. Hence this paragraph must be interpreted in that context. ‘Christ within’ doesn’t necessarily have to mean ‘sanctification’. The process of justification means inviting and allowing Christ to come ‘into’ your life and ‘change your heart’. This is an indwelling process. Only Christ’s robe of righteousness makes us acceptable to God and no SDA would disagree with that.

Hence this paragraph analysed by glenn cannot be talking about sanctification.

Does the SDA church seemingly imply that both are necessary? Perhaps. It seems to be more of an unspoken rule than a cardinal doctrine. However, as was previously mentioned, I would put much of the rest of Christendom in that category as well.

Thanks for all your responses, folks.

“The Internal Change. At the Second Advent we will be changed physically. This corruptible mortal body will put on immortality (1 Cor. 15: 51-54). However, our characters must undergo transformation in preparation for the Second Advent.”

This quote got my attention because it’s not an isolated statement.  That we need to transform our characters here because we will take them to heaven (and presumably not be able to transform them there)is a common theme throughout EGW’s writings, and it’s always left me a bit uncomfortable.

I wonder how this notion comes across to other Christians.

Like many other statements it can probably be read in a number of ways. It could be seen as a perfectionistic kind of qualification. Or it could interpreted as referring to our born again characters.  But if the latter, it would seem to present a problem for a born again character that nonetheless finds itself still beset by sinful impulses and mistakes. And this “still sinning” state is a big issue in some Adventist circles.

Greg has addressed one of the problems in previous posts with perfectionistic kinds of thinking--that it is forced to rely on a rather simplistic, letter of the law rendering of holiness, which Christ specifically challenged in the Sermon on the Mount.

Nevertheless, I do wonder if Adventist theology’s concern about sin in the life of the Christian as it relates to translation and eternity is a valid point to at least raise.