The current Sabbath School Lessons Quarterly having as the overall theme the assumed prophetic ministry of Ellen White attempts to answer some of the critiques raised by Ellen’s defectors, aka myself and others who made the less pleasant discovery that Ellen White was not what we supposed to be.

Gerhard Pfandle, the author of the series of studies, seems to be aware that one of the highly important objection raised by critics has to do with the Ellen White’s denial of the assurance of salvation which protestants always believed, in opposition with the Roman Catholic justification by faith plus works.

Here is his answer to the critique. First, he quotes from Ellen White:

“There is nothing so offensive to God or so dangerous to the human soul as pride and self-sufficiency. Of all sins it is the most hopeless, the most incurable. Peter’s fall was not instantaneous, but gradual. Self-confidence led him to the belief that he was saved, and step after step was taken in the downward path, until he could deny his Master. Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation.” —Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, pp. 154, 155.

So far, so good, now comes Pfandle’s question:

Look at the whole context of the Ellen White quote above. Now look at the one statement about not saying we are saved. How easy to take that one statement out of context and come away with a whole different meaning from what was intended. Why must we always be careful not to pull statements out of context? What other examples can you find of people having done just that? Why is it such a temptation?

Pfandle is right that we should look at the whole context. His basic argument is this. It’s easy to pull statements out of context, construct a straw man which can be easily shot. Pfandle implies that critics of Ellen White are not willing to see that all that Ellen White is not denying assurance of salvation per se, but she’s condemning the sin of presumption. She’s only warning people about the real possibility of failing to temptations and lose the battle.

Unfortunately, both Ellen and Pfandle assume that protestants based their assurance of salvation on the wrong assumption of immunity regarding sin and temptation. Of course, if it is put in this way, it sounds ridiculous to argue for having full assurance of your salvation when even some true believers as Peter had their period of apostasy or departure from Christ, denial of Christ. It should be above all reasonable doubt that a true believer can fail, can deny Christ, can become apostate.

Fortunately, the reformers had a better view, expressed in the P from TULIP, one of the five points of Calvinism. P stands for Perseverance of the saints, the doctrine which states the biblical fact that true believers, even if they may fall for a time, will be restored by God’s powerful and sovereign grace to a state of holiness. They acknowledged the possibility of apostasy, and at the same time God’s promise that this apostasy is not full neither final. The outcome, the salvation of the soul, is sure, even if, in God’s purposes, his elect may seem to fall from faith definitively.

Here are some articles dealing with the perseverance of the saints from the Synod of Dort

Article 4
Although the weakness of the flesh cannot prevail against the power of God, who confirms and preserves true believers in a state of grace, yet converts are not always so influenced and actuated by the Spirit of God as not in some particular instances sinfully to deviate from the guidance of divine grace, so as to be seduced by and to comply with the lusts of the flesh; they must, therefore, be constant in watching and prayer, that they may not be led into temptation. When these are neglected, they are not only liable to be drawn into great and heinous sins by the flesh, the world, and Satan, but sometimes by the righteous permission of God actually are drawn into these evils. This, the lamentable fall of David, Peter, and other saints described in Holy Scripture, demonstrates.

Article 5
By such enormous sins, however, they very highly offend God, incur a deadly guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the exercise of faith, very grievously wound their consciences, and sometimes for a while lose the sense of God’s favor, until, when they change their course by serious repentance, the light of God’s fatherly countenance again shines upon them.

Article 6
But God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people even in their grievous falls; nor suffers them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption and forfeit the state of justification, or to commit the sin unto death or against the Holy Spirit; nor does He permit them to be totally deserted, and to plunge themselves into everlasting destruction.

Article 7
For in the first place, in these falls He preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing or being totally lost; and again, by His Word and Spirit He certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore His mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Article 8
Thus it is not in consequence of their own merits or strength, but of God’s free mercy, that they neither totally fall from faith and grace nor continue and perish finally in their backslidings; which, with respect to themselves is not only possible, but would undoubtedly happen; but with respect to God, it is utterly impossible, since His counsel cannot be changed nor His promise fail; neither can the call according to His purpose be revoked, nor the merit, intercession, and preservation of Christ be rendered ineffectual, nor the sealing of the Holy Spirit be frustrated or obliterated.

The Article 8 is very important, and presents clearly the fact that there are two perspectives: when man is in view, man as it is in himself, falling from faith, falling from grace, perishing finally is not only possibly, it is a sure thing ("but would undoubtedly happen"). But from the other perspective, with respect to God, that’s impossible. These two perspectives account for what otherwise look as internal contradictions in the Bible: texts which warn believers regarding the danger of apostasy, on one side; on the other, texts which assure believers that God will not loose one sheep, nobody being able to snatch them from His hand (John 10).

The difference between a true believer and a false one is that the true believer will persevere until the end, because God’s sovereign grace restores him to repentance and faith, and a false believer will not persevere until the end. At the surface, both an false and a true believer may give in to temptations, may go on the same paths, but one of them will repent of his sins and one not.

In dialogues with Adventists I usually hear the objection “Why believers are warned against the danger of unbelief if their salvation is not in jeopardy?” The answer is that the danger of apostasy is real and it may occur for a time, but God uses the warnings in order to keep his saints on the right track. If the hearer is a true believer, God’s warning is part of God’s sovereign grace exercised through the Holy Spirit in order to preserve his saints on the right track.

That’s the reason Peter says

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 2 Peter 1:10

Peter is not implying that our election depends on our ability to make it sure, and if we are not able, we will lose our salvation. Taking his words in this way will put himself in contradiction with Jesus’ words “No one is able to snatch them [My sheep] from my hand.” His target is to prevent the situation described in Article 5 quoted above

By such enormous sins, however, they very highly offend God, incur a deadly guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the exercise of faith, very grievously wound their consciences, and sometimes for a while lose the sense of God’s favor, until, when they change their course by serious repentance, the light of God’s fatherly countenance again shines upon them.

He wants people to have strong faith and don’t lose the sense of God’s favor. he wants them to see continually God’s fatherly countenance shining upon them. He wants them to have assurance of faith, and grievous sin is an efficient killer of assurance of God’s favor.

Of course, even in this state, the believer does not lose the grace of justification. But from his subjective perspective, his experience is similar to what a false believer experiences also. In these moments, only pure grace can save his soul. Everything in himself screams that he’s a sinner without any hope of salvation. He’s aware of his total failure of persevering in faith, but, as some good pastors from White Horse Inn said, he must learn the lesson that the gospel can save even Christians, or wretched Christians, ungodly Christians. He knows that the gospel can save poor sinners, but how about Christians who made a mess of God AFTER they trusted in Jesus for their justification? Is the gospel for these ungodly also? Is God also in the busyness of justifying ungodly persons?

Back to the initial theme: I’m sorry that neither Ellen White or Pfandle understood the gospel as it was discovered by the reformers. Consequently they are having nothing substantially to offer to hungry souls who are thirsty after God and righteousness, who are weak and weary above a mere hope. Hope that is based on people’s ability to keep themselves on the right track and in which periods of great trials and temptations, periods of doubt have often proved to be fatal for their souls.

What makes the situation dangerous is that Ellen White instilled a deep fear in people to trust God for their future salvation. As teaching that there is no guarantee for the future salvation is not bad enough, the idea was presented as blatant heresy, as a sin of presumption.

Admittedly there are many so-called evangelicals who preach a shallow gospel or a gospel which is Roman Catholic in essence. But instilling fears against the true gospel based on the highest authority, prophetic authority, making people look at the true gospel as it is the devil’s gospel raises the issues to a higher level. That’s why I’m deploring the official praise and enforcement of Ellen’s authority made by the church in this present SS Quarterly. Adding to this the specific rejection of full assurance of salvation endorsed by the assumed inspired words of Ellen White is one step further in the attempt, successfully to a higher degree, of making sure that the true gospel will be rejected.

Gabriel

Ephesians 2:8-92:8 (NASB) For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Due to God’s omniscience I considered ‘saved’ as encompassing past, present and future, however, if I doubt my salvation, am I in effect implying that situations arise which God had not taken into consideration and therefore ‘saved by grace’ is only effective given the right conditions at a specific point in time? Is salvation transitory?

What Pfandle is neglecting to point out is that while the bible states that sinners are saved,

1Ti 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

Tit 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Ellen states that only the sinless can claim to be saved.

“ When the conflict of life is ended, when the armor is laid off at the feet of Jesus, when the saints of God are glorified, then and then only will it be safe to claim that we are saved and sinless. True sanctification will not lead any human being to pronounce himself holy, sinless, and perfect. Let the Lord proclaim the truth of your character.” (The Signs of the Times, 05-16-1895, paragraph 4.)

“We are never to rest in a satisfied condition, and cease to make advancement, saying, ‘I am saved.’ When this idea is entertained, the motives for watchfulness, for prayer, for earnest endeavor to press onward to higher attainments, cease to exist. No sanctified tongue will be found uttering these words till Christ shall come, and we enter in through the gates into the city of God. Then, with the utmost propriety, we may give glory to God and to the Lamb for eternal deliverance. As long as man is full of weakness,--for of himself he cannot save his soul,--he should never dare to say, ‘I am saved.’ It is not he that putteth on the armor that can boast of the victory; for he has the battle to fight and the victory to win. It is he that endureth unto the end that shall be saved. The Lord says, ‘If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.’ If we do not go forward from victory to victory, the soul will draw back to perdition. We should raise no human standard whereby to measure character. We have seen enough of what men call perfection here below. God’s holy law is the only thing by which we can determine whether we are keeping his way or not. If we are disobedient, our characters are out of harmony with God’s moral rule of government, and it is stating a falsehood to say, ‘I am saved.’ No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of his government in heaven and in earth.” (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 06-17-1890, paragraph 8.)

Which includes everyone who ever existed, starting with Adam and Eve.
John Douglas

JONVIL - 22 January 2009 07:21 PM

“ When the conflict of life is ended, when the armor is laid off at the feet of Jesus, when the saints of God are glorified, then and then only will it be safe to claim that we are saved and sinless. True sanctification will not lead any human being to pronounce himself holy, sinless, and perfect. Let the Lord proclaim the truth of your character.” (The Signs of the Times, 05-16-1895, paragraph 4.)

“We are never to rest in a satisfied condition, and cease to make advancement, saying, ‘I am saved.’ When this idea is entertained, the motives for watchfulness, for prayer, for earnest endeavor to press onward to higher attainments, cease to exist. No sanctified tongue will be found uttering these words till Christ shall come, and we enter in through the gates into the city of God. Then, with the utmost propriety, we may give glory to God and to the Lamb for eternal deliverance. As long as man is full of weakness,--for of himself he cannot save his soul,--he should never dare to say, ‘I am saved.’ It is not he that putteth on the armor that can boast of the victory; for he has the battle to fight and the victory to win. It is he that endureth unto the end that shall be saved. The Lord says, ‘If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.’ If we do not go forward from victory to victory, the soul will draw back to perdition. We should raise no human standard whereby to measure character. We have seen enough of what men call perfection here below. God’s holy law is the only thing by which we can determine whether we are keeping his way or not. If we are disobedient, our characters are out of harmony with God’s moral rule of government, and it is stating a falsehood to say, ‘I am saved.’ No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of his government in heaven and in earth.” (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 06-17-1890, paragraph 8.)

Which includes everyone who ever existed, starting with Adam and Eve.
John Douglas

There is indeed no one who keeps the law, not even one. Before Reformation the medieval catholic church viewed Jesus as a new Moses in delivering a new law, less strict than the former (the mosaic law) and attainable, “love others like you loved yourself”, as this is indeed easier. The arrival of the new law brought out the possibility of having two categories of people: those who keep the new law and those who are breakers of it. The reformers were clear that in God’s holy eyes all people are transgressors, believers and unbelievers, saints and sinners. Luther’s Simul Justus et Peccator (at the same time saint and sinner) is an essential concept for an accurate understanding of the gospel. We are righteous in God’s sight because Christ is righteous and his perfect life is imputed, counted to us. Inherently we are unholy, sinners, breakers of the law.

Unfortunately this clear distinction is lacking in the writings of Ellen White. Trying to put the best understanding of her words quoted above, she warned against people who think that in themselves they are holy, perfect, against the perfectionists of her day. She was raised in the methodist church where the second blessing of full sanctification was preached. The first blessing was supposed to be the full pardon of sin, and the second blessing was the full deliverance from the internal sin resulting in a life of continuous victory over any temptation and over sin, flesh and devil. her words indicate that she had in view such kind of persons (We have seen enough of what men call perfection here below.). She may be commended for exerting the saints toward perseverance in fighting with temptations and sins, in pressing forward toward the goal. Thinking that you’re completely holy, that you’re perfect in character, that your life is spotless and because of this you’re saved and sure of your future state, is a false assurance of salvation.  Ellen White is entitled to expose this kind of false assurance, nevertheless she goes too far and lumps together false and true assurance of salvation rejecting both of them.

True assurance of salvation is based on what God did for us in Christ’s life, death and resurrection. He rewrote our history in Adam through the second Adam, Lord Jesus Christ. The difference between saved and lost is given by our federal head, Adam or Christ. We are united with Christ by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit and are made partakers of the blessings Christ obtained for us, justification, sanctification and glorification. We are sure of our salvation because we were justified and nobody can condemn us after God justifies us. We are commended to persevere in fighting the good fight of faith, but this fight is rooted in the assurance that we are already seated in heavenly place, we already reign with Christ in his kingdom, we already are winners and at the end of our life we will appear victorious.

The following is a quotation from a recent correspondence which I had with a former professor of mine from the Adventist seminary.

“Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.” Phillipians 3:12

“Because” introduces the cause. The cause of striving in the christian faith, for carrying the cross of Christ, for enduring faithfully in the battles with the flesh, the world and the devil is found in the reality, once for all Christ event. HE MADE ME HIS OWN. I am His, I am His property, I’m not doubting my present and future state. On this basis I fight, because the fight was already won by Jesus for me.

Unfortunately this basis is missing from Ellen White’s writings. He keeps the believer unsure of the final outcome, and consequently it has no basis for encouragement. There is no guarantee of future salvation. That’s frightening, especially when this is supposed to be a message coming right from the throne of God, having the highest authority of revelation.

Gabriel

A constant critique of the Reformed Gospel coming from the Adventist camp is that the Reformers use the Bible selectively, closing their eyes to the texts which go contrary to their thesis. Since the gospel of justification by faith alone apart from works raises immediately a red flag in the mind of conscious Adventists, it becomes important to state clearly that we believe that sanctification, or holiness is not optional, but it is essential for a Christian. We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.

Now this sounds confusing for many. Saying that works doesn’t count in the economy of salvation leaves the impression that people can sin how much they want to and still be saved. I’ll bring here what the Belgic Confession of Faith says about Sanctification, highlighting some parts, and coming tomorrow with other comments.

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXIV
Man’s Sanctification and Good Works

We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Spirit, sanctifies him and makes him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man; for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith which is called in Scripture a faith working through love, which excites man to the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word.

These works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace. Nevertheless they are of no account towards our justification, for it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good.

Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them (for what can we merit?); nay, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not He to us, since it is He who worketh in us both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written: When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do. In the meantime we do not deny that God rewards good works, but it is through His grace that He crowns His gifts.

Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we can do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus, then, we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be continually vexed if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Savior.

More about Article 24 tomorrow…

Gabriel

“If justification is something that is an ongoing process or is something that can be lost and gained again, then it is hardly the imputation of the righteousness of Christ!  Is the righteousness of Christ something that can be obliterated or destroyed by the action of men?  Is it but a temporal thing that has to be propped up and maintained by the feverish activity of creatures?  Is one who stands robed in the righteousness of Christ liable to fall repeatedly from this position?  Is one forgiven and lost, forgiven and lost, in a seemingly never ending cycle?  Surely not!  One who has been justified stands before God uncondemned and uncondemnable--not because of what he is in himself, but because of what Christ is in him.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  The reason is clear:  all who are “in Christ” partake of His righteousness and have been declared free from the curse of the law, and therefore there can be no possible grounds of condemnation for them.  Have they ever transgressed the law?  Christ has borne their penalty.  Have they failed to love God as they should?  Christ has loved the father perfectly in their place.  The Judge has declared them just.  His Son stands in their place, perfectly righteous.  Who can possibly bring a charge, then, against God’s elect (Romand 8:33)?”

from 97,98 of the book The God Who Justifies by James R White (obviously not Ellen’s husband!)

Bob

The same author also states:
“ . . . we can see the error of reducing the doctrine of justification to merely the pardon of past sins.”
Bob

BobJ - 24 January 2009 07:21 PM

Gabriel

“If justification is something that is an ongoing process or is something that can be lost and gained again, then it is hardly the imputation of the righteousness of Christ!  Is the righteousness of Christ something that can be obliterated or destroyed by the action of men?  Is it but a temporal thing that has to be propped up and maintained by the feverish activity of creatures?  Is one who stands robed in the righteousness of Christ liable to fall repeatedly from this position?  Is one forgiven and lost, forgiven and lost, in a seemingly never ending cycle?  Surely not!  One who has been justified stands before God uncondemned and uncondemnable--not because of what he is in himself, but because of what Christ is in him.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  The reason is clear:  all who are “in Christ” partake of His righteousness and have been declared free from the curse of the law, and therefore there can be no possible grounds of condemnation for them.  Have they ever transgressed the law?  Christ has borne their penalty.  Have they failed to love God as they should?  Christ has loved the father perfectly in their place.  The Judge has declared them just.  His Son stands in their place, perfectly righteous.  Who can possibly bring a charge, then, against God’s elect (Romand 8:33)?”

from 97,98 of the book The God Who Justifies by James R White (obviously not Ellen’s husband!)

Bob

Thanks Bob for quoting form James White. (How ironic the name!) The Roman Catholic church and the SDA conservatives both believe that justification is a process. 

Please refer also to Dr. Desmond Ford’s sermon posted on a recent thread, where he refutes this notion that the word “Justification” in the greek means to make righteous rather than to declare righteous.

Excellent posts above!

Stan

Thanks, Gabriel, for raising this important topic and your good insights.  Like you, I am fully in agreement with the protestant position on justification.  Thank you for your careful analysis in the above posts. 

Thanks, Stan, for the reference to Ford’s video.  I had watched it as soon as you had posted it, and I also highly recommend it along with the book on justification from which I quoted.  Thanks also, Stan and Greg, for hosting this site and for sharing such awesome references such as White’s book on justification.  What I wouldn’t have given for this book 30 years ago! 

Bob

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 24 January 2009 04:04 PM

A constant critique of the Reformed Gospel coming from the Adventist camp is that the Reformers use the Bible selectively, closing their eyes to the texts which go contrary to their thesis. Since the gospel of justification by faith alone apart from works raises immediately a red flag in the mind of conscious Adventists, it becomes important to state clearly that we believe that sanctification, or holiness is not optional, but it is essential for a Christian. We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.

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

Ellen White recognized the fact that they were led of God in many cases; here is one quick example:

The Reformers were solicitous that their cause should not be confounded with political questions; they felt that the Reformation should exercise no other influence than that which proceeds from the word of God.

I would like to see a list of references for all this “constant critique” from the Adventist camp.  Can you cite three or four specific references that are publically verifiable?  I am willing to learn, if there is something to learn.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 24 January 2009 04:04 PM

A constant critique of the Reformed Gospel coming from the Adventist camp is that the Reformers use the Bible selectively, closing their eyes to the texts which go contrary to their thesis.

In personal conversations with adventists I was told that Luther mistranslated Romans 3:28 by adding the word “Alone” in his claim that justification is by faith alone, when the word “alone” was not in the text. Another argument, usually going hand in hadn with the first, was that Luther not only added to the Bible, in order to promote his unbiblical “justification by faith alone” idea, but he dared to take out an entire book of the Bible, the epistle of James which explicitly contradicted his message by saying that man is “not justified by faith alone” (James 2:24). In spite the fact that Luther’s german Bible included the book of James and in spite of Luther coming to incorporate James 2:24 in one of the confession of the Lutheran church, the adventists which wanted to make Luther look as selectively using the Bible capitalized on the fact that Luther used the expression “epistle of straw” when he spoke about James’ epistle. Putting these two arguments together, the idea is that Luther was not correct in the way he handled the biblical data.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 June 2009 11:40 AM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 24 January 2009 04:04 PM

A constant critique of the Reformed Gospel coming from the Adventist camp is that the Reformers use the Bible selectively, closing their eyes to the texts which go contrary to their thesis.

In personal conversations with adventists I was told that Luther mistranslated Romans 3:28 by adding the word “Alone” in his claim that justification is by faith alone,

Gabriel

“In personal conversations” means that you cannot provide any publically verifiable references for what you are saying.

Protestant 101 - 14 June 2009 01:11 PM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 June 2009 11:40 AM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 24 January 2009 04:04 PM

A constant critique of the Reformed Gospel coming from the Adventist camp is that the Reformers use the Bible selectively, closing their eyes to the texts which go contrary to their thesis.

In personal conversations with adventists I was told that Luther mistranslated Romans 3:28 by adding the word “Alone” in his claim that justification is by faith alone,

Gabriel

“In personal conversations” means that you cannot provide any publically verifiable references for what you are saying.

Actually I have.  Both arguments are present in an article written by George Burnside (1908–1994), a New Zealand evangelist who was described as the “foremost anti-Ford pamphleteer”. The link is here. Here are some quotations from him

Fact Number 1
There is no statement anywhere in the Bible that says we are justified by Faith Alone.
Fact Number 2
Martin Luther added the word ‘Alone’, when translating the Bible into German, and was rebuked for so
doing. “His insistence on faith was so definite that when he translated the New Testament, he added the
word “Alone” to “faith” in Romans 3:28. This word is not in Scripture, he well knew, but he argued that it
had been used before by others such as Ambrose in translating this passage.” 7 Bible Commentary, page
50.
“There is the famous example where Luther rendered ‘Justification by faith’ as ‘justification by faith alone.’
When taken to task for this liberty, he replied that he was not translating words but ideas, that the extra
word was necessary in German to bring out the force of the original. Through all the revisions of his
lifetime he would never relinquish that word ‘alone.’ “Here I Stand,” by Roland H Bainton, A life of Martin
Luther.
Fact Number 3
Luther called James “an Epistle of Straw.” In the introduction of his AD 1523 translation of the New
Testament, Luther called James “an epistle of straw.” Daniel Dragen. Bibliographic researcher in Chicago,
U.S.A. Review & Herald, August 18, 1977
Fact Number 4
The Bible States:
“Justified and not by faith alone.” James 2:24
James 2:17 says “Faith, if it hath not works is dead, being alone.”
The only time the Bible links the word ‘alone’ with faith, it is to say it is a ‘dead’ faith. It is dead because it
leads to death

Another example is Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick who published an essay on his site where he argued against Luther’s view of justification, found here. He says:

Luther’s renewed emphasis of the faith component was timely. But does this mean that everything Luther ever said on the topic of justification by faith was sound, or that everything Luther himself did was sound?
...
Luther’s approach to the Bible is what? Sola Scriptura: Scripture only. And yet, He changes the order of the New Testament, pushing to the back books which he not only does not like, but says are Christless.

And he provides a quotation about Luther’s “epistle of straw”. The article argues for the necessity to amend Luther’s gospel and eliminate what he said wrong about justification. He’s arguing against those who affirm that justification means “counted righteous” and not “made” righteous.

But in general, the Adventist leaders are careful not to make this kind of statement in public where they know it would bring into question their status. They know very well that an explicit denial of the justification by faith article will bring serious consequences, possibly causing them to lose the status they gained as a respectable, evangelical Christian church. In another post on this forum, Protestant 101 argued that the leaders were correct in “being selective in what we [they] say, to whom, and when”. In private conversations they affirm something that they will not affirm in the public. And since private conversations are private, they know that if somebody accuses them of denying justification by faith, that person will not be able to provide any other kind of proof than his own testimony. And, if that person is not able to provide public proofs for what they say in private, they can capitalize on this and pronounce him guilty of false charges. It’s a game in where they set the rules from the beginning in order to win their case by default. They tell people something in private and if somebody complains and expose their true feelings, they are ready to shoot from the rooftops “Where is the proof that I said this? You have nothing, and you’re a liar, you’re making false accusations without any proof.” Of course I don’t have this kind of proof, because you were careful not to provide the public proof for which you’re asking for. You’re not playing a fair game because you arranged the table in order to win.

But what is good, and I hope that lurkers will notice, is that Protestant 101 confirms in another post found here that Adventists are right in being selective in what they say, to whom, and when. This means that the public at large may have access to some kind of information, and in the private conversations something else is disclosed.

In conclusion, only God is my witness that the kind of arguments used publicly by Adventists such as Burnside and Patrick (who are possibly less interested in public perception than most Adventists) were also repeated in private conversations to me. And I’m not the only former Adventist who encountered these arguments. I’m not the only witness, there are other former Adventists who encountered the same arguments.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 June 2009 03:05 PM

Protestant 101 - 14 June 2009 01:11 PM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 14 June 2009 11:40 AM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 24 January 2009 04:04 PM

A constant critique of the Reformed Gospel coming from the Adventist camp is that the Reformers use the Bible selectively, closing their eyes to the texts which go contrary to their thesis.

In personal conversations with adventists I was told that Luther mistranslated Romans 3:28 by adding the word “Alone” in his claim that justification is by faith alone,

Gabriel

“In personal conversations” means that you cannot provide any publically verifiable references for what you are saying.

Actually I have.  Both arguments are present in an article written by George Burnside (1908–1994), a New Zealand evangelist who was described as the “foremost anti-Ford pamphleteer”. The link is here. Here are some quotations from him

Fact Number 1
There is no statement anywhere in the Bible that says we are justified by Faith Alone.
Fact Number 2
Martin Luther added the word ‘Alone’, when translating the Bible into German, and was rebuked for so
doing. “His insistence on faith was so definite that when he translated the New Testament, he added the
word “Alone” to “faith” in Romans 3:28. This word is not in Scripture, he well knew, but he argued that it
had been used before by others such as Ambrose in translating this passage.” 7 Bible Commentary, page
50.
“There is the famous example where Luther rendered ‘Justification by faith’ as ‘justification by faith alone.’
When taken to task for this liberty, he replied that he was not translating words but ideas, that the extra
word was necessary in German to bring out the force of the original. Through all the revisions of his
lifetime he would never relinquish that word ‘alone.’ “Here I Stand,” by Roland H Bainton, A life of Martin
Luther.
Fact Number 3
Luther called James “an Epistle of Straw.” In the introduction of his AD 1523 translation of the New
Testament, Luther called James “an epistle of straw.” Daniel Dragen. Bibliographic researcher in Chicago,
U.S.A. Review & Herald, August 18, 1977
Fact Number 4
The Bible States:
“Justified and not by faith alone.” James 2:24
James 2:17 says “Faith, if it hath not works is dead, being alone.”
The only time the Bible links the word ‘alone’ with faith, it is to say it is a ‘dead’ faith. It is dead because it
leads to death

Another example is Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick who published an essay on his site where he argued against Luther’s view of justification, found here. He says:

Luther’s renewed emphasis of the faith component was timely. But does this mean that everything Luther ever said on the topic of justification by faith was sound, or that everything Luther himself did was sound?
...
Luther’s approach to the Bible is what? Sola Scriptura: Scripture only. And yet, He changes the order of the New Testament, pushing to the back books which he not only does not like, but says are Christless.

And he provides a quotation about Luther’s “epistle of straw”. The article argues for the necessity to amend Luther’s gospel and eliminate what he said wrong about justification. He’s arguing against those who affirm that justification means “counted righteous” and not “made” righteous.

But in general, the Adventist leaders are careful not to make this kind of statement in public where they know it would bring into question their status. They know very well that an explicit denial of the justification by faith article will bring serious consequences, possibly causing them to lose the status they gained as a respectable, evangelical Christian church. In another post on this forum, Protestant 101 argued that the leaders were correct in “being selective in what we [they] say, to whom, and when”. In private conversations they affirm something that they will not affirm in the public. And since private conversations are private, they know that if somebody accuses them of denying justification by faith, that person will not be able to provide any other kind of proof than his own testimony. And, if that person is not able to provide public proofs for what they say in private, they can capitalize on this and pronounce him guilty of false charges. It’s a game in where they set the rules from the beginning in order to win their case by default. They tell people something in private and if somebody complains and expose their true feelings, they are ready to shoot from the rooftops “Where is the proof that I said this? You have nothing, and you’re a liar, you’re making false accusations without any proof.” Of course I don’t have this kind of proof, because you were careful not to provide the public proof for which you’re asking for. You’re not playing a fair game because you arranged the table in order to win.

But what is good, and I hope that lurkers will notice, is that Protestant 101 confirms in another post found here that Adventists are right in being selective in what they say, to whom, and when. This means that the public at large may have access to some kind of information, and in the private conversations something else is disclosed.

In conclusion, only God is my witness that the kind of arguments used publicly by Adventists such as Burnside and Patrick (who are possibly less interested in public perception than most Adventists) were also repeated in private conversations to me. And I’m not the only former Adventist who encountered these arguments. I’m not the only witness, there are other former Adventists who encountered the same arguments.

Gabriel

No; I did not limit my statement to saying “Adventists” were right in doing this; go back to the post and see how I worded it;

I guess Adventists are guilty then, like your denomination, for trying to follow the example of Jesus, in being selective in what we say, to whom, and when.  There is nothing wrong with that; it is quite Biblical to do so.

I included all Christians in what I said. I said that we, like you are right to tell people what God directs, and that may or may not be all points on a given subject.

Case in point.  I had a person who wanted to do the next in a series of Bible studies, which happened to be, at the time, The Mark Of The Beast. Between the time we made the appointment, and the time I got there, this person lost a child in a trajic accident, and was torn apart that she would never see them again.  I did not tell her about the mark of the beast that day; instead, we looked at 1 Thes.4:13-18 There were tears of joy around the table that night, they were just so glad to see the hope in Christ, and His coming again. Was I hiding something from her?  No.  You guys would do the same.  We need to give people the points of the gospel that is best at the time.  Crusades today by Adventists do not try to hide their name as you suggest.  I have a flyer here in my hand for a crusade happening right now; it says very clearly on it “Sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists.” The public has access to the same info as I do.  It’s all online, absolutely no attempt to hide anything.  Seeing things differently is not the same as hiding it.

“Private conversations” are anecdotal evidence that is as changeable as the wind, and not dependent on Biblical evidence.

Again Protestant 101, here is a link to a book which does document public statements made on this topic:

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/shaking/

Stan

Protestant 101 - 14 June 2009 04:44 PM

No; I did not limit my statement to saying “Adventists” were right in doing this; go back to the post and see how I worded it;

I guess Adventists are guilty then, like your denomination, for trying to follow the example of Jesus, in being selective in what we say, to whom, and when.  There is nothing wrong with that; it is quite Biblical to do so.

I included all Christians in what I said. I said that we, like you are right to tell people what God directs, and that may or may not be all points on a given subject.

If this is what you meant by it, you shoot a straw man. Your comments were directed at Dennis’ following post

Dennis - 13 April 2008 11:34 AM

Bill,

Like with the Bible, Adventist apologists pick and choose whatever appeals to them--even from their revered prophetess.  Consequently, with such a low, humanistic view of inspiration, the White Estate found it necessary to create the so-called “thought inspiration” alibi due to the many contradictions and heresies found in the writings attributed to Ellen White.  Moreover, the SDA Church has officially replaced and deleted key words in some of their doctrinal statements (i.e., the words “all-sufficient” and “unerring” were REMOVED from their statement on the authority of Scripture).

For example, in their 1957 doctrinal book entitled “Questions on Doctrine” (page 11) the words “all-sufficient” and “unerring” were rightly used to describe the Holy Scriptures.  However, subsequent official SDA doctrinal pronouncements have carefully omitted those important words.  Official Adventism does not believe that “inspired” equates to being “God-breathed.” Of course, I realize that the QOD book was only published to deceive Dr. Walter Martin and the Christian world so that they could get their name off the cult list.  Truly, some religionists have no shame or remorse in their underhanded way of doing things.

Dennis Fischer

You said that if Dennis criticizes adventists for saying in the QOD time that the words of the Bible are “unerring”, claiming that the Bible is innerant, and after this deleting the words and adopting a “thought inspiration” position in contrast with their previous position he’s condemning his own church, because this practices are in line with what Jesus Christ did. The problem is that, based on QOD Walter Martin removed the label cult from the adventist church, and he thought that adventist are telling him the truth about what they believe. It proved that adventist had another position. If this practice of telling the cult watcher that you are believing in the innerancy of the Bible in order to get recognition as an evangelical church and afterward you’re proving that you had not been serious about this, if this practice is what Jesus Christ and anybody else is doing, you just admitted that this kind of playing games about what you truly believes are justified. It’s that kind of behavior that wants to eat the cake and have it. As Dennis said, some religionists have no shame or remorse in their underhanded way of doing things.

Gabriel

Protestant 101 - 14 June 2009 04:44 PM

“Private conversations” are anecdotal evidence that is as changeable as the wind, and not dependent on Biblical evidence.

Well, you gave me an idea. Next time I’ll met an adventist I’ll ask him about Luther and his justification by faith alone idea and secretly record what he said and provide an mp3 for your satisfaction. What are you thinking? Do you think that its right to record adventists without their knowledge?

What you deliberately ignored is that I provided public information about what adventists said regarding Luther, see the quotation from George Burnside and Larry Kirkpatrick. You were quiet about this, obviously for a reason.

What do you think about Luther’s “justification by faith alone”? That’s a subject that depends on Biblical evidence, and Greg brought it on the other thread as a starting point in talking about reformation theology. Do you think that Luther was 100% right in his concept of justification by faith alone, or just partially right? Do you think that he erred partially or not? IS Larry Kirkpatrick right, is Burnside right, or not?

Gabriel