It reminded me of discussions going on on another forum between Adventists and formers. There, and in my personal life dealing with Adventist family and friends, I’m having a hard time finding anyone willing to say, in effect, that Christ is the only way to salvation. They’ll say it’s because of Christ that these non-Christians will go to heaven but they don’t have to actually have faith in Christ to qualify. As long as you are “living up to the light you have” then this will somehow count at the end reckoning. It seems, perhaps, another indication that Adventism has become more and more liberal in its theology. I used to think this is was confined to Southern California and pockets near universities but it seems to be more widespread than that. Even my relatives who consider themselves conservative believe this way. I’ve heard this throughout my life growing up in the church, but that was also in “liberal” Southern California.
But doesn’t this teaching actually do violence to the Gospel? Wouldn’t this teaching discourage the execution of the Great Commission if people were fine where they were as long as they were sincere? What does this do to the doctrine of imputation and what is required to satisfy the just wrath of a holy God?
I think you’re right about this being more widespread in Adventism than just southern California. My hyper-Adventist parents have recently said almost those exact words to me, i.e. “as long as people are sincere...”, etc.
What it sounds earily similar to is how they talk about us “apostate Protestants” and how we are completely deceived, yet “because we’re sincere” God will accept us. Did it ring that bell for you also?
Does it really matter? According to the Reformed views on this forum, it is God that calls and elects us to salvation so arguing whether we can get their or not through Christ is a redundant point. Of course we get there through Christ as He elects us to be saved. If they are elect, they will be saved, if they are not, they will not be saved. Doesn’t matter if they believe they can get to heaven any other way but Jesus. As a matter of fact, if they ARE elect, they will KNOW that they only get to heaven through Jesus so the point is even more moot.
From an Arminianist perspective, it would seem unusual for God to allow freedom of choice but have people who’ve never had the opportunity to accept Him be condemned for all eternity. If God doesn’t wink at our ignorance, then we sure don’t have much of a hope of salvation on this earth do we?
I think you’re right about this being more widespread in Adventism than just southern California. My hyper-Adventist parents have recently said almost those exact words to me, i.e. “as long as people are sincere...”, etc.
What it sounds earily similar to is how they talk about us “apostate Protestants” and how we are completely deceived, yet “because we’re sincere” God will accept us. Did it ring that bell for you also?
Nate
Nate, yes it indeed does ring a bell.
This has come up in discussions with SDA family even recently. Of course it usually comes down to Sabbath-breaking, “trampling” the law, turning my back on God’s law, etc., but when I asked if going to church on another day would disqualify me from the Kingdom I was told that since “God looks on the heart” and I was sincere that I was “probably” a Christian. The feeling I get is that it’s more of a hope and may provide some comfort for them.
However, in other conversations the sentiment seems to be quite different and their fear for me and my family is palpable which would only seem to make sense if they didn’t really think I was a Christian. I sense that part of it may be that by coming out and telling me they don’t think I’m a genuine Christian they run the risk of alienating me and decreasing the chances of coming back to the fold. But as far as “living up to the light I have”, clearly I do have the “light” of the Sabbath (again, this is pretty much what it comes down to) so this must work against any hope they may have in my sincerity. Granted, it’s difficult to have frank discussions about this so I do realize there is some speculation on my part but it’s the sense I get.
Aaron, Nate, pretty much here is the same situation, it’s common to a lot of areas of adventism.
Rightly understood the doctrines of grace (TULIP) require salvation to depend on a personal conscious (opposite to vague) belief in Christ Jesus. That’s because calvinism starts by postulating man as spiritually dead (Total Depravity, T from TULIP), unable to exercise his will toward God in a positive way apart from a direct and special intervention of the Holy Spirit. Fallen man is under God’s common grace, experiencing the common operations of the Holy Spirit, who is revealing God as Creator (but not as Savior) in the works of nature and man’s conscience (see Romans 1 and 2 as the basis for this view). While this general and common revelation that extends to each and every human being that is in this world makes them accountable and without excuse before God for their sins, it has not the capacity to save them from the guilt and dominion of sin over them. Something else is needed.
And this something else is called the saving grace of the Holy Spirit who is revealing God in Christ as Redeemer (and not only as Creator) through the special revelation found in the Bible. Faith in Christ is the instrument through which God connects people in a saving relationship with Christ and this faith cannot be exercised apart from the special revelation (because general revelation does not generate faith, man is left under the bondage). The need for the explicit presentation of the gospel becomes evident when we read the following text:
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Romans 10:14-17
Faith comes from hearing the word of God, particularly the gospel, and if there is no preaching there is no hearing and no believing. That confirms the calvinistic view of man as unable to exercise faith without special revelation. The general revelation cannot save pagans, cannot produce faith, it can only harrass the conscience and leave people without excuse for their sin. That’s why conscious reformers send missionaries in other countries and have one the best preachers of the gospel in their history, like Spurgeon, William Carey, Calvin, Brainerd, John Newton, Jonathan Edwards, John Whitefield and others who founded missions around the world. They understood that apart from giving to others the explicit content of the gospel, those pagans are lost. For them it was a life or death issue: they perceived that they cannot count on general revelation to do the work of salvation and they can’t afford to be quiet regarding the gospel. It was precisely their convictions that outside of Christ and him crucified presented to the sinner there is no possibility of salvation which caused those people to give their lives to this cause, suffer a lot of opposition, but remained faithfull to their callings. May God persuade more and more people about the essential nature of the gospel and its preaching for salvation.
This is right on Gabriel. God has ordained means that are to be used to convert sinners like us to Christ. Of course God could convert people however He wants, but the biblical data tells us that He doesn’t ordinarily choose to do so.
As for Aaron’s original question that I skipped, I definitely think that saying someone could be saved apart from Christ subverts the Gospel. The Bible is certainly clear that there is no salvation outside of Christ. To deny this is basically to say, “It’s ok, you can be saved by your own merits after all.” The only hope anyone has is justification sola fide et sola gratia through double imputation (not counting our sin against us and counting Christ’s righteousness to us).
Appreciate your thoughts, guys. It really does seem to subvert the Gospel, as you said Nate. If God could “wink” at any sin in any way, whether we are ignorant about it or not (and we’re all without excuse), then He isn’t holy nor a righteous judge and Jesus didn’t need to die. Then there really would have been another way and the cup of God’s wrath could and should have passed from Christ.
If salvation is by the imputed righteousness of Christ and has nothing to do with our works or our “hearts” (which are wicked above all things) then I don’t see how there can be any other means by which we may lay hold of salvation. How many other names are there by which sinful man may be saved?
If salvation is by the imputed righteousness of Christ and has nothing to do with our works or our “hearts” (which are wicked above all things) then I don’t see how there can be any other means by which we may lay hold of salvation.
The debate around the doctrines of grace usually goes around predestination, on U from TULIP, skipping T. I’m becoming more and more persuaded that this is not an intellectual problem but rather reflects an unwillingness to deal with T, total depravity, the status of our hearts as wicked above all things. If people got this and take to heart this truth, the question of salvation apart from faith in Christ, predestination and other things will receive by default a satisfactory answer.
That’s a great point Gabriel. In fact, that’s actually where my own Copernican revolution started: at “Total Depravity”. When this point turned out to be biblical, I was more willing (although still wary) to accept the others as I studied them.
This is a bit off topic, but have you guys noticed that the 28 fundamentals already affirm irresistable grace (although not in so many words)? Faith is identified as a gift from God. This should, for any Adventist who goes beyond his confession to affirm conditional election, deal a death blow to his Arminianism. If election is based on foreknown faith, yet faith is a gift from God, then logically God foreknows those people whom He will give faith to, i.e. He foreknows individuals on the sole basis of His good pleasure and will (His will to give them faith). I realize that all this is dependant on the hypothetical Adventist in question adding something to his belief system (i.e. conditional election), but what do you think? Am I missing something?
That’s a great point Gabriel. In fact, that’s actually where my own Copernican revolution started: at “Total Depravity”. When this point turned out to be biblical, I was more willing (although still wary) to accept the others as I studied them.
This is a bit off topic, but have you guys noticed that the 28 fundamentals already affirm irresistable grace (although not in so many words)? Faith is identified as a gift from God. This should, for any Adventist who goes beyond his confession to affirm conditional election, deal a death blow to his Arminianism. If election is based on foreknown faith, yet faith is a gift from God, then logically God foreknows those people whom He will give faith to, i.e. He foreknows individuals on the sole basis of His good pleasure and will (His will to give them faith). I realize that all this is dependant on the hypothetical Adventist in question adding something to his belief system (i.e. conditional election), but what do you think? Am I missing something?
Nate
Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God’s grace.
Nate,
I think what the FB is trying to say (well, at least the “best” view that Adventists would have) is that God gives you faith but then you have to choose to “exercise” it in order to be “justified.”
Jeremy
P.S. I just noticed that it says that we are supposed to “exercise faith in Jesus” as “Example” in order to be saved! What does that even mean? How do you place your faith in someone “as Example”? They always have to sneak our works in…
Ahh, I see. Thanks Jeremy for your clarification. I suppose it was a little optimistic of me to think that it would be a “sovereignly administered” gift. Although, I have to say that when I bring this up with my father-in-law (an Adventist pastor), he counts it as a point of common ground that we both affirm that true faith is a gift. He is more along the lines of Des Ford, so he takes a more historic Arminian view of things.
Thinking about it some more, I think they would also say that while it is a gift, you have to choose, out of your own free will, to “accept” the gift--that God doesn’t “force” the gift of faith on you.
That’s a great point Gabriel. In fact, that’s actually where my own Copernican revolution started: at “Total Depravity”. When this point turned out to be biblical, I was more willing (although still wary) to accept the others as I studied them. Nate
Ditto!!
I still remember, while I was still a smug Adventist many moons ago, God revealing to me my sinfulness. I remember it mainly because I was not involved in any secret ‘acts’ of sin and as a consequence feeling pretty good about myself when this sudden revelation that I was SINFUL zapped me and gave me a completely different perspective of the Gospel. The impact of this revelation has never paled but increased through time, but, being rather dim witted it took me years to put it all together, at which point I became a former.
It was about a year before the final decision that I studied the Reformation which led me to Calvin and the TULIP and Total Depravity to which I responded ‘Well, yeah!’.
Adventists, along with practically all other churches, concentrate all their efforts on attempting to counteract the results of sinfulness while denying the cause.
The Gospel can be transformational only if we are convicted that our sinfulness is a condition we are born with, not as an act of choice.
That’s a great point Gabriel. In fact, that’s actually where my own Copernican revolution started: at “Total Depravity”. When this point turned out to be biblical, I was more willing (although still wary) to accept the others as I studied them. Nate
Ditto!!
I still remember, while I was still a smug Adventist many moons ago, God revealing to me my sinfulness. I remember it mainly because I was not involved in any secret ‘acts’ of sin and as a consequence feeling pretty good about myself when this sudden revelation that I was SINFUL zapped me and gave me a completely different perspective of the Gospel. The impact of this revelation has never paled but increased through time, but, being rather dim witted it took me years to put it all together, at which point I became a former.
It was about a year before the final decision that I studied the Reformation which led me to Calvin and the TULIP and Total Depravity to which I responded ‘Well, yeah!’.
Adventists, along with practically all other churches, concentrate all their efforts on attempting to counteract the results of sinfulness while denying the cause.
The Gospel can be transformational only if we are convicted that our sinfulness is a condition we are born with, not as an act of choice.
John
Ditto here, also! And it seems to me that at the root of this may be the lack of clarity of the holiness of God and what a perfect and righteous judge requires. My undoing was when I read R.C. Sproul’s classic The Holiness of God which removed any pretensions I may have ever had that I could be reconciled to this holiness by anything other than the perfect righteousness of Jesus which had to be credited to me because anything less would fall short. Other books that had a similar, convicting effect were two books called The Attributes of God, one by Arthur Pink and the other by A.W. Tozer. I think Tozer’s may have used to be called Knowledge of the Holy.
As the utter holiness of God was first revealed in Scripture it only served to convict me of my Total Depravity. There was no way around it. I saw that I was completely helpless to meet the righteous standard that a just judge must require in order not to violate His divine attributes by myself or even with divine empowerment. This made the Great Controversy theme seem meaningless at that point and I knew that there would be no going back to Adventism and the notion that if God gave us a standard that we cannot keep than He is unfair. But in fairness, I don’t think Adventism is alone in selling the holiness of God short but is part of a much larger problem throughout the Chrisitan world.
When you see the depravity of your sin and how far you fall short of the holiness of God, what He requires of us, and the hopeless chasm that exists between us (the bad news) then when you realize what He’s done for you in the free gift of Christ’s finished work on the cross (the good news) you can’t help but live your life out of gratitude to the One who quickened you from spiritual death by His grace. It’s the bad news that makes the good news REALLY good, the best news we will ever hear.
That’s a great point Gabriel. In fact, that’s actually where my own Copernican revolution started: at “Total Depravity”. When this point turned out to be biblical, I was more willing (although still wary) to accept the others as I studied them. Nate
Ditto!!
I still remember, while I was still a smug Adventist many moons ago, God revealing to me my sinfulness. I remember it mainly because I was not involved in any secret ‘acts’ of sin and as a consequence feeling pretty good about myself when this sudden revelation that I was SINFUL zapped me and gave me a completely different perspective of the Gospel. The impact of this revelation has never paled but increased through time, but, being rather dim witted it took me years to put it all together, at which point I became a former.
It was about a year before the final decision that I studied the Reformation which led me to Calvin and the TULIP and Total Depravity to which I responded ‘Well, yeah!’.
Adventists, along with practically all other churches, concentrate all their efforts on attempting to counteract the results of sinfulness while denying the cause.
The Gospel can be transformational only if we are convicted that our sinfulness is a condition we are born with, not as an act of choice.
John
Ditto here, also! And it seems to me that at the root of this may be the lack of clarity of the holiness of God and what a perfect and righteous judge requires. My undoing was when I read R.C. Sproul’s classic The Holiness of God which removed any pretensions I may have ever had that I could be reconciled to this holiness by anything other than the perfect righteousness of Jesus which had to be credited to me because anything less would fall short. Other books that had a similar, convicting effect were two books called The Attributes of God, one by Arthur Pink and the other by A.W. Tozer. I think Tozer’s may have used to be called Knowledge of the Holy.
As the utter holiness of God was first revealed in Scripture it only served to convict me of my Total Depravity. There was no way around it. I saw that I was completely helpless to meet the righteous standard that a just judge must require in order not to violate His divine attributes by myself or even with divine empowerment. This made the Great Controversy theme seem meaningless at that point and I knew that there would be no going back to Adventism and the notion that if God gave us a standard that we cannot keep than He is unfair. But in fairness, I don’t think Adventism is alone in selling the holiness of God short but is part of a much larger problem throughout the Chrisitan world.
When you see the depravity of your sin and how far you fall short of the holiness of God, what He requires of us, and the hopeless chasm that exists between us (the bad news) then when you realize what He’s done for you in the free gift of Christ’s finished work on the cross (the good news) you can’t help but live your life out of gratitude to the One who quickened you from spiritual death by His grace. It’s the bad news that makes the good news REALLY good, the best news we will ever hear.
Amen Aaron. Thanks for a great post summarizing the issues that are so important. Thanks for continuing to bring us great stuff from Greg Koukl.
And thanks to all for the excellent posts on this thread.
Although, I have to say that when I bring this up with my father-in-law (an Adventist pastor), he counts it as a point of common ground that we both affirm that true faith is a gift. He is more along the lines of Des Ford, so he takes a more historic Arminian view of things.