The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

billdljr · 09-19-10 8:04 pm

In the Fall, Adam not only acquired a sinful record he acquired a sinful nature. We are told that the angels warned Adam and Eve, "Should they once yield to temptation, their nature would become so depraved that in themselves they would have no power, and no disposition, to resist Satan." P.P.53.

The law of God condemned Adam not just for what he did, but more especially for what he was. His whole state of being— his nature—was out of harmony with the divine law. Were it not for this he could have been reinstated to the Garden immediately after repentance, confession and forgiveness. But Adam's nature was so changed that it was impossible for him to have fellowship with a holy God—except as we will see, through a Mediator.

Now Adam's sin was not only a private matter between him and God. Adam was the Federal head and Representative of the race. He stood before God as the whole human race for all were mystically united to him. When he fell, it was the same as if all had fallen. "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners" Rom.5:l9. Thus "in Adam all die." 1 Cor. 15:22.

Because of Adam's sin, every son and daughter of Adam is born a sinner. He is not born to be a sinner. He is a sinner the moment he is born; nay more, this sinful condition is mysteriously transmitted at the moment of conception. Thus David confessed, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps.51:5 Consequently, children come forth into the world as the natural enemies of God. "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born." Psalm 58:3 Notice that they are not enemies because they go astray. They go astray because they are enemies first. Which is to say, we are not sinners because we have committed sin: rather we have committed sin because we are conceived and born as sinners by nature. So Paul declares: "We... were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Eph.2:3 And God says through Isaiah, "I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and was called a transgressor from the womb." Isaiah 48:8

From this we must conclude that even if we never committed any single act of sin, we could not escape the universal condemnation of the law. That holy law requires of us such holiness of inward being (i.e. nature) that it condemns our state. Every child of Adam is condemned and is a child of wrath even apart from any personal act of sin. Sin is conceived and bred into our nature; and so God regards us as sinners through and through, as altogether corrupt and estranged from His holy nature even before we think one thought or perform one deed. In theology this state, transmitted to us in consequence of Adam's fall, is called original sin—or in more common parlance, it is called the corrupt, carnal, sinful, or depraved nature.

The understanding that sin was a state rather than just an act was the foundation of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. This concept was written into all of the great Reformation confessions. We cite two by way of examples:
"Sin. By sin we understand that innate corruption of man which has been derived or propagated in us all from our first parents, by which we, immersed in perverse desires and averse to all good, are inclined to all evil. Full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt and hatred of God, we are unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves." The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566, Article 8.

"We believe that, through the disobedience of Adam, original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature, and an hereditary disease, wherewith infants themselves are infected even in their mother's womb, and which produceth in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof; and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind." The Belgic Confession of Faith, 1561, Article 15.

Unfortunately, much of our Adventist heritage has been notoriously weak on the concept of sin. Even the Lord Jesus especially testifies that we are unaware of our wretchedness Rev. 3:14-17. It is a terrible blindness to suppose that we measure up to the requirements of the law if only we refrain from those acts of sin which it condemns. That law is spiritual (Rom.7:14), and reaches down to the innate dispositions, tendencies and affections of the heart. Dr. Strong has truly said:

" . . . the divine law requires moral likeness to God in the affections and tendencies of the nature, as well as in its outward activities. It therefore considers lack of conformity to the divine holiness in disposition or state as a violation of law, equally with the outward act of transgression." A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p.538.

Now let us consider what this means in the light of being justified before God. Justification is a legal word and is inseparably connected to the law of God. In fact "justification is setting one right before law" (Strong, Ibid, p.856). The law requires holiness—not only in actions but in the inmost being and dispositions. It demands not only a record without sin, but a nature without sin. The law demands perfection of our persons as well as of our works. This fact underlines our hopeless condemnation under the law except by the gracious interposition of God through Jesus Christ. How could any of our works contribute in the least degree to our acceptance with God if our very persons are sinful in nature?

The Substitution of Jesus Christ

A consideration of our sinful condition — of person as well as actions — shows us our need of a Saviour, and such a Saviour who is adapted to our most primary need.

We need an Example, yes, but before that we need a Saviour—a Substitute to take our place before the consuming holiness of that divine law. We are utterly unable to fulfill its demands (S.C.62). Even if our past sins were taken care of, we would still be condemned because of the condition of our nature just as surely as we were condemned before we had any record of sin.

If Jesus is only an example to us poor sinners, that would only heap condemnation upon condemnation. His life was the law of God lived out in human flesh. And "by the law is the knowledge of sin" Rom.3:20. When the example of Jesus is set before needy sinners, the thunders and lightnings of Mount Sinai become more distinct and more awful than ever. I am not saying that the presentation of our Exemplar has no place here. To increase conviction of sin, to be a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ the Substitute — yes! But in the matter of salvation, which is a free gift of God, we must first see Jesus as a Substitutionary Saviour.

It is to be lamented that Christ has been so treated as our Example that He has been presented as a Model more than as a Saviour. As far as the New Testament is concerned Christ is presented first and foremost as the redeeming Substitute for the race. Christ the Example occupies a very subordinate role.

We are saved, not because we follow Christ's example. Salvation comes as a gift of God because Jesus took our place before the law; and wonder of wonders, in our place and in our name He did for us, on our behalf, that which we were unable to do. And what was that? He fulfilled and satisfied all that God's law required of us (Romans 8:3).

"By His perfect obedience He has satisfied the claims of the law, and my only hope is found in looking to Him as my Substitute and Surety, who obeyed the law perfectly for me." 1 S.M. 396 (See also S.D. 240)

This is the most primary and personal truth of the gospel. Christ became our Substitute—the One who stood in our place. While the word Substitute is not used in the Bible, the concept is not only repeatedly taught in the types of the Old Testament (e.g. see Gen.22:13), but in clear gospel statements of the New Testament. To Timothy Paul wrote that Christ "gave Himself a ransom for all." 1 Tim.2:6 The word translated ransom is not just from the word lutron which means ransom. Paul uses the peculiar combination antilutron, which Girdlestone translates substitutionary ransom. Again, Paul says that "Christ died for our sins". The little word for is from huper which means in behalf of. Just to take a concordance and see how many times the Word declares Jesus lived, died, rose and intercedes for us is a revelation of the gospel. Jesus said that He came "to give His life a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28 This time the word for is from anti, which clearly means, in this instance, in the stead of. (Compare Luke 11:11 where the same word is used)

Whatever the law requires of us, Jesus gave to the law as our Substitute. We have seen that the law, being an expression of God's holy nature, requires that our natures be holy. To be our Substitute it was necessary for Jesus to possess a holy human nature. If the human nature of Jesus was carnal, sinful and depraved like the rest of men who are conceived in sin, then we have no Substitute to satisfy the divine law on our behalf. To propose, as some have done, that Jesus' nature was sinful like other men, only His deeds were holy, is to take the position that the law only goes as deep as actions, that sin is only an act rather than a state of being. Then it would have to be argued that children when born are not sinners at all since they have done neither good nor evil.

But what is the truth of the humanity of Jesus as set forth in the unambiguous statements of Holy Writ? We have seen that every son of Adam is conceived in sin (Ps.51:5). Therefore, he is born in sin,"a transgressor from the womb" Isa.48:8. Jesus said: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" John 3:6, and Paul declares, "the mind of the flesh is enmity against God...so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" Rom.8:7, 8 (A.S.V.A.V.). Look at the facts—every son of Adam is,

conceived in sin (Ps.51:5)
estranged from birth (Ps.58:3)
born a transgressor (Isa.48:8)
is flesh—enmity against God (Rom.8:7; John 3:6)
by nature the child of wrath (Eph.2:3)

Now let us look at the humanity of the Son of God. Just as we have looked not so much at the deeds of men, but as they are by nature before they commit any deeds, so let us look at the human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ.

While the eternal Word became truly man, possessing the substance and essence of human nature, we shall see without any shadow of doubt that as touching sin and sinfulness, He was distinctly "separate from sinners" Heb. 7:26.

Consider:

Firstly, We are all "the seed of men". He was "the seed of the woman", having no human father.

Secondly, Whereas we are all conceived in sin, the angel said to Joseph, "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" Matt. 1:20. The angel said also to Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" Luke 1:35.

Consider the vast difference of being conceived in sin by natural human generation and being conceived by the Holy Ghost in a supernatural generation. Our humanity was generated from a sinful source; His was from a sinless source.

Some may reason: The Holy Spirit created Christ's divine nature and Mary created Christ's human nature. But this is fallacious reasoning. Christ's divine nature was not, could not be created. He was Himself the uncreated eternal Word, One in substance and essence with God the Father. Look carefully at the Scriptural declarations and it will be seen that the Holy Spirit generated Christ's human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary. We grant that Mary was a sinner by nature, and that a sinful nature could be transmitted by one human parent as by two. But the other fact to consider is that the human nature of Christ was divinely conceived and overshadowed by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. The Holy Spirit is holiness personified. He "prepared" (Heb.10:5) and sanctified the human nature which was taken into union with divinity in the person of Christ. So the angel referred to Christ's humanity as "that holy thing"—something that could never be said of our human nature.

The Catholic Church, in its Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, credits Mary for the unique sinlessness of Jesus' human nature. This great heresy proposes that Mary was immaculately conceived by sanctified parents. The Word of God, however, shows that the Spirit of holiness was the generator and reason for Christ's unique sinlessness.

Thirdly, Christ was not born of the flesh (John 1:13; 3:6) —for that which is born of the flesh is enmity against God. He was born of the Spirit, and thereby became the new Head of a new race.

Consider these explicit statements:

"He was born without a taint of sin..." Q.D.657

". . . no trace of sin marred the image of God within Him." D.A. 71

"He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil." 2T 202

"He (Christ) was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man." 7 B.C. 925

"We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ... This holy Substitute is able to save to the uttermost." 1 S.M. 256

"Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin... not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." 5 B.C. 1128

"Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ." ibid.

It will be noticed that these statements are all talking about the sinless nature of the man Christ Jesus. All this He had to be in order to be our Substitute before God. The holy God cannot be in fellowship with sinful nature. If God dealt directly with us, we would be consumed by the fires of His infinite holiness. God, therefore, gave us a Substitute; and mercifully He deals with humanity through Jesus Christ. If Christ's humanity was not immaculately sinless in nature as well as deed, He would not have been pleasing in the sight of the law. But in and through our sinless Substitute we can have fellowship with God.

Behold how wonderfully extensive is the Substitution of Christ. He died in our place, bearing the full penalty of a broken law. More than that, He substituted for us a holy manhood so that God could look at us as robed in His perfection. He lived in our place a stainless youth so that God could look back on our past and remember not the sins of our youth. But our birth was corrupt, and if God is to see us as having always been pure, we need a Substitute whose birth was pure. But more than all this, our sinfulness reaches back to conception ("In sin did my mother conceive me.") Here Jesus is also our Substitute, for in our place, and in our behalf He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. And more yet—His victory reaches back to the head of the race. He stood in Adam's place as our new Representative and substituted absolute victory for Adam's total failure. Thus the substitution of Jesus is complete. He not only substituted a sinless record for a sinful record, but a holy, spotless nature for an unholy, defiled nature. God gave us a Man to stand in our place—a Man who was all that the law required us to be in nature as well as works.

"But", someone is always asking, "if Christ's human nature was sinless—without taint, inclination, propensity to sin—and our human nature is sinful—full of taint, inclination and propensity to sin—then how can Christ be our example?" Alas, how does this question betray the crass legalism and unbelief that operates below our consciousness. Example! Example! Example! As if our salvation is rooted in our competing with Christ's example! We act as if we were required to run a race against Christ, and being anxious to boost our chance of a dead heat, we insist He come down to our level in everything—or we loudly complain to God that the race is unfair.

There is something radically wrong when the first thing we ask is, "How could He be our Example?" Christ's example is perfect obedience to the law of God. We are not justified by efforts to follow this example, for by the deeds of the law there shall be no flesh justified in the sight of God (Romans 3:20). Before we can live the life of sanctified obedience after the example of Christ, we need justification. It is Christ our Substitute that justifies us. Therefore we ought always to cry out first of all, "How can He be my Substitute?"

To those who declare that Christ had a corrupt, depraved, sinful nature like ours (it seems a shame to even suggest such a shocking thing), we ask, "How can He be our Substitute?" For remember, Jesus must first be our Redeemer and Saviour.

Christ our Representative

Christ needs also to be considered from the standpoint of His Representative role. Just as we were lost by Representation, we were redeemed by Representation. Adam stood as the federal head of the race. The whole human race was incorporated in Adam and represented by Adam. When he sinned, it was as if all had sinned. When he fell from divine favour, the whole race fell from divine favour (See Rom. 5:14-19). Now God redeemed the race by giving it a new Head. Christ became the new Father (Isaiah 9:6), the second Adam, the Representative of the race. When He obeyed the law and fulfilled all its claims, it was just as if every man had personally fulfilled the law. When He died, it was as if all had died (2 Cor. 5:14). When He ascended into heaven, the human race was restored to favour with God (Q.D. 680). (2)

Now let us consider the incarnation in the light of Christ our Representative. God sees every believer not as he is in himself, but as he appears in his Representative. A Christ with a sinful, depraved human nature would be a poor Representative for sinners—indeed, God would have rejected Him and all of us if we had no better Representative than that. As our Representative He must stand as Adam stood in perfection and innocence, otherwise He could be no second Adam. Consider these declarations:

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure." Q.D. 650

"Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man 's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement." ibid.

"When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan 's kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame the human nature, relying upon God for power. Q.D. 651

If we would only properly consider two things there could be no misgivings about the sinlessness of Christ's human nature. These two things are the extent of the law's requirements and the nature of sin.

The Human Inheritance of Christ

Besides teaching us about Christ's unique sinlessness, the inspired writers direct us to the true manhood of Christ. He was of the "seed of David according to the flesh", "made of a woman", and partook of the same flesh and blood as all of the children of Adam (Rom. l:3; Gal.4:4; Hebrews 2:14). His was not a make-believe human nature. He was the real son of Mary by human inheritance, and was like us in everything except sin.

In the Spirit of Prophecy, there are two classes of statements. One class of statement shows how Christ's human nature was different from ours. We have already considered some of those. Then there is another class of statement which shows that Christ's human nature was the same as ours in substance and essence. We are told that He accepted the workings of the great law of heredity, that He too bore the infirmities, degeneracy and weaknesses of the race as they existed after four thousand years from Eden. To briefly cite a representative group of statements:

"Christ . . . . took our nature in its deteriorated condition". Q.D. 657

" . . . He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity". D.A. 49

" . . . subject to the weaknesses of humanity." D.A. 49

". . . took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity." D. A. 22?

" . . . bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race." Q.D. 656

"He condescended to connect our fallen human nature with His divinity." Q.D. 657

Now these statements are to be given full weight. There is no justification for saying that these infirmities and weaknesses were only imputed to Christ on the cross.(3) He bore them as an empirical reality throughout His life on earth. But we are not justified in pushing these statements to mean sinfulness. When we are considering the likeness of Christ's humanity to ours we must remember that there is one great and decisive exception—He was like us in all things, sin excepted. Notice:

"He... became like one of us except in sin..." Q.D. 657

"He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions." Q.D. 659

"...taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man." 7 B.C. 925

"Because of sin his (Adam 's) posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience . . . . . but not for one moment was there in Him (Christ) one evil propensity." 5 B.C. 1728

We submit that these buts are so plain that he that runs may read. Although Christ's human nature was like ours in the weaknesses and infirmities of all the human faculties, He was not like us in sinfulness—either inherited sinfulness or cultivated sinfulness.

Some have been ready to grant that Christ's human nature was different from ordinary men in respect to sin, but propose that His human nature was like that of "born again saints". But this proposition is easily overthrown. Born again believers are not sinless, as is abundantly testified in Old and New Testaments. Although they do not live in the practice of sin (1 John 3:9), they are warned not to entertain the thought that they are sinless (1 John 1:8). In Romans 7, the Spirit-filled apostle confessed that the law of sin was deep in his members, even though he hated sin and loved the law of God. Speaking of his inward corruption of nature he declared: "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" Romans 7:17. In theology this is called indwelling sin or inbred sin. The great apostle did not hesitate to confess that sin dwelt in him. But what of Jesus Christ?

John declares, "and in Him is no sin" 1 John 3:5. This can be said of none of the saints. Jesus is unique in His absolute sinlessness. He is called "the Holy One of Israel" —the solitary One, yet all who are united to Him by faith are partakers of His holiness and are constituted holy in their great Head.

Paul also declares that Jesus "knew no sin" 2 Cor. 5:21, —an expression pertaining to His absolute sinlessness. Christ confessed His sinlessness and was perfectly conscious of it. Could such a thing ever be said of the greatest saints here below? Never!

"None of the apostles and prophets ever claimed to be without sin. Men who have lived the nearest to God, men who would sacrifice life itself rather than knowingly commit a wrong act, men whom God has honored with divine light and power, have confessed the sinfulness of their nature." A.A. 561

There is one incarnation — only one. The union of the divine and the human exists in Him as in no other.(4) We may draw some parallels, some likenesses; but the peerless Christ stands yet above all comparisons. There is one sinless Substitute, one Representative, one Life which measures with all the greatness and grandeur of God's law. He stands unrivalled, unequalled, unduplicated, the Holy One of Israel. As P. T. Forsyth has said:

"It is better to trust Christ and His work than even to imitate Him. He is worth infinitely more to the world as its Saviour than as its Model; as God's promise than a man 's Ideal. He is more to be admired than copied, more to be loved than to be admired, and He is to be trusted more than all. This trust of Christ is the highest thing a man can do."

Christ Our Example

When we accept our holy Substitute as a gift and put Him on as a gift (Gal. 3:27), then are we justified. Then we are ready to put on Christ as an Example.

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." 2 Peter 2:21-24

When the apostle Peter would call us to imitate our great Captain of Salvation, he would have us lift up our minds to His atonement—"Christ also suffered for us... bare our sins in His own body on the tree." The example Jesus left us is His atonement which climaxed on the cross. His humiliation, suffering and self-denying love was nothing short of infinite. It never ceases to amaze the angels and will be the song and wonder of the redeemed for eternity. Surely we can appreciate why Ellen White says, "We cannot equal the pattern...". But she also adds "We shall not be approved of God if we do not copy it, and, according to the ability which God has given, resemble it." 2T 549

God's people in whose heart is God's law will delight in the law of God as revealed in the example of Jesus Christ, yet they will mourn only because they fall so far short of it (S.L. 81). Indeed, the more closely they imitate Him the more they will discern how far short they fall from this glory of God. "The noblest and most gentle among men are but a faint reflection" of "the divine beauty of the character of Christ." M.B. 79 Only in the merciful reckoning of God will any saint here on earth reflect the image of Jesus fully.

Yes, Christ became our example; but surely we can see this has limitations. He made an atonement for the sins of the world. Can we follow that example? He forgave sins. Can we follow that example? He read people's hearts and secret motives. Unfortunately we are too prone to try following that example. He confessed the absolute sinlessness of His person and work. Can we follow that example?

Above all, we must remember that our justification and reception of the Spirit does not come by the works of the law (that is by following the example of Christ) but by the hearing of faith (Gal. 3:1-3). Instead of trying to get the Spirit by an attainment to the example of Christ, it is our privilege to receive the Spirit as a free gift through faith in our Substitute. Then we will follow Christ's example not to get the Spirit but because we have the Spirit. The motivation is altogether different. One is the way of legalism; the other is the way of the gospel.

Tempted in All Points

Some will say, "If Jesus did not actually have my carnal inclinations and tendencies, how could He have been tempted in all points like me?" (See Heb. 4:15) If that question is reasonable, why not other questions based on the same reasoning? Another could ask, "How could Christ be tempted in all points like a woman if He was a man?" Or, "How could Christ be tempted in all points like an old man unless He became an old man?"

In many cases, the little word, how, is not a sign of faith, but of unbelief. Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again. Rather than face the humiliating truth, Nicodemus would rather ask for an explanation of its whys and wherefores. "How can these things be?" he incredulously asked Jesus. Jesus did not answer his question, but exhorted him to look, believe and live. Faith is the key of knowledge. Those who insist on an explanation of truth before they believe on the authority of God's Word will never believe. The Word says that the sinless Christ was tempted in all points like as we are. Let us believe it whether we can explain the mystery or not. As for me, I frankly confess I cannot explain this mystery - and it certainly would not be a mystery if I could explain it. Listen:

"It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin." S B. C. 1128,1129

"There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ." ibid

Two paradoxical truths are mysteriously blended in Christ:

1. He was tempted in all points like as we are

2. Yet He was without sin—(note, sin, not sins; that is to say, He was without sinful nature.)

What foolishness to reason that Christ was tempted like us because He had a sinful nature like us when the text explicitly says He was without sin. And if one objects by saying that the sinful nature is not sin, let him explain why a new-born baby is full of sin before he has thought or done anything. Let it be considered further that those who say that the sinful nature is not sin are in harmony with the Pelagian and Catholic view of sin and are opposed to all the great Reformation Confessions.

Let us not be like those Israelites in the wilderness who refused to look at the brazen serpent unless an explanation of its healing power was forthcoming. Faith says, "God says it, and I'll believe it even if I can't understand it. And by believing I'll get all the blessed benefit of it." It makes a lot of difference whether we try to live by the Tree of Life or the Tree of Knowledge.

As one final word of comfort: the Spirit of Prophecy often tells us that Christ was tempted many times more severely than any human being was ever tempted. The strength of His temptations were in proportion to His exalted purity, and not, as some would have it, in proportion to how far He came down to the level of our depraved natures. He was tempted to use His divine power in His own behalf. (See 7 B.C. 930)

Likeness of Sinful Flesh

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Romans 8:3

Some would like to make Paul a little more explicit. They declare that Christ came in "sinful flesh". But the apostle does not use the word "likeness" for nothing. Never in one single instance does Ellen White dispense with that important qualification, "likeness".

What does the word likeness mean? Is there some illustration that throws light on the meaning of "likeness of sinful flesh"? Yes, there is an inspired illustration that settles the issue forever.

"As the image made in the likeness of the destroying serpents was lifted up for their healing, so One made 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' was to be their Redeemer." D.A. 174,175

Was the brass serpent a destroying serpent or was it the likeness of a destroying serpent? Obviously it was the likeness of a serpent. So also was Christ made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

In Pauline terminology sinful flesh means sinful humanity, sinful human nature, old man, carnal mind. It does not refer to the body apart from the mind, but includes the whole man as he is in his natural, corrupt and sinful state. What infinite and appalling humiliation to think that Jesus consented to be made in that likeness. But likeness does not mean sameness.

" . . . let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be." 5 B.C. 1129

Pioneer Positions

"What about the teaching of the pioneers?" says one. "Let us stick to the teachings of our pioneers", says another. We admit that this approach sounds impressive. Being contrary to the pioneers is like being against mother and country. But if we were ever guilty of excusing wooly thinking under the aura of "the faith of the pioneers" it is in this area of the incarnation.

In the first place the pioneers of the Advent Movement said practically nothing significant on these doctrinal issues. The most exhaustive research by different people has not been able to uncover any significant pioneer writings on the subject.

Furthermore, whatever the pioneers said about Christology would be open to question. On some of the great eternal verities of the Christian faith, on those great cardinal doctrines that had been unassailably established for centuries in the Christian church, some of the pioneers were very poor exponents. Some of them were not even settled on the faith of the complete divinity of Jesus Christ. Some advocated the heresy of Arianism. James White at one time cast grave doubts on the Christian church's doctrine of the Trinity. Not a few denied the divine Personality of the Holy Spirit. Nearly all of them were poor exponents of the great doctrine of justification by faith, and the years 1844-1888 gave full proof of it.

We need to get the contribution of the pioneers into right perspective. When Jesus chose His disciples they weren't noted for any great theological knowledge. When we look back on them we don't glory in the splendid gifts that these men possessed, but we admire what grace was able to do with such very ordinary material.

As far as theological knowledge is concerned, the pioneers were not giants, but children. In some important areas (like Christology the divinity of Christ, the humanity of Christ; and Pneumatolcgy—the Person and work of the Holy Spirit) to compare them with the theological giants of the Christian church would be ridiculous. But God was pleased to take these unlearned "children", this raw material, and give to them the special prophetic truths of Daniel and Revelation. They became authorities in these special areas of truth. On these special truths upon which they unanimously agreed, we may regard their testimony as absolutely trustworthy. But to ask us to return to the first lispings of the pioneers on some of the cardinal truths of the Christian church is to give them idolatrous regard, not to mention setting the clock back more than 120 years. In any case, the great scholars of the Christian church, including the Reformers, have all made such glaring mistakes in certain areas that it should teach us not to give human beings idolatrous regard by following them in all things. The pioneers are no exception.

In 1888 God had more light for His people. It was high time that the ministry as well as people had clearer, more exalted views of the person and work of Christ, and of the efficacy of His righteousness which is imputed to those who believe, and of the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit imparted to those who follow Jesus. But it was not an easy matter to shake men loose from their restricted thought patterns. There was alarm at the new lines of thought suggested by Jones and Waggoner. There was much talk about standing by the old landmarks (the faith of the pioneers). What did Mrs. White say:

"The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth, (also) the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, 'The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.' One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the low of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary." C. W. E. 30

What is also quite astounding is that the brethren in 1888 were arguing whether the law in Galatians was the ceremonial or moral law. Most of them had taken the position that it was only the ceremonial law of Moses; and Waggoner's view that it included the moral law of ten commandments was startlingly new and very unsettling to them. But this whole question was well settled by all the Reformers more than three hundred years before 1888. The leading thinkers in Adventism had not even caught up with Luther and Calvin. In fact the arguments brought against Waggoner were the same arguments that the Roman Catholics used concerning the law in Galatians. So they were more than three hundred years behind in catching up to the Reformers on the law in Galatians and justification by faith; but they were more than one thousand years behind in getting settled on the great truths of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. In the third, fourth and fifth centuries the Church went through these controversies and those questions were fully settled. The Reformation fully settled the truth of justification by faith alone. But here were the leading thinkers in Adventism still trying to settle these points in 1888.

Part of the problem arose from our suspicion of every doctrine held by the Christian Church. After all they had sounded the message, "Babylon is fallen". The pioneers were led to see that the accepted teachings on the Lord's Day and the immortal soul were pagan corruptions. But there was a tendency to be suspicious of the entire doctrinal heritage of the church—divinity of Christ, Trinity, atonement on the cross, justification by faith only, etc. Consequently the movement grew up without any strong roots in the past, without a proper estimation of the value of historical theology. The temple of truth has been going up for centuries. It took the church three hundred years to become settled on the divinity of Christ, four or five hundred years to be settled on the unity of two natures in one person, and nearly as long to settle the arguments on the Trinity. The church could not appreciate the Pauline truth of justification by faith until after 1500 years had passed. We cannot despise what God has caused the Christian church to unanimously accept. Considering that Adventism grew up with so few historical roots, it is no wonder that it took a generation or two to get settled on such fundamental things as Christ's divinity and the Trinity. In fact, compared to the early church, it learned exceedingly quickly to make those first steps within the century!

Now in reference to the incarnation: Most of those who read this paper will know that certain points on the human nature of Christ have been in hot dispute within Adventism since about 1956. It seems that we have come to the point where we are getting some things settled. But it is rather humbling to know that the Christian Church has disputed and settled these points centuries ago. The heresies of Eutychianism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, and Apollinarianism have all been explored, argued, and settled. As Dr. Buchanan points out, church history proves that it is almost impossible to invent a new heresy. The church in the Reformation age reconsidered the great truth of the incarnation in the light of original sin and justification by faith. Some of the clearest statements on the incarnation were made in the great Confessions at the time of the Reformation. And what is more, the Reformers were united on the re-affirmation of this ancient truth. Consider the accuracy and clarity of these great Reformation statements taken from the historic confessions:

" . . . the Son of the living, true God, has assumed flesh which is holy through its unity with the Godhead in all things like unto our flesh yet without sin . . . " First Helvetic Confession, Article II, in Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century. p. 103.

"(Christ was) of the seed of Abraham, since he took upon him the seed of Abraham, and became like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted." Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 18, p.20l.

"(Christ) took upon him the form of a servant, and became like unto men, really assuming the true human nature, with all its infirmities, sin excepted, being conceived in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Ghost." Ibid, p.200

"That the eternal Son of God, who is and remains true and eternal God, took upon himself our true manhood from the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary through the action of the Holy Spirit, so that he might also be the true seed of David, like his fellow men in all things, except for sin." Heidelberg Catechism, Question 35, Ibid, p.311.

The later Westminster Confession is excellently stated:

"When the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance." Westminster Confession Article 8.

The Lutheran Formula of Concord (drawn up shortly after the death of Luther) declares:

"Secondly, in the article of Redemption the Scriptures testify forcibly that God's Son assumed our human nature without sin, so that He was in all things, sin excepted, made like unto us, His brethren, Heb. 2:14. Hence all the old orthodox teachers have maintained that Christ, according to His assumed humanity, is of one essence with us, His brethren; for He has assumed His human nature, which in all respects (sin alone excepted) is like our human nature in its essence and all essential attributes; and they have condemned the contrary doctrine as manifest heresy." Formula of Concord, p. 239.

Louis Berkhof expresses the position of all Reformed Christology when he says:

"Christ assumed human nature with all its weaknesses, as it exists after the fall, and thus became like us in all things, sin only excepted." Systematic Theology, p.339.

There is no question but that this was also Ellen White's position. "He...became like one of us except in sin." Q.D. 657 She took the orthodox doctrine and expanded it in beautiful balance.

The Advent Movement is supposed to complete the work of the Reformation begun in the 16th century. We can't do that if we ignore what was begun by the Reformers and go about to lay another foundation altogether. We have been far too prone to imagine we are so far ahead of these men who lived more than 400 years ago, that they could teach us nothing or very little. It is therefore humbling to compare some of the crude lispings on the incarnation found in some of our own books with the mature and accurate theology of men who lived so long ago.

SUMMARY

We accept the view of the perfect sinlessness of Christ's human nature because:

1. The law being an expression of God's holy nature, requires that man be sinless in nature as well as deed.

2. Christ stood in our place to fulfill and satisfy the law's demand on our behalf. Unless His human nature was sinless He could not have done this for us.

3. The sinlessness of Christ's human nature establishes the principle of salvation by and imputation.

We reject the view that Jesus had a depraved, sinful nature because:

1. It is disparaging to the person of our exalted Lord who was always in respect to sin, "separate from sinners".

2. It is an ancient and proven heresy, condemned by the early church, rejected by all the Reformers, and never taught by the true line of godly Christian teachers throughout the history of the Church.

3. It leads to a superficial view of God's law because it is based on the premise that the law only condemns sinful actions. It fails to see that the law requires holiness of the disposition and tendencies of the nature.

4. It leads to a superficial view of sin. It proposes that sinful inclinations and tendencies are not sin unless they find expression in the life. Sin is therefore thought of as an act rather than a state. This is a Pelagian element. (5)

5. It leads to a refutation of the Bible doctrine that all men are born sinners. For it must be plain that if inherited sinfulness is not sin unless it finds expression by sinful deeds, then newborn infants are not sinners. This is Pelagian heresy. (5)

6. It leads either to neglecting or rejecting the central gospel principle of salvation by Representation, Substitution and Imputation. Instead it declares, "Christ had a sinful human nature like ours. He kept the evil inclinations and propensities of this nature in check by the Holy Spirit. Thus He set us our example how we may do the same with the same help of the Holy Spirit. This is how we attain salvation." In trying to find salvation by following Christ's example rather than through faith in His substitution, it falls into the error of legalism and perfectionism.

This ancient heresy of "the sinful human nature" of Christ has been resurrected in modern times by Schleiermacher, Edward Irving, Menken, and Stier; and unfortunately it crept into Adventism, was for many years the accepted view, although never really officially a doctrine of the Church. Because it majors on example rather than substitution, in the real Pauline and Reformation sense "it knows of no justification, and conceives of salvation as consisting in subjective sanctification." Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p.390. Dr. Strong also says, "In Irving's(6) theory there is no imputation, or representation, or substitution." Systematic Theology, p.746.

7. "It necessitates the surrender of the doctrine of justification as a merely declaratory act of God; and requires such a view of the divine holiness, expressed only through the order of nature, as can be maintained only upon principles of pantheism." Ibid, p.747

Dr. Strong's statement throws great light on the events in the Seventh-day Adventist Church between 1888 and 1905. Waggoner and Jones taught Irving's theory of the sinful human nature of Christ. Some have therefore drawn the conclusion that the doctrine of Christ's sinful human nature must have been the foundation of the 1888 message of justification by faith. There was a time when I made this deduction too. But a more careful study of Church history shows that this imperfect view of truth was one of the means whereby Jones and Waggoner grew farther and farther away from the truth of justification by faith. Just as Dr. Strong points out from his review of historic theology, this erroneous theory of the incarnation leads away from justification and eventually into pantheism. This is precisely what happened, especially to Waggoner. With him, justification lost its imputative, declaratory and objective nature. He came to see it more and more as a subjective process. Salvation by substitution and representation had no place in his thinking. The theory of "God in Christ's sinful flesh" ended up meaning "God in everyone's sinful flesh"—and that is pantheism.

For many years after 1888 Jones became quite popular in the church. Ministers and Bible teachers copied his teachings, even his very expressions, on the incarnation—without realizing this teaching nullifies the truth of justification by faith and lays a basis for pantheism. Ministers and Bible teachers went on teaching the erroneous Irvingian view of the incarnation until it was corrected by the history-making review of the subject by Elder R. A. Anderson and Dr. Froom around 1956.

8. It fails to recognize that Christ broke the chain of sinful heredity. Every child of Adam had been born with a sinful heredity. There was no hope for the race unless Someone could come, break that line and establish a new inheritance of sinlessness. But those who teach the depravity of Christ's human nature want to see the chain of sinful inheritance maintained. They are so swallowed up with their idea of being saved by Christ's example and the hope of duplicating His life, that they think that salvation depends on making Him a sharer of our depravity.

Old Abe · 09-20-10 6:33 am

Bill
What an evil presentation of God. That He would condemn thousands yet unborn for the transgression of one individual.It flys in the face of reason or love.

When God created Adam He knew in His foreknowledge exactly what would take place and to make that doubly sure He created Eve whom He brought to Adam with complete foreknowledge what would happen.

Sin is the act of knowingly transgressing.It is the state of doing not of being.A baby born fresh from the womb is not a sinner because sin is a learned behaviour, not something we possess by nature.But we learn it early because that is the culture of our society and the baby begins to learn it even in the womb.

Jesus took on Himself our nature He demonstrated that one CAN walk with God uprightly from birth if one allows oneself to be lead of the Spirit.

billdljr · 09-20-10 12:05 pm

Dear Abe, you certainly are not wrong in what you basically affirm , but I would challenge you in what you deny . Please consider this:

Truth is of such a nature that very often it can only be expressed by two statements which appear to be antithetical. We call these statements paradoxes.

Let us take some examples of great truths which are expressed by paradoxical statements:

1. The Human Nature of Christ: ". . . in all points tempted like as we are; yet without sin", is a tremendous and mysterious paradox. How could the One who was sinless in His human nature be tempted in all points like us? "It is a mystery that is left unexplained . . ." 5 B.C. 1128-9.

Inspiration presents us with two groups of statements on the human nature of Christ. One group of statements show how Christ's human nature was just like ours. He was born of a woman, of our flesh and blood, of the seed of David according to the flesh, was encompassed by infirmities, was subject to the laws of heredity, and took our human faculties after they had been weakened by 4,000 years of sin. The other group of statements warn us against making Christ's human nature altogether the same as ours—He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born without a taint of sin, had no sinful propensities, was without the passions of our fallen natures, had no sin in Him, knew no sin, and was separate from sinners.

Now God has given us two eyes to see both sides of the paradox. If we only see one side or emphasize one side, we shall distort the gospel. We need to recognize both sides of the truth and allow each side to have full weight.

2. A Christian's Relation to God: Isaiah commends those who tremble at God's Word (Isa. 66:5). The Revelator commands us to "fear God" Rev. 14:7. And Paul exhorts us, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Phil. 2:12.

On the other hand the writer to the Hebrews invites us, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace.. ." "Having therefore, brethren boldness to enter..." Heb. 4:16; 10:19.

Now are we to live before God with fear or with boldness? If we only emphasize "fear and trembling", we may rob our souls of the confidence we may have in the free access into God's grace. If we only consider those statements which exhort us to have boldness we may fall into the opposite error of presumption. As Luther says, the Christian must live in the paradox of "desperate confidence".

3. The Nature of a Christian Man: Is the believer in Jesus a saint or a sinner, righteous or unrighteous? Luther battled with this question until he came up with the famous formula which was the foundation of Protestant doctrine—simul justus et peccator, which means, "at the same time righteous and sinful".

This is a great paradox, but the more it is examined, the more it shines with light. A believer in Jesus is righteous because God declares him justified, cleansed of all sin. Moreover, he is a new creature, old things are passed away and all things have become new. Yet he cannot claim to be without sin, must confess the sinfulness of his nature, continues to fall short even when he does good, has need of daily repentance, and must confess that he is an unprofitable servant who defiles his best endeavours and holiest duties with his corrupt channel of human imperfection (See 1 S.M. 344).

Consider the paradox of both saint and sinner in these statements:

"The closer you come to Jesus (saint), the more faulty you will appear in your own eyes (sinner)." S.C. 64

"No deep-seated love for Jesus (righteous) can dwell in the heart that does not realize its own sinfulness (unrighteous)." Ibid.

"Are you in Christ? (saint) Not if you do not acknowledge yourselves erring, helpless, condemned sinners (sinner)". 5T 48

It is not as necessary to harmonize a paradox as it is to recognize both statements as equally true. Suppose a sincere soul gathers those statements together which speak of the righteous standing of the saints and the victory over sin which they experience in their renewed lives. Then the recognition of any sin or sinfulness in his life may convince him that he is not a Christian. He would thus be robbed of his shield of faith. Or if he is not in this way driven to discouragement, he will be driven to hypocrisy by refusing to recognize how much sin is still left in him. But consider the consequences of the opposite error of those who only emphasize the sinfulness of believers. If these statements are gathered together and dwelt upon the impression may easily be given that overcoming sin is not to be a reality in the life of a Christian.

4. Law and Gospel: Law commands us to run the way of God's commandments, to labour and to fulfill all of its holy requirements. But the gospel proclaims, "Stand ye still, and see the salvation of the Lord", "Be still, and know that I am God." 2 Chron. 20:17; Ps. 46:10.

It is not an easy thing for the human mind to keep law and gospel in proper tension. If law overshadows the gospel, people fall off the path on the side of legalism. If gospel is presented to lessen the tension of the law, people fall off the path on the side of permissiveness.

The constant danger is that people will become "lazy through the continual preaching of grace" (Bezzel) or pharisaical through the urging of law. Luther said that some of his own people reminded him of trying to get a drunken German peasant onto a horse — as soon as he was pushed up on one side he would fall off on the other.

Law and gospel must not be "mingled and strewed together" in such a way that one will lessen the force of the other. Both need to be proclaimed in full strength. People must be as earnestly exhorted to labour as to rest, to run as to stand still. The truth can only be expressed by the two statements which appear to be opposite, "Come unto Me...I will give you rest...Take My yoke...ye shall find rest." "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest." Matt. 11:28,29; Heb. 4:11

5. Faith and Works: "While good works will not save even one soul, yet it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works." 1 S.M. 377 And because this is a paradox, the servant of the Lord adds, "It is hard for the mind to comprehend this point." Ibid, 378-379

It was Melancthon who said: "We are justified by faith alone; but the faith which justifies us is never alone." And Luther declared: "Since we are preaching faith in Christ, papists come on and slander us by saying we forbid good works, that we preach too sweetly, that people become lax and lazy through such preaching. And in a sense this is true. There are many among us who understand the message of the gospel in such a way as to imagine that they now need do no good, suffer nothing, and give nothing... If one preaches the comfort of faith, people become coarse and wanton; but if one does not preach it, there is nothing but fear and trembling in the poor consciences." What Luther Says (Ewald M. Plass) Vol.11, p.742.

6. Justification and Sanctification: We cannot speak without paradoxes when we deal with the relation between justification and sanctification. The whole of Church history has been a struggle to hold them in proper tension.

We are justified solely by a work outside of ourselves, but we are sanctified by His Spirit within us. The essence of Roman Catholic legalism is to depend on the work of inward renewal for acceptance with God. But the essence of Protestant antinomianism is to suppose that we can be sanctified and fitted for heaven by Christ's work outside of us.

No amount of sanctification can secure one's admittance to the kingdom of grace; but a failure to pursue sanctification can result in one being cast out. Justification is always endangered if sanctification is not exercised. The blessing of justification cannot be sustained by good works, but unless the believer is careful to maintain good works, he will not retain his justification. Obedience cannot secure the blessing of forgiveness; but by disobedience the blessing can be lost.

But now we must look at the other side of the picture. Sanctification is endangered if it is not based on justification. There must be a constant return to justification, to the word of forgiveness if sanctification is to be preserved from Pharisaism and self-righteousness. Prayer and service are only good by gracious acceptance. The truth of justification calls all that we do in question. True Christian growth can only exist where there is a growing appreciation of justification. We can never reach a point in our progress in sanctification where our acceptance with God does not rest entirely on forgiveness of sins.

The constant need of justification by faith means that sin is inescapable—for there is no man on earth that does not sin (Eccles. 7:20), and all continue to fall short of God's glory (Rom.3:23). But sanctification teaches us of our positive duty to avoid sin. On one hand we are called to repose, on the other to a life of fervent activity.

Justification gives us perfection and sanctification urges us to press on toward it. Through justifying faith the heart is cleansed of all sin; yet are we called to go on purifying our souls by obeying the truth. And so we could go on to enumerate many aspects of the paradoxical relation between justification and sanctification. It is the paradox of present possession and future hope, to be pure and yet impure; to possess all things yet have nothing (2 Cor. 6:10); to rest in faith yet labour in love; to be made free by faith yet to be made a servant of all by love; to be consoled yet to be admonished. And we think of the paradoxical experience of the great apostle:

"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh." 2 Cor. 4:8-11

Wrongly Relating to the Paradox

There are two things that we must not do with a paradox—yet in our immaturity we are very inclined to make these two mistakes:

1. Bending one side of the paradox to fit the other: We are inclined to accept one side of the paradox as the pre-eminent truth. Consequently, we then proceed to bend the statements on the other side to fit the opposite side of the paradox. Let us illustrate:

Suppose we take those statements of inspiration which show that Christ was separate from sinners, and make that our major thesis. The danger is that we do not let that other group of statements about Christ sharing our hereditary infirmities have full weight. In fact, we might try to explain them away by saying that such weaknesses were not an inherent part of His human nature, but were only imputed to Him just as the sins of the world were imputed to Him. Or supposing we make the opposite group of statements our major premise; then when we read "We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ" (5 B.C. 1131), we start to do some fancy theological footwork, and say, "Oh, that is not talking about the human nature which He took at birth but to the human nature which He revealed in His life."

Let us take another illustration of trying to bend one side of the paradox to fit the other. Protestantism is divided between the Calvinistic and Arminian streams of thought. Actually either side is the result of an exaggerated emphasis on divine predestination on the one hand and human responsibility on the other. The Calvinists seize certain statements about predestination—and let's face it, they are in the Bible. But instead of looking at the other side of the paradox and giving it equal weight, the Calvinists proceed to bend the Bible statements about universal atonement to fit their concept of predestination. They labour hard and long to explain away those specific Bible passages which declare that Christ died for all men.

This pinpoints the danger of so-called Systematic Theology—and the greatest systematic theologians are the Calvinists. It was the German theologian, H. Bezzel who said, "Extreme views have the advantage of remarkable consistency." p.64. That statement is worth thinking about.

Instead of accepting one side of the paradox as the essential truth, and then trying to bend the other side to fit (this is often called the art of "harmonizing the apparent contradictions of the Bible") we must allow both sides of the paradox to have full weight and to stand in their undiluted strength. It is the mark of maturity to accept the fact that infinite truth is often expressed to the finite mind in two antithetical statements.

2. Resolving the paradox: Trying to resolve a paradox may be even worse than bending one side to fit the other. Let us take a familiar illustration:

The Christian man is simul justus et peccator — at the same time righteous and sinful. The nearer he comes to Christ, the more sinful he sees himself to be. Any resolving of the paradox in this life can only end in a distorted, or at best, partial view of the truth. "Extreme views have the advantage of remarkable consistency."

Consider also what this call to holiness and confession of abiding sin means in our concept of the Church as a whole. Inspiration speaks of a church without spot or wrinkle in the last days, a church going forth conquering and to conquer. But this is only one side of the paradox. Unless we give the other side equal weight, we will end up with an exaggerated picture of the "loud cry church". We are also told that evils will exist in the church till the end of time. If one then says, "How can it be a pure church?", we will reply, "If a Christian still has sin in him, how can he be said to be cleansed from all unrighteousness?" (1 John 1:8,9) If the single believer is certainly the aggregate of believers are simul justus et peccator.

How to Relate to the Paradox

In this life we must live by accepting and living with the paradox of having and not having, of being righteous and unrighteous, of being complete and incomplete, of rest and activity, of believing and working, of confidence and fear, of being able to do all things through Christ and not being able to do the things that we would, of avoiding sin and confessing its inevitability, of victory over sin and mourning that when we would do good evil is present with us, of advancement and repentance, of freedom and subjection, and so on. It is the mark of immaturity, we repeat, to emphasize only one side of the paradox, especially so as to cancel out the truth of the other side.

Law and gospel, faith and works, justification and sanctification and all the great paradoxes need to be kept in proper tension. If we proclaim the glory of His justifying grace and imagine that this alone will motivate people to earnestly pursue sanctification, it will not be long before we shall realize that people need to be warned and sharply admonished in the pathway of obedience. But lest the language of Christian experience become all too loud and confident, there must be a return to the critical sternness of justification otherwise sanctification will turn into romanticism or dangerous "holiness" pretensions.

Think of flying a plane. There are two antithetical forces — gravity and speed. One must not cancel out the other, but the secret of flying is to keep both in proper tension. If the tension of speed against gravity is not maintained you come crashing down. If gravity ceases you go off into orbit somewhere.

Now think of gravity as the power of indwelling sin, and speed as the power of sanctifying grace. Human "wisdom" may lead us to think we could make better spiritual flight if we could find some way to do away with the limiting pull of "gravity". But as long as we are in this world we need this "gravity"—it is part of the curse that God uses to bless us (Gen. 3:17). How can a curse bless us? Well, that is another paradox.

Last edited by billdljr (09-20-10 12:27 pm)

Old Abe · 09-20-10 6:13 pm

I am sorry Bill but quoting Luther does nothing for your argument. Having read some of Luther's anti- Semitic rants I am quite convinced Luther knew nothing whatsoever about true Christianity. No one who had the least bit of humanity let alone religion would say the things he did about god's chosen people.

And don't give ne the crap about the times Luther lived in etc.The Holy Spirit would not move anyone to utter such hate.
Luther may indeed have been moved by a spirit but not from God.

I don't particularly want to discuss the nature of Christ. The matter we were discussing was the false doctrine of "orginal sin".The Bible clearly teaches that the reason we die is because we no longer have access to the tree of life.

The Bible says that sin is the transgression of the law. In other words something we do deliberately with intent.Sin is NOT something we are it is something we do.And it is a learned trait.
; Learned early as soon as consiousness is evident in the womb

Bill Sorensen · 09-30-10 10:44 pm

Well, Abe, Bill and I disagree on fundamental Adventism, but he is correct on his view of original sin. Simply stated, the spirit of sin preceeds the action of sin. That is, we all have a sinful motive long before we act out sin.

Even new born babies are born selfish. And they need not actually "sin" before they are condemned by God. Neither is sin simply a willing and known act of rebellion in which we deliberately do something we know is wrong.

A limited view of sin necessarily leads to a faulty and limited view of the all sufficiency of the atonement and lowers the true value of it.

Much of Adventism is utterly ignorant of their true condition which leads to a limited view of a persons need to repent.

The reformers knew we were momentarily and continually guilty of sin, and thus, momentarily and continually forgiven. If you are not presently experiencing guilt, neither are you experiencing forgiveness, since you don't think you need any.

Paul explains the guilt in Romans 7, and then affirms present and continual forgiveness when he states, "There is therefore, no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit."

Paul does not say there is no guilt. He does say there is continual and ongoing forgiveness and thus we are momentarily guilty, and thus, momentarily forgiven.

This truth known and understood allows us to deal with hypocricy in ourselves and others with grace and understanding.

Yes, I know, many if not most SDA's are either ignorant of this truth, or, choose not to believe it. But to reject it will lead to self righteousness akin to the religious leaders in the days of Jesus.

Bill Sorensen

Old Abe · 10-01-10 6:23 am

Bill S
What a perverted understanding of God. To say that a newborn baby is a sinner just because it exists and condemned by God for as a sinner simply for having being is a devilish doctrine.

And to say that a born again Christian is a continual sinner denies the power of the Spirit to make one an overcomer in Christ.

One of the myths of religion is to say we as humans have "free will".There is in fact no such a thing. Each of us had no choice in our being or our genetic makeup. We are all the by product of someone elses lust and whether born intelligent or retarded we are what random chance has made us.

The question then becomes of how well we play with the cards life has dealt us even when and if we hold a losing hand.

To say that God who set up the system in the first place condemns one simply for being is totally unreasonable.

You say a newborn infant is "selfish". A newborn baby is instinctive in trying to survive. Selfishness is a learned trait like sin or speech or walking. We may see an infant's reaction as selfish only because we are projecting our on selfishness on to the child.

Of course if we have a warped vision of God to begin with( which was learned from others)then we see everything from that warped perspective.

Bill Sorensen · 10-02-10 9:58 am

"...to say that a born again Christian is a continual sinner denies the power of the Spirit to make one an overcomer in Christ."

Abe, I have not suggested that a "born again believer" can not overcome sin. The very need to be "born again" is because we are born in sin and condemned by God. The simplicity of this truth is stated by EGW when she says, "In ourselves, we are sinners, but in Christ, we are righteous."

As "As relating to Adam, we receive nothing but guilt and condemnation."

Are you part of the family of Adam? Then you were born lost and without hope apart from the atonement of the cross.

Apparently, you have difficulty with the understanding that we live in two overlapping ages when we become the children of God. And we belong to both whether we like it or not. We can not escape the fact that we are still the children of Adam after the spirit of the flesh, but are, also, the children of God after the Spirit of Jesus.

Not necessarily a happy reality, but a reality none the less. And this reality is a continual affliction to the spiritual man who longs to serve Jesus freely without the constant conflict between the flesh and the spirit. So Paul says, "The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that ye can not do the things that ye would."

Paul is not saying a believer can not obey God and keep His commandments. He is saying, you can not do it with difficulty, trial and afflication. Wouldn't we all like to serve and obey Jesus like the sinless angels who do not suffer this continual conflict?

The doctrine of original sin is so basic to bible Christanity, it is easier to prove than the seventh day Sabbath. And in some ways, even more important since its tells us the basic issues concerning the Christian experience.

You assume that all those who embrace and believe and teach this bible doctrine do not believe in complete and total victory over sin. You are wrong. While it is true, there are many who will use it as an excuse to continue in sin, they have simply not truly been "born again" and hope to escape condemnation while practicing sin and disobedience. Such will never enter heaven with this philosophy.

A false view of original sin and its application will not negate the true meaning of this bible doctrine and its historical Christian affirmation.

Simply stated, "In ourselves, we are sinners, but in Christ we are righteous."

Both of these realities remain until Jesus comes and we are free from the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Hope you have a happy Sabbath,

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Yitzak · 10-04-10 7:25 am

Is it possible to discuss theological differences without assuming that the other doesn't understand, rather than disagrees?

The doctrine of original sin is very basic to much of Christianity, but it has also led to a variety of beliefs that most adventists consider heresy. The most recent issue of the review has a discussion of the holy flesh movement, as one example.

I see the merit of both sides here- it does seem inconsistent with a loving and just God that children should be considered evil simply because they are human and that they are condemned. As well, the various proofs people have for the inherently evil nature of babies strike me as unconvincing. Babies "selfishness" is actually simply their communication to the outside world that they are hungry or that they are cold or uncomfortable or want attention. I find it very hard to believe that as a baby Jesus behaved differently than other human babies- He cried when he was hungry or needed changing. (there are a whole host of aprocryphal stories about Jesus' childhood that are based on this assumption that children's behavior is inherently sinful and that Jesus was different from most children; most of them strike me as very fanciful)

On the other hand, it's also clear to me from the bible that people, all of them, need a savior, and this was the reason for Jesus coming.

elaine · 10-04-10 5:01 pm

We have Augustine to thank for the doctrine of original sin. He saw and emphasized the worst in people because of his own situation and transferred it to the whole human race. His worst fear of sinning was the fear of sex, causing him to leave his mistress and his child and begin a life of celibacy as his way of atoning for his past. Because of his sexual excesses, he posited that the "original sin" was the sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve, thus bringing forth sin to their first born because of their "sinful act."

There were no detailed theories aout the crucifixion as an atonement for some "original sin" of Adam as it did not emerge until the fourth century and was only important in the West. Paul and the other NT writers never attempted a precise, definitive explanation of the salvation they had experienced.

It was Augustine who believed that God had condemned humanity to an eternal damnation simply because of Adam's one sin. The inherited guilt was passed on to all his descendants through the sexual act, polluted by what Augustine called "concupisence: the irrational desire to take pleasure in mere creatures instead of God.

By implication, Augustine's harsh doctrine paints a errible picture of an implacable God and left us with a difficult heritage (not regarded similarly by Jews nor Greek Orthodox Christians). It is unique to the West. A religion which teaches men and women to regard their humanity as chronically flawed can alienate them from themselvesd. Nowhere is this alienation more eivdent that in the deingration of sexuality in general and women in particular. Though Christianity had originally been quite positive for women, it had already developed a misogynistic tendency in the West by the time of Augustine. He saw that woman's only function was in childbearing, and it passed the contagion of Original Sin to the next generation, like a veneral disease. He wrote of women:

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman"--projecting his desires to all men.

We have only Augustine to thank for this despicable Christian belief that is still part of orthodoxy.

Old Abe · 10-04-10 5:31 pm

Elaine
To a thief all men are thieves;to a liar all are liars and to someone with a hyperactive sex drive all are lustful.This may well explain Augustine but it does not explain why a rational human being would have such a distorted view of God.

Adam deliberately disobeyed God's command.Eve was deceived but Adam was not. He knew exactly what he was doing and that is why it was sin.

But rather than repent he tried to blame Eve which only compounded his guilt.As a result he and Eve were barred from the tree of life and so eventually they both died.We die because we too have no access and most if not all eventually learn to transgress.

Sin being an act not a condition is a learned experience.A baby who dies before the age of reason is the same as Jesus was when an infant.And yes Jesus cried when hungry or when his swaddling cloth was soiled and he learned to crawl before He walked.He was God in the flesh but it was Joseph who taught him to be a man.

And as the elder brother with at least six siblings He probably had to pitch in early and carry a large share of the burden.Mary like the women in her culture had one tugging her skirts one in her arms and one in her belly until her husband died or she reached menopause whichever came first.

Not much wonder she never noticed He was missing for a few days when He was twelve.

elaine · 10-04-10 6:18 pm

No baby should ever be thought to be sinful and deserving of death unless he believes in God.
This is why most churches do not baptize infants, and why a few do, because of the belief in original sin.

Interesting that the idea of "The Fall" was never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but only in the NT when it began as a Christian doctrine. Paul in Romans 5:14, is the first NT writer to speak of Adam bringing sin to the whole race, yet nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is he mentioned in connection with sin.

The writers of the story of Creation were not writing as eyewitnesses, but only as they had heard the story repeated, also by none who were there.

It was an explanation for how their world was: how it came about that there are thorns and thistles and hard work is necessary for producing food. But in all honesty, a life of leisure would be far too boring: simply picking fruit from a tree and walking around with no needed physical activity. Work is a blessing, but they presumed it to be a curse because they realized that to eat they had to work and hunting for meat was their first activity, and evidently God must have killed the first animal to give Adam and Eve garments of skint. The herding to have sufficient meat and clothing, then the discovery of growing herbs for food must have come later as before there are plants ready to eat takes longer than immediate meat.

As for women being cursed in childbirth, there is no indication that procreation might have been achieved any other way, and they were given the command to be fruitful and multiply; eventually leading to God's discovery that the people who had mated with angels (?) had produced giants that were feared by the inhabitants and thus sent the food to destroy them all.

So much for God's omniscience that He could not have foretold all the events that could have occurred. Did He plan the flood, or was He provoked into sending it? Can man provoke God and cause him to do strange things?

Bill Sorensen · 10-04-10 7:22 pm

Agustine's idea of how sin was passed on is not correct. He did preceive that all are born sinful.

Like many biblical concepts, sin has two factors. A legal seperation such as a divorce, so the human family is "cut off" from God by Adam's sin.

But sin also has moral implications. The human mind is corrupted and poluted by sin. So we see Jesus is both a doctor, and a lawyer. A doctor to heal the sin sick soul. A lawyer to plead our cause before the Father.

Both aspects are a part of the fall. So, original sin has legal and moral implications. Some would claim we are not infected with sin, only affected by it. This is false.

By virtue of prevenient grace, the Holy Spirit begins to work on hearts and lives long before conversion. And some wicked and evil people sometimes respond to this influence and even do the right thing. This does not mean they are Christians or converted. But if they continue to respond positively in a scriptural context, they will eventually be converted and "born again".

Conversely, sometimes Christians yield to temptation and fall. This does not mean they are not Christians. But if they continue to yield to sin and eventually justify their actions, they will eventually commit the unpardonable sin and be lost.

Thus we have the investigative judgment of 1844 to judge professed believers. True believers understand the necessity of this judgment in the practical sense of moral motivation to avoid presumption and continue in the bible faith. When this judgment is denied and removed, it leads to presumption and a denial of the accountability of the believer in his relationship with Jesus.

It would imply that Jesus alone is responsible in the relationship to keep it viable and active. It would imply the believer has no part in their own salvation and God is solely responsible to get us to heaven.

It genders and is the mother of Universalism. It is taught and advocated in modern Adventism in a number of ways. Obviously, all who deny the 1844 IJ subscribe to this false doctrine in one way or another. But, it is advocated in a more subtle package by various writers. And taught by ministers from the pulpit in various ways.

Morris Venden was one major champion of this apostate spirituality when he advocated "sanctification by faith alone". His whole theory was simply this, all we have to do is "give ourselves to Jesus, and Jesus does all the rest."

No need to obey the law or even try to do so. And any effort in this direction was labeled "legalism". His ultimate error was to make no distinction between a believer and an unbeliever in his theory of sanctification.

Well, enough for now. Not many discern the true distinction between law and gospel. Especially, the legal vs. the moral function of the law.

Bill Sorensen

elaine · 10-04-10 7:58 pm

Yes, those who accept that something "unusual happened in heaven in 1844" have an unquestional premise, and a belief that is above challenge as no one has been in heaven to see if: heaven observes earth time; and that one man's vision in a cornfield is the way that doctrines are confirmed.

IF something occurred in heaven, it is much like the Mormon's belief in Joseph Smith "discovering" golden tablets that no one else has ever seen, and was able to "translate" them from an "unknown" ancient Egyptian hierglypic" that no Egyptologists has identified.

Both these beliefs are comparable in that they have no other source of verification, only the "faithful" or gullible totally believe them both.

Bill Sorensen · 10-04-10 10:15 pm

Elaine said.......

"Both these beliefs are comparable in that they have no other source of verification, only the "faithful" or gullible totally believe them both."

Elaine, everyone who has read your posts on the forums surrounding the SDA church, also knows you don't believe the bible anyway. In which case, who would try to persuade you of any bible doctrine?

Not me. Nor anyone else who understands your position. In your case, anyone who believes the bible is "gullible" and deluded.

So, in this case, it might be applicable to say,"Ephriam is joined to idols, leave him alone." So I promise not to try and persuade you of the SDA faith, nor any other biblical concept.

Nothing is sadder than to see PK's lose their faith. And I fully understand many of the reasons why. I hope JR made his peace with God before passing on. And I hope you do too. I assume you are older than me, and that puts you up there a ways.

Remember this Elaine, "Heaven is cheap enough." No one can shut you out of heaven but yourself. And in the end, we are all our own church.

Bill Sorensen

elaine · 10-04-10 10:33 pm

Bill,

If I believed that I would lose heaven because I don't believe all the SDA doctrines, I would surely feel lost.

However, I cannot believe that only SDAs will be in heaven, and I don't believe you do, either.

I do believe Paul, however, who said "Let everyone be convinced in his own mind." Those that are not convinced should not be judged (he also said that).

Yitzak · 10-05-10 6:07 am

I don't at all get the idea that Elaine doesn't believe the bible. She may read it differently than you or I do.

in any case, I am certainly no biblical scholar, but I will be very surprised if a "correct view" of 1844 is a key determinant of who gets into heaven, except insomuch as disputes about it cause us to treat each other in unChrist-like ways.

Bill Sorensen · 10-05-10 9:10 am

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in AdventismBill,

If I believed that I would lose heaven because I don't believe all the SDA doctrines, I would surely feel lost.

However, I cannot believe that only SDAs will be in heaven, and I don't believe you do, either.

I do believe Paul, however, who said "Let everyone be convinced in his own mind." Those that are not convinced should not be judged (he also said that)."

Certainly, Elaine, no one knows if a person will repent or not, and that even includes ourselves to some degree. But we can tell if a person's whole tenor is an attack on the bible at any given time.

We are all "on the bubble" in this life. And because of this, Paul especially warns, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked."

People are shut out of heaven because of presumption, not ignorance. But we must be aware that willing ignorance is equal to presumption in the eyes of God.

"And for this cause, God gave them up to strong delusion to believe a lie"......Why? "Because they did not love the truth when they knew it."

And the final result is damnation.

Meaning what? We may deceive others, and even ourselves, but as Luther said..... "You can't fool God."

Honesty is not so easily defined in this world of sin. But we can know every lost soul will eventually admit they were wrong and knew it when they gather around the Holy City and God reminds them of the self duplicity.

Even Christians should fear this possibility and nothing challenges us and reminds us of this possibility like the IJ. And remember this, "False hope is worse than no hope at all."

Those without hope may eventually find true faith, false hope closes the door forever, for when the law is negated, the "schoolmaster" goes home and we are left in total darkness and ignorance beyond redemption.

I think many professing Christians take this possibility lightly and more than a few will cry, "Lord, Lord......." and be shut out because of presumption.

And sad to say, the SDA church is nurturing this attitude in many over the last few decades. Is the SDA church today preparing people for the second coming of Jesus, or, Satan's impersonation of this event? In many cases, it is the latter, and not the former.

The church God raised up to declare the coming of Jesus is now in many ways the instrument of Satan to prepare for his final deception. And leaders who know it are the "dumb dogs who won't bark" because they love the praise of men more than the approbation of God.

"The fruit" this false gospel is producing is so obvious that even a slightly enlightened believer can see its results. The shaking will someday intensify to a level that EGW called a "terrible ordeal". I would think it is close at hand.

Bill Sorensen

elaine · 10-05-10 12:32 pm

We do not need the Bible to tell us of the Golden Rule. Even Jesus thought it was most important, and it has been in all cultures long before the Bible was written.

If we live with others, treating them as we wish to be treated, how can we dishonor God who is not the author of the Bible? It is the Hebrews who made the claim that He was their God and wrote accordingly.

We do not derive our morals from the Bible. If we did, we would have slaves, just as did Abraham, would practice polygamy, as he did, and pimp his wife, following his example; yet he is praised in the letter to the Hebrews.

Is there a heaven only for those who believe in the God of the Bible? Surely not, as even Romans 1 tells us otherwise. I do not fear.

Bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things, it takes religion. (History has repreatedly shown us.)

Bill Sorensen · 10-05-10 5:00 pm

"Is there a heaven only for those who believe in the God of the Bible? Surely not, as even Romans 1 tells us otherwise. I do not fear."

Of course you don't "fear", Elaine. If the bible says something you agree with, then you approve. And if not, well, then it must be wrong and Elaine is right. So Elaine makes up her own religion, and is condescending to the bible if it agrees.

In which case, you judge the bible instead of letting the bible judge you.

A popular modern day religion, I might add. You reflect so much of the modern spirituality of the world. I wonder how many others recognize this in you and a host of others, especially on this forum.

Liberal cease to be liberal as soon as their theory is exposed. It only suits them when they can use it to attack conservative values.

As you know, they won't let me post on A-today, or Spectrum. But you probably also know I could care less. They both allowed me to post until they were exposed as far less than "liberal" when it comes to truth.

Maybe we all have that problem to deal with, you reckon?

At any rate, our "bickering" is not likely to enlighten anyone. Although some may be challenged to think a little more carefully about spiritual issues.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Sorensen · 10-05-10 9:50 pm

The simple fact is this, people will never do anything radical or desperate until they have to. This applies to politics and religion as well as many other life factors and situations.

If you have a house, car, job, and all the basic needs and wants, you will accept and endure almost anything until you truly feel threatened.

In the SDA church, the members are generally comatose for this reason. Even if they preceive something may not be exactly kosher, they won't make any real noise or do anything unless and until it becomes imperative.

This is reflected in politics in America and America's spirituality in general. And obviously lapses into the SDA church as well.

In fact, in most cases, it is actually too late to correct the situation as it rises to a level beyond repair. And people will say, "I didn't really see this coming."

Of course, what they really mean is, "I hoped this problem would resolve itself in such a way that I need not be involved in any dynamic way." And of course the classic "cop out"....."I thought our leaders would 'do the right thing' and so I trusted them to do it."

And this idea coupled with a leadership that continually affirms that basically all is well, no need for alarm, just "get in, sit down, shut up, and hang on."

Church politics generally reflect civil government politics in form and operation. And as the civil government degerates, so the spirituality of the church degenerates often in a perfect parallel.

What can be done about it? Basically, nothing. It is human nature and even God must wait until the situation is desperate and the outcome so obvious, that "wayfareing men, though fools, need not be deceived." Isa.

If Jesus, the Son of God, could not correct this situation in His day, why should we expect it will resolve itself in ours?

Politicians always say, "Trust me". And this is applicable in civil situations as well as church. Churches develop an "unconditional election" mentality that place it beyond the need or even possibility of repentance.

It was so in Isreal, and repeated in the early church and now making strong inroads into Adventism. And so "Unity" at all cost is advocated over and above scriptural purity. Even ministers who know better are intimidated by their superiors who advocate a "keep the peace" policy and so they go on and on with no real exhortation calling for repentance.

Thankfully, we have EGW and her insights into the future. For those who are loyal to the bible, there will be no compromise and no unity except by way of total and complete loyalty to the bible. Pluralism has no part in bible Adventism. The number may be small who compose the final remnant, but they will always demand accountability of themselves and any who claim to represent God's final church.

"The church will get smaller, before it gets bigger."

Hopefully, we will be part of "the little flock" (EGW) and stand firm for God and His truth.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

elaine · 10-05-10 10:06 pm

Are you claiming that only Adventists are loyal to the Bible? There are many in other denominations who also make such claims. Arrogance is found in many places.

Yitzak · 10-05-10 10:52 pm

Ellen White also said that there would be many more converts where there are now few, because Adventists haven't yet mastered the basics of how to treat each other and people in general. If we're going to be assuming that she is relevant to these discussions.

I find it hard to see where the adventist church is overburdened by a wheening desire for unity and accomodation at all costs. There was a great deal of strong-but-wrong dressed up as conservative adherence to tradition at the last General Conference and the Review, as much as it's often well-intentioned, goes out of its way to cast aside any welcome for me or people like me in most of their editorial materials. Thankfully, I know many adventists in real life who don't conform to this approach, but the structure seems to be pulling itself back, and into the narrow shell.

Everyone has to do what they think is right, of course, but I have tried the righteousness olympics, the what-are-you-eating competition, and the various new insights that people have that (to me) artificially separate them from other people. Not because of faith, but because being unusual is inherently seen as a sign of virtue: the brother in the other aisle is a vegetarian, so now I have to be vegan. He's vegan, so I have to eat only raw food. The brother on the other aisle doesn't watch movies, so I have to throw out my tv. He doesn't own a tv, so I have to forgo any music that sounds like music. There are sweet sincere people who are in this line (as well as really unpleasant people who remind me of nothing so much as the monastic catholics of the middle ages). But it's not for me, and I find it hard to find much of God's influence in it.

Building an altar up to the heavens with all of the normal things (NOT sinful things) we are competing to give up.

Bill Sorensen · 10-06-10 7:04 pm

Elaine asks.....

"Are you claiming that only Adventists are loyal to the Bible? "

In the end, yes. As the truths of the bible are more clearly articulated as we approach the second coming, those who resist the pioneer's and EGW understanding of the bible will eventually admit they are giving up the bible.

Much like yourself, Elaine. Liberals will only accept what they think the bible says, and what they think it should say. And if it says different, then they reject its declarations and opt for human speculation.

1844 and the issue surrounding this doctrine are infallible and non-negotiable. They are absolutely and totally in harmony with the bible. Any attack on 1844 is an attack on the bible itself. And those who do so, will eventually repent, and admit their error, or give up the bible and the bible Sabbath. There are no other options. This the pioneers knew and so did EGW and any other biblically enlightened student of scripture.

Thus, the Sabbath is the final test of whether you believe the bible or not. So, EGW could say......

"Those who honor the Bible Sabbath will be denounced as enemies of law and order, as breaking down the moral restraints of society, causing anarchy and corruption, and calling down the judgments of God upon the earth. Their conscientious scruples will be pronounced obstinacy, stubbornness, and contempt of authority. They will be accused of disaffection toward the government. Ministers who deny the obligation of the divine law will present from the pulpit the duty of yielding obedience to the civil authorities as ordained of God. In legislative halls and courts of justice, commandment keepers will be misrepresented and condemned. A false coloring will be given to their words; the worst construction will be put upon their motives.

As the Protestant churches reject the clear, Scriptural arguments in defense of God's law, they will long to silence those whose faith they cannot overthrow by the Bible. Though they blind their own eyes to the fact, they are now adopting a course which will lead to the persecution of those who conscientiously refuse to do what the rest of the Christian world are doing, and acknowledge the claims of the papal sabbath.

The dignitaries of church and state will unite to bribe, persuade, or compel all classes to honor the Sunday. The lack of divine authority will be supplied by oppressive enactments. Political corruption is destroying love of justice and regard for truth; and even in free America, rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance. Liberty of conscience, which has cost so great a sacrifice, will no longer be respected. In the soon-coming conflict we shall see exemplified the prophet's words: "The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 12:17.

"As the controversy extends into new fields and the minds of the people are called to God's downtrodden law, Satan is astir. The power attending the message will only madden those who oppose it. The clergy will put forth almost superhuman efforts to shut away the light lest it should shine upon their flocks. By every means at their command they will endeavor to suppress the discussion of these vital questions. The church appeals to the strong arm of civil power, and, in this work, papists and Protestants unite. As the movement for Sunday enforcement becomes more bold and decided, the law will be invoked against commandment keepers. They will be threatened with fines and imprisonment, and some will be offered positions of influence, and other rewards and advantages, as inducements to renounce their faith. But their steadfast answer is: "Show us from the word of God our error"--the same plea that was made by Luther under similar circumstances. Those who are arraigned before the courts make a strong vindication of the truth, and some who hear them are led to take their stand to keep all the commandments of God. Thus light will be brought before thousands who otherwise would know nothing of these truths.

608

All I can say is this, "It won't be long now." God Himself is holding the winds of strife and when He has "had enough", it will come like a torrent and a flood. The world is polarizing and so is the SDA church.

According to EGW, many, if not most will abandon their profession of faith for the sake of unity and an "easy blieveism" religion that embraces Universalism. Those who oppose it will find it more and more difficult to function in the world and in the SDA church of today.

Spiritualism always denies the clear objective declarations of the bible, and opts for a "spirit ethic" to take the place of revealed truth.

People best wake up and consider the implications of what is happening in their church.

Bill Sorensen

Yitzak · 10-06-10 7:17 pm

Bill, I know you aren't alone in this, nor the originator of it, but I am mystified by what you mean by "liberal" in the religious context. In the political context, liberalism was historically what we would now call libertarianism. In today's political world, liberal simply means a variety of things including minority rights, church-state separation, a welfare state. None of these (nor their opposites for that matter) seem to me to have any bearing on Christianity in general, nor with Adventism in particular. With the exception of church-state separation, in which case, liberals are on the side of the angels insofar as the scenario you described above at the end of the great controverty applies.

In the social realm, "liberal" means tolerant, and while I understand that you'd prefer less tolerance of varying beliefs within the church, it's hard to see how a general attitude that people should be free to believe what ever they like more general is a Bad Thing.

Archaically, liberal meant generous.

I guess I am not at all clear what you mean by "liberal" and why you'd use such a multimeaning word, when I presume you have something particular in mind.

Bill Sorensen · 10-06-10 10:34 pm

"Bill, I know you aren't alone in this, nor the originator of it, but I am mystified by what you mean by "liberal" in the religious context."

Liberal, as opposed to conservative. Conservative is generally identified with fundamental, traditional, and/or historical especially in the context of religion. For a Protestant, it would a literal biblical view. The law being an objective declaration of truth. Also, absolutes are generally associated with the idea of conservative.

Liberal being, the gospel superceeds the law. The bible is relational and subject to spiritual applications that do not necessarily reflect historical applications and meanings. A spirit ethic takes the place of literal forms of obedience. As an example, Sunday can replace the 7th day Sabbath.

Women can be ordained even if Paul forbids it.
Homosexuals can be accepted, even though the bible forbids it.
How we dress is not relevant to spirituality.
Music is equally subjective with no specific spiritual content.

I suppose a hyper-conservative would claim the law transcends the gospel as the Jews did at the time of Christ.

And a hyper-liberal would claim the law has been done away at the cross.

A conservative would defend and embrace 1844 and the investigative judgment defending the bible doctrine of justification by the law.

A liberal would deny the IJ and claim we are saved by grace and this negates a judgment according to the works of the law.

I am sure there are other explanations, but I think you get the picture of how most consider liberal vs. conservative at least in religion.

Bill Sorensen

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 09-19-10 8:04 pm

The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#2 09-20-10 6:33 am

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#3 09-20-10 12:05 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#4 09-20-10 6:13 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#5 09-30-10 10:44 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#6 10-01-10 6:23 am

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#7 10-02-10 9:58 am

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#8 10-04-10 7:25 am

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#9 10-04-10 5:01 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#10 10-04-10 5:31 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#11 10-04-10 6:18 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#12 10-04-10 7:22 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#13 10-04-10 7:58 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#14 10-04-10 10:15 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#15 10-04-10 10:33 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#16 10-05-10 6:07 am

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#17 10-05-10 9:10 am

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#18 10-05-10 12:32 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#19 10-05-10 5:00 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#20 10-05-10 9:50 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#21 10-05-10 10:06 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#22 10-05-10 10:52 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#23 10-06-10 7:04 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#24 10-06-10 7:17 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

#25 10-06-10 10:34 pm

Re: The Reformation and the Doctrine of Sin in Adventism

Board footer