In Thinking Aloud #4 we made two points about justification by faith:
- That it is by faith.
- That justification means justification.
In the first point we showed that the way to get justified was by believing in Jesus. In the second we showed that “to justify” means to declare righteous not to make righteous. While these points are simple and clear we noted that the Roman Catholic Church opposes them. We warned our readers that Rome’s position had been adopted in the Sabbath School Lesson quarterlies distributed worldwide to Seventh-day Adventists in 1990.
Our cry of warning was not alone. The editor of Ministry magazine, Eld. J. David Newman, wrote in the July, 1991, issue:
“Why are our young people so confused over the gospel?….
“A recent series of Sabbath school lessons on the book of Romans unwittingly added to the confusion. These lessons taught that the new birth is part of justification. This mingling of justification (the forensic) and the new birth (the experiential) presents a very real problem. Questions arise in the mind: How converted do I have to be in order to be saved? Is there enough evidence of conversion in my life to grant the assurance of salvation? How much must I be transformed for God to forgive me?
“Once individuals begin this inward look, taking their eyes off the cross and the objective work of Christ and focusing on the subjective work of Christ in them, they no longer have a fixed frame of reference.” p 4.
Elder Newman goes on to support our two points about justification:
“When God justifies a person, He declares that person righteous because of Christ. Justification does not make a person intrinsically righteous ….
“Paul reminds us that it is through grace that we are saved, not by works (Eph. 2:8,9). And grace is unmerited favor. God accepts us not because of some change in us, but because of what Jesus did at the cross. If we accept Him as our Savior, He will change us. But that change, that new birth, is always part of the result of our new standing in Christ, never part of the cause of that standing.” p 4 & 5.
Many of you wrote us in response to Thinking Aloud #4. We include below portions of your letters together with our comments. These are followed by a hard-hitting letter written to the Sabbath School Department of the General Conference by one of their South American translators. We conclude this issue with a look at what to expect in the Jul-Sep 1992 Sabbath School Lesson quarterly.
_____________________________________________
YOUR THINKING ALLOWED (Letters)
_____________________________________________
Definitions
“… the justification by faith that Mrs White called ‘the third angel’s message in verity’ was a much different kind from that taught by the reformers…I believe the current Sabbath School Lesson quarterly [Oct-Dec 1990] reflects this unique Seventh-day Adventist view accurately and does not contradict the teachings of either Paul or E. G. White, properly understood.
“…if the heart is not transformed, the act of true belief has not occurred.
“…When we reach out by faith to receive justification, our lives are transformed by the indwelling Christ and we become a new creature. Thus the transformation of the life is an integral and immediate part of our justification. But the transforming experience comes with justification, as an inevitable result, not before as a necessary pre-condition as the Catholics teach. And the renunciation of sin is a necessary adjunct to the exercise of faith, contrary to the Evangelical position, which makes justification a mere legal entry in God’s record books with no essential impact in the human life.
“…you state in your tract [TA#4]: ‘The Bible teaches that the term “justification” only means to declare righteous. It never means to make righteous or to transform the heart.’ I would argue that the exact opposite is true, that the Bible teaches very clearly that justification includes a transformation of heart, and further, that the reformers were too stubbornly blinded by their opposition to Catholic error to recognize that they also had missed the plain meaning of the Word on this topic….
“…it is clear that the Bible teaches that justification means to make man righteous in both status and behavior–not just to account him righteous as a judicial act, but also to transform his heart and make him capable of living according to God’s expectations. It follows that the reformers were dead wrong in limiting justification to the judicial act alone….
“…I think that as you develop a more correct and complete view of justification, you will see that this Sabbath School Lesson quarterly [Oct-Dec 1990] provides the best study on the subject that has ever been presented officially to the church as a whole.”
Ben Tupper
California, USA
Dear Ben:
Your approach to the Catholic-Protestant debate over justification appears to be a way to make the Catholic view more palatable to Protestants. Calling faith “a heart-transforming act” allows you to say that faith is the only pre-condition for justification. But all you have done is change the definition of faith so as to avoid saying, “transformation is a needed prerequisite to justification.” You may say that “faith” (according to your definition) is the only prerequisite to justification and still remain 100% Catholic.
You also side with Catholicism when you define justification as: “to make righteous” or “to transform the heart”. Justification in the Bible means “to declare righteous” not “to make righteous” nor “to transform the heart.” Read Romans 14:14 for a clear example of the meaning of justification where the King James Version uses the word “esteemeth.”
May the glory of a “legal entry in God’s record books” captivate your mind just as Jesus desired it to enliven His disciples when he said: “…but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. (Luke 10:20).”
Editor
What’s good for the Church
“…there are possibly many things that one could find to tear away at our Church about, but I personally believe that publicly attacking the Church rarely has much to do with a true spirit of concern for the church. More often than not it seems that this type of publication comes from some disgruntled group who consider themselves ‘authorities’ on all sorts of subjects. Personally, I find it totally obnoxious….”
(Mrs) Gloria Mansfield
Maryland, USA
“…I think that it is about time that someone explains to Adventists what they are being taught to believe. Keep up the good work.”
John P Rea
Florida, USA
“It is hard for me to understand why the denomination cannot accept Righteousness by faith for its full face value.”
Pastor Paul D Gates
Maryland, USA
Syncretism
“…The Catholic position is correct, but only 1/2 the truth; the Protestant position is the other 1/2 of the picture. Together they present a harmonious whole. This principle is set forth in the chapter ‘Faith and Acceptance’ in (even) the 1989 edition of Steps to Christ by White. To remove ‘likeness to God’ is but to repudiate the Cross. To cling only to ‘harmony to God’ denies the seed principle upon which Christ’s kingdom is built….”
Patricia L. McDonald
Maryland, USA
“Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome…
“But Romanism as a system is no more in harmony with the gospel of Christ now than at any former period in her history. The Protestant churches are in great darkness, or they would discern the signs of the times…”
Ellen G. White
Great Controversy pp. 563, 565.
Relevance
“…I have read through your un-periodical ‘Thinking Aloud’ which I would rename ‘Distractive Thinking.’ I respect your right to believe and speak as you see fit, but honestly, Richard, in this worsening time of Jacob’s trouble at the end of this age, I cannot understand those who should know better because of their spiritual maturity, foolishly using up time and energy arguing like the scholastic scholars from the ‘dark’ Middle Ages over no win things like: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin or, who has the proprietary rights to the ‘correct’ understanding of justification. How is all this abstract doctrinal debate relevant to present reality???”
Stanley Waugh
Nevada, USA
Dear Stan:
To seek salvation by heart transformation is to lose salvation. The whole world is being dazzled by the beast’s doctrine of “salvation by transformation.” The question of how to be justified is not “one among many” but is the “primary to all.” How many angels can dance on the head of “the gospel pin” may be irrelevant but how many men can sit on its point and do nothing while souls pass into eternity is not. This point is a life and death question.
Editor
“Just want to thank you for Thinking Aloud #4 and for the tape [“Dividing the World”] on which you speak. I sure liked the clear proclamation of the gospel in the paper and the tape. I also really enjoyed Bro. Marsh’s analysis on justification. It is so clear and full of blessing to every hungry and spiritually poor soul.”
Lauri Onjukka
Oregon, USA
An Uncorrected Error
“I wish to bring to your attention an uncorrected error, which on the surface appears insignificant but in reality is very basic to the understanding of the great doctrine of righteousness by faith alone. Maybe for some reason you wished to ignore this error, but I felt compelled to pick up the point because of its vital importance.
“The point is found on page 8 of issue No. 4 sub-headed ‘Do we lose the Robe of Righteousness when we sin?’ This appears to have been taken from a paper by an Adventist Elder, so thank goodness we do not believe in their infallibility. To quote the portion under focus: ‘When we commit one act of sin, the evil one touches us; we fail to allow Jesus to keep us by His power. We lose our justified standing with God, our robe of righteousness, etc.’ This is a major and serious error and by necessity needs be shown for what it is, so please bear with me for a little.
“What is the scope of the Atonement? Jesus died for ALL men, for every accountable person who has ever lived. From the very first man Adam, to the very last person who will be judged in the very near future….
“…every sin that every person saved or unsaved has, is, or will commit in the future is covered so therefore condemnation CANNOT come through one or any act of any sin because every sin has been paid for.
“Does this give eternal life to every sinner? Never in a million years! There is indeed a condemnation, but how is it levied?
“The condemnation of the unjust is determined on any who have not taken hold of the provision for escape gifted by God through Jesus Christ! And that escape can be nothing short of the imputed Righteousness of Jesus. That and that only. Nothing else!
“The Righteousness of Jesus embraces two major facts: The sacrificial death of the Creator…and the very life of the Redeemer…in fact it is the Redeemer’s perfect law-keeping to the dotting of every ‘i’ and to the crossing of every ‘t’. This is the only robe of covering that will satisfy in the final Judgment!
To conclude, mankind is not condemned by any individual act of sin, no matter how heinous; nor is he condemned for any inherited sin. Conversely, neither is he exonerated or justified by any good or godly act; but his destiny pivots on his relationship with Jesus Christ. His condemnation or his redemption is determined on his acceptance of God’s gift of perfect Righteousness–[Christ’s] perfect life and death.”
Ron P. Tickle
Queensland, AUSTRALIA
_____________________________________________
WHO’S RIGHT?
A letter written to the Sabbath School Department
_____________________________________________
Boris Azevedo G.*
I have been greatly interested in the righteousness by faith subject since I worked for one of our publishing houses as an editor years ago, so I was very glad to get this quarter’s [Apr-Jun, 1990] Sabbath School Lesson booklet as it deals with that doctrine, which is not a mere doctrine but the rationale of the salvation plan.
_______________
*Pen name in order to protect the righteous.
However, I have to tell you that I was very disappointed as I engaged myself in its study, especially lessons 4 and 5, since what you present there as a definition and explanation of that issue is clearly in contradiction to the Reformation position. It also goes against the excellent definition we find in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol 8 (Dictionary), entry “justification by Faith”. So, we have a SDA instructional material teaching justification by faith one way, and another instructional material teaching it another way! Does not that confirm E. G. White’s saying that there is not one in one hundred among us who understand clearly this question? Would it be the case that included in the legion of people who don’t master this theme are editors of either the Sabbath School Lessons or the SDA Bible Commentary? The Commentary is accessible to thousands, while the quarterly to ten thousands (a reversed parallel with the David/Saul episode) The good one benefiting just a few, and the evil affecting many.
The Protestant Reformation taught that justification and sanctification should not be mixed up. The Catholic Church took the opposite position, as expressed in the Trent Council. I see that the lesson you prepared for our worldwide membership is dismally on the wrong side. It goes against what Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, and the historical Protestant confessions of faith stood for.
The undoing of the synthesis of justification and sanctification which triggered the Protestant Reformation needs to be highlighted urgently in our Church and the Protestant Churches also. Especially at this time of religious subjectivism, theological superficiality, and liberal ecumenism. I dreamed of us SDAs being at the vanguard of such a movement of restoration of the eternal gospel truths as presented clearly in Paul’s epistles and proclaimed vigorously by the 16th century Reformers. However, how disappointed I became as I saw that you go down the “Catholic road”, favoring the Council of Trent positions rather than the ones the Reformers so firmly stood for.
I know some among us shelter the naive idea that SDA theology represents an advanced view on righteousness by faith, superior to that of the Reformers. So goes the argument: as Luther was a greater light in relation to Wycliffe, and Wesley a greater light in comparison to Luther, the SDA Church is a greater light in relation to Wesley. It looks like some people mistake chronology for theology. Actually, Wesley’s concept of a “second blessing” gave birth to the holiness movement, which also brought Pentecostalism into existence, and from that the Charismatic movement, which is a backing up in relation to the Reformation standpoint. Why is he superior to Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, etc?
I think you should have done your homework carefully before engaging in that tremendous enterprise of teaching the Bible to millions of people around the world…
In the mentioned quarterly you even repeat the same arguments of John Henry Newman, a former Protestant who became a Catholic and even a cardinal of that Church during the last century. He wrote a book explaining the reasons for his defection from Protestantism. His basic point was:to justify is not only to declare righteous, but also to make the individual righteous. The Protestant idea of a forensic declaration of innocence … is not only denied by the quarterly’s text (lessons 4 and 5) but Rome’s view is promoted as the position we should adopt as the people of God. How regrettable!
But you are really wrong in both what you affirm and what you deny. The SDA Bible Commentary, Vol 8, p 635 teaches clearly on “Justification by Faith”:
“A divine act by which God declares a penitent sinner righteous, or regards him as righteous. Justification is the opposite of condemnation (Rom. 5:16). Neither term specifies character, but only standing before God. Justification is not a transformation of inherent character, it does not impart righteousness any more than condemnation imparts sinfulness….Justification is the act of acquittal and the accompanying declaration that a state of righteousness exists….”
The entire article shows clearly that a distinction should exist between justification and sanctification. These Sabbath School Lessons mix up justification and sanctification as being practically the same thing, exactly like the Catholic theology expressed in the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent’s decrees (have you read them? If not, you should!)* The Trent Council declared being _______________
*A clear comparison between the Council of Trent and Protestant thought is given by Michael Marsh in his audio recording of a Sabbath School class at the Palm Springs SDA Church. See page 7. “anathema” any who said that to justify means simply “to declare a sinner righteous” (as the Reformers did), instead of a transforming of the sinner thanks to the infusion of God’s grace into his heart. Our SDA Bible Dictionary entry would be under the Trent anathema, but not the Sabbath School Lessons on Galatians you prepared. How come?
To summarize my objections to this quarterly, I would list the following negative features realizing it still has some good ones:
– You often mixed up justification and sanctification even though the melting of both concepts was exactly what the Reformers condemned in Catholicism. You tried to redo the synthesis which Luther undid and from which the Protestant Reformation was born.
– You quote Luther out of historical context. There was an evolution in Luther’s thinking in terms of his understanding of the righteousness by faith question. The younger Luther (like in his Preface to the Epistle to the Romans) is considered just an immature, “improved” Catholic. His commentary on the epistle to the Galatians is Luther in his mature and really Protestant stage.
– You quote Bible texts out of context such as Titus 3:5 in which Paul is not being a systematic theologian as in Romans and Galatians and where he simply mentions the salvation process globally, referring to justification and washing of sins. In other points he mentions justification, sanctification, and glorification globally. Anyway, in Titus 2:14 there is this distinction of Christ’s sacrifice (justification) producing a life renewal (sanctification).
– You forget that nobody can really understand the gospel until he/she can answer the question–On what basis is man accepted in the final judgment? Our standing before God will be based on what Christ did for us, not on what Christ did in us.
– Your sanctification emphasis, which has its place (the Reformers never denied the importance of sanctification), implies that man can observe the commandments (with God’s help, of course) in a 100% perfection scale. But that is simply impossible, for a man’s nature is corrupt due to the original sin. Romans 7 shows that our human nature impedes us in fulfilling the law completely and perfectly. The obedience to the law that counts is that of Christ, for we are Simul justus et pecator, (at the same time saint and sinner) as Luther put it (see also Gal. 5:17).
Also, the idea that the inward Christ keeps the law for us (as if we were turned, through conversion, into robots under His command, without free will) is absurd. The question could arise: if our keeping of the law is not perfect (which it never is in this life), then the inward Christ is not doing his job alright? When we sin, has the inward Christ sinned for us too? Your denial that Adam’s sin brought condemnation to us all (the “original sin” concept) contradicts the clear comparison that Paul makes in Rom. 5:12, ff. Death and sin are brought to all through Adam’s sin (alien to us) in the same way that Christ’s righteousness (also alien to us) is granted to those who accept this divine and gracious provision. This is so clear and basic to the Protestant faith, but you negate it!
I hope the reflections above are accepted and serve as a friendly warning from someone who takes heed of the doctrine, as Paul recommended Timothy to do. For, he added, “in doing this thou shalt save thyself, and them that hear you (I Tim. 4:16)”.
_____________________________________________
WHAT TO EXPECT IN JULY-SEPTEMBER 1992
_____________________________________________
Richard Marin
Righteousness is right doing or as Mrs White wrote: “Righteousness is obedience to the law.” 1 Selected Messages, p 367. Christ’s right doing on earth is one righteousness of which the Bible speaks. Another righteousness is the right doing of the believer. Christ’s right doing was perfect. The believer’s right doing in this life is imperfect.
Nowhere does the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy speak of the Holy Spirit as being the righteousness of the believer. The gift of the Holy Spirit is not the gift of righteousness. The Holy Spirit never came to this earth as a man to live a righteous life. That was not His work. His work is to inspire, strengthen, and guide believers in doing right–human right doing.
The Holy Spirit is not the righteousness of believers in Jesus–neither their imputed righteousness nor their imparted righteousness. The right doing of Jesus 2000 years ago is their imputed righteousness. The right doing of the believer (inspired, strengthened and guided by the Holy Spirit) is their imparted righteousness. The Holy Spirit works, (builds, cultivates) a righteousness that reflects the righteousness of Jesus, but the Holy Spirit is not that righteousness. The attributes of Christ’s righteousness are reproduced in believers on earth. The Holy Spirit does not bring down Christ’s righteousness from heaven. Christ’s right doing is history and is only transferrable by imputation not by impartation.
The 100% righteousness that justifies a person is in heaven at the right hand of God.* It is invisible to all but the eye of faith.* The partial righteousness lived out in the lives of God’s people on earth is visible to men for: “by their fruits ye shall know them” and “let your light so shine before men.”
To call the gift of the Holy Spirit the gift of righteousness is to lay the foundation for two great heresies. One heresy is to think that the righteousness by which we are justified is found within us. This is legalism. The other heresy is to think that both kinds of righteousness are all God’s work so we must let go of the steering wheel of our lives and let the Holy Spirit do the right doing for us. This is quietism.
What is the teaching of the Jul-Sep 1992 Sabbath School Lesson quarterly on this subject? Pages 19, 21, 72, 75, 87 and others of the quarterly on 1 Peter give the impression that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the gift of righteousness. As in the 1990 quarterlies Romans 8:9, 10 is offered as proof. In Romans 8 Paul has turned from his discussion of justifying righteousness to the subject of Christian experience and the work of the Holy Spirit. In verses 9 and 10 his argument is that Christians don’t serve the flesh but walk in harmony with Christ’s Spirit. The human nature made sinful because of Adam’s sin no longer rules but Christ’s Spirit rules because Christ lived a righteous life on earth undoing the slavery Adam chose. The word “because” is the key to rightly understanding verse 10. The passage does not teach _______________
* “Tapeworms” may enjoy listening to the cassette study titled “Invisible Righteousness”. See page 7 for ordering instructions.
that saving righteousness comes with the gift of the Spirit.
On page 59 of the quarterly we are brought back to solid Roman Catholic teaching:
“The Bible establishes these two major points:
- Christ’s righteousness is placed to our account,
- when we receive Him into our hearts by faith.”
Reading the sentence for what is says, “Christ will place His righteousness to your account in heaven when you receive Him into your heart on earth (first on earth then in heaven).”
Farther down the page the quarterly says:
“When He justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), it is because the ungodly exercise faith in Him by surrendering their hearts to His control and indwelling.”
In other words Christ’s indwelling brings justification. The best human logic (Rome is built on this) clearly agrees: “God ratifies in heaven what first is accomplished on earth.” But revelation presents a picture contrary to human logic: God declares the ungodly to be righteous and then sends His Spirit to accomplish on earth what heaven’s records already show. The principle is: First in heaven then on earth.
During July-September 1992 the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church is again subjected to the heart of papal doctrine in the Sabbath School Lessons.
The Jul-Sep 1992 quarterly combines with its false view of justification a warped view of the final generation. Our next issue will deal with this subject.
