2010-09-02 19:55Z

In Defense of the Biblical Judgment

A Reply to Kevin Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005 (1)

Kevin D. Paulson

Originally published June 17, 2005 on GreatControversy.org. (A sister article by Larry Kirkpatrick was published on GreatControversy.org on June 14, titled “The Latest Deception About the Atonement,” also reviewing this article, but more from the standpoint of the Spirit of Prophecy.)

Document URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-reallyijferris.php.

Document Outline

Introduction
A Brief History
Faith and Works
Calvary and the Atonement
Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary
The Investigative Judgment: Revelatory, Determinative—or Both?
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In the year 2000, the following open letter was written to Elder Jan Paulsen, president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:

Dear Elder Paulsen,

I have just come from a service at the Brisbane City Baptist Church where I listened to the most outstanding preacher I have ever heard. His name is Dr. Desmond Ford.

The Baptist Church here in Brisbane has adopted Dr. Ford, and tonight’s talk was the culmination of a weekend seminar. Next week a group of Baptist officials and a finance trader have arranged a meeting to plan the establishment of a million-dollar trust to be used for the promotion of Dr. Ford at future public meetings.

How my heart burned as I thought of how our church rejected one of the most valuable assets we ever had. How can we forgive ourselves?

In today’s climate of candor and fairness is it not high time we reversed this situation? There would be few honest members, who having listened to Dr. Ford just once would not say, “why is this man not within our ranks?” Particularly since our current Fundamental Beliefs supports him in the matter of the sufficiency of Calvary atonement, and even more particularly that the Glacier View Consensus Statement both supported him and was agreed to by himself (a fact of which our members are unaware). So by continuing to quarantine him we are perpetuating the lie that what he preaches (including the gospel as the church understands it) is heresy, when this is not the case.

It is surely time a committee was formed to re-examine his position in view of current theological thought. And indeed for a reappraisal of those forces leading to his demise in the form of those groups whose views are now discredited. We continually subscribe to this dark legacy of events to our shame. As a loyal member of our church I am embarrassed by those events, and always will be until they are reversed.

The reversal process has begun in a small way here in Australia. Dr. Ford has preached in one of our major churches, and will do so again shortly. He has taken Sabbath School lesson classes by invitation. It will happen more and more as honest people see what should be done and do it. We should now make this access acceptable across the board in order to benefit from the message he can most capably deliver at this time.

If we were to come across a non-Adventist preacher who powerfully defends the Sabbath, vividly proclaims the gospel, brilliantly champions Adventist doctrine to the extent of most of our ministers, and incisively communicates any Bible topic, we would go out of our way to see that person into the fold. Unless his name was Desmond Ford! Does this tell us something about ourselves?

Dr. Ford is also one of the finest Christian gentlemen one can meet. How appropriate it would be if our arms of love and acceptance were equally as expansive. It would be relatively easy to gather a few thousand signatures of support for extending those arms. But why should that be necessary?

I plead for your most careful, courageous and urgent consideration of this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Ferris

This letter, dated February 20, 2000, was published in the July-August 2000 issue of Adventist Today (2), a magazine which routinely attacks fundamental Adventist beliefs, standards, policies, and leadership.

A Brief History

For those who might not know the history addressed—and distorted—by the above letter, a brief review of the events in question will suffice:

On October 27, 1979, Dr. Desmond Ford, a visiting professor of theology from Avondale College then teaching at Pacific Union College, addressed the local chapter of the Association of Adventist Forums on the subject, “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?” (3). (The present author, who at the time was a sophomore theology major at PUC, was present at this gathering.) At this meeting Dr. Ford declared invalid the year-day principle of prophetic interpretation, disputed the linguistic connection between Daniel 8:14 and the cleansing of the sanctuary as described in Leviticus 16, insisted that the book of Hebrews teaches that Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension, and assured his audience that the church need not fear contradicting the writings of Ellen White in accepting these points, since her writings should not—in his view—be seen as an inspired commentary on the Scriptures.

In the wake of this presentation, Dr. Ford was compelled to take a leave of absence from his teaching post, and to prepare a defense of his position (4). A group of scholars, pastors, and church administrators were assembled in August 1980 at the Glacier View Ranch in Colorado, to consider the evidence Ford had assembled. A consensus statement was subsequently crafted by those in attendance which in many respects blurred the significant differences between those present as well as between Ford and the church’s historic views. Denominational leaders, who had wisely not bound themselves in advance to abide by the consensus of this group, seemed to recognize the weakness of the consensus statement, and thus produced a ten-point critique of Ford’s position which articulated their concerns (5).

Acting on these concerns, the President’s Executive Advisory Council (PREXAD) at the General Conference recommended to the Australasian Division (now the South Pacific Division) that Dr. Ford be permitted to retire voluntarily from the pastoral and teaching ministry of the church, and if he should not do this, to revoke his ministerial credentials. The latter action was taken by the Australasian Division shortly thereafter (6).

On February 1, 1983, following unsuccessful attempts at further dialogue between Ford and General Conference leaders, the Australasian Division Committee voted to annul Ford’s ordination to the gospel ministry (7). Following this action, Ford wrote to then-General Conference President Neal Wilson, stating among other things, “I happily remain a Seventh-day Adventist whatever happens to my membership” (8).

Eighteen years later, Dr. Ford apparently changed his mind. On February 13, 2001, the Pacific Union College Church voted to honor a request from Dr. Ford and his wife Gillian that their names be dropped from membership (9). In a telephone conversation with the present writer, the PUC Church secretary confirmed that this action was taken at the voluntary request of the Fords. The motive for this request remains unclear, though perhaps one statement noted earlier in the Ferris letter—regarding Ford being “adopted” by a local Baptist Church in Australia—might have had something to do with it. One could rightly question whether a Baptist congregation would wish to openly support the ministry of one, or officially connect itself with one, who held membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The Ferris letter, as noted above, referred to efforts in Australia to bring Ford and the SDA Church back together. Such efforts continued in various quarters of the Australian church during 2001 and 2002 (10). But the General Conference president soon made his position clear in a supplement to the Adventist Review, published June 13, 2002:

A further word needs to be said about our being “loyal to our heritage and to our identity.” Some would have us believe that there have been significant shifts in recent times in regard to doctrines that historically have been at the heart of Seventh-day Adventism.

Take specifically our understanding of judgment and Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the prophetic messages in which these teachings are contained. Some are suggesting that since the 1980 (Glacier View) meetings, the very teachings that the church affirmed that year at those meetings have been abandoned, and that the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then. Such a claim is a distortion of reality, and nothing could be further from the truth. The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this (11).

But despite this clear statement from the world leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, an article defending Desmond Ford’s sanctuary theology has now appeared in the Adventist Review, written by the very person who five years ago called on Elder Paulsen to reinstate Ford, and who—as we have seen—publicly lamented the “injustice” presumably done to Ford on account of his attack on the sanctuary doctrine!

The article in question is nothing short of an outrage. (For an independent, overtly liberal magazine like Adventist Today to publish Ferris’s “open letter” is no surprise; for the Adventist Review to publish an article of his defending the selfsame theology promoted in that letter is scandalous in the extreme.) As we will demonstrate, the Ferris article perverts both the teachings of Scripture and the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. By publishing this denial of the Advent faith, our church paper has given a platform both to unscriptural theology and to a man who has publicly denounced as a “dark legacy of events” the courage of denominational leaders in upholding the integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist message (12).

It is imperative that those unfamiliar with the events surrounding the Ford crisis, and who may likewise be unfamiliar with the Biblical evidence sustaining the church’s historic sanctuary beliefs, be given the chance to see this evidence themselves. The publication of the Ferris article represents at best a grievous lapse in judgment and at worst a blatant act of betrayal. For the sake of inquiring minds and searching hearts, it must be answered.

Faith and Works

In addressing the all-important Biblical relationship of faith to obedience, Ferris quotes not a single Bible verse. Instead he relies on highly questionable logic to supposedly prove that what a Christian does can have nothing to do with salvation.

Ferris speaks at length of how Confucians, Buddhists, and even atheists are known to live very good lives (13). His assumption appears to be that because people who don’t know Jesus are capable of doing this, Christian salvation cannot possibly be based on behavior. In his words:

There are untold thousands of Natashas in this world whose natural compassion and decency exist apart from Christianity. If such goodness is the passport to heaven, then God is duty-bound to let these people through (14).

I have news for Ferris: God will indeed let many of them through! Moreover, Ferris seems not to understand that such goodness in non-Christians, even if the latter don’t realize it, does not exist apart from Christianity and the power of Jesus. What does the apostle Paul say?

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel (Romans 2:14-16).

According to other Biblical passages, the work of the law written in the heart is the basis of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-10). Other passages likewise speak of the law written in human hearts as the means of true obedience (Deuteronomy 30:14; Psalm 119:11; 2 Corinthians 3:2-3). Of those who have the law written in their hearts, the God of Scripture declares, “I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people” (Hebrews 8:10).

Elsewhere the Bible speaks of how some will ask the Saviour in heaven, “What are these wounds in Thine hands?” (Zechariah 13:6). Obviously these are saved men and women who had no earthly knowledge of Jesus or His sacrifice for their sins.

Ellen White, expounding on Christ’s parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), observes as follows:

Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God (15).

Thus, while such persons may not know or profess the name of Christ, they have nevertheless partaken of the power of Christianity. And according to the words of Inspiration cited above, they will be saved eternally.

Ferris appears to have fallen victim to a popular misconception of what the Bible means when it says we aren’t saved by works (Romans 3:20,28; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9). This misconception claims that the “works” being described in passages like the above include the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the believer. But in Romans, chapter 2, Paul makes it clear that the “works-righteousness” which cannot justify is not the transforming work of the Spirit, but rather, the boastful, hypocritical deeds of the unconverted heart (Romans 2:17-23). Here the apostle rebukes such persons as those who “restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God” (verse 17), and declares of the hypocrisy of such individuals, “Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God” (verse 23).

This is how, in the same context, Paul can declare, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (Romans 2:13), then a few verses later insist, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28). Is Paul contradicting himself? Certainly not. In the first passage he is talking about those who “show the work of the law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:15)—the essence of new covenant transformation—while in the second passage he is speaking of those whose boastful claims to righteousness are belied by the reality of how they live (Romans 3:9-18).

This point becomes clearer as we hear Paul twice speaking of how the superficial righteousness he was rebuking caused people to make their boast of God and of His law (Romans 2:17, 23). This is obviously not the righteousness of sanctification produced by the Holy Spirit that is being described, for elsewhere Paul includes among the fruits of the Spirit the grace of meekness (Galatians 5:23)—the opposite of boasting. Hypocritical righteousness produces pride; the sanctifying work of the Spirit produces humility.

The New Testament, of course, is not the first place where the contrast between superficial and heart-based obedience is presented. The prophet Samuel declared to Israel’s King Saul, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than to sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). Through Isaiah God later declared the same to the people of Judah:

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.… Wash you, make you clean: put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes: cease to do evil: Learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow (Isaiah 1:11, 16, 17).

The condemnation of righteousness by works found in Scripture is not a warning against trusting sanctification as a crucial part of our acceptance with God. This is especially clear in a verse Ferris quotes in his article, but which—sadly—he only quotes in part:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5).

Ferris, unfortunately, quotes this verse only up to the part which says, “according to His mercy He saved us” (16). Had he completed the verse, it would have become clear that the “works of righteousness which we have done,” which save no one, are presented in contrast to “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” which in fact is declared in this verse as the means of salvation. The phrasing here is instrumental: “according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” In other words, we are saved by this washing and renewing, not by works which we have done—that latter obviously referring to what we do in our own strength, apart from the Spirit’s power.

In the following passage Paul further confirms the role of the Spirit’s sanctification as part of the means of our salvation:

God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Ferris writes that “the person to whom God credits His righteousness will not have sin counted against him or her (Romans 4:6-8)” (17). But when we read this passage from Romans, together with the Old Testament passage Paul is quoting, it again becomes clear what the “righteousness without works” being described by the apostle is all about:

Even as David also described the blessedness of the man, unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Romans 4:6-8).

Now let us look at the passage in the Psalms from which these words are taken:

Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile (Psalm 32:1, 2).

So how is the one described to whom the Lord imputes righteousness “without works”? As one “in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm 32:2). Obviously, to become guileless requires the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. This passage calls to mind others in the Old Testament which speak of both confession and the forsaking of sin as prerequisites for receiving God’s forgiveness (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7). Such work, which is what true repentance is all about, is made possible by “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).

Strangely enough, Ferris quotes in this same context Ellen White’s statement that “both our title to heaven and our fitness for it are found in the righteousness of Christ” (18). The previous phrase in this sentence, not included by Ferris, likewise clarifies that in Ellen White’s theology—as with that of Scripture—both justification and sanctification are presented in contrast to the prideful boasting and hypocrisy which constitutes legalism. The full sentence as written by Ellen White declares:

The proud heart strives to earn salvation, but both our title to heaven and our fitness for it are found in the righteousness of Christ (19).

Elsewhere she writes:

The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted. The first is our title to heaven, the second is our fitness for heaven (20).

Notice Ellen White doesn’t say, “The proud heart seeks to achieve salvation through sanctified obedience, but the sole ground of our acceptance with God is justifying righteousness.” This justification-alone gospel is taught neither in Scripture nor in the writings of Ellen White. By his generalized exclusion of human works from the process of divine judgment, Ferris seems clearly to hold to the unscriptural doctrine that declarative, forensic righteousness alone is the basis of our standing with God.

Calvary and the Atonement

Ferris is quite correct when he writes, “One’s understanding of the atonement will determine one’s concept of judgment” (21). But it is Ferris himself, tragically, who has seriously misconstrued the Bible’s teaching regarding the process of atonement.

By misquotation, the sidestepping of evidence, and statements which confuse more than clarify, Ferris tries to prove that the Biblical atonement process was finished on the cross. In his words:

If we agree that a perfect atonement was made at Calvary, then it stands to reason that this included the whole process and not just a part of it. Otherwise it would not be the “perfect atonement,” as our belief statement affirms (22).

But our church’s statement of Fundamental Beliefs in no way affirms that the atonement process was finished on Calvary. We will let Belief No. 9, the one in question, speak for itself:

In Christ’s life of perfect obedience to God’s will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God’s law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God’s triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow (John 3:16; Isaiah 53; 1 Peter 2:21-22; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4,20-22; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15;19-21; Romans 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3-4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Colossians 2:15; Philippians 2:6-11) (23).

Notice carefully that the “means of atonement” listed in this statement include not only the death of Christ on Calvary, but His perfect life of obedience and His resurrection from the dead. The latter, of course, provides the basis for Jesus’ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. Moreover, the statement goes on to say that “the death of Christ is substitutionary, expiatory, reconciling, and transforming” (24). This makes it clear that the “perfect atonement” described in this statement includes the transforming of individual lives by means of the power provided at Calvary. In other words, the perfect atonement here described is something instrumental, not chronological. The means Calvary has provided are perfect, to be sure, but the atonement process itself—as we will see from Scripture—involves much more.

This point becomes even clearer as we examine the list of supporting Bible references for Fundamental Belief No. 9, as listed above. Two of these are 1 Peter 2:21, 22 and Romans 8:3, 4. Let us consider what the verses say:

For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow in His steps. Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth (1 Peter 2:21, 22).

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, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Romans 8:3, 4).

The inclusion of these verses in the list attached to Belief No. 9 helps us understand that according to official Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, the duplication by God’s grace of Jesus’ sinless life in sinful human flesh is a part of the atonement process as described in this particular Fundamental Belief. Let us remember that according to this particular statement, the death of Christ is not only substitutionary and expiatory, but also “reconciling and transforming” (25). The process of transformation, being an individual work, obviously was not completed at the cross, only made possible by it. Ironically, Ferris’s preference for the New International Version helps clarify this point, when his article quotes Hebrews 1:3:

After He (Christ) had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven (26).

“Provided” isn’t the same as “accomplished.” What is strange about Ferris’s article is that while he says at one point that “a perfect atonement was made on Calvary” and that this “included the whole process and not just a part of it” (27), in the previous paragraph he describes the above verse—which clearly talks about Jesus sitting at the Father’s right hand (Hebrews 1:3)—as being “a very essential step in the atonement process” (28). How could the cross represent “the whole process” of atonement if Christ’s mediation at the Father’s right hand is “a very essential step in the atonement process”? At the very least, such statements are incredibly confusing.

Seventh-day Adventists do not teach a finished atonement at the cross, for the simple reason that such a concept stands at sharp variance with the doctrine of atonement as found in both Old and New Testaments. The first in-depth Biblical description of the atonement process is found in the early chapters of Leviticus, where various sin and trespass offerings for various individuals are described. In each of these chapters, atonement was not completed until the blood of the sacrifice was mediated before the Lord (Leviticus 4:16-20; 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 35; 5:9, 10; 7:1-7). Elsewhere, as we have seen, both confession and the forsaking of sin are listed as conditions for receiving divine forgiveness (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7; 1 John 1:9).

Romans 5:11, in the King James Version, speaks of those who have “now received the atonement.” Most marginal readings and modern translations use the word reconciliation, which is really the best synonym for atonement in Scripture. Man is estranged from God through his choice to sin (Isaiah 59:2), and thus he stands in need of reconciliation with God. The atonement of Christ is the means whereby this reconciliation is to be accomplished.

A number of New Testament passages speak of the cross as the means whereby we are reconciled to God. But a close look at each of them makes it clear that, once again, the theme is instrumental, not chronological. Let us examine each of these passages:

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Romans 5:10).

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead: be ye reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things on earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreprovable in His sight: if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel (Colossians 1:20-23).

Notice that while Paul says in one place, “We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son” (Romans 5:10), and in another that God “hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ” (2Corinthians 5:18), he invites his readers elsewhere, “Be ye reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20). Obviously the first two statements refer to converted believers, while the third is an invitation to readers who are not yet converted.

Paul’s ”(verse 12), gives further evidence that “we” refers to himself and his fellow evangelists who had experienced God’s converting power, while “you” refers to his audience which doubtless included many who had not experienced conversion.

The verse in Romans which states that “when we were enemies, we were reconciled” (Romans 5:10) must be placed alongside the verse we read from Colossians 1, which states that “you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled” (verse 21). These verses clearly speak of those who have relinquished their evil deeds by availing themselves of Calvary’s reconciling power. Without question this cannot refer to the whole world—which would be the case if atonement were finished at the cross—but includes only those who have willingly chosen by God’s grace to give up their sins.

We must also notice that 2 Corinthians 5:19, which speaks of the world as the focus of reconciliation, uses the word reconciling—which is in the present, continuous tense. Never does Paul say the world has been reconciled (past tense). The verse also says, “not imputing their trespasses unto them.” But as we have seen already in our study, when Paul writes elsewhere of those to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, he quotes an Old Testament passage which adds a condition to this—“in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm 32:2). Again, this can’t possibly refer to the whole world, only to those who by God’s grace meet the conditions for receiving pardon.

Elsewhere the New Testament is clear that the work of Christ as high priest in heaven is “to make reconciliation (atonement) for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17). This is why the apostle John assures us, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). Notice he doesn’t say, “We have a Saviour who died on Calvary.” The process of atonement and receiving forgiveness is the same in the New Testament as in the Old. Confession and the forsaking of sin remain clearly-stated conditions (Matthew 6:13, 14; Romans 2:13; 1 John 1:9). The only difference between the portrayal of this process in the two Testaments is that in the Old there were many sacrifices, many priests, and an earthly sanctuary, whereas in the New there is one Sacrifice, one Priest, and a heavenly sanctuary.

But the atonement process does not end even with the removal of sin from believers’ lives. Another, final phase of atonement remains necessary. In the typical service, this final act of atonement was made by placing the sins on the head of the scapegoat (who represents Satan) and leading him out to the wilderness:

And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:9, 10).

Notice that both goats make an atonement—the scapegoat as well as the Lord’s goat. This does not, as some have alleged, make Satan our sin-bearer. It does mean that until evil and its originator have been fully removed from God’s universe, the process of atonement—full reconciliation between God and His creatures—cannot be finished. Satan, the antitypical scapegoat, will not of course be taken into the wilderness until the millennium, when he and his fallen angels will be confined to the desolated earth (29). At the end of this period Satan and his followers will at last be destroyed. Then, and only then, will the process of atonement—reconciliation—be truly complete.

In summary, we can see that Biblical atonement includes four phases:

Confession and forsaking sin.

Slaying of the sacrificial victim.

Mediation of the victim’s blood.

Exile and death of the scapegoat

Quite obviously, in the antitype, only one of these phases was completed at Calvary—the slaying of the Victim. No more sacrifices need to be offered. Seventh-day Adventists have always understood this. But what we have historically rejected, and rightly so, is the abbreviation of the atonement process to include only the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. We refuse to abbreviate the atonement in this way because the Bible clearly does not allow it.

Ferris quotes Hebrews 9:25, 26, again using the New International Version, as presumed “evidence” that the atonement was complete at the cross:

Nor did He enter heaven to offer Himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year [referring to the annual Day of Atonement] with blood that is not his own.… But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself (30).

But the issue here in this passage is not the completion of the atonement process, but rather, the fact that Jesus needs to offer Himself only once. We have already seen in Scripture how the high priestly ministry of Jesus in heaven is involved in reconciling us to God (Hebrews 2:17), and how Jesus’ work as Advocate is to deal with the forgiveness and removal of sin (1 John 1:9; 2:1). The above verse quoted by Ferris does not require us to conclude that Jesus put away all sin when He died on Calvary. It simply means He has appeared once to put away sin by means of His sacrifice. Again, we see the instrumental theme. Christ’s sacrifice is the means whereby sin is put away. This point is made even clearer earlier in Hebrews 9, where Paul speaks of the mediation of Jesus’ blood as cleansing for sin:

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth for the cleansing of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:12-14).

Notice Paul doesn’t say this cleansing by Jesus’ blood has already occurred for everyone at the cross. Clearly, in context, this cleansing takes place through Jesus’ work in the heavenly sanctuary, as He mediates His blood on behalf of believers.

Ferris quotes an Ellen White statement which he claims supports his belief that the atonement was finished on the cross (31):

Christ’s sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition of the atonement had been fulfilled. The work for which He had come to this world had been fulfilled (32).

Notice what she says was complete at the cross—the sacrifice, and the condition of the atonement. Not the atonement itself. When Ferris asks in his article, “What didn’t happen in 1844?”, and replies, “Certainly not the making of sacrificial atonement,” (33), he is raising a non-issue. No Adventist has ever claimed that the sacrifice of Jesus wasn’t finished on the cross. But the antitypical Day of Atonement was most assuredly not finished at the cross. Atonement, as we have clearly seen from Scripture, requires more than merely one phase.

It is true that a number of Ellen White statements speak of the atonement being complete on the cross (34). But in each of these statements, as context makes clear, the word atonement is being used as a synonym for sacrifice. We must remember Ellen White’s counsel regarding the understanding of inspired writings, that “different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea" (35). Only the totality and consensus of inspired counsel can decide any doctrinal or lifestyle issue.

In order to have an atonement, there had to be a perfect life of obedience available as both Substitute and Example, as well as a substitutional death. This condition was fulfilled at the cross. But contrary to Ferris’s claim that Calvary “included the whole process (of atonement) and not just a part of it” (36), the Bible is clear—as we have seen—that the process of atonement includes much more. Ferris’s denial of this cardinal truth is a most fundamental betrayal of a key Seventh-day Adventist doctrine.

Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary

Ferris asks at one point, echoing the teachings of the man he wants the church to reinstate, “Does our church really believe that Christ entered the Most Holy Place at His ascension? Indeed. In Ministry, the church’s official ministerial journal (October 1980), we read: ‘There is basic agreement that Christ at His ascension entered into the very presence of God, as symbolized by the earthly high priest’s entrance on the Day of Atonement’ (p. 21)” (37).

Ferris obviously doesn’t understand how official Adventism operates. No articles in any church publication represent the official voice of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, unless they have been approved by the world church at a General Conference session. That is the only body with the right to determine what “the church” believes.

The fact is that our Lord was in the immediate presence of God throughout the 1,800 years when He ministered in the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. The only reason the immediate presence of God was confined to the Most Holy Place on earth was because of the problem of sinful man. This problem does not exist in heaven or the heavenly sanctuary. Though Jesus has given up His omnipresence by taking on humanity (38), the Father obviously hasn’t done this. Nothing, therefore, prevented Jesus from being in the Father’s immediate presence from the moment He ascended and began His Holy Place ministry. The ridiculous claim of various critics of the sanctuary doctrine, that according to historic Adventist belief “the Father and the Son have been separated by a curtain for 1,800 years” (39), is simply absurd.

The Investigative Judgment: Revelatory, Determinative—or Both?

Ferris seems to have a hard time understanding plain language, whether in the inspired writings or the official writings of the church. He tries to draw a completely artificial distinction in citing SDA Fundamental Belief No. 23 (“Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary”), claiming that the judgment there described is “revelatory rather than determinative” (40). He then quotes from the statement in question:

[This judgment] reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation (41).

What truly is the difference between “revelatory” and “determinative” (Ferris’s words) when considering the above statement? Obviously, according to the above, what is revealed in the lives of professed Christians will determine whether or not they go to heaven. God already knows, obviously, who will pass the judgment and who will not, but since He alone knows the heart (1 Kings 8:39), the unfallen inhabitants of the universe who assemble for the judgment (Daniel 7:10) will learn through this judgment the true condition of those bearing the name of the Lord.

And it is crystal clear from the above statement that “keeping the commandments of God” is one of the determining factors regarding who will and will not pass the test of God’s judgment. Ferris’ use of italics in citing the above statement, highlighting the words “in Him,” together with his effort to dismiss human behavior from a decisive role in this process (42), give evidence of his support for the popular New Theology definition of “in Christ” as referring to declarative righteousness which supposedly covers the believer like an umbrella, despite the presence of presumably “unavoidable” sin (43). But the Bible, by contrast, is clear regarding what it means to be “in Christ”:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17).

And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him (1 John 3:24).

In other words, to be “in Christ” as Scripture defines it does not refer to forensic righteousness covering Christians like an umbrella despite occasional sin. To be “in Christ” in a Biblical sense means to be a new creature, obedient to God’s commandments through the Spirit’s power. Thus we see that the King James rendering of Romans 8:1, to which Ferris refers in his article (though, unfortunately, in the NIV), is the most in harmony with the Biblical consensus on this point:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The determinative role of personal conduct in our standing in the judgment is extremely clear through the Bible, in verses Ferris leaves without a mention in his article. Consider the following:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man: For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil (Ecclesiastes 12:14).

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned (Matthew 12:36, 37).

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10).

How can one possibly read Christ’s parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, and not come to the conclusion that behavior is indeed determinative in our vindication in the final judgment? Jesus declares to the sheep in this parable, “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34).

And why are those addressed to inherit this kingdom?

For I was an hungred, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: Naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me (verses 35, 36).

Notice that these behavioral choices on their part are specifically listed by Jesus as the reasons they are worthy of inheriting the heavenly kingdom. This, of course, stands in harmony with other statements by our Lord regarding obedience being the condition for receiving eternal life (Matthew 19:16, 17; Luke 10:25-28).

Based on the above Bible verses, it is impossible to make the distinction Ferris makes between “revelatory” and “determinative” regarding the last judgment. It is the content of believers’ lives which will be revealed in the judgment, and this in the end will determine whether or not they enter heaven. Ellen White is therefore in total harmony with Scripture when she writes as follows:

In the day of judgment the course of the man who has retained the frailty and imperfection of humanity will not be vindicated. For him there will be no place in heaven. He could not enjoy the perfection of the saints in light. He who has not sufficient faith in Christ to believe that He can keep him from sinning, has not the faith that will give him an entrance into the kingdom of God (44).

Ferris writes, regarding those who in his view are ready for heaven because of Calvary rather than the successful scrutiny of their lives in God’s judgment:

Then, as faith waits for reality, the transforming influences of His righteousness begin to impact on our daily lives as His laws are written upon our hearts (Hebrews 10:16) (45).

But according to Scripture, faith does not merely wait for reality; it strives for it (see 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 12:4). And the above statement from Ellen White is clear that Jesus’ transforming righteousness is to accomplish more than a mere “beginning” impact on our lives if we are to stand the test of the final judgment. Human frailty and imperfection must be vanquished. The power of God must be blended with human effort to keep us from sinning.

Ferris quotes in his article Ellen White’s statement, “We are not to be anxious about what Christ and God think of us, but about what God thinks of Christ, our Substitute” (46). But again, we must allow the writings of Inspiration to explain themselves. In what way do the writings of Ellen White define the substitutionary role of Jesus? The following statements are clear that the substitutional life of Jesus applies only to the believer’s past sins:

Christ bears the penalty of man’s past transgressions, and by imparting to man His righteousness, makes it possible for man to keep God’s holy law (47).

Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God (48).

If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour; then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ’s character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned (49).

In the story of Joshua and the Angel, representing the acquittal of God’s people in the judgment of the living, Ellen White is clear that the filthy garments being taken from Joshua represent past sins, not present or future ones.

“Are these,” he (Satan) asks, “the people who are to take my place in heaven, and the place of the angels who united with me?… Look at the sins which have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred toward one another.” The people of God have been in many respects very faulty. Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins which he has tempted them to commit (50).

Elsewhere we read:

Now he (Satan) points to the record of their lives, to the defects of character, the unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer, to all the sins which he has tempted them to commit (51).

Joshua’s victory and that of his people are described as follows:

Israel was clothed in “change of raiment,”—the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. The mitre placed upon Joshua’s head was such as was worn by the priests, and bore the inscription, “Holiness to the Lord,” signifying that notwithstanding his former transgressions, he was now qualified to minister before God in His sanctuary (52).

Notice that each of these statements refer to the sins of believers in the past tense. Ellen White is clear that Satan’s accusations, while correct in regard to the past, are correct no longer. She declares, “But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves to the control of evil. They have put away their sins, and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the Divine Advocate pleads in their behalf” (53).

Never, in either Scripture or the writings of Ellen White, is the substitutional righteousness of Jesus ever depicted as covering present or future sinning. The following statements make it clear that such a “continuous” covering is impossible:

Every impurity of thought, every lustful passion, separates the soul from God; for Christ can never put His robe of righteousness upon a sinner, to hide his deformity (54).

Every transgression brings the soul into condemnation, and provokes the divine displeasure (55).

When man transgresses he is under the condemnation of the law, and it becomes to him a yoke of bondage. Whatever his profession may be he is not justified (56).

Yes indeed, “we are not to be anxious about what Christ and God think of us, but about what God thinks of Christ, our Substitute” (57). But according to the same author, Christ is not our Substitute for anything except the past. If the above statements mean anything at all, the believer’s present and future must be transformed by the righteousness of sanctification if one is to pass the scrutiny of the final, investigative judgment.

Conclusion

The Ferris article is an outrageous denial of the core of Adventism, written by one who has publicly sought the reinstatement to the church of perhaps its most destructive, articulate modern detractor. His article distorts both the writings of Inspiration and the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in seeking to prove the support of each for a finished atonement on the cross and a judgment in which practical, sanctified obedience plays no decisive role.

Scripture is clear that while the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was complete, capable of saving every human in history, the process of atonement includes more than simply sacrifice. It includes the mediation of sacrificial blood, the Spirit-empowered banishment of sin from human lives, and the ultimate destruction of sin, its author, and its adherents in the fires of hell. A complete atonement on Calvary inevitably makes salvation universal, unconditional, and unrelated to practical holiness. No such judgment could possibly guarantee that sin will not rise a second time (Nahum 1:9). And no such doctrine of judgment is found in the pages of God’s Word.

None deny that the judgment is, at the bottom line, about Calvary. Only through the cross is forgiveness possible for the past sins of believers (Ephesians 1:7). Only through the blood shed on the cross can our lives be cleansed from sin (Hebrews 13:20-21). Only through this blood can the saints be victorious in the practical struggle with evil (Revelation 12:11), thus enabling them to be among the overcomers whose names will not be blotted out of the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 3:5). But both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are clear that unless this blood and its power are willingly accepted, no atonement is possible (Colossians 1:20-23; 1 John 1:9).

We must stand today in defense of the biblical judgment—the investigative judgment. This judgment is presently underway in the courts above. It is prelude to our journey home. What a precious day that will be! GCO

References

Kevin Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, pp. 8-9.
Kevin Ferris, “Letter to the Church President Regarding Desmond Ford,” Adventist Today, July-August 2000, p. 6.
See Gregory Schneider, “Twenty-Five Years After Glacier View and Who Cares?” Spectrum, Winter 2005, p. 6.
Ibid.
“Statement on Desmond Ford Document,” Adventist Review, September 4, 1980, pp. 8-11.
Raymond F. Cottrell, “The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus,” Spectrum, November 1980, p. 21.
Adrian Zytkoskee, “Ford and Van Rooyen Lose Ordinations,” Spectrum, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 14.
Desmond Ford, letter to Neal C. Wilson, February 9, 1983, published in Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1985), p. 56.
Action of Pacific Union College Church regarding church membership of Desmond and Gillian Ford, business session, February 13, 2001.
See “Mapping the Past and Sketching the Future,” document prepared by the Membership and Issues Committee of the Avondale Memorial Seventh-day Adventist Church in Australia, January 2, 2002.
Jan Paulsen, “The Theological Landscape,” supplement to the Adventist Review, June 13, 2002, p. 8.
Ferris, “Letter to the Church President Regarding Desmond Ford,” Adventist Today, July-August 2000, p. 6.
________, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 8.
Ibid.
Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 638.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 9.
Ibid.
White, The Desire of Ages, p. 300.
Ibid.
________, Messages to Young People, p. 35.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 8.
Ibid., p. 9, emphasis by Ferris.
“Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists,” Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (2000 edition), pp. 11, 12.
Ibid., p. 12.
Ibid.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 9.
Ibid.
Ibid.
White, The Great Controversy, p. 658.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 9.
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
White, Acts of the Apostles, p. 29.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 9.
See Ellen G. White statements in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7A, pp. 663, 664. But while Ellen White sometimes speaks of a completed atonement at the cross, she clearly is not intending to convey the idea that the cross was the end of the atonement process. The following sampling of quotes will suffice to demonstrate this: “For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary… As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ’s work for the redemption of men is completed there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work—to cleanse the sanctuary” (GC 421). “Today He [Christ] is making an atonement for us before the Father” (Manuscript 21, 1895). “Jesus is our great High Priest in heaven. And what is He doing? He is making intercession and atonement for his people who believe in Him” (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 37). “We are in the great day of atonement, and the sacred work of Christ for the people of God that is going on at the present time in the heavenly sanctuary should be our constant study” (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 520). “All need to become more intelligent in regard to the work of the atonement, which is going on in the sanctuary above” (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 575). “This is the great day of atonement, and our Advocate is standing before the Father, pleading as our intercessor” (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 933).
White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 20.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 9, emphasis by Ferris.
Ibid.
White, The Desire of Ages, p. 669; Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, p. 23.
Jack Sequeira, “Issues: the Heavenly Sanctuary,” sermon delivered at Walla Walla City SDA Church, Oct. 13, 1990, quoted by Kevin D. Paulson, Those Who Do Not Remember the Past (Eatonville, WA: Hope International, 1995), p. 95.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 9, emphasis by Ferris.
“Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists,” Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (2000 edition), p. 17, emphasis by Ferris.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 8.
Keavin Hayden, Lifestyles of the Remnant (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2001), p. 24.
White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 360.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005, p. 9.
White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, pp. 32, 33.
________, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1092.
________, The Desire of Ages, p. 762.
________, Steps to Christ, p. 62.
________, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 473, 474, emphasis added.
________, The Great Controversy, p. 484, emphasis added.
________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 469, emphasis added.
Ibid., p. 474, emphasis added.
________, Our High Calling, p. 214.
________, Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 623.
________, My Life Today, p. 250, emphasis added.
________, Selected Messages, vol. 2, pp. 32, 33.

© 2005 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Through the years he has published articles in many publications. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin is also the speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.