 GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH | |
1Q2005 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide
His Wondrous Cross—Comments and Concerns
Larry Kirkpatrick
Published on GreatControversy.org on March 3, 2005
Document Outline:
Introduction
For the Record
[Sunday, January 2] The Sin Crisis
[Monday, January 3] The Sin Crisis (continued)
[Monday, February 28] The Human Condition
Hearing Mrs. White’s Broader Testimony
[Monday, March 7] JustifiedHebrew TSaDaQ[Wednesday, March 9] Christ Our Righteousness
Greek Dikaioo
[Sunday, March 13] Cheap Grace and the Cross
Introduction
The Sabbath School Quarterly—in theory at least—is one of the great unity-promoting devices in the Lord’s remnant church worldwide. Translated into numerous languages, printed in special editions, the same material is found in our churches from Israel to Australia to St. Kitts to Alaska to Japan. How regrettable then when serious theological mistakes are presented in it.
The current Quarterly, its topic being “His Wondrous Cross,” (HWC) contains much that is quite good and helpful. As is usually the case, that which in it is correct will elicit little comment. Nor will every possible issue be addressed. The fire isn’t burning there. But considerable smoke rises from some of the lessons, particularly in some of the material for the weeks of January 1-7, February 26-March 4, March 5-11, and March 12-18. All references in this article are to the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, No. 439, January-March 2005, Standard Edition (not to the Teacher’s Edition).
How much of the material in the lessons we here review is the work of this Sabbath School Quarterly’s principle contributor, who has done excellent work before, and how much added by the editor, who has presented an erroneous understanding of the gospel in the past,1 we know not. But the trumpet must be given a certain sound.
For the Record
One of the great barriers to understanding the true gospel is prejudice—prejudgment—of those holding another viewpoint. Because the material that makes up the bulk of this response is sometimes intricate, we want to make clear at the outset that we know not only about the trees but also the forest. Therefore, we here briefly outline our view of the gospel.
First, there is in man after the Fall no living inclination to cause him to seek for the righteous God or the righteousness of the righteous God. Second, repentance is a gift from God, who on a purely unilateral basis has taken the initiative to bring this gift within man’s reach. Third, nothing we do earns us even the slightest merit toward our salvation. Fourth, obedience is both a condition for salvation and an ongoing requirement of salvation. Fifth, justification, according to the inspired writings, is both and in the identical moment, counting right and making right. Sixth, during His earthly sojourn Jesus, still God, laid aside His powers of deity and lived as a man in fallen flesh among men in fallen flesh. Seventh, Jesus lived His entire life beyond the close of probation—while He was capable of choosing sin, to do so would have meant the loss of all; He is taking everyone who follows Him now into the same experience of complete and present victory over sin. Eighth, our Father in heaven gave His son Jesus who voluntarily sacrificed His life on the cross and died in our place as our Substitute. Ninth, this same Jesus rose from the dead in a literal resurrection and went to heaven in AD 31 and in 1844 entered the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Tenth, today, in the last ticking hours of the age, Jesus as our great high priestly Intercessor sends forth the person of the Holy Spirit to work transformation in and through us. All this is the gospel of present truth.
Of course, correlate with these points are the inspired concepts of sin as choice not nature, and belief in the power of God to empower men with bad natures to live now without sinning. More might be said, particularly in connection with the history of God’s remnant people. Yet, in spite of insubordination and delay we believe still that God will through the Seventh-day Adventist Church organization presently headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, successfully prepare a people for translation.
Hence, we would highlight in particular the conventional nature of this position. Specifically, we remind the reader of the first three points, and particularly the third (so often represented as not being our position): nothing we do earns us even the slightest merit toward our salvation. Be fair to us and accept that this is our position. From this point then, we press onward together in study.
[Sunday, January 2] The Sin Crisis
Early in the Quarterly foundation is laid for the error that occurs especially nearing its conclusion. How we define sin is crucial, for it determines at last how we define righteousness.
On page 15 of the Quarterly several Hebrew and Greek words for sin are presented and defined. Each word is given a rather specific meaning. The fact is, however, that throughout the Bible these terms are used with more interchangeability than one might be led to believe. Especially is this true in the case of the Hebrew; the words are not held by the Bible writers to rigid meanings but are used interchangeability.
What is the big deal? It is this. Our tendency is to rationalize away God’s requirements for obedience. If we can say that certain types of sin are a bentness in our nature we are born with while others are merely choices to rebel, we might imagine that we have an excuse for certain varieties of sinning. But “There is no excuse for sinning” (Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, p. 311). If the words for sin are used by the Bible writers interchangeably, then we will realize that all sin is condemnable and there is no excuse for sinning.
What then does the biblical evidence show? Consider Psalm 51:1-3:
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of Thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions (PeSHa).2 Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity (aWoN), and cleanse me from my sin (HaTTaT). For I acknowledge my transgressions (PeSHa): and my sin (HaTTaT) is ever before me.
Some say that these flexible definitions are only true of the more poetical writings and we won’t find the phenomenon in the more literal. But consider an example from Exodus 34:7:
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity (aWoN) and transgression (PeSHa) and sin (HaTTaT), and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity (aWoN) of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Moses does this in other places, such as Leviticus 5:17:
And if a soul sin (HaTTaT), and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity (aWoN).
In 1 Samuel 20:1 we see the phenomenon again:
And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity (aWoN)? and what is my sin (HaTTaT) before thy father, that he seeketh my life?
Job 13:23 is also instructive:
How many are mine iniquities (aWoN) and sins (HaTTaT)? make me to know my transgression (PeSHa) and my sin (HaTTaT).
Then there is Psalm 32:1, 2:
Blessed is he whose transgression (PeSHa) is forgiven, whose sin (HaTTaT) is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity (aWoN), and in whose spirit there is no guile.
Micah 3:8 has:
But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression (PeSHa), and to Israel his sin (HaTTaT).
And in Micah 6:7:
Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression (PeSHa), the fruit of my body for the sin (HaTTaT) of my soul?
Examples can be multiplied again and again, but we have made our point. Fine distinctions between one word for sin and another are offset by the dramatic interchangeability demonstrated in the text. Here is also one of the places where Jack Sequeira went wrong in his book Beyond Belief. Unfortunately, his book has the same misunderstanding about sin in its very first chapter.
[Monday, January 3] The Sin Crisis (continued)
On page 16 of HWC we read:
Sin, to be understood as sin, must be seen in the context of who we are in relationship to God. It must be seen as a state of existence as much as it is acts and deeds. Indeed, the acts and deeds themselves result from the state of sin in which we exist. Sin, therefore, is as much who we are as it is what we do, because, in the end, we do what we do because we are what we are.
But sin is never a state of existence.3 To declare this would be to mix categories. Sin is an act, whether internal or external. By choosing to sin and refusing to repent, we may exist in a state of guilt. We may join ourselves in solidarity with our fallen nature and make its commitments to self our own, but we need not (indeed, we dare not!). The one who elects to exist in a condition of continuing rebellion against God exists in a condition for which guilt is properly ascribed.
Notice the argument in the Sabbath School Quarterly (SSQ) quotation above. First, sin is misdefined, next, acts and deeds are made the inevitable outflow of our nature. The biggest problem according to this theory is our nature, the lesser problem is the acts that flow from our nature. We sin (acts) because we are sinners (nature). So goes the argument. The theory, however, is false. It is just original sin in another guise. It has us being condemned for what we are rather than what we do, which is the essence of original sin, its essential mislabeling of the involuntary as “sin.” I am not responsible for the nature I am born with. Thus, to condemn me for that nature is to condemn me for something over which I am unable to exercise personal responsibility and choice. This cannot be personal sin in the sense of involuntary.4 I am responsible for what I do with the nature I was born with, for whether I come into agreement with its self-inclination.
[Monday, February 28] The Human Condition
The Quarterly, nearing its presentation on Justification, seeks again to press home this misunderstanding of what sin is:
We are sinful, not only because of what we have done but because of what Adam had done. We are naturally the children of Adam. When he sinned, his nature became corrupted, fallen, sinful, and we inherited this same nature from him, somewhat in the same way that we inherit traits from our parents. We weren't literally in Adam when he sinned (as though we had some form of preexistence prior to our birth); we have simply reaped in ourselves the consequences of his fall, which is why we, having inherited sinful natures, commit sin. It’s because of this connection with Adam that we all face the condemnation that sin brings (HWC, p. 82).
We are sinful because of what Adam had done. He corrupted his nature and we inherited that corrupted nature. We reap those consequences of his fall. We concur with the SSQ paragraph up to this point. However, as soon as it is said that our commission of sin is an outflowing result of the Fall, the Quarterly leads us astray. Did Satan sin originally because of a fallen nature? No, he was created with an excellent nature, having in it no bias to evil. The fallen nature has an enormous negative influence upon us, but we cannot hold this nature itself responsible for our choices to sin. Cain, with his fallen nature, was urged by God to overcome in that nature (Genesis 4:7). The disorderedness of our nature does not mitigate the violent wrongness of sinning.
Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed. He is turned away from the course of virtue and real good by following his own inclinations. If the youth possessed moral integrity, the strongest temptations might be presented in vain. It is Satan’s act to tempt you, but your own act to yield. It is not in the power of all the host of Satan to force the tempted to transgress. There is no excuse for sin (Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 623).
Notice, the one who would sin must follow his own inclinations, it is his own act to yield. Choice is in operation here, a choice whether or not to come into solidarity with your disordered nature. Is it really because of “this connection with Adam” (our inherited sinful natures causing us to commit sin) “that we all face the condemnation that sin brings?” Or is that notion false, and in fact we come under “the condemnation that sin brings” when we, without excuse, choose it?
Unfortunately, the Quarterly sets up a dangerous misunderstanding of sin very much like that attempted a half a century ago in the destructive book Questions on Doctrine.5 The essence of this false teaching is that there is a form of involuntary sin for which we are condemned apart from our responsibility and apart from our own choice. It will be seen in the Quarterly that having begun with this premise, the next step is to insist on a mistaken doctrine of justification.
[Sabbath, March 5, Sunday, March 6] Sabbath Afternoon, The Gift
This SSQ states that Martin Luther’s “battle with the Papacy first arose over the question of justification.” (HWC p. 88). Actually, Luther’s battle with the Papacy first arose over the question of indulgences, the subject which consumes his 95 Theses.6 As the controversy drew on it became more pointedly focused on the issue of justification by faith.
It is regrettable that a certain attitude toward this teaching (forensic justification) so tends to distort the facts of history. Over and over again, those with a certain interpretation of Paul and a theological axe to grind against the underpinnings of the Third Angel’s Message make Luther our hero, failing to recognize that while God used him, still he lived in the shadow of great darkness. Almost a half a millennia has since passed. He was at the cutting-edge of present truth—in the 16th century. But the work of God has not been standing still for four and five centuries. We are responsible today for the light shining in 2005.
Page 89 of HWC follows the standard argument against the real gospel. It is stated and restated that salvation is free. But everyone in the Adventist debate on the topic agrees with this. The paragraphs here point out that we can do nothing to add to Jesus’ sacrifice for us. Again, all parties are in complete agreement with this. However, many who press home this point are really endeavoring to strike indirectly against the idea that there are any conditions we must meet in order to experience salvation. The removal of conditions leads to a greatly distorted picture. Let us be clear: there are conditions to salvation.7 No, meeting them earns us no merit at all.
When we review the teaching of Roman Catholicism on the topic we find them correct in insisting upon an inward work that makes right the individual, but wrong in insisting this is only available through the Catholic Church and equally wrong in their embrace of the concept of infused righteousness. According to Catholic teaching, God gives a power that is kept inside the person. Taking Mass provides an important recharge. The truth however is that we can only have any righteousness in us as the moment-by-moment connection between ourselves and God is maintained.
When we review the teaching of Luther we find him continuing to uphold a variety of troubling notions, including infant baptism, original sin, church-state union, anti-sabbatarianism, and a violent anti-Semitism. Luther disliked the books of James and Revelation and hardly felt they should be included in the Bible, yet he urged that all teachings should be brought to the test of Scripture. He clashed violently with the Roman Catholic scheme of granting tradition an authority like the Bible, yet he himself made not the Bible but his concept of justification a rule within a rule, a canon within a canon.
The Spirit of Prophecy affirms Luther for championing faith in Christ against Romanism’s trusting in human works. But Luther’s application of his own understanding in many cases, although dramatically advanced in comparison with Romanism, resulted in but an early glimmering of the ultimate brightness promised by the gospel. We rejoice with Luther but we are hundreds of years downstream. God used him to establish the Protestant attitude of careful study of God’s word and a determination to follow it’s every revealing. We can only be true to the spirit of Luther as we continue to recover and clarify our understandings of truth. The facts of history are open today, and we resist the invocation of Luther as the final development of the gospel. Far from it; Luther opened the door but the Reformation was never finished. If he continued to pursue the gospel as revealed under the searchlight of Scripture from then until now, he would, we think, today be appalled by the narrowed “gospel” taught in his name.
Hearing Mrs. White’s Broader Testimony
A partial Ellen G. White paragraph is given which might seem to say one thing apart from its broader context. It is taken from Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 396:
Every soul may say: ‘By His [Christ’s] 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. By faith in His merits I am free from the condemnation of the law. He clothes me with His righteousness, which answers all the demands of the law. I am complete in Him who brings in everlasting righteousness. He presents me to God in the spotless garment of which no thread was woven by any human agent. All is of Christ, and all the glory, honor, and majesty are to be given to the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.’
A superficial reading of this quotation might lead one to think that whatever their life, once having accepted Christ, they are covered with His righteousness irrespective of their own actions.
Actually, the quotation is a partial paragraph out of a ten page article of 26 paragraphs. Before Mrs. White presents the material quoted in the Quarterly, she presents more than a dozen statements indicating that the salvation of which she speaks is more than any merely legal accounting. Here are some of these:
Many concede that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world, but at the same time they hold themselves away from Him, and fail to repent of their sins, fail to accept of Jesus as their personal Saviour. Their faith is simply the assent of the mind and judgment to the truth; but the truth is not brought into the heart, that it might sanctify the soul and transform the character (Ibid., p. 390).
This faith leads its possessor to place all the affections of the soul on Christ; his understanding is under the control of the Holy Spirit, and his character is molded after the divine likeness (Ibid., p. 391).
His faith is not a dead faith, but a faith that works by love, and leads him to behold the beauty of Christ, and to become assimilated to the divine character (Ibid., pp. 391, 392).
In order to obtain the righteousness of Christ, it is necessary for the sinner to know what that repentance is which works a radical change of mind and spirit and action (Ibid., p. 393).
The work of transformation must begin in the heart, and manifest its power through every faculty of the being; but man is not capable of originating such a repentance as this, and can experience it alone through Christ, who ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men (Ibid., p. 393).
He will pray and watch, and put away his sins, making manifest his sincerity by the vigor of his endeavor to obey the commandments of God (Ibid., p. 393).
The sinner must put forth an effort in harmony with the work done for him, and with unwearied entreaty he must supplicate the throne of grace, that the renovating power of God may come into his soul (Ibid., p. 393).
Having made us righteous through the imputed righteousness of Christ, God pronounces us just, and treats us as just. He looks upon us as His dear children. Christ works against the power of sin, and where sin abounded, grace much more abounds (Ibid., p. 394).
Christ has made an end of sin, bearing its heavy curse in His own body on the tree, and He hath taken away the curse from all those who believe in Him as a personal Saviour. He makes an end of the controlling power of sin in the heart, and the life and character of the believer testify to the genuine character of the grace of Christ (Ibid., p. 395).
To those that ask Him, Jesus imparts the Holy Spirit; for it is necessary that every believer shall be delivered from pollution, as well as from the curse and condemnation of the law (Ibid., p. 395).
Through the work of the Holy Spirit, the sanctification of the truth, the believer becomes fitted for the courts of heaven; for Christ works within us, and His righteousness is upon us. Without this no soul will be entitled to heaven. We would not enjoy heaven unless qualified for its holy atmosphere by the influence of the Spirit and the righteousness of Christ (Ibid., p. 395).
By beholding Jesus we receive a living, expanding principle in the heart, and the Holy Spirit carries on the work, and the believer advances from grace to grace, from strength to strength, from character to character. He conforms to the image of Christ, until in spiritual growth he attains unto the measure of the full stature in Jesus Christ. Thus Christ makes an end to the curse of sin, and sets the believing soul free from its action and effect (Ibid., p. 395).
Only after such lines as the above do we come at last to the statement included in the Quarterly:
Every soul may say: ‘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. By faith in His merits I am free from the condemnation of the law. He clothes me with His righteousness, which answers all the demands of the law. I am complete in Him who brings in everlasting righteousness. He presents me to God in the spotless garment of which no thread was woven by any human agent. All is of Christ, and all the glory, honor, and majesty are to be given to the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.’
Not only this, but after the above statement appears in paragraph 19 (out of the 26 total), Mrs. White makes several qualifying statements with reference to the justification envisioned:
Every sin must be renounced as the hateful thing that crucified the Lord of life and glory, and the believer must have a progressive experience by continually doing the works of Christ. It is by continual surrender of the will, by continual obedience, that the blessing of justification is retained (Ibid., p. 397).
It is an evidence that a man is not justified by faith when his works do not correspond with his profession (Ibid., p. 397).
The faith that does not produce good works does not justify the soul (Ibid., p. 397).
But while he is justified because of the merit of Christ, he is not free to work unrighteousness. Faith works by love and purifies the soul (Ibid., p. 398).
There is very decided context to help the reader understand that according to Mrs. White’s message in the article, justification encompasses far more than any merely legal declaration. Justification includes in itself a decided internal work.
Within the broader texture of Mrs. White’s article in mind, the student of the Quarterly is more ready to correctly understand. Indeed, rather than the robe of Christ’s character being a mere covering over our own retained greasy robes of sin, it is seen that the robe of Christ’s righteousness is our character changed by His character.
[Monday, March 7] Justified
Hebrew TSaDaQ
Are the original language terms TSaDaQ and dikaioo merely legal terms? That’s what the Quarterly says on p. 90. For evidence, Isaiah 53:11 is quoted: “By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.” It will be of interest to the reader to understand that in the Hebrew language there is usually a very strong correlation between nouns and verbs. In fact, the words are often composed with three main consonants only having differing vowels for nouns and various verb tenses. Thus it is here. In the sentence “By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities,” Jesus as “My righteous (TSaDDiQ) Servant” is described as “righteous” or “just.” In the same sentence “shall justify (TSaDaQ) many,” the verb translated by the English “justify” actually uses the same root letters as the noun: TS-vowel-D-vowel-Q.
In other words, for us to better understand the connection in English, it could help if we translated the verse, “By His knowledge shall My just servant make many just,” or, “By His knowledge shall My righteous servant make many righteous.” The use of different English words obscures the close connection between a righteous servant who makes others righteous. They are not merely counted or declared righteous—they are made righteous.
The Bible uses the term TSaDDiQ to describe Noah (Genesis 6:9 Noah was a “just” (TSaDDiQ) man. In Genesis 7:1 God tells him that “Thee only have I seen righteous (TSaDDiQ) before me in this generation.” Does He mean, You are the only one I have pretended was righteous? Was Noah a just man only in a pretended sense? What use is a proclamation only in imagination that a man is just? In fact, the TSaDDiQ man is described throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. A search will find over 200 uses of the term. Some uses describe God, but most describe men with sinful natures. You can live against the tide. Through the power of the indwelling Christ you can be TSaDDiQ!
The HWC Quarterly declares that TSaDaQ is a legal term only. But is that really an adequate description? Our examination of 40 uses of the word revealed that its dominant use is in judgment settings. With our Western orientation, we might think of this as a forensic legal setting. However, the Western forensic legal setting is only in part akin to the Hebraic concept of judgment.
Judgment for the Hebrews had to do not with mere law and legislation, but with reaching a fair conclusion. In today’s Western legal system a great system of laws and processes have been developed. The goal of the prosecutor is to secure a conviction. The goal of the defense is to secure an acquittal irregardless of whether the defendant is innocent. The goal of the judge is to interpret the rules of the legal proceedings exactly. These competing purposes suggest that somewhere the goal of achieving an absolutely accurate understanding of whether the defendant has or has not done right or wrong has been undermined. Rules, procedures, agendas become more important than justice; the system takes a precedence over the purpose. Too often, such is how it is with the Western legal understanding of salvation. The overriding agenda is not to secure an accurate evaluation of whether one is innocent or guilty, but to find a means of getting him into the kingdom irregardless of the kingdom he has actually chosen.
In the Hebrew economy, the purpose of judgment was to exonerate the righteous and condemn the wicked. However, the purpose of the judgment in the eyes of Western Christianity is to exonerate the wicked and condemn the even more wicked. No wonder then that we pause for careful study!
Scripture opposes the vindication (TSaDaQ) of the wicked (Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:23). The Bible also insists that the righteous be vindicated (Deuteronomy 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32; 2 Chronicles 6:23).
But the Bible says “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). God justifies the ungodly. But this is what we all were before we came to Christ: ungodly. It is a good thing that He justifies such! Yet in no place does the Bible suggest that the ungodly are justified while continuing to engage in ungodly behavior. God’s clarion call throughout the Bible to those who are opposing Him is “Turn and live!” (Ezekiel 18:21, 32; 33:11, 19). Yes, the Bible says that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:6), but it also warns, “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Peter 4:18). Obviously we must change. With our permission He can work in us powerfully so that we move from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light:
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me (Acts 26:18).
Indeed, Psalm 1 insists that the way of the ungodly will perish. The provision is made for every ungodly one to turn and live. He may be transformed, and in the transforming his ungodliness will perish.
Almost half of the biblical uses of TSaDaQ are found in the book of Job, where the theme is Job’s problematic situation. He is being tested, Satan is aggressively torturing him, but he knows not that it is Satan. Further, he knows that he has faithfully served God. He refuses to admit guilt, even as he refuses to dispute God. His friends are anxious to persuade him to admit sin he has never committed. In fact, one of their arguments is that he is unclean and unrighteous just because he is human (Job 4:17; 15:14; 25:4). Job, they so much as say, you cannot be righteous, you cannot be TSaDDiQ because you are human.
Sound familiar?
As we noted, Noah was TSaDDiQ. The dialogue between Abraham and God in Genesis 18 presupposes the existence of several TSaDDiQ people in Sodom. Ezekiel 18 insists on the existence of TSaDDiQ people. If people can be biblically described as TSaDDiQ, righteous, then it must be true that people can be biblically described as TSaDaQ, doing righteous things. (And we have not even begun to explore the numerous occurrences of other very closely related—and pertinent—terms, such as TSeDeK (righteousness) and TSeDaQa (rightness, justice), which are found all across the pages of the Hebrew scriptures.)
A look at contemporary Judaism should give pause. Here are groups of believers (Conservative, Liberal, Orthodox, Hasidic, etc.) who accept the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures as their Bible. Not one from among the significant such groups embrace the sharply negative view of human nature fallen that Christians accepting the Greek Scriptures do. Not one such group emphasizes human depravity or incapacity to do good, but all such groups embrace the human capacity to do right. Not one such group embraces original sin (but they have in their Bible the texts for it, like Psalm 51:5 and Isaiah 64:6). Could it be that their positive view of the law and of what God can do through man rises, in part, from their concentration upon these 39 books that inevitably put in front of them these ideas (TSaDDiQ, TSaDaQ, TSeDeK, TSeDaQa) of righteous people living righteous lives? We do not claim that the contemporary Jewish view is more correct than the contemporary Christian one. Still, we find the contrast fascinating.
Do we not realize that the great controversy is regarding whether there can be TSaDDiQ (righteous) people doing TSaDaQ (doing right)? Can God’s law be obeyed? God says, Yes, Satan says, No. And what do the people who supposedly receive and know God’s word today say?
Do we or do we not believe Daniel 12:3, which says that “they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness/justness (here, from TSaDDiQ) as the stars for ever and ever”?
Our Quarterly asks us to look at texts like Deuteronomy 25:1 for insight into the true meaning of justification. Indeed, let us do this! Here is that verse:
If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
Notice the charge to the judges. If there is a controversy between men, they shall justify (TSaDaQ) the righteous (TSaDDiQ), and condemn (RoSHia) the wicked (RaSHa). That is, the one who is, in actual fact, righteous, is to be acknowledged as being such. The one who is, in actual fact, the doer of wrong, is to be acknowledged as being such. This includes a legal declaration, but more than this, is an acknowledgment of the actual facts of the situation.
Job’s friends could sit around the fire all day and urge him to admit wrong he had never done, his reputation could be damaged by others’ perception that because of his ailments he was under the judgments of God for his not-admitted personal sin, but at the end of the day Job would still be what he actually was. It concerns me not a little that Christians can be so determined to insist that in justification God declares us precisely what we are not! Indeed, one would think that Christianity had taken its cue from Job’s comforters. But “miserable comforters” (Job 16:2) are such all.
Greek Dikaioo
There are some 40 occurrences also of dikaioo in the Greek Scriptures, and mostly in the writings of Paul. Often, the meaning translates more accurately into “vindicate.” In Matthew 11:19 wisdom is vindicated by her children. In Luke 7:29 the people acknowledge (justify) God as being righteous. In Luke 10:29 you have a fellow trying to have his presupposed personal righteousness affirmed by Jesus. Jesus teaches that the one who does the right thing is the man who stopped to help the Samaritan and urges upon this man that behavior (Luke 10:37). Here it was not talking about what the right thing to do is, but doing the right thing that is commended by Jesus.
Luke 18 has the story of the pharisee and the tax collector praying in the temple. The pharisee affirms that he is not like other men, but he thinks he is better. According to the Scripture, he is trusting that he is righteous in himself (Luke 18:9). In Luke 18:11 the pharisee claims that he is not unjust (adikoi), implying of course that he is just, that he is righteous. But the tax collector stands along the back wall, weeping, admitting that he has sinned. Jesus points out that “this man [the repentant tax collector] went down to his house justified (dedikaiomenos, perfect passive participle form of dikaioo, “having been made righteous”) rather than the other” (Luke 18:14). Did the tax collector go to the temple merely to receive a forensic legal declaration? Or did he go home at peace with God at last?
The prayer of the publican was heard because it showed dependence reaching forth to lay hold upon Omnipotence. Self to the publican appeared nothing but shame. Thus it must be seen by all who seek God. By faith—faith that renounces all self-trust—the needy suppliant is to lay hold upon infinite power…. no man can empty himself of self. We can only consent for Christ to accomplish the work. Then the language of the soul will be, Lord, take my heart; for I cannot give it. It is Thy property. Keep it pure, for I cannot keep it for Thee. Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self. Mold me, fashion me, raise me into a pure and holy atmosphere, where the rich current of Thy love can flow through my soul…. All our good works are dependent on a power outside of ourselves. Therefore there needs to be a continual reaching out of the heart after God, a continual, earnest, heartbreaking confession of sin and humbling of the soul before Him. Only by constant renunciation of self and dependence on Christ can we walk safely (Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 159).
The tax collector refused to trust in himself. He did go home at peace with God. He understood that any good works in his life would only come through a power outside of himself. Did he go home to continue in his sin? No; he experienced here true repentance. He went home at peace with God.
In Acts 13:39 we learn that those who believe are justified, but again, is this the kind of belief that is mere assent, mere acknowledgment? No, it is a vital kind of belief. Again, underneath the Greek is hidden that the verb “believe” (pisteuo) and the noun “faith” (pistis) are related at their very root. In English they appear to be two entirely different words. Those who exercise faith are made right with God, not only in theory but in actual fact. To “believe” is a verb. We might do better if we replaced the word “believe” each time we see it with “exercise faith.”
Paul helps us in Romans 2:13:
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Listening to Moses read in the synagogues doesn’t make one right with God. Paul is saying that we must be doers of the law. These, says he, will in the end be acknowledged as righteous. Do not forget our material from Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 397 that the Quarterly pointed us to:
Every sin must be renounced as the hateful thing that crucified the Lord of life and glory, and the believer must have a progressive experience by continually doing the works of Christ. It is by continual surrender of the will, by continual obedience, that the blessing of justification is retained.
Justification must be retained. At the end, profession is compared with life, talking is compared with walking.
There are two uses of diakaioo in Romans chapter four that are often cited. In Romans 4:2 Paul insists that Abraham was not justified by works. Just like the tax collector, self appeared to Abraham as nothing but shame. He knew that “All our good works are dependent on a power outside of ourselves.” If Abraham could bring his own works accomplished apart from God into the salvation equation, then yes, he would have something to boast about. But he couldn’t and he wouldn’t.
In Romans 4:5 we have:
To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Notice that it is not through our own works that we are made right with God, but through our exercising of faith. As we exercise faith in God who makes right those who were not right before, our faith is evaluated as it actually is: as righteousness.8 We have in ourselves no goodness; God takes the initiative and through His Spirit woos us. When we respond positively it is our choice but His strength. It is a connection between God and man that is beautiful. It is only possible because of Him.
The bulk of Paul’s several quotations in his epistles that use this word (dikaioo to argue that we are made right with God by exercising faith in Him rather than by trusting in the works of the law—that is, our own works done for merit apart from God. Paul is absolutely right!
James argues in 2:20-25 that Abraham and Rahab didn’t just talk but had works to show for their exercise of faith. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only son at God’s command showed that his faith was more than a theory. In James 2:22 we read, “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” Verse 23 says that Abraham was, upon the exercise of his faith “imputed” as righteous. Actually, Abraham was considered as he actually was. He actually was exercising faith in God, he actually was, by not his own strength but the power of God, made right.
James’ key point is that faith without active expression is no faith at all, but that the authentic kind of faith produces works. The works vindicate the reality of the faith.
Finally, in the book of Revelation, at the close of probation, Jesus declares,
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still (Revelation 22:11).
Everyone who has joined himself in covenant relation with God, everyone who has not only heard the law but lived with Jesus, has at the end been made righteous. He declares, “Let the one who is righteous continue to do righteousness,” onward from that moment into eternity.
Many examples could be given to help show that the Hebrew words and the Greek words for justify are much more than legal declarations only. To justify includes the granting of a title, but it also includes the active internal work of making one fit. Thus our ground of hope includes our being declared right, even as it includes the working of His Spirit in and through us. There is a legal component. We do not argue against that. But we must insist, on the basis of Scripture, that there is also a transformative component. Authentic justification will inevitably include both a declaration of one as right and a making of one right. To strip justification of the “make right” component creates a variety of problems and theological traps that play into the hands of those who would focus all attention on the declarative aspect alone.
[Wednesday, March 9] Christ Our Righteousness
On page 92 HWC insists:
In Romans 3:21-26, Paul makes it clear that the righteousness of Christ is the righteousness of God Himself, and this is the righteousness that allows sinners to be justified before God. No human being’s attempt to keep the law can save him or her, for the righteousness that obedience produces is never the righteousness of God Himself.
Yes, the righteousness of Christ is the righteousness of God Himself. Yes, this is the righteousness that allows sinners to be justified before God. No, no human being’s attempt to keep the law can save him or her. Agreed, agreed, agreed. But the fourth assertion, that “the righteousness that obedience produces is never the righteousness of God Himself,” is deadly error.
Who is justified (made right) in Romans 3:26? The one who believes, who exercises faith in Christ. And if they are made right, then our God is both just and Justifier, or righteous and Righteousness-maker. We already saw that the point of the gospel is to make TSaDDiQ people, righteous people, people who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Satan says it is a pipe dream. Jesus says He will demonstrate the power of His gospel through those who will follow Him wherever He goes (Revelation 14:4), and that they will live on righteous still and holy still after probation’s close (Revelation 22:11, 12). He has by that time made them righteous, made them holy.
It is more than arbitrary for HWC to insist that their obedience is not the righteousness of God. How does such an assertion look when the following Scriptures are taken into account?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works (John 14:10).
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:20).
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12, 13).
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to His saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily (Colossians 1:26-29).
More texts might be presented, but in the above it is clear that Jesus showed the same pattern as we must live. Not He, but the Father did the works that appeared in His life. He set the pattern for us. As our accepted sacrifice Jesus today appears in the presence of the Father for us. He is our Intercessor, sending power down from heaven to make our choices to obey effectual. Today Christ lives in us. Paul says he lives life, but what good happens in his life is the goodness of God: “nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”
He lives yet it is not him, it is Christ. But it is Paul too, for he says that “the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God.” Jesus made it possible for Paul to choose to do right, Paul chose to do right, but Paul was without strength to do right, so Jesus does right in him. Who’s righteousness is this then? Paul can lay claim to no part of it as his own. It is the power of God active in his life because he has simply cooperated.
This is the paradigm given in Philippians: work out your own salvation, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do. How can anyone say that this work done in us is not the righteousness of God? The passage in Colossians is the same story. God is working inside the believer mightily. This righteousness is not the believer’s personal righteousness produced apart from God. It is not even a mixture of his own goodness with the goodness of God. It is altogether God’s righteousness. The Quarterly’s statement that “the righteousness that obedience produces is never the righteousness of God Himself,” is not just false but obviously false. So where does such an assertion come from?
It rises from the forensic counted-only justification viewpoint. All that has to do with salvation is kept partioned-off under forensic (counted-only) justification. The work that God does in us cannot be a part of salvation in the preferred evangelical scheme; it has to be limited to a pleasant result of the gospel. Away with this nonsense. I have too agree with God rather than man, and God speaking through His prophet says,
Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed [counted understanding] to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us (Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 63).
I’ll go with that. That is the result of His wondrous cross!
[Sunday, March 13] Cheap Grace and the Cross
On page 97 of the Quarterly the error of separating action from faith is repeated. Read closely: “We saw, too, that this declaration of righteousness in our behalf is by faith, not works. We believe—and Christ’s righteousness becomes our own in the sight of God.” But biblically, believing as an active exercising of faith, must inevitably be accompanied by works. You can’t separate these.
The Quarterly is more right when it on the same page insists that a declaration of righteousness is only the beginning. And we agree completely with this powerful statement:
There’s no question that those who are justified by faith will have a new life in Christ, a life of obedience and sanctification. Justification by faith, without sanctification (which is by faith as well), is a false justification, a false gospel. It’s cheap grace, which is not God justifying the sinner but the sinner justifying sin. It’s a gospel that, in the end, saves no one.
This powerful statement is offset though by the Green Box, bottom of the page thought question:
Imagine two people. The first person believes that she has to strive with all her God-given might to achieve the righteousness she needs to be saved, because she’s not quite sure she has that salvation to begin with. Thus, she strives for a life of obedience. The second works from the premise that she is already saved in Christ, that His righteousness covers her, and now out of love and gratitude she strives with all of her God-given might for a life of obedience. Who’s more likely to succeed in the Christian life, and why?
Both hypothetical parties strive, both with God-given might. They differ in that the first party is represented as trying “to achieve the righteousness she needs to be saved,” while the second is assured already of her salvation. Did you spot the subtle differences? The second also is said to be “in Christ” and to believe that His righteousness covers her, the first merely believes that she must strive with God-given strength. There is no mention there of Jesus.
I propose that we represent them more fairly:
A: Strives. G.g. might. In X. For obedience. Believes He covers. Working out salvation.
B: Strives. G.g. might. In X. For obedience. Believes He covers. Believing already saved.
Somehow the equation looks different now, does’t it? But we must allow Party A to believe also that she has a present salvation even as she is aware that she must keep her body under, that she who thinks she is standing must take heed lest she fall. This puts her in harmony with Mrs. White’s warning:
Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Every one should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation. God's word declares, ‘Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried.’ Dan. 12:10. Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life. (James 1:12.)
Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves. They lose sight of their own weakness and their constant need of divine strength. They are unprepared for Satan's devices, and under temptation many, like Peter, fall into the very depths of sin. We are admonished, ‘Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.’ 1 Cor. 10:12. Our only safety is in constant distrust of self, and dependence on Christ (Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 155).
It is one thing to walk through one’s day in sweet abiding in Christ, to have a clear sense of present salvation. It is another to feel such confidence in the permanency of your “saved” status that you will never fall from it. The experience of Party A is more sober, more safe, for it is in fact the Party B person who according to inspiration is more liable to become overconfident, to trust in themselves, at risk of losing sight of their own weakness, of forgetting their constant need of divine strength. These are the ones who, according to inspiration, are more often found unprepared for Satan’s devices and who fail under temptation. I would instantly prefer the experience of Party A over the presuming Party B.
Summary and Conclusion
My desire had been to address several additional points in these pages, but time has run out on me. I have too many commitments immediately in front of me to spend time fleshing out other issues in the pages we have been studying. If this material is to be useful it needs to go online now. Therefore, a short summary and conclusion will have to suffice.
- Words for sin in the Bible tend to be used very interchangeably. It would be unwise to so sharply differentiate between this and that word for sin so that we create new justifications for misbehavior.
- Sin is not a state of existence, although we may exist in a state of guilt. Sin should viewed as an action category rather than a state category.
- We do not sin because of our bad nature, but because we willfully choose to agree with that nature.
- We inherited a sinful nature from Adam, not Adam’s sin.
- Luther’s conflict with Rome began over the issue of indulgences, not justification by faith.
- Meeting non-meritorious conditions is not damaging to the idea that salvation is a free gift. All significant parties discussing these issues agree with this.
- Ellen G. White’s Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 396 quotation should be considered in harmony with the other 25 paragraphs of that whole document.
- Examining the Hebrew TSaDaQ and the Greek dikaiaoo shows them both as having a more than merely declarative meaning. God not only counts us right but He makes us right.
- The righteousness that is produced in us is in fact not our own righteousness but the righteousness of God.
- False assurance too often accompanies the evangelical gospel so popular in the churches of Babylon and too often in the remnant church today as well.
Oh that time permitted us to carefully address here the idea of Adam, Christ, the taint of sin, and the meaning as well of the term “sanctification,” with certain other points. But perhaps some of the hastily provided material in this short study will still be illuminating to some who are studying these points. We regret that so much space had to be spent working with the biblical languages here, but certain assertions were made that had to be addressed.
It saddens us to see in the SSQ such good work combined with such misconceived work. We wonder how long things will go on in this way. Is the goal to alienate the studious conservatives in the church? When the quality of the Quarterlies continues to be such that the material requires this degree of commentary and correction, the world church risks losing one of its few opportunities for bringing greater unity. More Adventists than it is realized are tired of reading the hybridized gospel promoted in some Quarterlies of recent years. Change please. GCO
Endnotes
- As exemplified in articles such as:
Clifford Goldstein The Wages of (Forgiven) Sin PDF (p. 30) July 22, 1999 Clifford Goldstein Testing Truths, (p. 29) September 23, 1999 Dennis Priebe Protestant or Catholic? March 16, 2001 Clifford Goldstein Joshua and the Angel April 24, 2001 Larry Kirkpatrick IJ Lite May 31, 2001 Larry Kirkpatrick It's 1979 Again November 10, 2001 Clifford Goldstein The Christless Cross, PDF (p. 28) November 22, 2001 Larry Kirkpatrick Conundrum 2001 December 8, 2001 Clifford Goldstein Beyond Logic January 23, 2003 Larry Kirkpatrick Beyond Experience January 23, 2003 - The Hebrew of the Bible was originally written only using the 22 Hebrew consonants. Vowels were vocalized by memory. The Masorites created a system to represent these vowels and their work culminated in the tenth century. In this paper we have chosen to represent the consonants of the Hebrew using capitol letters, vowels with lower case letters. This helps to visually demonstrate the underlying root letters of the various words, which so often in Hebrew are built off of the same set of three consonants.
- Mrs. White never speaks unqualifiedly of sin as a state of existence. She often comments regarding our condition after the fall. For example, “Our condition through sin is unnatural, and the power that restores us must be supernatural, else it has no value. There is but one power that can break the hold of evil from the hearts of men, and that is the power of God in Jesus Christ. Only through the blood of the Crucified One is there cleansing from sin. His grace alone can enable us to resist and subdue the tendencies of our fallen nature.” Ellen G. White, God’s Amazing Grace, p. 104). Her references to man’s post-Fall condition speak also of its misery, or in some way suggest the extensive effects the Fall has had upon us, even while she speaks of overcoming.
- There is found in inspiration a phenomenon sometimes called sin but perhaps better labeled as defilement. These are events where one can become ceremonially unclean. If someone swore in your presence (Leviticus 5:1-5ff), or something that was touched by a leper came into contact with a person, or someone died in your presence, among other things, one was in ancient times considered defiled. The key issue in these cases had little to do with one’s personal choice to rebel against God. But heaven did require a specific response to the event. One becoming aware of his contamination was to seek decontamination via the appropriate sin offering. As Ellen G. White pointed out, Christ touching the leper receives no defilement (The Desire of Ages, p. 266).
- See our short article “Questions on Doctrine Authors Attempted to Explicitly Introduce Original Sin Doctrine. Pre-publication Draft includes multiple explicit references to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin.’” at
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/columns/c-lk031204.php3. - Here is a link to a copy of the 95 Theses:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html,
accessed February 24, 2005, 11:20 a.m. PST. - See “What is the New Theology, Part 8: Obedience: Is it a Condition of Salvation or Does it Only Follow Salvation?” at http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-wint9.php and “What is the New Theology, Part 9: Justification and future sin: Are sins cancelled forever at justification, or is retaining justification conditional?” at http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-wint9.php.
- For a careful study of the true biblical meaning of to count, impute, and reckon, see Larry Kirkpatrick, Real Grace for Real People, pp. 23-41, available from your ABC, from Amazing Facts, or from Orion Publishing at 1-800-471-4284.
© 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.
