Conundrum 2001

SDA Editor Clifford Goldstein cannot understand why those who hold true to an authentic Adventism have a different gospel than he does. He takes exception to a gospel where "we must die daily, we must surrender our will, we must do this, we must do that." In the following paragraphs an Adventist pastor explores that dilemma in a response to "The Christless Cross," Adventist Review, November 22, 2001, p. 28.

From time to time we read articles that astonish us. Few are ready to be surprised any more by the slyly-revised brand of Seventh-day Adventism regularly paraded in the Review. Nevertheless, the article we shall here discuss is an exception. It really takes your breath away. The chief editor of our denomination's world-wide Adult Sabbath-School Bible Study Guide thinks what most of us understand to be the authentic gospel of Seventh-day Adventism is another gospel than the one he holds. The amazing thing is, he is exactly right as to that point; it is -- and decidedly is -- a different gospel. But the question is, which gospel -- Goldstein's, or ours and Ellen G. White's -- is the authentic gospel of Seventh-day Adventism?

It is difficult to see how Goldstein could find fault with the statement he quotes: "Every man, woman, and child must die daily. We must surrender our will moment by moment to God -- the heart united with His heart, the mind united with His mind -- only then can we think the thoughts and live the life of Jesus." In response to this beautiful picture, Goldstein exclaims, "Here we are in the twenty-first century -- more than 113 years after 1888 -- and this is how some people still define the everlasting gospel?!"

Yes. It is! That gospel so disagreeable to the author we review is the very one that warms my heart with love and hope for Jesus who came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) to such an extent that He will save me from my sins and not in my sins (Matthew 1:21).

In these and so many other statements of inspiration, we are told that salvation is more than an accounting only. Salvation means deliverance on an outward and an inward basis. How many times must we recount the texts? But here are a few that are especially plain:

"Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7). Our salvation is, according to this text, inclusive of the matter of washing, regeneration, inward renewing by the Holy Spirit -- inward work. Furthermore, this is spoken of as justification.

Ellen G. White has some lines in Steps to Christ, p. 63 particularly clear and non-twistable: "Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us." One can only ask, how shall we escape such great salvation as this?

"Surrender" also comes in for high marks in both the Bible and Ellen G. White writings. "There must be an entire, unreserved surrender to God, a forsaking and turning away from the love of the world and earthly things, or we cannot be his disciples." (Ellen G. White, RH, August 31, 1886).

Again, whereas some teachers among us prefer to make little of obedience in relation to salvation, and present the cross of Christ as if a replacement for obedience, Mrs. White put the cross of Christ and obedience together. Writing of those who choose disobedience, she said, "Their minds assent to the truth but to obey means to lift the cross of self-denial and sacrifice, and to cease trusting in man and making flesh their arm, and they turn away from the cross." (Ellen G. White, This Day with God, p. 64).

Checking the Math

We have to admit that what Goldstein complains about in his second and third paragraphs, he admits to actually being true in the fourth paragraph of his article. "Through the power of God's Spirit" he says, "a believer can, indeed, die to self daily and, indeed, think the thoughts and live the life of Jesus. That's good news too." This at least, is encouraging to hear. But he makes an important claim in his next sentence:

"But the moment these internal actions become conditions for justification, the moment they become the means by which a person is saved, the good news gets blunted -- like with a sledgehammer." We want to stop here and check Goldstein's math. Clearly, there are conditions for salvation, including our obedience. Consider a few references such as these:

"God works; but man must cooperate with Him in the great plan of salvation. The condition of eternal life is not merely to believe, but to do the words of God." (Ellen G. White, Home Missionary, 1 October 1897). Again, "The great gift of salvation is freely offered to us, through Jesus Christ, on condition that we obey the law of God; and individually we are to accept the terms of life with the deepest humiliation and gratitude." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 15 December 1887). And, "You cannot enjoy His blessing without any action on your part." (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 6, p. 18).

Conditions for Salvation

In particular, Goldstein dislikes conditions having anything to do with salvation. He complains, that it is humanistic and sinner-centered to say, "We must die daily, we must surrender our will . . ." He finishes that sentence mockingly adding, ". . . we must do this, we must do that." Well, inspiration states with all plainness, "Self-denial is the condition of salvation." (Ellen G. White, Bible Echo, 9 December 1895). While we recall the complaint about self-denial by which he opened his article, his, "we must do this, we must do that," is equally disturbing.

The Bible says of the gospel, that it is "the power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16). Salvation is a change for the sinner, his being made holy. The lost person is the object of the plan of redemption. This plan finds its hope in Jesus Christ, but it is hope for the sinner. We cannot see on what basis the charge of sinner-centeredness can be maintained. "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," said Paul (1 Timothy 1:15). I surely hope that the gospel has a central involvement over this issue of saving sinners! Man as lost is at the center as problem, but Jesus, as our hope, is at the center as our Savior.

Where Goldstein seems especially to take exception is at the juncture of our cooperation with the divine in salvation. "The argument that it's God doing the works in us, and thus not our own [work], doesn't let them off the hook" says he. "It' s still the people themselves doing these works, and if these works justify them, then they're saved by faith and works, period."

That complaint is a mistaken one, thoroughly in conflict with basic Scriptures. "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). "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). " 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 1:27-29).

"But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." (John 13:11). "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" (1 Corinthians 6:19).

These texts are among those indicating that in a decisive sense, a divine presence may dwell in us, the Spirit of God, a presence connected with Christ Himself. Are then works done by God in an individual with the individual's consent the works of that individual in any meritorious sense? No. Remember, it is not you yourself doing these works, but "the Holy Ghost which is in you." The Scriptures themselves refute this idea that "it's still the people themselves doing these works . . ."

Necessary Condition or Sufficient Condition?

Actually, what he misses is the difference between necessary condition and sufficient condition. A necessary condition has to be there but it is not sufficient in itself to bring the desired outcome. A sufficient condition is enough in itself to bring about the desired outcome. Our obedience is a necessary condition of salvation, but not a sufficient condition. Our obedience has no merit in it. That is, after we have obeyed, we still have earned exactly zero percent toward the cost of our salvation. We still must obtain to our account 100% of Christ's merit in order to be saved.

In the same line of thought, Jesus' death on the cross provided all that we need in merit in order to be saved. But God has not made the entire matter objective and outside of us. If so, then we would have universalism -- everyone would be saved because Jesus tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9). All have something to do, all are ordained to fulfill a personal and subjective element in the plan of salvation. All must choose to receive Christ and His salvation. Christ's merits are not applied unless we consent; and even our choosing Him earns us no merit, no credit, for it is only because the Spirit of God has moved upon us that we can even choose Him! We bring nothing of our own; all that we have has come from God anyway. Salvation is a gift, free and unobtainable by any merely human actions.

It is when both of these factors are together that salvation has come. Man obeys by the power of the Holy Spirit and meets the condition of obedience, and Jesus' death on the cross is applied in full to His account. Thus one has salvation all outwardly and all inwardly, in whole clothe. Which came first, faith or obedience? Neither. Which came last? Neither. It is one texture. When we exercise faith we obey and when we obey we exercise faith; but neither earns us salvation. Jesus' death counted to us and the work of His Spirit in us is salvation. In fact, anything less is the bearing of a Christless cross.

The Charge of Roman Catholic Salvation Theology

Two decades ago Brinsmead, Paxton, and Ford launched the astonishing claim that an understanding of salvation such as we have just described is Roman Catholic and not Protestant. In recent years this same claim has bubbled to the surface on a repeated basis in columns appearing in theReview.

Goldstein confuses infused righteousness with imparted righteousness. Roman Catholicism teaches infused righteousness -- a righteousness that fills the believer as if he were a battery. The believer becomes the static container of a righteousness supplied by the divine but located in the sinner. Also in Roman Catholicism, you can only fill your infused righteousness gas-tank at the filling station that is located at the Roman Catholic Church; the church itself and only the church dispenses to the receiver.

Imparted righteousness is a righteousness that God gives to the receiver, but only as the receiver continues to abide in the vine. This has been compared to a trolley car experience, and with good cause, for the broken nature of fallen humanity has no gas tank that can be filled. The circuit between the believer and God must remain operational, the link cannot be severed, the current must flow, or no righteousness can be manifest in the life. This is the righteousness of which inspiration teaches.

Actually, Goldstein's claim is just a rehash of all those earlier claims -- claims that the church rejected two decades ago, yet which we discover today being pressed upon our people from our denomination's flagship publications. The "Catholic theology" charge is a misstatement of the facts. A careful study of the teaching of numerous Protestant teachers, particularly in the branch of the Reformation Adventism links most closely to, the "Radical Reformation" (here began the Anabaptists, Baptists, Mennonites, and others), reveals that regeneration, an inward work of righteousness, was understood by them to be a necessary element of the salvation process. And these were anything but Roman Catholic! Only a certain branch of the Reformation held to the formula of counted-righteousness alone as the whole of salvation.

Goldstein actually puts the Catholic theology ahead of the authentic Adventist theology here, for at least, he says, the Catholics provide some hope for their people by providing the teaching of purgatory! We "don't even offer that," he reminds us.

Sinner-Centered?

But if we allow these bringers of new light (new to Adventism, and questionable as light!) to replace the authentic gospel of Adventism with the new version (which is really but a 400 year old distortion), has Adventism been advanced in any way? If we could trade truth in and out like car-parts and install this new gospel, what improvement would we have as a people? What improvement over purgatory? May I suggest that a gospel that really doesn't include a meaningful inward work in the salvation process is a living hell, far worse than a supposed purgatory yet to be experienced.

The Christian life includes battles and conflict in oneself' over sin in the here and now. But there is also victory in the here and now. And the author we review says as much -- let's be fair. But the crux is his demand that "No matter how righteous we become by what God does in us, our salvation still comes only from what God has done outside us, in the life and death of Jesus (see Phil. 3:9). Our hope of salvation must never remain centered upon ourselves, or what happens within; instead, the righteousness that saves us -- the obedience that redeems us and holiness that justifies us -- always remains external to us, a righteousness that exists in heaven itself, 'the righteousness of God' Himself (Rom. 3:21)."

But our hope of salvation has never been centered upon ourselves or on what Christ does in us. Can we be fair at this point too? All we hold is that those inspired statements that say that God works in us, that salvation includes an inward experience of regeneration, that "Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us," must be honored for what they tell us -- no more and no less. All we say is that a critical aspect of our salvation, besides what has happened outside of us, is also, according to inspiration, what happens inside of us. We never said it was the center or tried to make it the center.

The trouble here is that while we want to have a soundly biblical understanding, giving the objective and subjective, the inward and outward experiences both their proper place, the new theology refuses to let us do this. Instead, it imposes a deadly plan upon us, removing entirely the subjective aspect, the cooperative aspect, the regenerative aspect. It goes without saying that so long as this viewpoint is pressed upon us, we will stand up and reject it.

It is not Adventism. That's all. That's the "one technicality" involved here.

What we face as a people is the imposition of this "new" and extreme and biblically-compromised gospel. The new theological plan offered is the wrong one for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The Author's Conundrum

Nearing the end of his piece, the author makes a telling admission: "When some Adventists are trying to meld evolution with our faith, these people [those holding to the gospel of authentic Adventism rather than Ford's gospel] aren't; when some Adventists are questioning our prophetic message, these people aren't; when some Adventists are buying into the subjective and secularist-premised notions of historical criticism, these people aren't; when some Adventists are doubting the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White, these people aren't." Next comes Goldstein's chilling claim: "All of which is commendable, except for one technicality: there's no Christ on their cross, which means that whatever good they offer comes burdened with the unbearable weight of salvation by works, which is no gospel and, certainly, not the 'everlasting' one."

Looking out onto the horizons of Adventism, Goldstein admits without qualification that there are those holding a certain viewpoint within Adventism that is, in essence, operating consistently within their tenets of faith in all these crucial respects. These folks have no trouble with evolution, or with our historic prophetic understandings, or with historical criticism, or with the ministry of Ellen G. White. In none of those areas are they accused of departing from the truth or following the trends so dominant in some sections of our church. They are accused only of consistency, and this to their credit.

But the author of the article thinks that their gospel is a works-gospel, and rejects all their consistency on all their other points with the suggestion that they are presenting the issue of salvation in a misstated manner. This is his giant conundrum, the inexplicable corner he has painted himself into, his riddle and dilemma. Namely, if these folk to whom he refers are consistent in all these other points, isn't it possible that they are being consistent here too? Isn't it possible that they are rightly interpreting the Bible and Ellen G. White in their understanding of what the everlasting gospel is?

Is it possible that on this single point, the only one given or even suggested where we are said to be wrong -- could it be that a more careful and fair look is required by the evidence? Could it be that right here, loath though a certain segment doubtless would be ever to admit it -- could it be that here also there is soundness?

In his article Goldstein describes the gospel as follows: "The good news that Jesus, the God-man, lived a life of perfect obedience to the law, and then died as my substitute in order that I, by faith, can claim His perfect righteousness as my own, a righteousness that comes only by faith in His righteousness -- a righteousness credited to me apart from the 'works of the law.' (Gal. 2:16)." There are some points we could work on here, but fine, OK, granted. What has been said in those lines is more or less true. But it is not the whole picture. At best, we encounter here little more than half of the story -- the objective half only.

Here is our objection: the great controversy between good and evil will never be ended by half the gospel, even if we might go so far as to admit that the "half" expressed just above is the most important half in that it is the half that has the full merits of Christ needed for application to our account. We here remind promoters of the new theology: the plan of redemption includes regeneration as part of the gospel. That may not be in vogue, but then who is worried about that? It is the truth of God.

Too Bad About That Magazine

Incidentally, Goldstein says his purpose in critiquing the article "The Three Angel's Messages" in this self-supporting magazine was to check and see whether perhaps its editors had "mellowed over time." If he meant that he was checking to see whether his extreme new theology gospel had leaked into it, then his answer is obviously, no, it has not. And that is a good thing. How regrettable that we cannot say the same of the Review.

What appears to be contemplated by some for Adventism is akin to what happened to the Worldwide Church of God a few years ago. There, from the top down, theological changes were made, showing up in that denomination's flagship publications. Ultimately they lost sight of the Sabbath and changed their entire belief system. The result was a ruined denomination.

They lacked the counsel of prophetic inspiration, and when the time came for his move, our adversary made short work of them. SDAs are in a much different situation. Many Ellen G. White books are still coming off of denominational presses. Many (although far fewer than there ought to be), of our people are still reading the inspired works, still studying the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy writings. These, if they are still reading the Review (many have long ago discontinued reading it), should easily detect these departures from authentic Adventism. There should be an outpouring of protest against this continued revisionism, in the letters column. But only the editors will know how many wrote in, and whatever that number is, it will be only a small slice of those who would complain if they had any confidence that their doing so could lead to change. It is long past time for articles on the order of "The Christless Cross" to disappear from the Review. Let Desmond Ford publish his own theology in his own publications, but don't publish it here. It's too bad about that magazine.

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American Southwest as pastor to several churches. He received his BA in Religion from Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with a specialization in Adventist Studies. While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate Berrien Springs branch office. More important than his scholastic preparation has been his immersion in the biblical and Spirit of Prophecy materials. He is author of the 2003 book Real Grace for Real People. Presently he serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located near Loma Linda, California. Larry is married to Pamela. The couple presently live in Highland, California along with their two children, Etienne and Melinda.