BEYOND THE WORD OF GOD

Kevin D. Paulson ++ Originally published on GreatControversy.org ++ 30 January 2003

Experience-driven theology has become a most dangerous trend in contemporary Adventism. And a recent editorial by a leading Adventist writer acknowledges without shame the dominant role experience plays in the salvation theology he holds so dear.

The author claims, "Every time I write about it (justification), I get barraged with letters, e-mails, phone calls, few of them friendly" (1). He goes on to write of an Adventist minister with a Web site who "harangues" him for promoting "cheap grace and an incomplete gospel" (2).

We won't speculate as to whose Web site this might be -- that's hardly the point! The point is, we need to consider what Scripture says -- and doesn't say -- on this all-important topic. Serious Bible study, not harangue, is what this reply is all about.

If the author in question were studying the Bible with a non-Adventist Christian regarding, say, the Sabbath or the state of the dead (as I'm sure he has), he would soon find that merely quoting a few texts which obviously support the Adventist position would not be enough. In order to fully persuade such a one of the Bible's teaching on these or other issues, time must be spent explaining what those verses mean which appear on the surface to teach otherwise -- such as, for example, verses which purportedly say the Sabbath was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14-16) or that the righteous go directly to heaven at death (2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23).

Unfortunately, while this author has indeed stated his views often regarding the subject of justification by faith (3), he has made no effort at all to explain to his readers what they should do with all the Bible verses, all the Spirit of Prophecy statements, which clearly militate against the position he holds. Unless he makes such an effort, he can no more hope to persuade his Adventist brethren who dispute his position than he could hope to persuade a non-Adventist without belaboring the evidence the latter might present.

In short, this reply challenges the author in question not to simply dismiss or castigate those who disagree with him, nor to batter them with experience-driven appeals -- which we will examine later in this reply. Rather, we challenge him to join us in studying the Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy evidence, and to bring his cherished views -- as we seek to bring ours -- to be corrected by that evidence.

The editorial's title, "Beyond Logic," admits a very real problem in the author's thinking, which we will address shortly. But while moving beyond logic has its obvious perils, moving beyond the Word of God is far worse.

Here, at the bottom line, is where this author has erred most grievously.

Forensic-Only Salvation

The author in question promotes a theme typical of those in contemporary Adventism who hold that the Christian is saved exclusively by forensic righteousness, or justification. Put simply, he maintains that while victory over sin won't save him, believing his salvation is assured without such victory makes him want to be victorious. In the author's own words:

The experience of Christ's righteousness covering my sins is exactly what makes me want to purge those sins from my life (4).

In other words, even though I'm saved by justification alone, this very fact -- so the argument goes -- makes me want to experience sanctification.

None, of course, can dispute what another says about the longings of his own heart. But the desire of this author for personal holiness is not in question here. The Biblical accuracy of his teachings is.

Forensic-only salvation is simply not taught in the pages of Scripture. Certainly it is true that forensic righteousness, the forgiveness of sins, is a part of our salvation. Such verses as the following make this clear:

Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24).

In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7).

But the Biblical scope of salvation doesn't stop there. Other verses make it clear that the saving process includes sanctification and the inward work of the Holy Spirit:

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

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).

Two points stand out in the above verses:

1. The Spirit's work of regeneration and sanctification is a part of the believer's salvation, not merely its result.

2. This transforming work of the Spirit is described in contrast to the "works of righteousness which we have done," making it clear that when this same writer states elsewhere that we aren't saved by works (Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9), the work of the Spirit is not being referred to.

Nowhere in the Bible is the righteousness of sanctification ever described as inferior to that of justification, nor is either ever described as more or less the spotless righteousness of Christ than the other.

Ellen White, like Scripture, is clear that the Spirit's work in and through the believer is part of the ground of our hope:

So we have nothing in ourselves of which to boast. We have no ground for self-exaltation. 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 (5).

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 (6).

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 (7).

The world is seeking for those things that perish with the using; its diligence and activity are not exerted to obtain the salvation gained through the imparted righteousness of Christ (8).

The writings of Ellen White, like those of Scripture, interpret themselves. In her own words: "The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture" (9). We see this principle at work in the above passages. Title and fitness refer respectively to justification (imputed righteousness) and sanctification (imparted righteousness). Both constitute the ground of our salvation, and both constitute the rebuke to the proud heart seeking to earn salvation on its own.

At the beginning we cited the statement by the author in question regarding those who "harangue" him for "promoting cheap grace and an incomplete gospel" (10). But the inspired evidence is clear that this is exactly what he is promoting. Moreover, this author presents no inspired statements -- from either Scripture or Ellen White -- which even remotely suggest that the Spirit's work in the believer doesn't save us. We noted earlier that the author in question has written on this subject before, and in the same context. But never has he presented inspired evidence to in any way suggest that justification only -- to the exclusion of sanctification -- forms the ground of our acceptance with God in the final judgment.

What the Issue Is Not

Let no one mistake the issue here. The author in question is not being accused of promoting or condoning sin. Nor is he being accused of not believing in sanctification. That is not the issue.

Rather, the issue is whether or not the theology he believes in -- whether he likes it or not -- encourages a lax attitude toward personal holiness and lifestyle standards. No matter how passionately he insists that justification-alone salvation makes him want to be holy, the fact remains that God's written counsel does not teach such a salvation. And no false doctrine can produce genuine holiness. Truth, not error, is the means of Bible sanctification (John 17:17).

A Serious Contradiction

The author in question frankly admits that this views go "beyond logic." But until one reads the editorial, one cannot realize just how accurately this title describes his teachings.

The author's views are truly different from those of most other Adventists who accept this particular salvation theology. Most who believe they are saved by justification alone do so for a simple, logical reason -- because in their view, original sin involuntarily pollutes the behavior of even sanctified Christians, thus making perfect obedience impossible even with the Spirit's power. Adventists who embrace this evangelical doctrine, often called the New Theology, have maintained this logic since the days of Edward Heppenstall (11).

This logic is simple: The law demands perfect obedience, but because of our sinful natures we can't achieve this, even when sanctified by the Spirit. Thus we need forensic righteousness to cover our record -- past, present, and future -- in order to meet the law's demands. Sanctification is important for the Christian to seek, but because of original sin -- so it is claimed -- it can never be perfectly achieved.

The author of the editorial in question breaks from this logic. He claims as follows:

The issues aren't sanctification, or character perfection, or even what's often derided as "demonstration theology" (the idea that God's final generation develops a character that helps answer issues in the great controversy), although I believe in all three concepts. But in the end, however much sanctification, perfection, and character development I possess, unless I am "justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28), I'm going to die the second death, because, believe me, I deserve it (12).

No one in this discussion denies, of course, that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law. The problem is that for the author in question, the "deeds of the law" include regeneration and sanctification. Here, as we noted above, is where he strays from Bible truth.

But the above quotation from the editorial in question reveals a serious contradiction in the author's arguments. On the one hand, he claims to believe in character perfection. On the other, he insists that unless forensic righteousness is the sole ground of his salvation, he doesn't have a chance. What he seems not to understand is that only if perfect obedience is impossible is it necessary for forensic righteousness to be the sole ground of salvation. If in fact the Spirit's transformation can produce in Christian lives the perfect obedience required by the law, as Scripture plainly teaches (Romans 8:4, 13; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:23), forensic righteousness is only needed to cover past sins. The argument that such righteousness is also needed for continuous and future sins is based on the assumption that original sin causes even sanctified performance to inevitably fall short of the law's requirements. If, by contrast, one believes that sanctification can in fact meet those requirements, the need for exclusively forensic salvation -- the "umbrella of eternal grace," as one contemporary Adventist author calls it (13) -- exists no longer.

In short, if one believes in character perfection, forensic-only salvation is not needed. Such salvation is only needed if one believes such perfection remains out of reach even for the sanctified. The author in question is thus seeking to blend concepts totally antithetical one to another, and without any Biblical support as his reason for doing so.

In other of this author's writings, the tension between these alien concepts seems to break, and the author invariably falls on the side of the New Theology gospel. The following statements, from previous articles by the author in question, would certainly appear to contradict his claim in the present editorial to believe in victory over sin:

Even by the grace of God and our own diligent effort, our obedience to the law can never make us righteous before God (14).

However good the news, it gets even better: this legal declaration of righteousness comes -- by faith alone. It can't come to us by works, because we're already sinners, and thus no matter how obedient and law-abiding, we can never achieve the perfect righteousness that a perfect God demands (15).

The wording of one of these statements is especially disturbing, in the light of the following statement by Ellen White:

Their (the saints') robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin through the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil (16).

Covering the Sinner's Defects

The editorial in question begins with an Ellen White statement which reads:

The sinner's defects are covered by the perfection and fullness of the Lord our righteousness (17).

Again we are forced to ask: Unless the author in question understands the above reference as applying to past sins only, why does he soon thereafter maintain his belief in total victory over sin? If defects can be conquered through the Spirit's power, why do they need covering? If this author believes that the work of Christ in us can in fact expunge these defects from our lives, why does he write as follows?

Unless I am saved by a righteousness that exists outside of me, a righteousness that is credited to me independent of my own personal righteousness, then you can stand on that wall at the end of the millennium and wave down to me, because, folks, I'm just not going to be there (18).

One could be forgiven for wondering if the author just isn't quite sure victory is really possible, so he believes he needs a forensic "insurance policy" should sanctification fall short!

The Bible speaks very clearly of "remission of sins that are past" (Romans 3:25); that "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1). Notice that forgiveness is available if we sin, not when. "Overarching forgiveness," the "umbrella of eternal grace," is simply not the doctrine of forgiveness taught in Holy Scripture.

Ellen White is equally clear where forgiveness applies to our life's record:

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. More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty. Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ (19).

Notice how the substitutionary life of Jesus applies only to "sins that are past." Sins that are present and future are not in focus here.

The following statements affirm this point even more clearly:

There is no way back to innocence and life except through repentance for having transgressed God's law, and faith in the merits of the divine sacrifice, who has suffered for your transgressions of the past; and you are accepted in the beloved on condition of obedience to the commandments of your Creator (20).

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 (21).

Notice that while forensic righteousness is indeed essential to cover our past sins, imparted righteousness (sanctification) takes over from there. But since both imputed and imparted righteousness come from Jesus, both constitute salvation and righteousness by faith

Notice also the condition described in one of the above statements for being "accepted in the beloved" -- obedience to God's commandments. Other statements affirm this point:

It was impossible for the sinner to keep the law of God, which was holy, just, and good; but this impossibility was removed by the impartation of the righteousness of Christ to the repenting, believing soul. The life and death of Christ on behalf of sinful man were for the purpose of restoring the sinner to God's favor, through imparting to him the righteousness that would meet the claims of the law and find acceptance with the Father (22).

And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." . . . This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him (23).

Through Jesus there is divine sympathy between God and the human beings who, through obedience, are accepted in the beloved. . . . The commandment-keeping people of God are to walk in the sunlight of Christ's righteousness, their countenances expressing cheerfulness and thanksgiving, joyful in the assurance, "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and enter in through the gates into the city." Revelation 22:14 (24).

Once again, we must return to Inspiration's self-interpreting principle: "The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture" (25). Past sins are covered by forensic righteousness, present and future sins are conquered by imparted righteousness. Both are needed for us to be "accepted in the beloved."

Let us return, for a moment, to the Ellen White statement with which the author in question began his editorial:

We are accepted in the beloved. . . . The sinner's defects are covered by the perfection and fullness of the Lord our righteousness (26).

But we have seen from both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy that the defects covered by Christ's righteousness are the believer's past sins, not his present or future ones. This "umbrella" doctrine of justification which so many believe is really another form of the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, only in this case the indulgences are free! A number of other Ellen White statements make it very clear that justifying righteousness does not cover a continuous state of sin:

It is by continual surrender of the will, by continual obedience, that the blessing of justification is retained (27).

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 (28).

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 (29).

Again we ask, Why is the author in question so insistent on having his defects covered if he truly believes the Spirit's power can overcome them? "Overarching" forgiveness is only necessary if sin is unconquerable.

Joshua and the Angel

Sometime ago, the author in question wrote another editorial regarding Ellen White's commentary on Zechariah 3 and the story of Joshua and the Angel (30). Here we find the people of God, in the final stages of heaven's judgment, symbolized by the high priest Joshua, as Satan levels his charges against them. The author in question quotes Ellen White as saying:

The high priest cannot defend himself or his people from Satan's accusations. He does not claim that Israel are free from fault (31).

They (the people of God) are fully conscious of the sinfulness of their lives (32).

We cannot answer the charges of Satan against us. Christ alone can make an effectual plea in our behalf. He is able to silence the accuser with arguments founded not upon our merits, but on His own (33).

The author in question then writes:

However much emphasis Ellen White placed on holy living -- as did Jesus, Paul, John (Matt. 5:8; Rom. 6:12; I John 3:7) -- she clearly showed that the foundation of our acceptance with God rests in "the mighty arguments of Calvary" alone, the only way we can be acceptable to a holy God (34).

Once again, it is clear that for this author, the "mighty arguments of Calvary" refer to justification only, and do not include the work of sanctification in the lives of believers.

But as in the earlier statements we have studied, Ellen White is clear in her narrative of Joshua and the Angel that the sins of believers described in this context are in the past, not the present:

Are these," he (Satan) says, "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 (35).

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 that he has tempted them to commit (36).

Israel were 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 (37).

In each of these statements the sins of believers are referred to in the past tense. We read such phrases as "the sins which have marked their lives," "the record of their lives," "have been," "has dishonored," "former transgressions." We don't read that the people of God are in many respects very faulty; rather, that they have been. Ellen White goes on to clarify what has become of the sins which once afflicted the lives of His now-victorious saints:

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 (38).

This narrative is thus in perfect harmony with Ellen White statements such as the following, which describe the spiritual condition possessed by God's people at this time:

Those who receive the seal of the living God and are protected in the time of trouble must reflect the image of Jesus fully (39).

I saw that none could share the "refreshing" unless they obtain the victory over every besetment, over pride, selfishness, love of the world, and over every wrong word and action (40).

Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement. Then the latter rain will fall upon us, as the early rain fell upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost (41).

Are we seeking for His fullness, ever pressing toward the mark set before us -- the perfection of His character? When the Lord's people reach this mark, they will be sealed in their foreheads. Filled with the Spirit, they will be complete in Christ, and the recording angel will declare, "It is finished" (42).

The Merits of Christ

The author in question writes:

I can't imagine how anyone who knows the Lord, who has even seen a glimpse of God's righteousness as revealed in Jesus, could believe that whatever the Holy Spirit is doing in their lives is good enough to give them saving merit before God (43).

With apologies to this author, he seems quite unaware of the clear teachings of the Spirit of Prophecy.

The term "merits of Christ" is not found in the Bible, so the only inspired writer who uses it is Ellen White. And in her writings, this term is simply a synonym for the righteousness of Christ. These merits are imputed to cover past failings, as the following statement makes clear:

The only way he (the sinner) can attain to righteousness is through faith. By faith he can bring to God the merits of Christ, and the Lord places the obedience of His Son to the sinner's account. Christ's righteousness is accepted in place of man's failure (44).

But these merits are also imparted, as power for sanctified living:

He who was once a sinful human being may be refined and purified through the imparted merits of Christ, and stand before his fellow men as a laborer together with God (45).

Our Redeemer determined on nothing less than that through His merits the love of God should be transfused through the soul that believes in Him. As our life, the vitality of God's love is to circulate through every part of our nature (46).

A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character (47).

Could we see all the activity of human instrumentality, as it appears before God, we would see that only the work accomplished by much prayer, which is sanctified by the merit of Christ, will stand the test of the judgment (48).

When the law of God is thus implanted in the soul of the believer, he is approaching eternal life through the merits of Jesus. . . .
      Here in this life is the testing, trying time. The angels of God are watching the development of character, and weighing moral worth. The whole question is settled in this: Is he obedient or disobedient to the commandments of God? Has the sinner been transformed in this world, through the merits of Christ, to an obedient servant, so that he is fitted to join the heavenly society? (49).

Through the merits of His blood, you may overcome every spiritual foe, and remedy every defect of character (50).

In light of the above, for anyone to say that the work of the Spirit in the life lacks saving merit before God, is to collide with some of the plainest statements of Inspiration.

The Closer We Come to Jesus

The author in question writes elsewhere:

If, as Ellen White writes, the closer we get to Christ, the worse we seem in our own eyes, then how could anyone drawing near to Jesus believe that whatever is happening in them justifies them in any way? (51).

Let's look at the some of the Ellen White statements which speak in this way:

Those who experience the sanctification of the Bible will manifest a spirit of humility. Like Moses, they have had a view of the awful majesty of holiness, and they see their own unworthiness in contrast with the purity and exalted perfection of the Infinite One (52).

The more we contemplate the character of Christ, and the more we experience of His saving power, the more keenly shall we realize our own weakness and imperfection, and the more earnestly shall we look to Him as our strength and our Redeemer (53).

The nearer we come to Jesus, and the more clearly we discern the purity of His character, the more clearly shall we see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the less shall we feel like exalting ourselves. There will be a continual reaching out of the soul after God, a continual, earnest, heart-breaking confession of sin and humbling of the heart before Him (54).

The greater the distance between them and their Saviour, the more righteous they appear in their own eyes (55).

Notice that none of these statements say that the closer we come to Jesus, the more faulty we become. Rather, they say that the closer we come to Jesus, the more faulty we appear in our own perception. The reason for this is not the inability of the Spirit's power to overcome sin in our lives, but the simple fact that none of us knows our own heart. Scripture declares of God, "Thou, even Thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men" (1 Kings 8:39). The Bible declares that Job was perfect (Job 1:1), that despite extreme provocation he did not sin (Job 1:22; 2:10). Yet he declared of himself, at the same time:

If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul: I would despise my life (Job 9:20-21).

The fact that we don't know our own hearts means that even when we make sanctified progress, we humbly recognize that God may yet have more to reveal from our lives that needs changing. Moreover, the knowledge of our past failings helps us remember how helpless we are -- as was Peter on the waves of Galilee -- once we turn our eyes from Jesus. And through it all, we bear in mind that our God isn't willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), and that, in the words of Ellen White:

As long as there is hope, until they resist the Holy Spirit to their eternal ruin, men are guarded by heavenly intelligences (56).

In another statement she writes:

He who bears with him a continual sense of the presence of Christ cannot indulge self-confidence or self-righteousness. None of the prophets or apostles made proud boasts of holiness. The nearer they came to perfection of character, the less worthy and righteous they viewed themselves (57).

Obviously we find a growing gap here between the Christian's self-view and what God in fact is doing in the Christian's life. In the above passage, and the others we have seen, believers are indeed portrayed as coming nearer to God's standard in their daily lives. But their knowledge of where they have been, the pit from which God has lifted them, helps them remember the only Source of their strength.

Ellen White states in another passage: "No one who claims holiness is really holy. Those who are registered as holy in the books of heaven are not aware of the fact, and are the last to boast of their own goodness" (58). Obviously she isn't talking here about people being forensically declared righteous, for anyone declared as such would be aware of this fact. Rather, she is speaking of internal righteousness produced by the transforming Holy Spirit, and that those made holy and perfect by such righteousness are not aware of this achievement even though it is a factual reality of their lives.

In short, forensic-only salvation isn't necessary to give us hope. We may see that the Holy Spirit has a long way to go in perfecting us, but we know God will complete this work so long as we cooperate. If, by contrast, we seek an assurance of salvation which transcends our daily choices to obey or disobey God, we are asking of God something He can never give. God will never transcend the liberty of His creatures, even to give them peace of mind. That is the way of dictators and tyrants, but not of our freedom-loving Lord. Perhaps one day we will acknowledge that the sore sticking point of this entire assurance debate is that, when all is said and done, our own free will is what stands in the way of assurance. We want Jesus and His salvation, but we aren't totally sure we don't want a little sin from time to time. And so long as we insist on occasional choices to sin, our assurance will be less than total.

The Experience Trap

But by far the most dangerous theme of the editorial in question is the author's repeated reference to personal experience as the guide to his beliefs on salvation.

The seriousness of this problem becomes even more acute when one considers another editorial this author wrote several years ago. Recounting the twentieth anniversary of his joining the Adventist Church, he writes of his Christian walk:

Victories that I should have had long ago have been more distant than faint galaxies; spiritual goals seem as unreachable as childhood fantasies; promises made to myself have turned out to be lies to myself. I do things now I might not have once done, rationalizing my actions in the name of spiritual maturity, or (even more a joke!) freedom in the gospel. Though Jesus is supposed to be my example, why do I still relate so much better to Judas? (59).

Later in this same editorial he recounts the fanatical zeal of his early years as an Adventist -- including his conviction, supposedly based on Scripture, that Ted Kennedy would become President of the United States (60). He then writes of how "perhaps my only progress is that I'm so much more accepting of others now," even those who differ with him theologically (61). But then he wonders aloud, "Does this acceptance reflect spiritual maturity, or the dimming of the fire?" (62).

One finds these words especially troubling when compared to his thoughts in the editorial under discussion, in particular his claim that "the experience of Christ's righteousness covering my sins is exactly what makes me want to purge those sins from my life" (63). We might feel a bit better about this statement were the author to testify that the "faint galaxies" he wrote about three years ago are now, by the grace of God, many light-years closer!

Since I have had to ask such questions of myself at times, perhaps I can rightly raise them in a context such as this. Just how badly do we want to overcome the sins in our lives? Why aren't we sorry enough for our sins that we quit? If victories we should have had long ago are still "faint galaxies" and "unreachable fantasies," could there be something seriously wrong?

We need to be careful here, of course. Merely because a person still struggles with a persistent sin in the life doesn't mean the theology he believes is wrong. After all, a person can believe correct theology but still fail to internalize it. Only the written counsel of God, not a person's experience, can ultimately determine which theology is right and which is wrong.

But the most egregious problem arises when one ignores the clarity of inspired counsel regarding the nature of the gospel, embracing instead a gospel theology more accommodating to one's experience.

In the editorial under discussion, the author writes:

I am baffled, because, unless my whole experience over the past 23 years is wrong, I can't imagine how anyone who knows the Lord, who has even seen a glimpse of God's righteousness as revealed in Jesus, could believe that whatever the Holy Spirit is doing in their lives is good enough to give them saving merit before God (65).

Such a one must indeed consider whether his past experience has been wrong! Especially in the light of the inspired evidence we have examined in this reply, which clearly teaches that the Spirit's inward work is involved in our salvation. What is supremely ironic is the author's claim which we noted earlier, that his experience is "interpreted and judged by the Word" (66). Indeed it is, but sadly, the overwhelming evidence that the Word and its inspired commentary by Ellen White disagrees with his position, seems to be totally ignored by this author.

The editorial concludes with these comments about those who disagree with him on this issue:

Without wanting to be judgmental, all I can think is that these folks, having never experienced justification by faith themselves, are allowing logic alone to rule their theology, and logic alone tells them that if we are covered by Christ's righteousness as the only means of salvation, apart from anything that we do or even from anything that is done in us -- what's to stop us from living a life of sin! (67).

Unfortunately, after having written what he wrote three years earlier, about the lack of victory in his life, this author's readers might perhaps be forgiven for reminding him that his own admissions affirm the logic he seeks to discredit. Moreover, the history of modern Adventism over the past several decades, during which the author's theology has played a prominent role in the ministry and institutional structure of the church, offers ample evidence that greater attention to lifestyle integrity is in no way nourished by the doctrine of justification-alone salvation!

Another contemporary Adventist writer, who teaches a salvation doctrine very similar to the author in question, openly calls for the church to accept smokers into its fellowship (68), to allow for the wearing of jewelry (69), and to accept as legitimate such forms of worship as contemporary music and theatrical drama (70).

In other words, observation as well as logic compels conservative Adventists to take issue with the author in question. The reality of the church's current scene and the evident record of recent times makes clear the fruition of the theology this author cherishes. Justification-alone salvation is a dagger pointed at the church's heart. In most cases it leads directly to the denial of complete victory over sin, thus making a mockery of our denominational banner: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:12). And in a growing number of other cases, this author's "gospel" produces an intolerable tension with key doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, such as the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the remnant-church theology.

Again let it be clear that I do not accuse this author -- who happens to be a friend -- of seeking to condone sin. But his own testimony bears witness to the likelihood that his life has been a victim of his own theology, and that finding an experiential comfort level seems of greater importance than the objective study of inspired counsel. As was said at the first, to move beyond logic is perilous. But to move beyond the Word of God spells disaster of eternal proportions -- like finding oneself at the foot of the wall at the end of the millennium, waved at by former brethren astride the golden ramparts (71).

1. Clifford Goldstein, "Beyond Logic," Adventist Review, Jan. 23, 2003, p. 28.
2. Ibid.
3. ________, "Shocked by Isaiah 53," Adventist Review, May 1997, p. 11; "The Wages of (Forgiven) Sin," Adventist Review, July 22, 1999, p. 30; "Testing Truths," Adventist Review, Sept. 23, 1999, p. 29; "By Grace Alone?" Adventist Review, June 22, 2000, p. 9; "Joshua and the Angel," Adventist Review, May 24, 2001, p. 29; "The Christless Cross," Adventist Review, Nov. 22, 2001, p. 28.
4. ________, "Beyond Logic."
5. Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 63.
6. ________, Desire of Ages, p. 300.
7. ________, Messages to Young People, p. 35.
8. ________, Special Testimonies, Series B, p. 278.
9. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
10. Goldstein, "Beyond Logic."
11. Edward Heppenstall, "Let Us Go On to Perfection," Perfection: The Impossible Possibility (Nashville: Southern Publishing Assn, 1975), pp. 70-76; Desmond Ford, "The Only Two Religions in the World," Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1985), p. 13; Helmut Ott, Perfect in Christ: The Mediation of Christ in the Writings of Ellen G. White (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1987), pp. 26-28; George R. Knight, The Pharisee's Guide to Perfect Holiness: A study of sin and salvation (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1992), pp. 33-55; Martin Weber, Who's Got the Truth? Making sense out of five different Adventist Gospels (Silver Spring, MD: Home Study International Press, 1994), pp. 101-108; Woodrow W. Whidden II, Ellen White on Salvation: A Chronological Study (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1995), pp. 41-43.
12. Goldstein, "Beyond Logic."
13. Keavin Hayden, Lifestyles of the Remnant (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2001), p. 24.
14. Goldstein, "Testing Truths," Adventist Review, Sept. 23, 1999, p. 29.
15. ________, "By Grace Alone?" Adventist Review, June 22, 2000, p. 9 (italics original).
16. White, Great Controversy, p. 425.
17. ________, Our High Calling, p. 51.
18. Goldstein, "Beyond Logic."
19. White, Desire of Ages, p. 762.
20. ________, Signs of the Times, Dec. 15, 1887.
21. ________, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1092.
22. ________, Faith and Works, p. 118.
23. ________, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 1, p. 1103.
24. ________, Review and Herald, May 3, 1898.
25. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
26. ________, Our High Calling, p. 51.
27. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 397.
28. ________, Our High Calling, p. 214.
29. ________, My Life Today, p. 250.
30. Goldstein, "Joshua and the Angel," Adventist Review, May 24, 2001, p. 29.
31. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 468.
32. Ibid, p. 473.
33. Ibid, p. 472.
34. Goldstein, "Joshua and the Angel."
35. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 474 (italics supplied).
36. ________, Great Controversy, p. 484 (italics supplied).
37. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 469 (italics supplied).
38. Ibid, p. 474 (italics supplied).
39. ________, Early Writings, p. 71.
40. Ibid.
41. ________, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 214.
42. ________, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1118.
43. Goldstein, "Beyond Logic."
44. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 367.
45. ________, This Day With God, p. 151.
46. ________, That I May Know Him, p. 19.
47. ________, Christ's Object Lessons, p. 331.
48. ________, Christian Service, p. 263.
49. ________, Sons and Daughters of God, p. 50.
50. Ibid, p. 227.
51. Goldstein, "Beyond Logic."
52. White, Great Controversy, p. 470.
53. ________, Sanctified Life, p. 83.
54. ________, Acts of the Apostles, p. 561.
55. ________, Sanctified Life, p. 8.
56. ________, Our High Calling, p. 23.
57. ________, Faith and Works, p. 54.
58. ________, Faith I Live By, p. 140.
59. Goldstein, "Anniversary," Adventist Review, March 23, 2000, p. 13 (italics original).
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid (italics original).
63. ________, "Beyond Logic."
64. See Hayden, "My Journey to Graceland," Adventist Review, March 19, 2001, p. 11; Knight, The Pharisee's Guide to Perfect Holiness, pp. 190-191,195; Weber, Who's Got the Truth, pp. 169-186,199.
65. Goldstein, "Beyond Logic."
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid.
68. Hayden, Lifestyles of the Remnant, pp. 50-52.
69. Ibid, pp. 56-74.
70. Ibid, pp. 75-85.
71. Goldstein, "Beyond Logic."

Warning: filemtime() [function.filemtime]: stat failed for http://www.greatcontroversy.org/trunk/pau-btwog.trunk in /usr/www/users/drogue/reportandreview/pau-btwog.php3 on line 17

Pastor Kevin 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.