In this issue:
Without The Law
David Clayton
Although there have always been
several concepts of righteousness embraced by different groups of
people, there is actually only one true standard of righteousness and it
is God’s character as expressed in His law. Ellen White says that,
“righteousness is right-doing (COL – 312),” and we conclude that this
right doing is defined by the law of God when properly understood in its
spiritual application. However, we read something in Romans 3:21 which
gives us an interesting perspective on righteousness.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (Rom 3:21)
If right-doing is righteousness and this right-doing is defined by the
law, how is it possible that there can be a righteousness, “without the
law?” This is the difficulty which many Christians have. They find it
hard to accept that there is a way to salvation and victory which does
not depend on the law or on their observance of the law. They believe
that such an idea will destroy reverence for the law and will lead to a
religion which is indolent, lazy and void of good works. However, let us
put our misconceptions aside and allow the Bible to speak.
If, as Ellen White says, righteousness is “right-doing,” and this is
the true definition of righteousness, then it is clear that there can be
no righteousness unless somebody does what is right. This is simple and
so easy to understand that most people conclude that the answer to
their problem of unrighteousness is simply to start doing what is right.
However, those who are honest soon encounter an insurmountable problem.
They discover that they have taken on an impossible task, for all their
efforts to do good only end in failure and they discover that it is
impossible for them to do what is right, that is, they cannot become
righteous by doing good. Some who are dishonest convince themselves that
they are succeeding and that they are righteous because they observe
the outward forms of the law, but such righteousness is no better than
filthy rags and produces only hypocrisy.
It is clear that man cannot become righteous by obeying the law, yet,
since righteousness is “right-doing,” there can be no righteousness
unless right is done. Unless the law is kept.
Ellen White also says that the only definition of sin is that, “sin is
the transgression of the law.” This indicates that sin cannot arise
unless the law is transgressed. The opposite of “sin,” is
“righteousness.” If we say that a person cannot be a sinner unless he
transgresses the law, then it must be equally true that a person cannot
be righteous unless he observes the law, or does right. Is this in
harmony with the teaching of Scripture?
Righteousness without law
In seeming contradiction the Bible speaks of a righteousness which is
“without the law.” If righteousness is defined by the law, how can there
be righteousness, “without the law” as Paul describes?
The simple answer is that Paul describes it in this way because our
becoming righteous by this means has nothing to do with whether or not
we have kept the law or done what is right – not because the law has not
been kept, but because it is not we who have kept it. This is God’s own
righteousness, a righteousness which is equal to God Himself, a purity
which implies perfect, unblemished right-doing, yet which amazingly,
becomes ours absolutely without any effort or work, or doing on our
part. It is ours by the simple expedient that we believe in Christ.
The question is, what is the legal mechanism by which God makes me
righteous apart from my works? How can He fairly and justly declare that
I am without sin, that I am blameless, how can He restore me to
friendship with Himself and grant me the gift of eternal life when all
my life I have done absolutely no good? How can this be right? Notice
that the Bible declares that this gift of righteousness is “by faith of
Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 3:22) and that we are made the righteousness of
God, “in Him.” (2 Cor. 5:21).
There is only one person who has kept the law perfectly and I mean
absolutely perfectly. There is one who fulfilled every requirement of
the law. This person of course was Jesus Christ. Nobody else has ever
done this. But how does this help me? He has done it, I have not. The
answer lies in the phrase, “in Him.” We are made the righteousness of
God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21).”
Condemned in Adam
We can only understand this when we recognize mankind’s natural
condition and learn how it is that we came to be in that condition.
When Adam sinned at the beginning, he affected the entire human race.
His actions were not only effective in his own experience, but they
affected all humanity. On the basis of his actions, all his descendants
were doomed to be born,
a. Sinful, weak, naturally bent to evil.
b. Degenerate, mortal, sickly, infirm.
c. Alienated from God, unaccepted by God, naturally his enemies.
d. Condemned, that is doomed to die and to remain dead forever.
No honest Bible student can deny these facts, though many find some of
them hard to accept. It is easy to see that Adam’s degeneracy was
passed on to his children. That is a logical consequence of the fact
that the laws of nature dictated that it should be so. Adam’s children
would be weak, sin-prone, sickly, infirm by inheritance. These things
would be passed on to them in their genes. The fact which some find hard
to come to grips with however, is that Adam also lost his status. He
was no longer acceptable to God and he was condemned to die. God
deliberately removed him from the tree of life so that he could die.
This was also in consequence of his sin, but since it was by a
deliberate action of God it must also be regarded as a penalty for his
sin. It was not the result of the natural workings of the forces of
nature (consequences) but was the deliberate imposition of a sentence by
a judge (penalty).
The critical question is this, have the children of Adam suffered only
the consequences of his sin, or have they also suffered the penalty?
This question is critical. If we misunderstand this, then it is not
possible for us to properly understand justification by faith. Let us
consider the simple fact; Adam’s children were all denied access to the
tree of life. It was not just Adam who was cut off from the tree, but an
angel was set on guard there, specifically to prevent him, or his
children and descendants from eating of the tree.
“Had man, after his fall, been allowed free access to the tree of life,
he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized.
But cherubim and a flaming sword kept “the way of the tree of life,”
[GEN. 3:24.] and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to
pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there
is not an immortal sinner.” {GC88 533-4}
In other words, it is clear that not only was Adam’s degeneracy
imparted to his descendants, but also that they were not excluded from
the penalty imposed on him. They were also condemned along with him.
Now, until we understand this properly, it seems to be a most offensive
doctrine and I admit that it was very difficult for me to accept at
first. But when I understood it and saw how it relates to my salvation, I
was filled with joy and happily embraced it as one of the most helpful
facts which I ever learned in relation to the gospel.
Suppose Christ had not intervened on humanity’s behalf, how many of
Adam’s descendants would have inherited eternal life? Not a single one!
How many of them would have been resurrected from the grave once they
had died? Not a single one. Can anyone deny these plain facts? It would
not have mattered whether they died one day old or a thousand years old.
Outside of Christ’s provision man is condemned to eternal death. All
humanity is included in this condemnation. Where did this condemnation
come from? Was it because of what we did personally? Was it because we
broke the law? No! We were born this way! From the moment of birth we
were natural enemies of God and condemned to die.
A Qualified Teacher
This is what Paul says as plainly as it could be said, in Romans
5:12-19, a passage in which he was specifically explaining the gospel.
As we all know, Paul was the apostle who was given the task of taking
the gospel to the gentiles, people who had no background in the things
of Jehovah and who needed careful teaching in the foundational
principles of the truth. To prepare Paul for this work, Christ Himself
personally taught Him the gospel by special divine revelation (Gal.
1:11,12).
Paul’s qualifications for teaching the truth are tremendous. He is
probably more qualified to do so than any other writer in the Bible and
although many people find his writings hard to understand, the problem
is often that they refuse to accept what he says. For example they will
read where Paul says, “we are not under the law (Rom. 6:14),” and they
think, “that is impossible. Whatever does Paul mean by this?” then they
pass it by as one of those things “hard to be understood.” The problem
is not with Paul, but with their pre-conceived ideas.
Similarly, Paul says, “Adams sin made us all sinners and condemned us
all.” Our response has typically been, “I hear you Paul, but I know you
can’t mean what you say. Such an idea is not reasonable, so I suppose
you are just a little careless in the way you express your ideas.” We
place this also in the category of “things hard to be understood.” But
the passages are as plain as day and say exactly what Paul means to say.
The problem is our refusal to accept what we read. I myself was guilty
of this for more years than I care to remember! I read these statements
of Paul and refused to accept what I read. My concept was that I could
only be condemned for my own personal behaviour and Paul’s statements
seemed to contradict that. So for many years I was robbed of truly
understanding some of the most critical aspects of the gospel because my
limited ideas made me resist what Paul taught.
Condemned without law
A person may say, “well, it cannot be so because Jesus made provision
for man to be saved.” That is absolutely true, thank God. But in order
to understand what Christ has done we must understand man’s position
outside of Christ’s provision. So the Bible says that all of us were
condemned by Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:18,19). That is, we were condemned
“without the law.” Adam is the one who was condemned in the law, because
he is the one who broke it. We received that condemnation before we
broke one single law, personally. Our initial condemnation had nothing
to do with whether or not we kept the law. We were condemned from the
moment of birth, even before we were intelligent enough to know that
there is a law. Of course somebody did break that law. That person was
Adam and in doing this he became unrighteous. Now his unrighteousness is
passed on to all his descendants, to all who are in him. They are
condemned because of what he did.
The same principle
Someone may say, “that is unreasonable and unfair.” But hold on a
moment, is it unreasonable and unfair that one man, the second Adam,
should have kept the law, should have done righteousness and we all be
justified and declared righteous because of it? Tell me, what is the
legal basis for this? How can this be fair and right and just? When
Satan accuses God that He has no right to justify us on the basis of
another person’s actions, what does God say? Is He being unfair? Is He
doing what is fair and right and just? Brothers and sisters, if we can
understand that God is acting fairly in justifying us because of what
ONE man did, then how can it be unfair for Him to operate on the SAME
EXACT principle and condemn us because of what one man did? Both actions
are based on the same principle, that is, all receive the benefits of
the actions of one (Rom. 5:15-19). If this principle is wrong in the
case of how Adam relates to his descendants, then it cannot be right in
the way Christ relates to His spiritual descendants. Let us be
consistent, because God is consistent!
But the question arises again, how can this be legally acceptable in
both cases? How can it be fair that many receive the benefits (or
disadvantages) obtained by one. By what rule can such a thing be
justified?
The legal basis
This can only be understood when we grasp the concept that in terms of
these issues, God deals with humanity as a single entity. He deals with
the human race on the basis that we are all a part of one and the same
existence, that we all exist in the same life. This life is the life of
Adam and as the Bible teaches us, there are two Adams. Both of them
possess a different life, a different existence, one condemned and
depraved, the other undefiled and wholly acceptable to God. God deals
with humanity on the basis of the actions of these two men, the first
and the last Adam.
Think for a moment, why is Jesus called the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)?
It is because He has been made the head or the representative of
humanity, just as Adam was. Adam was the father of humanity and as such,
all the human race was in him when he was created. All humanity today
is simply the extension of Adam’s original life, perverted shortly after
its origin and passed on in its condemned state to six billion people
today. Though God loves us individually, yet in terms of the great
events in the history of the fall and redemption of man, God deals with
us as a race – He has acted in behalf of humanity as a whole and it is
from this perspective that we must view the plan of redemption.
In other words, Adam committed sin. All, in him are condemned. Christ
did righteousness. All in Him are justified. Our salvation or damnation
depends entirely upon our relationship to one of these two Adams. Not
upon my relationship to the law, but upon my relationship to these two
men. Salvation is in Christ, condemnation is in Adam. God will save us
individually, but that individual salvation is dependent upon one thing
and one thing only; it depends upon our relationship to these two Adams.
In one, we are lost, regardless of what we have done (that is, apart
from the law). In the other, we are saved, regardless of what we have
done (that is, apart from the law). In terms of salvation it is the
actions of these two which matter, not our actions. All we can do, is
choose which man we will be a part of. To remain in the first Adam where
we found ourselves at birth, which means eternal death, or to be born
into the second Adam by means of faith, which means eternal life.
This is the legal basis for us being either lost by Adam’s action or
saved by Christ’s action. It is not that we took the blame for Adam or
that Christ took the blame for us. Both of these ideas are contrary to
reason and to justice. The only way that this can be rationally and
legally acceptable is when we recognize that we were in Adam when he
sinned. We were there, we were involved, therefore the sentence passed
on Adam that day was our sentence, because we were there. The life which
is our life, our existence in Adam is a condemned one. Here is how some
of the Adventist pioneers saw it:
The Pioneer’s view
The question is, Does the second Adam’s righteousness embrace as many
as does the first Adam’s sin? Look closely. Without our consent at all,
without our having anything to do with it, we were all included in the
first Adam; we were there. All the human race were in the first
Adam. What that first Adam—what that first man, did meant us; it
involved us. That which the first Adam did brought us into sin, and the
end of sin is death, and that touches every one of us and involves every
one of us. – A.T. Jones General Conference Bulletin 1895 – Sermon 14
when God created Adam he created the whole human family. He created
all nations that are upon the earth when he created Adam. That is, in
creating Adam and conferring upon him the power to beget in his own
image, he saw, as it were, a fountain of life in him; and when he
created Adam, he saw in Adam every human being that has been or will be
upon the face of the earth, and he created every human being upon the
face of the earth in Adam. – W.W. Prescott – The Head of The Family.
(1895 General Conference)
That is what this scripture in the seventh of Hebrews, to which we
have referred, has illustrated, how it is that God saw in Adam all the
human family, and how that when he created Adam he created all the human
family. This Scripture means a great deal more than that. Read again
Heb.7:9,10: “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid
tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father when
Melchisedec met him.” When Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, Levi paid
tithes in him, for he was in the loins of his father when Melchisedec
met him. All that Abraham did, Levi did in him. – W.W. Prescott – The
Head of The Family. (1895 General Conference)
Righteous in Christ
In the same way, the new human race was in Christ when He lived here,
died and was resurrected. All of the new humanity was there and this new
humanity lived righteously, kept the law of God perfectly and therefore
it is perfectly legal, reasonable and logical that all who have become a
part of this new humanity, all who become a part of this new human race
should inherit, should partake of the benefits available in it. The
righteousness of Christ is imputed to those who believe in Christ and
this is not simply a make-believe situation. It is not a matter of God
pretending that things are so, although they really are not so. No, this
would not be justice. It would be unreasonable and illegal for God to
judge men as righteous merely because another was righteous. But the
truth is that God is able to impute the righteousness of Christ to us
because we have indeed BECOME a part of Christ’s own existence!! This is
why we are now able to keep the law perfectly.
Oh the wonder of it all! This is not pretence, we have been baptized,
immersed into the very body, the life of Christ by means of the
imparting of the holy spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). We are truly a part of the
very life of Christ, the new humanity, or the last Adam. Therefore we
are made the righteousness of God IN HIM!! We are a part of His body,
members of His “flesh and of His bones (Eph. 5:30). Therefore, He is our
righteousness. His righteousness is our righteousness. Because we are
one, we are the same, we are of His body, of His life, of His existence.
The term, “Christ our righteousness,” has tended to give us a limited
understanding of the nature of our relationship with Christ. People have
come to believe that God gives us by some unfathomable principle the
righteousness of Christ in isolation. Unless we can see that it is not
merely “righteousness” which God gives us, but a complete new life – a
new existence in which righteousness is already an accomplished reality,
an accomplished fact, then it will be impossible to see the legality of
what God has done for us through Christ.
The fact is, God has not done these things for us through Christ, or
by Christ, but rather in Christ. Let us think about this brothers and
sisters. There is a difference, a vast difference and only as we see
this distinction will we be able to gain a true understanding of
justification by faith and the plan of salvation.
The Soul That sinneth
Since we published the last two
issues of Open Face, we have had a couple of people who asked to be
removed from our mailing list. While we know that any important issue
will always cause polarization and strong feelings, yet I must admit
that it dampens my spirit a little when I find that Christians – and
especially those who claim to be seeking for reformation and revival –
either outrightly deny the plain teachings of the Bible or misinterpret
its teachings so badly that they make it seem to contradict itself. Too
many people simply find a verse which seems to support their long-held
ideas and cling to that verse, refusing to look at, consider or believe
the multitude of other verses which plainly indicate that their
understanding of the subject is faulty.
On the other hand though, it has been very encouraging to find that
more people have asked to be added to the mailing list than the number
who have asked to be removed. That seems to indicate that more people
have found the newsletter helpful than those who have thought it to be
harmful. Nevertheless, I wish to briefly deal with a passage which seems
to be a major issue with those who have disagreed with us. The passage
is Ezekiel 18:20. It says,
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek 18:20)
Before examining this statement from Ezekiel, Let us first of all look
at some biblical ideas, which I want to ask us to consider. They are
not all saying the same thing but they are all biblical.
1. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezek. 18:20)
2. The soul that believeth not, it shall die. (Mark 16:16; John 3:18)
3. The soul that doeth righteousness shall live. (Ezek. 18:22)
4. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. (Isa. 64:6)
5. Only by faith can we receive life, not by works. (Eph. 2:8,9)
6. No man can be saved by doing righteousness, only by believing. (Rom. 3:28)
(a) Which of these statements are true? (b) Do any of these statements
contradict the other? (c) Can all the statements be true? (d) How is it
possible to harmonize all of these statements? Let us bear these
questions and points in mind as we continue.
Paul’s Teaching
We have continued to emphasize Paul’s teaching that all humanity was
condemned when Adam was condemned (Rom. 5:18) and that all men were made
sinners by what Adam did (Rom. 5:12,18,19). Please notice that we
stated EXACTLY what the verses say. Stop and read them for yourselves.
That is what they say. All men were condemned and became sinners because
of what Adam did. We may not all agree with what the verses say and we
may suggest that Paul did not mean that we should take his words
literally, but we cannot deny that this is what they do actually say.
The old vs the new
Does Ezekiel contradict Paul? Ezekiel seems to say, “we cannot die for
another person’s sin,” while Paul says, we all die because of Adam’s
sin. Let us consider a few factors as we seek an answer to this
question.
First of all, the covenant under which Ezekiel lived was the old
covenant. Let me explain why this is important. The Old Testament, to a
large degree is filled with experiences and teachings which are
illustrations of salvation, but which do not actually deal with eternal
salvation themselves. Here is what Paul said about the concept of
salvation under the law:
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the
man which doeth those things shall live by them. (Rom 10:5)
This was correct doctrine under the old covenant, but not under the
new. Paul contrasted this sharply with the eternal principle of true
salvation:
… if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved. (Rom 10:9)
Let us consider for a moment. If, under the old covenant a man obeyed
strictly the outward requirements of the law (as Paul did and as the
rich young ruler did – Phil. 3:6; Matt. 19:17-20), what could he expect
on the basis of his behaviour? According to the law he would be blessed
with prosperity, rest from his enemies and long life (Leviticus
26:1-17). It did not matter if he was inwardly corrupt as long as he
outwardly obeyed, for the law could not condemn a person for what he did
not actually do, and so by obeying the strict instructions of the law,
he became entitled to these blessings. Please notice that these
blessings did not have to do with eternal salvation, but with temporal
prosperity. Salvation from enemies, rest in a peaceful environment, the
necessities of life provided in abundance, but not necessarily eternal
life. The conditions of eternal life were always different. This was
always only by faith in Christ, whether in the old or New Testament
times. The system of the Old Testament was type and symbol. We must
remember that.
Under the old covenant Moses lost his temporal “heaven.” He was
prevented from entering the land of rest and promise by one single sin.
In type, he lost his inheritance, and could not make it into the
promised land, but in terms of eternal salvation which is purely by
faith, all his sins could not keep him away from it. He was taken to
heaven long before the rest of us because eternal salvation is not on
the basis of our works, but on the basis of Christ’s righteousness,
received by faith.
The Context of Ezekiel’s statement
Ezekiel is speaking of this temporal death when he says, “the soul
that sinneth, it shall die.” He is not looking at the issue of eternal
life and eternal death, but is speaking strictly in the context of the
disasters which frequently came upon disobedient Israel. The king would
sin and all the people would suffer. One man would do wrong and his
children would die for it (Achan was one such example – Joshua 7:24).
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were all, evidently godly and
obedient young men, yet they suffered the consequences of other peoples’
apostasy. Notice that this had become so frequent that the people had
made a proverb concerning it. They would say, “The fathers have eaten
sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” Jer 31:28-30
explains the meaning and the context of this statement better than does
the similar passage in Ezekiel 18. Here is what it says:
And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to
pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to
afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the
LORD. (29) In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a
sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. (30) But every
one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour
grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jer 31:28-30)
What God was saying was, “the man who does not obey the law is the one
upon whom I will bring the disaster (just like it happened in the case
of Moses. He alone suffered for his sin). The one who sins is the one
who will die (not like it happened to Achan’s children. They suffered
for their father’s sin).” This has nothing to do with eternal salvation.
If it did, it would totally contradict the key principle of the gospel.
Notice what it says in this same passage in Ezekiel 18. Whenever we
quote verse 20 we should also be careful to quote the last part of verse
22. It says,
“… in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.” (Ezek. 18:22)
This teaches that the basis on which a man receives life is his own
righteousness!! Surely this cannot be true of eternal life!! This is
only true of temporal life in Old Testament times. It is Christ’s
righteousness alone which can give us eternal life, not our own
righteousness which we have done. Is this the truth? Let us consider
this carefully. The Bible cautions us that we should rightly divide the
word of truth. Just picking up a verse of Scripture in isolation and
quoting it does not mean that we have settled a question. We must be
careful that we understand the meaning and the intent of the verse
properly in the context in which it is used.
Many people are fond of quoting the verse in Isaiah 45:7 which says,
“I make peace and create evil.” They insist on the basis of this verse
that God is the One who created evil and that therefore He is to be
blamed for all the pain, suffering and wickedness in the world. However,
a careful examination of the passage, in context will lead the honest
searcher to a different conclusion.
So there are two perspectives on the issue of sin and blame. In the
type, or the Old Testament system, or “under the law,” the conditions on
which God granted blessings, long life and security was obedience to
His law. It was righteous living as defined by the law which brought
temporal blessings. Many times people sinned by this standard and their
children suffered the consequences. We already mentioned Achan, Daniel
and his friends etc. In fact the second commandment states that God
visits, “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and
fourth generation of them that hate,” Him.
It is in this context that God declares in Ezekiel 18 that He is no
longer going to operate on this principle. From that time forward, each
man would die for his own sin, not for those of another. Likewise the
“righteous” man would live for his own righteousness (not because of the
righteousness of another). In Ezekiel 14:14,20 God declared that even
if Noah, Daniel and Job were in the land they would not be able, by
their righteous living, to prevent the disasters which God would bring
upon it. They would be able to deliver only their own souls by their own
righteousness. Again, we see clearly that this was not referring to
eternal salvation, but to preservation from the disasters which would
come upon disobedient Israel.
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” is often quoted as evidence to
deny the truth that all men die because of Adam’s sin, but we cannot
fairly use this verse to prove such a point? Surely the careful and
honest reader can see that this passage in Ezekiel is not dealing with
the issues of eternal death and eternal life. On the question of eternal
salvation the facts are plainly laid out in the New Testament and they
are:
a. All men die because of Adam’s sin (1 Cor. 15:22)
b. Man’s personal sins add to that condemnation.
c. No man’s righteousness can save Him.
d. Man’s observance of the law cannot produce righteousness and therefore cannot bring life to him.
e. Only the righteousness of Christ can save any man.
These facts are true for every single human being. It matters not
whether he is one day old or a hundred years old. It matters not whether
he has committed a million sins or none at all. If there is any human
being for whom this is not true, then evidently, Christ need not have
died for such a person. It would mean that there is salvation outside of
Christ. However, even a baby who is one day old cannot be saved outside
of Christ. If Christ had not provided a way of deliverance for
humanity, even the baby who is one day old would have had no hope,
regardless of whether or not he had committed one single act of sin. If
he had died in that state (outside of Christ’s provision) then that
would have been the end. He would have gone to the grave and there would
never have been a resurrection for him. The fact that he had not
personally transgressed the law could not have saved him. Adam’s sin
would have condemned him, like all other humans, to a death which would
have been eternal.
These are the plain facts. Denying them will not enable us to
understand the word of God better and ultimately, such denial will rob
us of the blessings which are inherent in the truth. Let all who are
expecting true revival and reformation stand faithfully for the truth in
its pure and unadulterated form, without adding human bias.
The Work of a Lifetime
At every stage of development our
life may be perfect; yet if God’s purpose for us is fulfilled, there
will be continual advancement. Sanctification is the work of a lifetime
…. {COL 65.2}
There are two significant things in this statement by Ellen White
which we need to take note of. Firstly, she says that at every stage,
our life may be PERFECT! Let us settle it then, that perfection is not
the work of a lifetime, but it is an instantaneous work which is
accomplished immediately when a person enters into Christ, so that his
life may be perfect at the very first stage of his Christian experience.
Secondly, she says that there will be continual advancement and that
this will continue for the person’s entire lifetime. This highlights the
fact that perfection is a relative thing and does not mean that a
person is immediately perfectly mature, but simply that he is all that
is expected of him at that particular stage. In that condition even God
does not expect more, and that is effectively, perfection.
The popular concept of sanctification is that it is the process by
which we are fitted (made fit) for heaven. In most cases this has been
interpreted to mean that it is a process by which, little by little, we
become more and more holy, more and more like Christ until eventually we
are just like Him. It is interesting to note that the word
sanctification carries a different meaning in the Bible and nearly
always speaks of a finished work. For example, “God sanctified (finished
action) the Sabbath day (Gen. 2:3).” Paul speaks of the Corinthian
believers and says, “but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified … “(1 Cor.
6:11). Again he says, “for by one offering he has perfected forever
them that are sanctified.” (Heb. 10:14). Here the word signifies to be
set apart for a holy purpose and signifies an immediate experience.
But admittedly, the word as used today, and often in the writings of
Ellen White refers to a process by which a person becomes progressively
more holy. A process which Ellen White refers to as “the work of a
lifetime (COL 65.2).”
Let us consider something right at the very beginning: When we say
that sanctification is the “work of a lifetime,” whose lifetime are we
talking about? Do we mean the lifetime of Methuselah which was 969
years, the lifetime of Enoch (365 years), the lifetime of Moses (120
years), or the lifetime of today’s average person (70-80 years)? And
what about the lifetimes of those whose lives are cut much shorter by
sickness or accident? How long does it really take to be sanctified? How
long did it take for the thief on the cross who lived for only a few
hours after he was converted?
Immediately we can see that we have to revise our ideas of
sanctification. The idea that sanctification is a process which comes to
an end when we have attained to a certain level of holiness or
perfection is a false idea. If it were true, then what it would mean is
that most Christians never ever are fully sanctified. Maybe we all need a
longer lifetime. Perhaps we all need 365 years like Enoch, but then
again, even that may not be enough because it seems that even Methuselah
who lived almost three times as long as Enoch never reached the place
where he walked with God as closely as Enoch did.
If sanctification is what makes us fit for heaven then why did it
happen so quickly as in the case of the thief on the cross and happen so
slowly in the case of others whose lifetimes are almost a hundred
years?
Is there some way that we can harmonize the biblical concept of
sanctification, that is, being immediately set apart unto God, with the
concept expressed by Ellen White, that is, a lifetime’s work of being
made holy? I believe that when we properly understand what the Christian
life is about we will recognize that there is no disagreement between
Ellen White and the Bible on this issue.
In Hebrews 4:9-11, Paul tells us that there is a rest which remains
for the people of God. He explains that the person who has entered into
God’s rest has rested from his (the person’s) own works just as God
rested from His works at the end of creation. If we have rested from our
works, does it mean that there will be no more works done by us?
Absolutely not! As Paul again says, “it is God which worketh in you both
to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).” Notice, there are
works in the life of the believer, but they are not his works, they are
the works of Christ. In a strikingly paradoxical statement, Paul tells
us,
“Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” (Heb 4:11)
I had to smile when I recognized what Paul was saying. Here he says
that we must “labour,” we must work. For what purpose? So that we can
rest! We must labour so that we may rest! Is this contradictory? Not at
all, here we find the harmony between both ideas of sanctification, that
is, that it is the “work of a lifetime,” as opposed to the immediate
experience of being set apart wholly unto God.
The danger against which Paul warns us in Hebrews 4 is the danger of
UNBELIEF. He says we must labour so that we can enter God’s rest, but
how do we enter? It is by faith that we enter! So it becomes evident
that all our labour must be to help us to have faith, not to do works.
Where works are concerned, we rest, we enter into God’s rest. Our work
is finished. Our only problem is that unbelief may keep us from this
rest and so we must labour, we must struggle to keep the focus of faith.
This is the sum totality of the Christian’s struggle, the fight to
maintain faith, because where there is faith, the fight is finished,
where faith is, God works and the battle is over.
If the life of victory over sin is ours simply by faith in Christ,
then it is evident that we may have this experience immediately, as soon
as we have faith. However, it is equally evident that since this
victory is ours purely by faith, then it is the maintaining of faith
which determines whether or not we keep it. God’s work is always perfect
but His ability to work in us is dependent upon our faith. So there is a
battle to be fought, but, notice, it is not a battle to do right, it is
not a struggle to overcome sin, it is the “good fight of faith.” It is
the struggle to maintain our faith.
This explains why sanctification, the work of being set apart unto
Christ is an instant work which takes place as soon as we are in Christ,
but at the same time is a process which lasts for the rest of a
person’s lifetime. A man in Christ is wholly acceptable to God and such a
person is complete in Him (Col. 2:9). He is sanctified or set apart
unto God. However, every day of his life for as long as he lives,
whether it is 969 years or 70 years, this person must continually
maintain this experience in Christ, by faith. It is not an automatic
process in which the relationship maintains itself. Faith must be
nurtured, fed, exercised, jealously guarded and this “fight of faith,”
continues as long as a person lives. It is not that it takes a whole
lifetime to become holy (!!). No, it is that this holy status which we
receive at the very beginning, must be maintained for the rest of our
lives whether that is 2 years or 969 years. It is the “work” of a
lifetime.
So, the thief on the cross who lived only a few hours was sanctified
during his lifetime, and so was Methuselah who lived 969 years. The work
never came to an end while they lived. They never came to the place
where they could say, “now I am sanctified and there is no need to have
the experience tomorrow.”
Notice, it is not sanctification which requires work. This was the
work of God. It is the faith which brings sanctification which must be
maintained during the “work of a lifetime.”
Free Tape Offer
This month we are offering a
sermon on audio tape and CD entitled, “The End of The Struggle.” This
vital message examines the place of the law in the experience of
mankind, especially in relationship to the search for righteousness. For
a free copy of this sermon, write now or call us.
P.O. Box 23,
Knockpatrick,
Manchester,
Jamaica, W.I.
ph. (304) 932-4543
Jamaica. (876) 625-2785
david@restorationministry.com
Answers and Clarifications
It happened in 1888 and it is
happening again today. The message of righteousness by faith is stirring
a community of believers and is producing strong reactions, revealing
not only the state of our theology, but also the state of our hearts. I
have not the slightest regret that this subject, the essence of
salvation, is being agitated, discussed and debated. Anything is better
than apathy and complacency, and out of all this there is bound to
emerge a clearer concept of the gospel as the Bible teaches it. This is a
necessary requirement if there is ever to be a people who have pure
truth and an experience of genuine Christianity, fit and ready for the
reception of the latter rain.
Since we started writing on this subject, several questions have been
asked, and there has been objection to several of the points which we
have raised. Some people have not accepted these ideas, but in some
cases this has been because there has been misunderstanding and even
misrepresentation of our position. For those who have objections, we
would like you to be sure of what you are objecting to and so we would
like to clarify our position on these questions which seem to have
caused the greatest concern.
Can we have “sinless flesh” in this life?
This objection is evidently based on misunderstanding and careless
reading as well. It is difficult to understand why some have suggested
that we are leaning in the direction of teaching “holy flesh.” When I
speak of, “sinful nature,” I am not speaking of our physical makeup for
the most part. The apostle Paul refers to the part that dies at
conversion, as “the body of sin,” “the old man,” “the flesh,” and “the
carnal mind.” I believe that if he used such words, then it cannot be
wrong for me to use them also. When Paul stated that the body of sin had
been destroyed (Rom. 6:6) was he teaching holy flesh? In fact, in
Ephesians 2:3 Paul refers to the Ephesians as people who in the past
“were by nature (sinful nature) the children of wrath.” This was not
true of them after they became Christians. Their nature was changed. It
was not their bodies that had changed, but rather their spiritual
natures or their minds. This is why we are told that those who have
become Christians have been made partakers of the “divine nature (2 Pet.
1:4).” That does not mean that they have a heavenly or a sinless body.
It simply means that their minds have been changed. Can we see that?
At times, in trying to show that every thing which we possess in our
nature is from Adam, we have referred to the inheritance of “flesh and
blood and genes and bones.” This is the same thing that Paul does in
speaking of our relationship to Christ when he says that we are “members
of His body, of His flesh and of His bones (Eph. 5:30).” Some people
have objected to the way we have used these words, but strangely, they
have not objected to the way Paul used them.
But we can see that the Bible does use the word “nature,” to refer to
the makeup of the mind, and this is what I mean when I say that all men
(except Christ) are born with a sinful nature, which condemns them from
birth. We have the same sin-affected bodies as Christ had, but He had a
different mind. He was not born with a carnal, sinful mind as we are. It
is true that Ellen White often used the term “sinful nature,” to refer
to the physical body but the Bible does not usually do this. If we don’t
recognize this difference in the way words are used in different
settings we often end up objecting to something when we do not even
properly understand what is being said.
Our understanding of this is explained very carefully in Open Face 44
on page 7, in the article entitled, “You can be Truly Free.” In fact, I
have copied the section below so we can read it again.
“Of course, it is not the physical body which dies. Hopefully, nobody
would be foolish enough to misunderstand this truth. The physical,
sinful body will be with us until Jesus comes again to change it.
However, this physical body is not the real root of our sin problem and
it is not what Jesus has destroyed, or put to death. The real problem is
what is called “the carnal mind.” This is the self-centered life, the
self-seeking, self-preserving attitude. This is something which resides
in the mind of man, but is a very real part of our existence. It is this
which Jesus put to death when He died to His own will and made the
supreme sacrifice of His life, in choosing the Father’s will. Now,
through the mighty power of the holy spirit, His own life and power,
Jesus enters our mind in the new birth and crucifies the self-centered
life so that from then on, we no longer live for self, but only for
God.” (Open Face 44, p. 7)
Does “sin” have only one definition?
In our November newsletter we stated that the way in which Paul uses
the word, “sin,” in Romans 7:17,20, requires that we define sin as a
negative ruling power in the carnal man. However, it has been pointed
out to us that Ellen White says that the only definition of sin in the
Bible is found in 1 John 3:4 where it says, “sin is the transgression of
the law.” I will not debate with Ellen White on this matter and I
accept that both Paul and Jesus, when they speak of sin as being our
master are personifying sin, that is, they are speaking of it as if it
is a tangible entity. But since sin is not something which can exist
independently on its own, then technically it has no substantive reality
apart from the actions which we commit. I accept this.
However, The real question is, what do Paul and Jesus mean when they
say that a man is the servant of sin? (John 8:34; Rom. 6:20). When Paul
says that “sin dwelleth in me,” was he referring to the indwelling of
evil spirits? One friend of mine has suggested that this is what Paul
meant, however, I cannot accept that this is what Paul was trying to say
when he wrote, “sin that dwelleth in me.” There is not the slightest
clue in the passage to support such an idea. However, even if this were
referring to evil spirits, we would still have a problem, because again,
we would have to define sin as meaning, “evil spirits.” It would then
not be true that the only definition of sin is the transgression of the
law.
Paul states clearly, “it is no more I that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me (Rom. 7:20).” If this was referring to the presence of
evil spirits in him, then what Paul would need is not conversion, but
the casting out of evil spirits! Many of those who have become involved
in “deliverance” ministries have concluded that this is the real problem
with us and have decided to solve the problem of sin by casting out
“demons” of anger, hate, depression etc. They claim that all these
problems are due to demons dwelling in people, but is this what Paul is
saying?
His meaning is very obvious. It is the same as the meaning of Jesus
when He said, “he that committeth sin is the servant of sin.” What He is
saying is that there is a power which rules in the carnal man which
compels such a person to commit sin, and this power he refers to as the
master of the person and He calls it “sin.” It is the person’s master
because he is compelled to obey its commands. If Jesus and Paul call it
sin, then why am I wrong in doing the same as they?
However, we don’t need to be distracted or diverted by definitions. I
will abandon all my definitions and declare that I was wrong if only we
can accept the truth which Paul wanted us to grasp. What is this truth?
It is the truth that in our natural state we are so helpless, so
controlled by our inherited depravity that it is absolutely impossible
for us to do anything good. This is the real issue. It is the truth that
all men are in this condition when they are born and because of it are
declared unfit to live, and outside of Christ are lost forever, even
from the moment of birth. Can we all accept this?
When Jesus and Paul tell me that sin is my master and that my problem
is that sin is dwelling in me, they are trying to tell me something
about what I am and what my real problem is, and that is the real
issue!! If I do not learn this lesson there is no hope that sin will
ever be conquered in me. Notice Paul’s words in Romans 8:8. “So then,
they that are in the flesh cannot please God!!” In verse 6 he says that
the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God and it CANNOT be. It is
not that it refuses to be, but that it cannot. It is an impossibility.
Why is it impossible? Because we are born that way and committing sin is
an integral part of our nature. Such a mind is enmity against God from
the moment we are born (verse 7). In this condition there is no hope
that we can ever escape its bondage and the only hope for us is that we
must be born again.
Is our real problem our actions, or our nature?
If we say that our problem is what we do, rather than what we are,
this is where we make a terrible mistake. We do not identify the problem
properly and as a result we set out to overcome sin in the wrong way.
We will never, ever be free from sin if we believe that our problem is
what we do, rather than what we are! When we say that our problem is our
ACTIONS, then logically, we set out to change our actions. We seek to
do works!! This can never give us the victory. But when we understand
that the problem is what we are, then we know that this is something
which we can do nothing about. The answer must be in Christ and in Him
alone. We come to Him for the remedy and we trust in Him alone, because
although we may know how to do works, we know nothing about changing our
nature.
One popular proverb says,
Sow a thought; reap a deed,
Sow a deed; reap a habit,
Sow a habit; reap a character.
There you have the human formula for “overcoming” sin. Notice, there
is no need for God in this prescription. This concept has led some to
the conclusion that all we need to do in order to change our characters
is to change our actions. I believe that this concept is a source of
much misunderstanding. It is partially true but not wholly true as I
will demonstrate in a moment. If we limit the character to being only
the product of our actions, what conclusions would I then reach? I would
have to believe the following things which are totally contrary to the
teachings of the Bible.
a. A baby has formed no habits so therefore has no character and
therefore, cannot be defined as a sinner. Since he has performed no
actions, he does not have a sinful character. Such a person does not
need Christ to be saved.
b. Since the problem with men is the habits which they form, then in
order to solve our problem, all we need to do is change our habits,
thereby changing our characters. (notice that there is then no need for a
new birth). This makes it possible to be saved by rehabilitation and
self-improvement programs.
c. A parent who trains his child to good habits will produce a child
who has no need of conversion since he already has a good character.
I am sure none of us would agree with the above listed points, and yet
this is what we are required to accept if we hold to the concept that
our real problem is our actions rather than our nature. Obviously the
character is more than simply the result of my actions and habits. It
also includes the nature that I was born with.
How does God transform my mind? Is it by a miracle or by education? Is
conversion an act of God which takes place by the infusion of the holy
spirit, a supernatural, divine power, or is it a gradual change which
occurs as a result of a person beginning to adjust his thoughts?
Education has its place in teaching me the will of God, in enabling me
to understand God’s purposes and ways better so we can be more perfectly
in harmony. But what is the critical ingredient in the Christian’s
experience? Is it education or is it re-creation? Does God merely direct
me into new truth, or is there an actual experience when the very life
of Christ is imparted to me, when by His power, I am changed into a new
creation? These are critical questions.
Are we guilty of Adam’s sin?
I have never stated that we are guilty of Adam’s sin, although I did
quote Ellen White where she states that Adam’s children “share his
guilt.” (ST, May 19, 1890 par. 8). Those who object to the idea of us
sharing Adam’s guilt should contend with Ellen White.
I have preferred to use the biblical expression which says that we are
condemned because of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:18). Is there a difference
between the words, “condemned,” and “guilty?” I am not sure if the
dictionary would define them differently, but there is an implied
difference in the way we use these words which might give the wrong idea
if I use the word, “guilty,” with respect to our inheritance from Adam.
The word, “guilty,” suggests personal, willing and conscious
involvement to such a degree that a person may be taken before a judge
and questioned concerning his involvement. Blame may be fixed upon him
because he was consciously and willingly involved in a crime. This was
not true of our involvement in Adam’s sin and so I have not used the
word guilty to describe our state in Adam.
However, the Bible does use the word “condemnation.” This word
indicates that doom has been pronounced against a person and that he is
simply waiting to be destroyed. We often use the word, “condemned,” to
refer to old buildings which have been marked for destruction. Notice
that guilt is not necessarily the issue. Condemnation signifies that a
thing has been consigned to destruction, that a decision has been taken
to remove it from existence. This sentence can be passed for several
reasons. It does not necessarily mean that the person or thing has been
personally involved in a crime.
The Bible does teach that we are condemned in Adam. His sin involved
us and took us, along with himself to death. We were condemned when he
was condemned, but we were not personally or consciously involved in his
sin, therefore, we cannot be tried for the sin which he committed,
although it killed us all.
Did Adam’s sin totally corrupt all humanity?
There is a dangerous thinking which permeates the thinking of many
Seventh-day Adventists, and I believe it is a very grave false doctrine.
It is the belief that all that is wrong with us is that we are born
weak and all we need is the right kind of teaching and training to
become good. The Roman Catholic church teaches that the sin of Adam
wounded the human race but that man is not wholly evil. The Catholic
Catechism expresses the difference between Catholics and Protestants
over the issue of the human condition by saying:
(Original sin) is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but
human nature has not been totally corrupted,- it is wounded in the
natural powers proper to it. The Church’s teaching on the transmission
of original sin was articulated more precisely in the sixteenth century,
in opposition to the Protestant Reformation . The first Protestant
reformers taught that original sin has radically perverted man and
destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man
with the tendency to evil, which would be in (him).
The Protestant reformers taught that Adam’s sin killed humanity rather
than wounded it. In other words, man is totally and hopelessly depraved
and lost. His only hope is Christ, but of course the Catholic point of
view makes us believe that what man needs is assistance rather than to
be totally and completely recreated. This Catholic point of view is what
many Adventists have embraced. They believe that we are born in
absolutely the same condition as Christ except that He was born full of
the holy spirit. The only difference as they see it, is that He had more
help at the beginning so He was able to choose not to sin, while we
chose to. In their thinking if we had only had a little help we could
have been Christ!!
This utterly false concept has led some to the conclusion that people
such as John the Baptist who were filled with the holy spirit from birth
were men who lived without sin. In effect, this idea is suggesting that
we have more than one Christ!! Naturally, the conclusion is that all we
have to do in order to overcome is simply to copy Christ, that is to
follow His example.Victory over sin and becoming perfect is simply
achieved by learning to change our habits. If we can do this through the
right education, hard work and much struggling and striving, we will
eventually change ALL our habits and so we will be just like Christ!!
Thus, there is no need for a man to be born again. This is just a
figurative term which refers to the time when a person makes up his mind
that he will begin to strive to be like Christ.
This is pure foolishness because it has never worked. Unless the
spirit of God comes to take possession of a person, to give him a new
nature and a new mind, there is no hope that he can ever change.
Education, even Biblical education is not the same as the new birth!!!
At least the Catholics have devised a way by which they feel that this
impossible task may be finally accomplished after a person dies,
because it certainly cannot be accomplished while those who try in this
way, are alive. The Catholic Church teaches,
“All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly
purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death
they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to
enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this
final purification of the elect.” (The Catholic Catechism)
Open Face is published bi-monthly and is sent free to all who desire to receive it.
David Clayton: Editor and Publisher
P. O. Box 23 Knockpatrick
Manchester, Jamaica W.I.
Phone: (876) 904-7392
email: david@restorationministry.com
