An Introduction
Over the past month and a bit we’ve been taking the Ellen G. White mandated deep look at the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment because she told us we had to know it inside and out. As we have done so we have come to realize that the doctrine is actually much worse they’d we’d even cared to imagine and is absolutely abhorrent to a true understanding of Biblical Justification and Sanctification.
This is not something I ever wanted to tackle in such a detailed way, this was not a doctrine that I wanted to revisit because it had taken away my will to even try as an Adventist. However it is something that needed to be done, and while tackling it has indeed hurt, the Truth is what heals.
So thanks to the notes I’ve taken based on the 3 part teaching on The Investigative Judgment from former Adventist Timothy Oliver (Think About Eternity SDA ) we’ve been able to share this journey together. In this next to last installment we’ll take a look at the Greatest Deception yet. So brace yourselves because here we go.
In SDA’s Believe Page 130 you’ll find our segment for today.
Now we come to perhaps their (Adventists) most concerted and sophisticated attempt to appear Evangelical even while subverting the Gospel under this heading:
The Ground of Our Acceptance With God
Neither Christlike character traits nor faultless behavior is the ground of our acceptance with God.
My goodness doesn’t that sound like it just contradicts everything we’ve ever seen so far. Well it doesn’t hang on.
Saving righteousness comes from the one righteous Man, Jesus, and is conveyed to us by the Holy Spirit. We can contribute nothing to Christ’s gift of righteousness; we can only receive it. No one other than Christ is righteous (Rom. 3:10); independent human righteousness is only filthy rags (Isa. 64:6; see also Dan. 9:7, 11, 20; 1 Cor. 1:30).
Even what we do in response to Christ’s saving love cannot form the basis of our acceptance with God. That acceptance is identified with the work of Christ. In bringing Christ to us, the Holy Spirit brings that acceptance.
You know reading those two paragraphs an Evangelical whether inside or outside the SDA church might say surely this means they believe like the rest of us (Christians)- you know I couldn’t state my own beliefs more clearly then these paragraphs do and if this is what they believe I’m prepared to acknowledge them as brothers in the Faith and true Christians.
Well if the SDA’s themselves or the people that penned these words understood and meant by them what WE would understand and mean by them perhaps that would be true. But unfortunately again like Mormon’s and other good counterfeit Christianity groups SDA’s use Christian Terminology all the time and they use it in a way to make it sound like it IS Christian but they have different understandings, different definitions for those terms and they DON’T mean what you and I mean (as Christians/Evangelicals).
You have to keep in mind that this is the summation and conclusion of a chapter on the experience of salvation. Where do you think any Evangelical would look first if he was trying to ascertain whether or not Seventh-Day Adventism was truly Christian but here.
They know that so what you’re looking at is statement not so much intended to EXPLAIN their beliefs AS to SELL their beliefs. They’re trying to address all the issues and objections they KNOW are raised against their Doctrine. And they’re aware of those issues because they’ve been a subject of controversy even WITHIN THEIR CHURCH, and this book they hope will make everyone happy.
As noted earlier they know Christian-ese, they know how to dress their Doctrine in language that Christians can accept. And if you could prove that they actually understood these words in the same way that we understand them- well then again as I said earlier all you would’ve proven is that they HOLD CONTRADICTORY BELIEFS. That’s not a good sign., that’s not a good thing.
Think about it if you took these two paragraphs that we just read to actually mean what they appear to our Evangelical minds to mean what would that do to the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment?
Well it would be ANNIHALATED.
Do you really think they’re going to give that doctrine up, listen to this statement from SDA General Conference President Jan Paulsen from a message he delivered to Seventh-Day Adventist leaders in May 2002; just actually some 14 years after this book we’re looking at was published by the General Conference Ministerial Association. Listen to what he says:
“A further word needs to be said about our being loyal to our heritage and to our identity. Some would have us believe that there have been significant shifts in recent times in regard to Doctrines that historically have been at the heart of Seventh-Day Adventism. Take specifically our understanding of Judmgent and Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary, Investigative Judgment and the prophetic messages in which these teaching are contained. Some are suggesting that since the 1980 Glacier View Meetings (these were meetings where they hashed through all this stuff). That the very teachings affirmed there at those meetings have been abandoned. And the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then. Such a claim is a distortion of reality nothing could be further from the truth. The historic sanctuary message based on scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White-”
Well that’s just a lie, it’s not. It’s not upheld based on scripture. But he says:
“-continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church put all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think there has been a change in position in regard to this.” (Emphasis mine).
So friends this is 14 years after this book (SDA’s Believe…27 now 28 Fundamentals) they’re not giving up that Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment here in this book.
And Mr. Paulsen not only re-affirms these teachings he made it clear that they are not held lightly okay as truth but not all that important listen to what he says:
“We believe that being Seventh-Day Adventists has direct bearing on our salvation. I would risk my whole spiritual life and my salvation if I were to leave what I am now and join any other community. ” (Emphasis mine).
So let’s unpack these two paragraphs from the SDA Believe book we read moments ago.
Unpacking Paragraphs and Lies
Let’s see how they can be reconciled to and even be an expression of Judgment and Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary, or, Investigative Judgment.
We are looking still at the first two paragraphs under the heading of The Ground of Our Acceptance With God.
Neither Christlike character traits nor faultless behavior is the ground of our acceptance with God.
The first sentence seems almost to flat out contradict everything they’ve told us about the manner in which we are being judged in this Investigative Judgment, by OUR WORKS. According to the standard of the Law.
The key to understanding this sentence is the last clause of the last sentence of the same paragraph. Where it says
independent human righteousness is only filthy rags.
Do you see how that turns the key for the whole paragraph?
You see it’s not that Christ like character traits and faultless behavior are not necessary but any attempt to attain them INDEPENDENTLY even the THOUGHT that they COULD be so attained, is WRONG.
Saving righteousness comes from the one righteous Man, Jesus, and is conveyed to us by the Holy Spirit.
We must look to Christ and trust that is by the Holy Spirit he will put into us the required Righteousness. And it’s HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS see, the only Righteousness that will ever count is Christ’s Righteousness NOT CREDITED TO YOU you should note but CONVEYED- okay. It says conveyed that’s IMPARTED- INFUSED into us by the Holy Spirit.
(Remember that in truth the Righteousness is IMPUTED and we received that Robe that wedding Garment the MOMENT we believed unto Salvation!)
Nothing we can do is an addition to that Righteousness. Like I said He is as Righteous as you could possibly be- there isn’t anything- nobody could be more Righteous than that.
Nothing we can do is in addition to that Righteousness. But only the expression and revelation of that Righteousness that IS in us. The PROOF that we HAVE received it.
It says here:
Even what we do in response to Christ’s saving love cannot form the basis of our acceptance with God.
That almost sounds like they’re contradicting what I just now said. But it isn’t such works you see might be pious but they’d still be merely human works, if they’re works that we do in response to Christ’s saving love. The only Woks that will ever count are the Works that HE DOES IN US that is the works that we do that are the expression and outworking of His presence and Righteousness IN US.
Those are the Works that will be looked for in the Investigative Judgment. In their absence we will be condemned, not for the lack of works, but the lack of TRUE FAITH in Christ’s Righteousness EVIDENCED by their absence.
And if such and only such WORKS ARE PRESENT when our case comes up, well then we will be accepted. Not because of the presence of such works to be sure, but again because the presence of TRUE FAITH and Christ’s Righteousness of which those WORKS are the only sure evidence.
That acceptance is identified with the work of Christ. In bringing Christ to us, the Holy Spirit brings that acceptance.
We are just vessels you know, Christ’s Presence and Righteousness in us brought to us by the Holy Spirit is the basis of our acceptance. It’s IMPARTED Righteousness- again NOT IMPUTED.
(Where in reality, in Biblical truth once again it IS Imputed Righteousness).
Now I must acknowledge that earlier in this same chapter from which these pages were taken there are a little more than two pages of text which contain a fairly good statement or description of Justification from a Biblical point of view.
The problem is that that is followed up by about nine pages including those we looked at that too Sanctification and treated it in such a way as to UNDO Justification.
What they gave with their right hand basically they take away with their left. The difficulty probably arises from the fact that the Doctrine of Justification rightly and Biblically understood CANNOT be reconciled to their Investigative Judgment Doctrine which they WILL NOT relinquish.
Still they’re going to throw the word around from time to time and they have a very vested interest though in obscuring its BIBLICAL MEANING and dissuading you distinguishing it too clearly from SANCTIFICATION. And this is what you’ll see in the next two paragraphs.
Is our acceptance based on Christ’s justifying righteousness or His sanctifying righteousness or both? John Calvin pointed out that as “Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable.”15 Christ’s ministry has to be seen in its totality. This makes it paramount to avoid speculation about these two terms by “trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. . . . Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital questions of righteousness by faith?”
Just as the sun has light and heat—inseparable, yet with unique functions—so Christ has become to us righteousness as well as sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30). Not only are we fully justified but also fully sanctified in Him.
Now these paragraphs, they are so deceitful.
In the first sentence a question presents a non-existent dichotomy, there is NO SUCH THING as Christ’s “Justifying Righteousness” as distinguished from His “Sanctifying Righteousness” there’s simply Christ’s Righteousness PERIOD.
And it is that Righteousness which both Justifies AND Sanctifies.
From that fact though they don’t want us to make too great a difference between Justification and Sanctification they sort of imply that if we do we’re into speculation. We must not try to define minutely the fine points of distinction between them.
As a basis for this argument they present a quotation from Calvin to prove to the effect that Justification and Sanctification are inseparable.
But they are making a very dishonest misuse of this quotation-
(Which doesn’t shock me in the slightest).
While Calvin acknowledges that they are inseparable he was not at all arguing that Justification and Sanctification either could not or should not be clearly distinguished from each other. In fact this quotation is from a long argument by Calvin FOR EXACTLY THAT POINT. That Justification and Sanctification can and MUST clearly be distinguished at two DISTINCT THINGS. Even though they always go together they’re inseparable but they are ABSOLUTELY distinguishable.
In making such a distinction neither he (Calvin) nor we (Evangelicals) trying to be more minute than is inspiration on the vital questions of Righteousness by Faith.
Rather we’re trying to be faithful to inspiration, faithful to scripture, in making the same distinctions that it (scripture) everywhere makes.
And the Adventists who wrote these paragraphs were familiar with Calvin’s argument, because they use the very illustration, the heat and the light of the sun that he used in making the OPPOSITE point that they’re trying to make shortly after the passage that they quoted here.
Their misuse of his words can hardly be regarded as an accident, and speaking of that illustration they’ve twisted it also to IMPLY just the OPPOSITE of what Calvin used it for.
He says:
“If the brightness of the sun can’t be separated from it’s heat are we therefore to say that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more appropriate to the matter at hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth, by it’s rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a two fold Grace that Osiander intrudes upon us there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as Righteous He in fact renews through the cultivation of Righteousness. Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this free gift of regeneration and contends that they are one in the same. But scripture while combining both classes them separately. That it may better display the manifold Grace of God.”
So you see in the use of this simile the SDA’s refer to the heat and the light of the sun as having different functions. Calvin notes that but he goes on to say of them having different properties. The light and heat produced by the one sun have not only different functions but properties. That is they differ in their nature. And so with Justification and Sanctification.
The fact that they’re both grounded in and produced by the same Righteousness does not make Justification and Sanctification the same thing functioning in two different ways. They are two distinct things different in their nature.
Now by mentioning both terms here and saying both are needed it would seem that the Adventist Doctrine recognizes that there is a real difference. But the fact is SDA Doctrine overall, and certainly this Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment in particular, tend to confuse the two and in the process Sanctification always ends up canceling out Justification.
They don’t want you to look at these two words and these two concepts too closely or to make too fine of a distinction between them because THEY KNOW that would be injurious to their Doctrine.
In Conclusion
Next week we’ll finish the series out looking at some more deception followed by the glorious truth! Until then though remember that our of God’s Righteousness come both Justification and Sanctification- and they never cancel each other out.
Undercover Adventist
Differences Between Adventism and Christianity 
