Justification Debates in Adventist history: Does the polarity uphold?

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungbook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

13 December 2009

We went through the stormy Brinsmead, Ford, Paxton years followed by the Walther Rea years of attacks on Ellen White and all we knew in the late 1970's is that some are rowing the boat thinking that they are alone while others were blamed for not rowing.

The role of Justification and Sanctification were spelled out in detail to members by books, pamphlets, sermons, tapes, lectures and a polarity was created. In those years already I saw that actually both aspects of the polarity are supported by both. It was a matter of terminology for some, a matter of personality clash for others, a matter of distrust in each other but when at the end of the day you compare the two groups, they had more in common than they thought.

The following diagram was made in order to illustrate this very point.

There are two cardinal issues important in the doctrine of Salvation and they are two DNA strands that must be found in any successful representation of this topic:

Strand 1:

Salvation relationship

Faith through ceremonial type [offerings until Messiah comes]

Objective Atonement

Divinity of Christ

Christ for us

Faith in His merits

Christ our Salvation

Justification by Faith

Strand 2:

Salvation relationship responses according to the Law

Ten Commandments (Law keeping)

Subjective Atonement

Example of Christ

Christ in us

Faith that works

Christ our Model

Sanctification by Faith that has a relationship

Moses and Jesus

Some scholars take great pain in polarizing Moses and Jesus as if Jesus came to cancel Moses and that Jesus was Grace and Faith and Moses was Law. All but. Our diagram indicates that Moses understood Strand 1 very well, since he explains the Word of the Lord in Exodus 20:2 that God is the God of salvation of His people, therefore they can do the law out of this relationship. The requirements of the law in Exodus 20:3-17 is thus much clearer.

Jesus did exactly the same. He upheld both aspects of Strand 1 and Strand 2. He did not change the requirements necessary for both in the method and manner of salvation.

Paul and James

When Luther first came in contact with the book of James, he was very upset. He offered his doctoral to anyone who could explain to him why Paul speaks of salvation through Christ and James insist that the Law must be kept. Finally he solved the problem himself (according to Roland Byington). In the diagram we indicate that although both Paul and James had the same view of soteriology or the doctrine of salvation, Paul emphasized Strand 1 while James emphasized Strand 2. By the time the book of James was written, Paul was already dead (he died in 64 CE) and thus the context of the church members were different. The environment plays a role as to where the emphasis of the theologian or pastor will be.

Luther and Calvin in comparison with John Wesley

Luther and Calvin had exactly the same view as Moses, Jesus, Paul and James, but they chose to emphasize Strand 1 since the Papacy were stressing Strand 2 with buying the letters for salvation from the priests only. The papal practices of their day caused them to over-emphasize Strand 1 but if you read Luther's Table Talks and also if you read Calvin's commentary on Galatians, they make it very clear that the Law and its keeping is not annulled.  

Wesley were operating in an environment of social evils which he felt strongly should be cleared and distant to the Christian. Thus, he emphasized Strand 2. However, he clearly preached Strand 1 as well. George Butler cited Wesley on these aspects of Strand 1 and Strand 2 in 1885.

Ellen White

Ellen White gave equal emphasis to both aspects in her writings. This is one of the reasons why some modern scholars and theologians are trying to attack her inspiration, since then they do not have to face Strand 2 in their lives. A correct view of salvation will respect both Strands of this Salvation DNA.

George Butler and E. Waggoner

In the case of Butler, he wrote a book in which he quoted Wesley and stressed, like Wesley the keeping of the Law or Strand 2 in our diagram. However, he did not ignore Strand 1 as his book of 1885 indicate. In the same book by Butler at the end is a catalogue of Pamphlets written by Waggoner and one of them read: The Truth Found: The nature and obligation of the Sabbath. Waggoner knew very well about the importance of Strand 2 although he started soon afterwards to stress Strand 1 and that brought him and Butler, who was stressing Strand 2, in contrast and polarity.

In fact, in the same catalogue of 1885, Butler advertised E. Waggoner's book on The Atonement, as "An examination of a remedial system in the light of Nature and Revelation." Butler calls it "an able work on a very important subject". 1888 was not a doctrinal conference but an attitudinal conference.

Heppenstall and Douglas

Since the 1940's a number of scholars emphasized Strand 1 and Heppenstall was one of them. H. La Rondelle and R. Dederen followed in the same tradition with books and articles from both these scholars. In Christ our High Priest Heppenstall makes it clear that he gives primacy to Strand 1. However, we find him in the same book explaining that he does not believe in cheap grace. Thus, he also know about the importance of Strand 2. This can be said of all our scholars listed above. When they do emphasize Strand 1 or Strand 2 then there is a social or contextual reason for doing so. They will emphasize a point when the need for doing so is great in the domain where they find themselves. Douglas overemphasized Strand 2 and again it may be a reason that is connected to the society or locus he was finding himself in. That does not mean that he is ignorant of Strand 1.

Conclusion

The SDA position is biblical, the way we find it in Moses and Jesus, Paul and James, Luther, Calvin and Wesley, Ellen White, Butler and Waggoner, Heppenstall and Douglas and it boils down to this: Christ paid all for us and accepting His salvation on our behalf (Strand 1) starts a relationship from our side that makes Him to dwell in us and now we live with this continued relationship with Him (Strand 2).