ASK THE EDITOR

I briefly answered the first part of this question regarding the nature of Christ in the April MINISTRY. I concluded that in the final analysis unanswerable questions face the Bible student who attempts to develop a precise definition of Christ's nature. Our degenerate minds cannot possibly have an absolute knowledge of the Incarnation. There is a certain mystery about this subject that will challenge our thinking throughout eternity. Yet, we may have the assurance that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Coming to the subject of righteousness by faith, I find myself in a similar position. An eternity of study will never exhaust the unsearchable riches of Christ and His salvation.

As far as I can remember, the subject of righteousness by faith per se never surfaced during my college years. Weeks of Spiritual Emphasis and Bible classes were deeply moving, but no speaker or teacher tried to define the exact meaning of the term righteousness by faith. During my second year in the ministry, articles and sermons on righteousness by faith began to flourish. As an intern I prepared and preached a sermon on the subject in the West Palm Beach and Lake Worth, Florida, churches on March 9, 1946, which resulted in putting most of my hearers to sleep! In reviewing its contents today, I find that it did not contain a single thought relative to justification, other than the following quotation:

"The thought that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, not because of any merit on our part, but as a free gift from God, is a precious thought. The enemy of God and man is not willing that this truth should be clearly presented; for he knows that if the people receive it fully, his power will be broken. If he can control minds so that doubt and unbelief and darkness shall compose the experience of those who claim to be the children of God, he can over come them with temptation." ¹

In time my concepts became clearer. As I review my sermon notes of the 50's I find progress, but a failure still to grasp certain points. Although I stressed the fact that no human works can justify, I was inclined to preach justification as forgiveness of past sins only. Also, I preached sanctification as a combination of my works and Christ's works. The result was a rather strange mixture of faith and works, since I placed both justification and sanctification under the one umbrella of righteousness by faith. Later I concluded that both of these were all Christ's work and none of mine. True, a person's will must co operate in the sanctification process, but this cannot be considered a meritorious act on the human side, since it is also an act of the will to believe and accept justification. Therefore, Christ must receive 100 percent credit for all phases of His salvaging process.

Before stating my present position, which will appear in future articles, I would like to share several concerns. I have mixed feelings as I read and survey the mass of material coming across my desk on the subject of righteousness by faith. Occasionally I find some of it polemic in nature. There is an argumentative approach to the theme of righteousness by faith that leaves the heart destitute of the softening influence of the Holy Spirit. The mind is moved not to surrender, but rather to debate. In view of this, could it be that the following statement is applicable to the written, as well as the spoken, word?

"Some ministers, in the preparation of their discourses, arrange every detail with such exactness that they give the Lord no room to lead their minds. Every point is fixed, stereotyped, as it were, and they seem unable to depart from the plan marked out. This is a grave error, and if followed, will cause ministers to become narrow-minded, and will leave them as destitute of spiritual life and energy as were the hills of Gilboa of dew and rain." ²

Amid the cacophony of voices declaring what righteousness by faith is supposed to be, it is difficult to keep one's thinking straight. If I have learned anything in my 35 years of ministry, I have learned that the human mind, because of its sinful bent, has an enormous capacity to view spiritual subjects in an unbalanced manner. We seek to deal in absolutes. We want to know with exactness what a certain term means. For instance, in the 60's, when discussions on "perfection" were in vogue, I spent hours studying this theme. At times I became discouraged because the great gulf between my performance and profession was so wide that if the daily achievement of an absolutely perfect life, with or without the aid of Christ, was necessary for salvation, I felt hopelessly lost. In discussing this subject with others at that time I found many going through the same experience.

Today we face a similar situation. There are those who are adamantly anxious to clarify the meanings of words and terms such as righteousness by faith, gospel, grace, justification, and sanctification. Extreme and unbending positions are taken. This rigid, meticulous defining of terms by some individuals has be come one of the worst forms of legalism I have ever witnessed. I get the impression that such individuals feel that unless the church takes a stand in favor of a very exact, exclusive, carefully sifted, finely honed definition of these and other terms, we are promoting Roman Catholic theology, or we have no understanding of the gospel, and consequently we are doomed. Frankly, this type of semantical warfare is depressing and seems to make salvation dependent upon a very specific, scrupulous cognizance of certain terms, and not upon belief in and acceptance of a living, personal Redeemer. In many presentations and panel discussions on this subject Jesus is lost in the theological jargon, and righteousness by definition is substituted for righteousness by faith. What a travesty! I believe that souls have been, and will continue to be, lost as a result.

I have another concern. I am quite convinced that there are those, within and without the church, who are using these discussions as a springboard for personal recognition and advantage, without concern for the divisive influence on the church and its membership. I am not a promoter of unity at the expense of truth. Never! Truth must be sought and upheld at any cost. But our approach, our language, even our tone of voice, should be conciliatory. The theme of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is based on the principle of love. We are not involved in a battle of wits. No one is argued into the kingdom. As ministers, we cannot help anyone to find salvation by attempting to get people to look to us. Ego building has no place in the proclamation of the gospel.

Having said this, let me emphasize that as ministers we constantly need greater .spiritual understanding of the Word. We should ever be clarifying our thinking in these most critical areas. There is certain specific instruction required for en trance into the kingdom. The gate is narrow. But this narrowness, in my thinking, depends not so much upon exact terminology and definition as upon a relationship with the Saviour and Him alone. And the evidence of that relationship will be seen in our actions and attitudes. From an evangelist's viewpoint, leading souls to Jesus Christ requires much more than meticulously stated definitions that often lead to imbalance and extremism.

The church faced a situation similar to today's in the 1890's. Ellen White cautioned A. T. Jones regarding his extreme views on the relationship between faith and works. It would be well for us to consider a few of the points she made in a letter to him, now found in book 1 of Selected Messages, pages 377-380. I urge you to read the entire section, as this counsel is sorely needed by the church today.

In a dream, she saw A. T. Jones "presenting the subject of faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith." She stated, "You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing, that there were no conditions. The matter was presented in that light that I knew minds would be confused, and would not receive the correct impression in reference to faith and works, and I decided to write to you. You state this matter too strongly. There are conditions to our receiving justification and sanctification, and the righteousness of Christ. I know your meaning, but you leave a wrong impression upon many minds. While good works will not save even one soul, yet it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works. God saves under a law, that we must ask if we would receive, seek if we would find, and knock if we would have the door opened unto us."

One interesting point in her letter showed her-agreement with Jones's beliefs, but not with his unbalanced declarations. She said, "You look in reality upon these subjects as I do, yet you make these subjects, through your expressions, confusing to minds." Note, too, the effect of Jones's extreme statements on his own mind. "And after you have ex pressed your mind radically in regard to works, when questions are asked you upon this very subject, it is not lying out in so very clear lines, in your own mind, and you cannot define the correct principles to other minds, and you are yourself unable to make your statements harmonize with your own principles and faith."

This latter point is one of importance. As I have read materials dealing with the subject of righteousness by faith, I see inconsistencies and contradictions repeatedly. When a strong statement is made in one direction, later in the same article I often find another statement that flatly contradicts it.

What was Ellen White's admonition to Jones? "Please guard these points. These strong assertions in regard to works never make our position any stronger. The expressions weaken our position, for there are many who will consider you an extremist, and will lose the rich lessons you have for them upon the very subjects they need to know. . . . Do not lay one pebble, for a soul that is weak in the faith to stumble over, in overwrought presentations or expressions. Be ever consistent, calm, deep, and solid. Do not go to any extreme in anything, but keep your feet on solid rock." ³

Evidently some placed such strong emphasis on faith during the 1890's that works were lost sight of. In view of this, Ellen White at tempted to bring balance into the thinking of our people. She wrote, "We hear a great deal about faith, but we need to hear a great deal more about works. Many are deceiving their own souls by living an easy-going, accommodating, crossless religion. But Jesus says, 'If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.' " ⁴

This counsel is so up-to-date! I have letters before me that unequivocally declare that in the judgment we will not be judged by our works but by the works of Christ. Christ stands for us. In a sense this is true, but such expressions can be very misleading. Ellen White declares, "Let no one say that your works have nothing to do with your rank or position before God. In the judgment the sentence pronounced is according to what has been done or to what has been left undone (Matt. 25:34-40). " ⁵

Such imbalance of emphasis I recently noted in a book sent to me titled The Shaking of Adventism. I will cite one example only. In dis cussing the term grace the author declared, "What the Reformers meant by God's grace was that it is His sheer mercy and goodness. . . . Thus, the grace of God always refers to God and never to what is in the believer's heart. . . . Luther and Calvin understood saving grace as being God's action in Jesus Christ for the believing sinner. The idea that grace is the assistance God gives the believer in keeping the law was shunned by the Reformers as being the Roman Catholic teaching which only detracts from the glory of Christ." ⁶

Reading this and similar passages one gets the distinct impression that the term grace must be limited entirely to justification and never includes sanctification. In other words, the author leaves the distinct impression that grace as an active, transforming power in the believer's life is not good Protestant theology. This, to my mind, is a very extreme position. A brief survey of Protestant literature reveals that if Seventh-day Adventists are following the Roman Catholic tradition on the subject of grace, we have a lot of good company with us. Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics, edited by Carl F. H. Henry, under the entry of "grace" (p. 274), states, "It is an unearned bestowal (Romans 5:15) contradicting a man's desire for autonomy and his achievement categories (Romans 4:14; 11:6). He who would 'help along' his salvation through his own efforts surrenders the grace which is the exclusive medium of salvation in Christ (Gal. 2:21)."

But the article reveals an additional aspect of grace. "Grace is not only something offered, but also a power as well which draws men into service and at the same time frees them from the power of evil. . . . According to Romans 12:2 a man's thinking is 'transformed' through grace. . . . Because grace communicates everything that makes men whole, all Paul's letters begin and end with an expression of grace." This is only a sample of numerous statements on grace found in Protestant literature. To insist that grace is effective only in justification and never in sanctification is contradictory to numerous Bible texts, as well. (See Acts 4:33; 11:23; 20:32; 1 Cor. 15:10; Heb. 4:16; James 4:6).

My appeal is to keep in balance our views of the great themes of salvation. Let us stop pitting one phase of salvation against another. Admittedly the church has not emphasized as we should have the great truth of justification. I know in my own preaching that I have failed numerous times to place the cross of Christ in proper perspective. How ever, it would be disastrous for me and my hearers to emphasize justification to the near exclusion of sanctification.

One beautifully balanced statement from Ellen White helps me to understand the proper relationship between justification and sanctification: "Justification means the saving of a soul from perdition, that he may obtain sanctification, and through sanctification, the life of heaven. Justification means that the con science, purged from dead works, is placed where it can receive the blessings of sanctification." ⁷

J.R.S.

(To be continued).