In the current discussions of righteousness by faith going on in the Adventist Church, the two sides may not be as far apart as they think. Actually, both are on the same side, but they are at tacking opposite problems, and thus of necessity are using opposite weapons. The problem comes when they mistake each other for the enemy.
Antinomianism (opposition to God's law) and legalism (salvation by works) are the two dragons that the saints have had to fight through the centuries. Punching down one seems to pop up the other, as with some mechanical toys. The big gun for knocking out the antinomian dragon is the doctrine of sanctification, while the weapon against the legalist beast is justification. Note how the battle has been fought through the ages.
The dragon of the Old Testament was largely antinomianism, making his first appearance to Eve in the Garden, and leading the world captive through the idolatry and immortality of heathenism. Since Israel was repeatedly defeated by him, Moses and the prophets used the law as their weapon. Their constant cry was to love God with all the heart, soul, and strength, and to show that love through obedience to the commandments (see Deut. 6:5, 6; Isa. 48:18).
By New Testament times the dragon of legalism was largely in control. Hence the big weapon of Jesus and Paul was grace. Jesus, unsparing in His denunciation of self-righteousness, justified the woman rather than her accusers, the publican rather than the Pharisee, the thief rather than the priests. Paul com bated the Judaizers by proclaiming the need for grace and the inadequacy of law either for justification (Rom. 3:20) or for salvation (Eph. 2:8, 9). Paul's attack on legalism was so powerful that the antinomian dragon emerged again. James and John attacked him in their letters and gospel, once again unleashing the big guns of obedience to the commandments as evidence of justification (see James 2:2-4; 1 John 2:3, 4; John 14:15).
With the emergence of the Papacy, the legalist dragon marched right in and took up his abode in the church. To drive him out, Martin Luther naturally found his weapons in the arsenal of Pauline theology. Predictably the antinomian monster then arose to lead the Reformed churches back into worldliness and apostasy. John Wesley, the dragon fighter of the eighteenth century, drew his mightiest ammunition from the Johannine arsenal—No one born of God commits sin (1 John 3:9).
Early Adventism saw antinomianism as its prime dragon; thus it made obedience to the commandments a landmark doctrine. However, by 1888, when it be came clear that the legalist beast had gotten loose again, Waggoner and Jones once more unsheathed the Pauline sword of grace.
As the theological battles have raged back and forth, it has been often argued that Pauline grace undermined Johannine law, and vice versa.
There are champion dragon fighters in the Adventist Church today. For the sake of convenience, I will call them the Johannists and the Paulinists.
The Johannists, seeing the current dragon as antinomianism, draw some of their most powerful support from the Johannine writings. They are often called perfectionists because they believe in the necessity for practical perfection as preparation for the coming of Christ.
The Paulinists, seeing legalism as the more dangerous dragon, draw their greatest arguments from the Pauline writings, emphasizing grace and justification. Their teaching has been called Reformed theology because of their heavy indebtedness to Luther and Calvin, and the new theology, because it has a different emphasis from the landmark theology of early Adventism.
It is extremely important to under stand that the two groups define their terms differently. Consider their use of the following terms:
1. Sin. The Paulinists have a much more radical definition of sin than the Johannists. The latter think of sin in practical terms such as disobedience to the commandments in thought, word, or action; violation of the law. To the former, sin consists not only of impure thoughts, words, or deeds but also of the presence of the sinful nature, which constantly contaminates even the good deeds that one does. Thus the greatest saint, when confronted with God in His glory, cries out, "Woe is me! for I am undone" (Isa. 6:5). Paulinists have a humble estimate of man and, in view of all he lacks, stress his need for justification.
2. Perfection. The Paulinists, like wise, have a much more radical concept of perfection than their Johannine brethren. They see perfection in absolute terms—perfection as it exists in God. To be perfect, according to their understanding of the term, one would have to avoid all sins not only of com mission but also of omission, so that at any given moment he was doing the will of God to the maximum of his capacity, making the most of every faculty, every moment, every cent. To them perfection is a theoretical state that no human being can possibly reach until he has a perfect nature in a perfect environment with a perfect relationship to God. Since this condition does not exist until .the coming of Christ, when this "corruption puts on incorruption," perfection is not achieved until then.
The Johannist, on the other hand, thinks of perfection in practical terms: loyalty to God, surrender to His will, obedience to His commandments, a heart right with God that yields the fruits of righteousness. The Johannist does not claim to have reached even this practical state, but ardently believes that the saints will reach it before the close of probation.
3. The law. Once again the Paulinist sees the law in absolute terms, so that no one in this life can possibly keep it perfectly. Anyone, saint or sinner, when confronted with the absolute demands of God's law, stands condemned. "When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Rom. 7:9). Since no one can keep the law perfectly, all must depend upon the imputed righteousness of Christ to meet the law's demands. The Johannist on the other hand views the commandments in a practical sense as precepts that can be obeyed through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. He quotes the many injunctions of the Bible to "keep the commandments" and is distressed to hear the Paulinist say that they cannot be kept.
4. "Imitation of Christ. " The Paulinist views this doctrine as anathema, be cause Christ, having a sinless nature, "holy, blameless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26), is so far above us that we cannot imitate Him in the absolute sense. He can be followed only as one follows, but can never reach, a star. The Johannist, on the other hand, sees Christ as having essentially the same nature as ours, though by virtue of His dependence upon and union with God, He never sinned. (The nature of Christ's humanity is a fundamental theological difference between the two schools.) He points to the many scriptural admonitions to follow in Christ's footsteps (1 Peter 2:21), obey as He obeyed (John 15:10), and love as He loved (chap. 13:34). He thinks of the imitation of Christ in practical terms; the Paulinist, in theoretical, absolute terms.
At this point it becomes clear that some difficulties could be settled if both sides recognized the differences in the way terms are being used. A Johannist should not be shocked to hear that the saints will "sin" after the close of probation; he should know that this does not mean overt sin, but deficient faith and the continued presence of the sinful nature ("whatsoever is not of faith is sin" [Rom. 14:23]; the saints still have "earthliness" to be "consumed" during the time of trouble [The Great Controversy, p. 621]). The Paulinist believes in obedience to law as much as the Johannist—he just thinks it cannot be perfectly obeyed. On the other hand, the Paulinist should recognize that the Johannist is teaching practical perfection (as does most of Scripture) rather than absolute perfection.
The chances of harmony between the two groups would be enhanced if both sides would realize that:
1. The apparent contradictions be tween their positions occur also in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, but can be resolved.
2. They are fighting different enemies and hence are preaching with a different emphasis.
3. They both believe in law and grace, justification and sanctification, and are both opposed to legalism and antinomianism.
I believe the best solution to the whole controversy is for both groups to preach the total gospel as found in the entire Bible, emphasizing what the inspired writer was emphasizing in the situation he was addressing. The Paulinist should not expound all Scripture through the Pauline grid, neither should the Johannist do the same through the Johan nine grid.
There needs to be a balanced presentation of both objective salvation (what Christ did for me) and subjective salvation (what the Spirit does in me). The Paulinist focuses on the work of Christ to justify me, whereas the Johannist dwells more on the work of the Spirit to sanctify me. It is obvious that without Christ's objective atonement, no sub jective response is possible. It is equally clear that Christ's objective work on the cross two thousand years ago will save no one without the subjective response of faith.
I believe the Johannist would restore the confidence of his Paulinist brethren if he dwelt much more upon Christ crucified. He is inclined to take justification for granted, emphasizing the need to move on to sanctification. His preaching may lead to smug satisfaction in the legalist, or hopeless despair in the conscientious, denying the latter the comfort that justification brings. The Johannist needs to remember that fully one third to one half of each Gospel is devoted to the closing scenes of Christ's life. He should preach Christ crucified before he dwells upon self crucified. His many fine books on the how-to of holiness and victorious living are to be faulted for presenting what I must do for Christ without first presenting what Christ has done for me.
The Paulinist would gain the confidence of his Johannine brethren if he would say far more than he does about holiness. He should not assume that the proper preaching of justification will automatically produce sanctification; the corrupt human heart perverts justification as a license to sin. He should recognize that most of the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, and the conclusions to all of Paul's Epistles deal with practical godliness and commandment keeping. The Paulinist needs to preach about the devotional life, the indwelling Spirit, and practical perfection as the Bible teaches it. If he follows the Bible emphasis, he will certainly stress the "keepability" much more than the "unkeepability" of the commandments.
Since the church, as well as the individual Christian, constantly alternates between antinomianism and legalism, the faithful preacher will maintain a two-pronged offensive against both enemies. Scripture is a two-edged sword, cutting in both directions. A single-edged weapon is defective. May God help our champions to keep both dragons at bay by a faithful preaching of the whole of Scripture.
