Dragă Amina & Costel,

Vă trimit aici câteva din concluziile mele la subiectul Legăminte. Ceea ce vă prezint aici nu reprezintă neapărat poziţia oficială a Bisericii. Dar noi AZS nu avem alt CREZ (mărturisire de credinţă dogmatică) decât Biblia. Mărturisirile de credinţă oficiale nu sunt nişte dogme care ni se impun de la GC, ci pur şi simplu o mărturisire a credinţei noastre comune, aşa cum înţelegem şi credem la o anumită dată. Doctrina noastră s-a dezvoltat foarte mult între anii 1844-1888., dar chiar şi după aceea au avut loc dezvoltări, şi orice dezvoltare implică schimbare. Ideea că totul ne-a fost dat pe tavă la 1844 (sau, după preferinţa altora, la 1888) şi că n-avem altceva de făcut decât să ingerăm ce ne-au transmis înaintaşii, nu este corectă, nici oficială, chiar dacă este populară.

Cred că este nevoie de un studiu complet al legămintelor, care să ia în calcul tot ce spune în mod explicit sau implicit Biblia despre diverse legăminte, şi care să analizeze afirmaţiile lui Pavel şi să le integreze armonios într-un sistem mai general. Altminteri, dacă vom construi numai pe afirmaţiile lui Pavel, rezultatul, deşi corect şi folositor, din punct de vedere practic, va fi controversial – deoarece Pavel nu a intenţionat să facă o teologie a legămintelor în scrisorile lui, ci să rezolve nişte chestiuni de principiu în dispută cu susţinerile iudaizanţilor (care erau creştini legalişti).

Cred că primul lucru de care are nevoie cineva ca să înţeleagă un subiect biblic, nu este dorinţa de se clarifica în cinci minute, sau de a dobândi o înţelegere armonioasă a subiectului după ce la studiat la 1-2 autori, fie ei şi autori biblici. Cel mai util este să se studieze lucrurile în ordinea cronologică, biblică, uitând pentru moment tot ce ai citit până atunci despre subiect. Trebuie studiate toate locurile în care se vorbeşte, în mod explicit, de legăminte între Dumnezeu şi oameni.

Legăminte cu Adam1. 2 legăminte (implicite, fără utilizarea termenului legământ) făcute cu Adam, unul înainte

de cădere (Gen 2:15-17, un legământ al dreptăţii), cerând ascultare din încredere şi iubire, şi unul după cădere (3:15-24, legământul harului, al celei de-a doua şanse),1 care, în mijlocul pedepselor disciplinare, numite blesteme, aduce prima promisiune a mântuirii. Acest legământ de har se întemeiază pe un alt legământ, făcut între Tatăl şi Fiul înainte de veşnicii (2 Tim 1:9, Tit 1:2, In 7:24, Ef 1:4-5.11, 2:10, 1 Pt 1:2.20, Rom 3:25, 8:29-30, Mt 25:34, Ap 13:8, 17:8).2 Sămânţa femeii sunt fiii lui Dumnezeu (Gen 6:2), adevăraţii credincioşi (Rom 16:20, Ap 12:1-17), dar într-un sens special, Christos (Ap 12:5).

1 Cf. Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 370.”The covenant of grace was first made with man in Eden, when after the Fall there was given a divine promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. To all men this covenant offered pardon and the assisting grace of God for future obedience through faith in Christ. It also promised them eternal life on condition of fidelity to God's law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of salvation.”2 Cf. E. G. White, Youth's Instructor, June 14, 1900, p. 186. ("The Price of our Redemption") {1MR 121.3}:„Christ was not alone in making His great sacrifice. It was the fulfillment of the covenant made between Him and His Father before the foundation of the world was laid. With clasped hands they had entered into the solemn pledge that Christ would become the surety for the human race if they were overcome by Satan's sophistry. „

Legăminte cu Noe2. 2 legăminte făcute cu Noe, implicând familia şi urmaşii (toată omenirea): Gen 6:18-22,

9:9-17. Legământul cu vieţuitoarele este o exprimare poetică a promisiunii divine că, în folosul omului, Dumnezeu se ocupă şi de animale (cf. Os 2:20)

Legăminte cu Avram / Avraam şi cu alţi patriarhi3. 2 legăminte făcute cu Avraam şi cu urmaşii lui etnici şi spirituali: Gen 15:18-21, 17:2-17.3

Petru învăţa că evreii contemporani lui erau „sămânţa lui Avraam” (FA 3:25). Pavel, arăta, că, dimpotrivă, Sămânţa aceasta era Christos (Gal 3:15-16).

4. A făcut Dumnezeu legăminte şi cu alţi patriarhi ? A făcut Dumnezeu promisiuni şi altora, ori a cerut ascultare şi altora ? Este aceasta o intrare implicită în legământ cu Dumnezeu ? Ex 2:24, Ps 105:8-10.

Legăminte cu poporul Israel5. Pe temeiul cărui legământ a scos Dumnezeu pe Israel din Egipt ? Ex 2:24, 6:3-8. Pe

temeiul cărui legământ Dumnezeu S-a îndurat de poporul Lui, chiar când n-au fost credincioşi, pe vremea regilor ? (2 Rg 13:23, 17:15).

6. La Sinai, Dumnezeu face legământ cu Israel (Ex 19:4-8), apoi îi dă Cele Zece Porunci (Ex 20), care sunt „cuvintele legământului” (Ex 34:28, Dt 4:13.23, 5:2-22), scrise pe „tablele legământului” (Dt 9:9-115, Ev 9:4) şi puse în „chivotul legământului” (Num 10:33, 14:44, Dt 10:8, 31:9.25-26, Ios 3:3.6.8.11.14.17, 4:7-9-18, 6:6, 8:33, Jud 20:27, 1 Sam 4:3-5, 2 Sam 15:24, 1Rg 3:15, 6:19, 8:1.8.6.21-23, 1 Cr 15:25.26.28.29, 16:6.37, 7:1, 22:19, 28:2.18, 2 Cr 5:2.7, 6:11, Ier 3:16 , Ev 9:4), precum şi „cartea legământului” (Ex 24:3-8, 2 Rg 23:2.21, 2 Cr 34:30-21). Dumnezeu a continuat „să facă legăminte” (sau să înnoiască legământul, sau să se refere la acest legământ) cu Israel: Ex 34:10-28, Dt 28:69 / cap 29, 30, 31. Ne 9:8. Un termen strâns legat de „legământ” este „mărturia”, adică documentul scris al legământului, Decalogul (Ex 25:16.21) De aici provin expresiile „tablele mărturiei” (Ex 31:18, 32:15, 34:29) „chivotul mărturiei” (Ex 25:22, 26:33-34, 30:6.26, 39:35, 40:3.5.20.21, Num 4:5, Ios 4:16) şi „mărturiile” Domnului (Ps 119 în ebraică).

7. Sabatul, care fusese dat de la Facerea Lumii, era acum dat lui Israel ca un semn distinctiv, ca simbol al legământului (Ex 31:16-17). Dar existau şi alte semne ale legământului, care nu sunt de la început, nici universale: SAREA presărată peste jertfe (Lev 2:13), circumcizia (moştenită de la Avraam, dar înnoită prin poruncă lui Israel: FA 7:8), „pâinile Prezenţei” din Templu (Lev 24:8-9).

8. Păzitorii speciali ai acestui legământ au fost puşi leviţii, când Dumnezeu le-a transformat bletemul părintesc într-o binecuvântare, fiindcă au trecut de partea Domnului la Sinai: Dt 33:9, Mal 2:4-8. Marele preot era, astfel, căpetenia legământului (Dan 11:22) Metafora obişnuită a legământului este dragosta dintre bărbat şi femeie (Ez 16:8).

9. Lagământul era însoţit de binecuvântări şi blesteme, toate fiind condiţionate (Lev 26:9-15-45, Ier 11:1-10). LEGĂMÂNTUL este ÎNTOTDEAUNA CONDIŢIONAT, aşa cum scrie şi în Decalog: Dt 7:9, cf. Ex 5:10, Ios 23:16, Jud 2:1-2.20, 1 Rg 11:11, Ps 25:10.14, 44:17, 103:17-18, Ier 22:9-10) Dumnezeu a continuat „să facă legăminte” (sau să înnoiască legământul, sau să se refere la acest legământ) cu Israel: Ex 34:10-28.

10. Legământul de la Sinai a fost încălcat (rupt) din partea lui Israel, fapt simbolizat prin spargerea primelor table (Ex 32:19). Dar s-au făcut alte table, scrise la fel şi puse în acelaşi chivot (Ex 34:1-4.29, Dt 9:15, 10:1). Legământul de la Sinai era valabil şi pentru generaţiile următoare, (Dt 4:31, 5:2-3) pentru „1000 de generaţii” (1Cr 16:15), un „legământ veşnic” (1 Cr 16:17, Ps 111:9, Is 24:5) El a mai fost rupt şi în alte generaţii (1Rg 19:10.14, 2Rg 17:35-41, 18:12, Os 8:1, Ps 78:10.37, Ez 44:7). Chiar şi după eşecul ultimei generaţii a legământului sinaitic (generaţia care a dat la moarte pe Messía), legământul

3 A se observa dacă este vorba de legăminte diferite, sau dacă un anumit legământ este doar o confirmare a unui legământ anteior, sau poate este o dezvoltare a unui legământ anterior.

Celor Zece Porunci a rămas în vigoare pentru cei care au intrat în legământul lui Christos (Ap 11:19, 15:5, Lc 18:20). Inclusiv porunca Sabatului a fost sfinţită de Christos pentru urmaşii Săi (Lc 23:56, în greacă: „s-au odihnit după Poruncă”; FA 13:42, 16:12-13).

11. Legământul se întemeia pe harul lui Dumnezeu, pe credinţa care se dovedeşte în ascultare din iubire, nu pe merite omeneşti (Dt 8:18, 2 Cr 6:14, Ne 1:5, 9:32, Ps 50:5.16-17.23, 74:20, 106:45, 111:5, Is 50:1-17, Ier 14:20-21, Dan 4:9, Os 6:6-7.

12. Fiindcă Israel nu era doar o împărăţie spirituală a lui Dumnezeu, ci un stat pământesc, care avea nevoie de legi şi penalitate, încălcarea legământului atrăgea (potrivit cu voia descoperită a lui Dumnezeu) pedepse civile, mergând până la pedeapsa capitală: Dt 17:2-7, Ios 7:11.15 etc.

13. Planul lui Dumnezeu era ca legământul Său să fie extins şi la alte popoare, în primul rând legea Sabatului original, dar şi ceremoniile mozaice (Is 56:1-8),

14. Legământul Domnului a fost adesea întărit şi printr-o convenţie (legământ) între conducători şi popor: Ios 24:25-28, 2 Rg 11:4.17, 23:2-3, 2 Cr 15:12, 23:1-3.16, 29:10, 34:32, Ezra 10:3, Ier 34:8-18 Şi în aceste cazuri, legământul era aplicat la situaţiii concrete.

15. Oamenii pot încheia legăminte între ei (Avraam şi Abimelec, israeliţii şi gabaoniţii, David şi Ionatan, David şi Hiram), pe care Dumnezeu le confirmă (Ps 55:20, Pr 2:17, Is 33:8, Ez 17:13-19, Os 10:4, Am 1:9, Mal 2:10-14), sau pe care le dezaprobă (Is 28:18, Os 12:1). De asemenea, pot încheia legământ cu ei înşişi (Iov 31:1).

16. Dumnezeu a încheiat un legământ special cu Aaron, legământ care implica sistemul jertfelor (Num 18:19 şi contextul). Dumnezeu a încheiat un legământ cu preotul Fineas, nepotul lui Aaron, asigurându-l că din urmaşii lui se vor recruta preoţii (Num 25:11-13). De fapt, leviţii intrau într-un legământ special cu Dumnezeu: Dt 33:9, Ne 13:29.

17. Dumnezeu a încheiat un legământ special cu David şi cu urmaşii lui, promiţând venirea lui Messía din dinastia lui, o promisiune necondiţionată 2 Sam 23:5, 2 Cr 13:5, 21:7, Ps 89:3-52, 132:11-12. Chiar după căderea definitivă a dinastiei davidice, Dumnezeu promite că Îşi va ţine cuvântul: Ier 33:20-22. Zaharia a confirmat că în timpul său Dumnezeu împlinia promisiunea legământului davidic, care era, în acelaşi timp, o promisiune a legământului abraamic (Lc 1:67-72-79).

18. Mântuitorul Lumii este personificarea unui legământ pe care Dumnezeu voia să-l încheie cu toate popoarele, nu numai cu israel. El este o confirmare a legământului făcut cu David: Is 42 6 şi contextul, Is 49:7-26, Is 55:3.

19. În virtutea cărui legământ vorbeşte Dumnezeu lui Israel în Is 61:8 şi contextul ?20. După ce Dumnezeu a aruncat pe Israel în Captivitate, deoarece rupseseră legământul, a

hotărât întoarcerea lor pe temeiul unui NOU LEGĂMÂNT, mai bun decât cel de la Exod. Dar şi acest legământ era condiţionat. Noul Legământ profeţit de Ieremia este adresat întregului Israel şi prevedea restaurarea de după Exil, cu un Ierusalim care să nu mai fie distrus niciodată: Ier 31:31-40, 32:36-44, 33:25-26, 50:2-5-10. De acest legământ aveau să beneficieze şi alţii: Ez 16:59-62. El se întemeia, după cât se pare, pe legământul davidic, (Ez 34:22-31, 37:25-28), a cărui principală făgăduinţă era necondiţionată. Totuşi el era condiţionat şi reprezenta, în acelaşi timp, o reeditare a celui de la Sinai, având ataşate şi pedepse: Ez 20:34-38, şi mari promisiuni condiţionate: Ez 37:25-28 şi vezi cap 40-48. Acesta este legământul mesianic promis mai întâi lui Israel, dar proclamat apoi lumii întregi: Daniel 9:24.27, Zah 9:10-11.4 Messía era aşteptat ca Sol (mijlocitor şi vestitor) al acestui legământ (Mal 3:1).

21. Legământul profeţit de Ieremia în cap. 31 a fost profeţit şi de Moise (Dt 30:1-10).22. Termenul legământ a început să fie folosit şi ca echivalent pentru religie (Dan 11:28.30).23. Iisus a înţeles că misiunea Lui sigiliează un nou legământ făcut cu Israel şi cu toate

popoarele: Mt 26:28, Mc 14:24, Lc 22:28, 1 Cor 11:25 Toate legămintele sunt, MAI ÎNTÂI pentru Israel (Rom 9:4, In 4:22).

4 Nu este foarte clar la ce legământ se referă Zah 11:10.13 etc. În KJV, v. 10 zice „cu tot poporul”, nu „cu toate popoarele”. Pe de o parte, pare să fie o referire la ruperea legământului care adusese exilul, pe de altă parte poate fi o profeţie tainică despre eşecul final al lui Israel de a-L accepta pe Iisus ca Messía.

24. Domnul a prevăzut un legământ cu israeliţii care se pocăiesc, luând ca garanţie şi semn veşnic, profeţiile „evanghelice” ale lui Isaia şi ale tuturor profeţilor care-l vor urma (Is 59:20-21). Pavel aplică profeţia legământului mântuirii la Evanghelia lui Christos (Rom 11:27, cf. Is 59:20-21).

25. Numirea celor două părţi ale Bibliei (Vechiul Testament şi Noul Testament), provine de la teologia creştină a legămintelor. Ele nu sunt denumirile naturale sau originale ale acestor Scripturi iudeo-creştine, ci sunt convenţionale, bisericeşti, relativ târzii şi creează confuzie, pentru că, deşi ambele sunt în aceeaşi măsură inspirate şi provin de la aceeaşi autoritate, se creează impresia că primele Scripturi sunt învechite şi inferioare, în practică sau în teorie, Scripturilor creştine. În cadrul unor universităţi nu se foloseşte denumirea de Vechiul Testament, ci Biblia Ebraică. Iar profesorii de VT adesea obişnuiesc să spună că ei sunt profesori de „Primul Testament”.

LEGĂMINTELE în teologia lui Pavel1. Pavel vorbeşte despre noul legământ, în contrast cu cel vechi, arătând că vechiul

era un legământ al literei Legii, în timp ce noul este al spiritului Legii (2 Cor 3:6). Cultul literei (săpate în piatră) era plin de slavă, dar nu oferea decât moarte (v. 7), în timp ce serviciul spiritual adus lui Dumnezeu, şi care duce la viaţă, este incomparabil mai glorios şi nemuritor (v. 7-11). Înţelegerea spirituală a noului legământ s-a descoperit în mod desăvârşit prin Christos; cei ce nu-L acceptă, citesc Cartea Legământului printr-un văl, care-i împiedică să vadă sursa adevăratei slave a lui Moise (v. 14 în context). Trebuie să se observe, însă, că Pavel pune în contrast cele două legăminte, ţinând seama de maniera oarbă, legalist-literalistă a înţelegerii şi practicării religiei iudaice contemporane, fără a se referi la cerinţele spirituale care erau ACELAŞI în legământul de la Sinai (Dt 6:5-6, 30:11-14, cf. v. 6.8).

2. Legământul abraamic, fiind făcut înaintea celui de la Sinai, deci nu pe temeiul Torei (Legii), şi înainte de a fi dată orice poruncă din Lege, chiar înainte de porunca circumciziei, ilustrează faptul că Dumnezeu primeşte, prin credinţa în Christos, şi pe neevrei, socotindu-i fii ai lui Avraam: Gal 3:15-29. Astfel promisiunea precede Darea Legii şi are putere chiar dincolo de călcarea ei, principala atribuţie a Legii fiind rolul pedagogic, de a ne conduce la Christos, care este Domnul. În exemplul, învăţătura şi puterea Lui avem Legea întreagă, vie, şi în adevăratul ei spirit; nu ne mai limităm în mod jalnic la cerinţa literei. Cele două legăminte sunt ilustrate prin Agar şi Sara, Sinai [şi Golgota], Ierusalimul pământesc şi Ierusalimul ceresc, Ismael şi Isaac (Gal 4:24-31). Vorbind despre Ierusalimul ceresc, Pavel, totuşi, aplică liber profeţii despre Ierusalimul pământesc postexilic, în care era prevăzut loc şi pentru neevrei (Gal 4:27, cf. Is 54-55), profeţii aproape total eşuate din cauza necredinţei şi neascultării lui Israel (cf. Is 2, Mica 4, vezi Ieremia 18).

3. În 2:12, Pavel spune creştinilor neevrei că acum au parte de „legămintele făgăduinţei”. Căutaţi în notele de mai sus, de ce foloseşte el pluralul ?

4. Legământul „mai bun” din Evrei 7:21 este legământul preoţiei lui Christos „în felul lui Melkisedek”, care anulează legământul levitic (cf. Dt 33:9, Mal 2:4-8, Num 13:29, 18:19). Totuşi, legământul levitic era strâns legat de legământul sinaitic făcut cu întregul Israel, şi care era reprezentat prin simbolurile şi ceremoniile specifice ale cultului mozaic (Ev 8:1-6). Pavel reduce totul aici la două legăminte care sunt echivalente cu cele două religii: iudaismul şi creştinismul, afirmând că noul legământ este „legiferat pe temeiul unor PROMISIUNI MAI BUNE” (Ev 8:8-12). Care sunt promisiunile noului, reiese din v. 8-12. Dar care au fost acelea, mai puţin

bune, ale vechiului ? Pavel nu menţionează aici, iar diverşi scriitori şi predicatori spun că ar fi vorba de făgăduinţele evreilor de a ţine Legea (e.g. Ex 19:8).5 Aceste făgăduinţe de a ţine Legea n-au fost însă niciodată criticate de Dumnezeu sau de oamenii lui. Dumnezeu mustră doar făgăduinţele nesincere (Ios 24:16.19.21) sau neîmplinite (încălcate); în rest, asemenea făgăduinţe întărite cu jurământ, şi asemenea legăminte „din iniţiativă omenească” sunt binevăzute în Scriptură (Ps 119:106, Ne 10:29, 1 Cor 9:16-17.27). Dacă în cazul Noului Legământ se menţionează promisiunile „mai bune” ale Domnului, atunci şi în cazul vechiului, zic eu, făgăduinţele mai puţin bune trebuie să fie tot ale Domnului. Într-adevăr, vechiul legământ (chiar şi în inima Decalogului, vezi porunca V), nu oferă altceva decât ţara Canaanului, mulţi urmaşi, viaţă lungă şi fericită pe pământ etc., cu condiţia ascultării. În cazul greşelilor, oferea iertare, în mod limitat (FA 13:38-39) în timp ce noul legământ aduce desăvârşirea, atât în posibilitatea iertării, cât şi în înnobilarea caracterului (Ev 7:25, 9:9, 10:1.14, Mt 19:20-21).

5. Pavel spune că profeţia noului legământ din Ier 31 era ca o mustrare adresată lui Israel (Ev 8:8). Cine este mustrat aici: Cel care a dat legământul dintâi, sau cei care l-au rupt ? Aceasta înseamnă că legământul era bun şi trebuia ţinut.

6. Al doilea legământ era superior. Dar în ce anume diferea de primul ? Autorul pare să spună că superioritatea lui consta într-o religie moral-spirituală, motivată interior şi personală, în contrast cu religia literalist-legalistă, exterioară (în cele morale şi ceremoniale) şi predominant didactică şi comunitară a primului legământ (Ev 8:9-12, 10:16-18). Ceea ce este însă deosebit de interesant, deşi autorul nu menţionează, este că şi legământul dintâi cerea şi promitea scrierea Legii în inimă (Dt 6:5-6, 30:11-14, cf. v. 6.8). Atunci în ce mai stă contrastul între cele două ? Probabil în faptul că primul legământ, fiind o religie de stat (naţională), era obligatorie şi cu o serie de cerinţe exterioare, măsurabile, pentru a căror călcarea puteai fi pedepsit; în timp ce spiritul noului legământ se realizează cu precădere în creştinism, prin Evanghelie, deoarece se pune accentul pe religia liber aleasă, personală şi spirituală. Morala socială (chiar şi după Church Manual) nu poate fi decât exterioară, de aceea nici disciplina Bisericii şi calitatea de membru nu pot fi confundate cu criteriile Împărăţiei, care sunt spirituale. A fi un bun cetăţean, sau un bun membru al Bisericii este doar o fază moralistă, echivalentă cu starea aceea de „sub Lege” (Rom 6:14+), a vechiului legământ, care încă nu te face candidat pentru Cer. Numai dacă eşti „în Christos”, dacă eşti condus de Spiritul Lui, nu de motivaţiile „firii pământeşti”, înseamnă că ai intrat în noul legământ (Rom 8). Adevărata cunoaştere de Dumnezeu începe cu experienţa iertării păcatelor (Ev 8:11-12, cf. 2 Cr 33:12-13).

7. Pavel arată că, pe vremea lui Ieremia (citează din Ier 31), legământul sinaitic era îmbătrânit, „aproape de pieire” şi de înlocuire (Ev 8:13). Într-adevăr, Ieremia prevedea, aşa cum s-a arătat mai sus, că Dumnezeu va face un nou legământ, în

5 When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation. They had already consented to obey God's commandments. The principles of the law were now particularized, that they might know how much was involved in covenanting to obey the law; and they accepted the specifically defined particulars of the law. {E. G. White, 1 Manuscript Releases, p. 114}. „Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. They said, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient" (Exodus 24:7). Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. A portion of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled upon the altar. This signified that the people had consecrated themselves-- body, mind, and soul--to God. A portion was sprinkled upon the people. This signified that through the sprinkled blood of Christ, God graciously accepted them as His special treasure. Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God. EGW, Ms 126, 1901, pp. 15-17. ("The Giving of the Law," December 10, 1901.) {1MR 115}.

virtutea căruia, după exil, Israel va fi complet restaurat. Dar acest nou legământ despre care vorbeau Ieremia şi alţi profeţi nu excludea sistemul ceremonial cu tot ce ţinea de el. Pavel nu explică profeţia lui Ieremia, ci o aplică, prin extensie, la Evanghelia creştină. Eu cred că autorul n-a intenţionat să explice şi să clarifice o serie de aspecte teoretice (teologice) la care ne gândim noi, ci a aplicat spiritul acelor profeţii la mesajul creştin pe care-l predica, având doar scopuri practice.

8. Legământul nou aduce răscumpărare de sub abaterile comise sub primul legământ (Ev 9:15), prin moartea lui Iisus Christos (v.16-17).

9. Noul legământ (aici se referă direct la legământul creştin) a fost ratificat prin sângele lui Iisus ca să poată deveni efectiv, după cum şi cel sinaitic a fost ratificat prin sânge (v. 17-23).

10. Călcarea noului legământ este mai gravă decât călcarea primului legământ (Ev 10;28-29). Aceasta înseamnă că noul legământ nu ne scuteşte de împlinirea condiţiilor, cum învaţă unii.

11. Ev 12:18-24. Dacă în legământul sinaitic, apropierea de prezenţa fizică a lui Dumnezeu, manifestată prin semne, cerea cel mai profund respect faţă prezenţa şi autoritatea divină; în noul legământ, apropierea de realităţile nevăzute, cereşti (de Ierusalimul de sus, Templul şi închinătorii lui, Judecătorul Suprem, întregul univers al fiinţelor sfinte şi IISUS ÎNSUŞI cu meritele jertfei Lui) cere cu atât mai multă evlavie şi temere de Dumnezeu (12:24-28). Legământul creştin conţine aceleaşi cerinţe neschimbătoare ale lui Dumnezeu (Ap 11:19).

12. Legământul creştin (noul) este numit „veşnic” (Ev 13:21-22), ceea ce în sensul limbilor biblice se referă la mare vechime (uneori chiar eternitate) în trecut sau în viitor. De aceea şi Evanghelia predicată de Cei Trei Îngeri se numeşte Evanghelia Veşnică (Ap 14:6-7).

EGW referitor la Noul Legământ:   „Though this covenant was made with Adam and renewed to Abraham, it could not be ratified until the death of Christ. It had existed by the promise of God since the first intimation of redemption had been given; it had been accepted by faith; yet when ratified by Christ, it is called a new covenant. The law of God was the basis of this covenant, which was simply an arrangement for bringing men again into harmony with the divine will, placing them where they could obey God's law.”.{Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 370}.

EGW referitor la Vechiul Legământ:„Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice. The Abrahamic covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called the "second," or "new," covenant, because the blood by which it was sealed was shed after the blood of the first covenant. That the new covenant was valid in the days of Abraham is evident from the fact that it was then confirmed both by the promise and by the oath of God--the "two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6:18.

But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant. In delivering them from Egypt, God sought to reveal to them His power and His mercy, that they might be led to love and trust Him. He brought them down to the Red Sea--where, pursued by the Egyptians, escape seemed impossible--that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of divine aid; and then He wrought deliverance for them. Thus they were filled with love and gratitude

to God and with confidence in His power to help them. He had bound them to Himself as their deliverer from temporal bondage.

But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught. God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant.

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {Id. p. 371-372}.

Aceleaşi principii, aceeaşi condiţionare:„The teacher is the same in both dispensations. God's claims are the same. The

principles of His government are the same. For all proceed from Him "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17. {Id. p. 373}

„Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old. The conditions are, and ever have been, based on perfect obedience. Under the old covenant, there were many offenses of a daring, presumptuous character, for which there was no atonement specified by law. In the new and better covenant, Christ has fulfilled the law for the transgressors of law, if they receive Him by faith as a personal Saviour. "As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God" (John 1:12). Mercy and forgiveness are the reward of all who come to Christ trusting in His merits to take away their sins. We are cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ Jesus our Saviour.6

Legământul sinaitic are principii valabile şi pentru creştine The covenant God made at Sinai is for the Israel of God for all time. Herein is

revealed God's purpose for us, if we will only cooperate with Him. The Lord Jesus today will gather His people as a hen gathers her chickens beneath her wings, if they will only come to Him.

6 Letter 216, 1906, p. 2. (To "My Dear Brother in Christ Jesus," July 2, 1906.) {1MR 117}.

God's messengers ........... are to present things new and old. They must continually hold up the covenant of peace between God and man, that He made with His people Israel. Ms 64, 1903, pp. 1-7. ("God's Covenant with Israel," July 2, 1903.)

If it were not possible for us to be commandment keepers, then why does He make the obedience to His commandments the proof that we love Him? Letter 16, 1892, pp. 2, 3. (To Brother and Sister Holland, November 10, 1892). {1 Manuscript Releases, p. 108-1010}.7

____________________________________________________________________

The 1888 message: Ellet J. Waggoner

What did he actually teach in 1888?

Lee F Greer III Loma Linda, California

© 2001

(Last updated December 2002)

The Jesus Institute Forum:  http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/1888message.html

Introduction. The General Conference session of the 1888 in Minneapolis, MN, continues to be very significant for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. At that meeting there was a struggled attempt to restore the truth of justification by faith to the center of the young church's message which was only about 40 years beyond the Great Disappointment of the Advent (Millerite) Movement (1844). The message was spearheaded by young minister Ellet J. Waggoner supported by his friend Alonzo T. Jones (with an enthusiastic reception by Ellen G. White). Part of the great significance of this 19th century conference was that here was a small, young Sabbatarian church (without a lot of creedal inertia), which taught a personal, premillenial Second Advent of Jesus and a pre-Advent judgment (like the NT), poised to recapture justification by faith, the mighty truth of the New Testament and the Protestant Reformation! What was the glorious potential of that moment? By the Spirit of grace, the young Advent movement might then and there have recaptured the Gospel of justification by faith alone in its original NT-eschatological, Day of Atonement, judgment context! The earth might have been 'lightened with his glory' (Rev. 18:1) in preparation for the long-delayed Second Advent! What might have been... quickly degenerated into a narrow spirit of denominational bickering and closed-minded resistance by far too many of those delegates of yesteryear. The session ended without breakthrough.

However, the General Conference of 1888 remains a beacon of Advent hope for many Seventh-day Adventists because what might have been represents what many see as the real raison d'etre and hope of the Advent faith. The history of that era has long been clouded by the sad fact that Ellet J. Waggoner and Alonzo T. Jones abandoned the NT-Reformation truth of justification by faith and drifted during the 1890s into subjectivism (justification by the indwelling Christ, rather than sanctification by the indwelling Christ, as Scripture teaches)

7 http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm

and pan[en]theism (Christ as really 'present' in every human being and in all nature). The pantheistic trend reached full crisis with Dr. John Harvey Kellogg's book The Living Temple about the turn of the century, who therein acknowledged his special indebtedness to both Waggoner and Jones. Those subjective, pantheistic teachings now supported by the charismatic medical director of Battle Creek Sanitarium in Michigan (and brother of the founder of Kelloggs, the cereal company) nearly destroyed the Seventh-day Adventist Church by obscuring the Gospel: Christ's objective substitutionary atonement (His perfect doing and dying) and intercession at God's right hand in heaven. Providentially, the crisis finally came to an end about 1906 – largely through the writings of Ellen White leading up to and during this era (Steps to Christ, The Desire of Ages, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, Christ's Object Lessons, and a spate of articles on justification by faith especially from 1888-1892), the young church was slowly being nudged toward faith in Christ's eternal divinity, and toward acceptance of the objective substitutionary atonement and intercession of Christ, and a faith that believing sinners are "justified alone through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness" (RH, 11-11-1890).

What started out as the young SDA church's greatest opportunity, when missed and resisted, led almost inexorably to the pantheism crisis which nearly spelled its destruction. The theological turmoil of the 1890s has led many over the years since then to misunderstand what was proclaimed in 1888. Ellen White's long-continued endorsement of righteousness by faith, of openness to light, and of the work of Waggoner and Jones was certainly not an endorsement of those subjective, pantheistic views which she never taught and which were directly contrary to the tenor of her own work, and far more importantly, contrary to Scripture. Sadly, we as Seventh-day Adventists more than 120 years later have yet to grasp justification by faith in its NT-Reformation splendor.

In the compendium below, we cite primary historical evidence for what Ellet J. Waggoner actually taught in 1888. How wonderfully close E. J. Waggoner was in 1888 to recapturing the NT-Reformation truth of justification by faith alone, let the reader note from the historical evidence cited below! God will yet have a people who will preach the everlasting Gospel in proper relation to His eternal, objective Law in full eschatological, New Testament glory (Rev. 14:6-12; 18:1-4)!

The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 1575 "To U. Smith" "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ, and to flee unto him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren Waggoner and Jones. By exciting that opposition, Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been their's in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world."

Seventh-day Adventists in General Conference Assembled,

Minneapolis, MN: 17 October – 02 November 1888

The General Conference Daily Bulletin

Wednesday, October 17, 1888:

"At 10:30 a.m., Elder Uriah Smith discussed the question of the ten horns of the fourth beast of Daniel vii., the speaker taking the position of that the Huns were one of the ten kingdoms into which Rome was divided. Some held the view that Allemanni should be counted as one of the ten kingdoms instead of the Huns [i.e., A. T. Jones]. A spirited discussion was held at the conclusion of the remarks, in which a number of the delegates participated. At the close of the discussion it was voted that, taking all the light we have received, and all the reference given, we will faithfully and carefully study this question, praying that the spirit my guide us into the truth.

"It was also voted that the chair appoint a committee of seven to devise a plan by which those who think they have received light on any point, may present it to the denomination.

"At 2:30 p.m. Elder E. J. Waggoner discussed the question of the law of God and its relation to the Gospel of Christ. The discussion was based principally on the Epistle to the Romans" [Uriah Smith, "First Day's Proceedings," General Conference Daily Bulletin 2, no. 1 (19 Oct. 1888): 2.]

Thursday, October 18, 1888:

"At 9 a.m. Elder E. J. Waggoner gave another lesson on the law and gospel. In this lesson the first and second chapters of Galatians, in connection with Acts 15, were partially presented by him to show that the same harmony existed there as elsewhere; that the key to the book was ‘justification by faith in Christ,’ with the emphasis on the latter word; that liberty in Christ was always

freedom from sin, and that separation from Christ to some other means of justification always brought bondage. He stated incidentally that ‘the law of Moses’ and ‘the law of God’ were not distinctive terms as applied to the ceremonial and moral laws, and cited Num. xv., 22-24, and Luke ii., 23-24, as proof. He closed at 10:15 by asking those present to compare Acts xv., 7-11, with Rom. ii., 20-25. Appeals were made by Brother Waggoner and Sister White to the brethren, old and young, to seek God, put away all spirit of prejudice and opposition, and strive to come into the unity of faith in the bonds of brotherly love." [Uriah Smith, "Second Day's Proceedings," General Conference Daily Bulletin 2, no. 1 (19 Oct. 1888): 2.]

Friday, October 19, 1888:

"At 9 a.m. Elder Waggoner continued his lessons on the law and gospel. The Scriptures considered were the fifteenth chapter of Acts and the second and third of Galatians, compared with Romans iv. and other passages in Romans. His purpose was to show that the real point of controversy was justification by faith in Christ, which faith is reckoned to us as to Abraham, for righteousness. The covenant and promises to Abraham are the covenant and promises to us." [Uriah Smith, "Third Day's Proceedings," General Conference Daily Bulletin 2, no. 2 (21 Oct. 1888): 1.]

Waggoner's series continued until Thursday, October 25, 1888. Uriah Smith then wrote this summarizing comment:

"A series of instructive lectures has been given on 'Justification by faith' by Eld. E. J. Waggoner. The closing one was given this morning. With the foundation principles all are agreed, but there are some differences in regard to the interpretation of several passages. The lectures have tended to a more thorough investigation of the truth, and it is hoped that the unity of the faith will be reached on this important question." [Uriah Smith, "Eighth Day's Proceedings," General Conference Daily Bulletin 2, no. 7 (26 Oct. 1888): 3.]

Of considerable interest is Waggoner's synopsis of both A. T. Jones’ and his own lectures in the November 2, 1888, issue of the Signs of the Times:

"The principal subjects of Bible study were the ten kingdoms into which, according to the prophecy, the Roman Empire was divided, the establishment of the Papacy, and of its counterpart, the proposed National Reform Government; and the law and the gospel in their various relations, coming under the general head of justification by faith. These subjects have aroused a deep interest in the minds of all present; and thus far during the Conference one hour a day has been devoted to a continuance of their study." [E. J. Waggoner, "Editorial Correspondence," Signs of the Times, 02 Nov. 1888, p. 662].

"However, the lack of a complete record of Waggoner’s presentation has made it easy for some to read their own particular views on righteousness by faith into the 1888 conference" (McMahon, 1979). Sadly, proper weight has not been

give to the General Conference Bulletin of 1888 and Waggoner’s actual published work from 1888.

Explicit historical evidence long neglected

Although neglected, it is very significant that in The Gospel in the book of Galatians: A Review (Oakland, December 1888) we have exactly what E. J. Waggoner taught in 1887-1888:

On the meaning and centrality of justification by faith, On the nature of sin, On faith and pardon, On the covenants, On the moral & ceremonial laws, On the human nature of Christ, On Acts 15, Romans 4, and Galatians 2-3 (the very texts at issue in

Minneapolis, 1888), On the Reformation ideal of continual reform and growth in Bible

doctrine in the church, As well as what were the key arguments of the opposition.

The Gospel in the book of Galatians: A Review was written and privately circulated in 1887 in response to George I. Butler’s booklet The Law in Galatians. However after the public exposure of the issue at the General Conference at Minneapolis in the fall of 1888, E. J. Waggoner published this book as his official position for the world to see in December 1888.

OUTLINE of

The Gospel in the book of Galatians: A Review.  (December 1888):

Explanatory note. E. J. Waggoner opens by giving the reasons why he delayed nearly two years to publish this letter (Feb. 1887 till Dec. 1888) – to avoid controversy before the general public. Now with the public nature of the General Conference, Waggoner doubtless felt free to publish his views on justification by faith and the issues at controversy. This book contains a summary of the 1888 message and of its reception by church leaders.

Pages 1-2. Waggoner expressed his personal regard for the GC president, George I. Butler and insisted that all he has published was in harmony with the denomination.

"In my articles in the Signs [published in 1886] I have mentioned only a few points that might seem to be objections to the law, and which are often quoted as showing its abolition, to show that they are really the strongest arguments for the perpetuity of the law."

"As to the propriety of publishing the matter in the Signs when I did, I have nothing to say. Whatever censure is due on that score, I willingly take, as I already have. … Quotations that will appear further on, will

show that I am not the one who has departed from the standard works of our people."

Page 2. Waggoner cites Butler’s misapprehension of the meaning of circumcision as "a sign of their [Jewish] separation from the rest of the human family" and notes the practice of circumcision as common among the ancient Egyptians, and among many indigenous peoples of Africa and S. America, and among the Arabs, "tutur tahir" i.e., purification. What made it unique for the Jews was that it was a ‘sign’ of their "putting off the impurity of the heart" (Deut. 10: 16), of their Covenant relationship with God, a "sign of the possession of righteousness; and when righteousness was wanting the circumcision amounted to nothing."

On the Biblical definition of Righteousness by faith

Page 2. Waggoner gives the Scriptural meaning of circumcision by citing Romans 4: 11, from the only passage in Scripture that explicitly defines the meaning of the phrase "the righteousness of faith" or "righteousness by faith":

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also"

Or literally in the Greek:

"And a sign he received of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith [while] in uncircumcision, for to be a father of all the [ones] believing through uncircumcision, for the righteousness to be reckoned to them [also] …. But to us also to whom it shall be reckoned if we believe" (Rom. 4: 11, 13, 24).

Here we see the only explicit definition in Scripture of "righteousness by faith" or of the "righteousness of faith" – it is the perfect Righteousness which God Himself reckons to all who believe, i.e., Justification by faith. It explains exactly what Romans 3 means when it refers to ‘being justified by faith.’ In the Greek, ‘justification’ and ‘righteousness’ come from the same verb dikaiou, to declare righteous; adj. dikaios, righteous; n. dikaiosune, righteousness.

On the Bible meaning of Justification by faith and its centrality in Romans and Galatians

Page 5. Waggoner defines justification by faith and its centrality in Romans and Galatians:

Romans: "Now let us look for a moment at the subject of the two books, – Romans and Galatians. The leading thought in the book of Romans is justification by faith. The apostle shows the depraved condition of the heathen world; then he shows that the Jews are no better, but that

human nature is the same in all. All have sinned, and all are guilty before God, and the only way that any can escape final condemnation is by faith in the blood of Christ. All who believe on Him are justified freely by the grace of God, and His righteousness is imputed to them although they have violated the law. This truth, which brought out so clearly in the third chapter of Romans, is repeated and emphasized in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters. And in the eighth chapter the apostle concludes that there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. He has before shown that all sinners are under, or condemned by the law, but when we come to God through faith in Christ, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, we are no longer under the law but under grace. This condition is represented in various places as 'dead to the law by the body of Christ,’ ‘delivered from the law,’ etc. Everywhere faith in Christ and justification by faith are made prominent. So we may say that justification by faith is the key-note of the book of Romans .

Galatians: "Now how about the book of Galatians? There is no question in the mind of any but that the Galatians were being induced to submit to circumcision. Were they submitting to the demands of the Jews[ish Christians] that they should be circumcised, because they thought it a great privilege to be circumcised? Not by any means, but because certain Jews were teaching them that if they were not circumcised they could not be saved. See Acts 15: 1. They were therefore looking to circumcision as a means of justification. But since there is none other name under heaven except that of Christ whereby we can be saved, it follows that to depend on anything except Christ for justification is a rejection of Christ. It was this which called out Paul's letter to them. Now since the Galatians were being led to trust in circumcision for justification from sin, what else could be the burden of a letter designed to correct this error, but justification by faith in Christ? That this is the burden of the epistle is seen from Galatians 2: 16-21; 3: 6-8, 10-14, 22, 24, 26, 27; 4: 4-7; 5: 5-6; 6: 14-15, and other passages. In the book of Romans the apostle develops his argument on justification by faith in a general way, building up a general treatise; but when he wrote to the Galatians he had a special object in view, and he adapted his epistle to the necessities of the case. It is the most natural thing in the world that he should write on justification by faith to the Galatians, when there were in danger of losing their faith, even if his treatise on the subject to the Romans had been already written. The truth is, however, that the book of Galatians was written first. In the book of Romans he expanded the book of Galatians into a general treatise ."

On the real issue of law in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and its connection to the book of Galatians and Romans – the hot issue at

Minneapolis

Pages 8:3 – 11:2. Waggoner showed that the justification by faith and the moral law were especially the subjects of Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

"Do you really believe that the council took no cognizance of the ten commandments? If so, can you tell me of what law fornication is the transgression?…"

Pages 11:2 – 13:2. Waggoner showed that both the moral and ceremonial laws were spoken of in Galatians but especially the moral law – the main trust of his argument.

On faith and pardon (or justification by faith)

Pages 13:3 – 15:2. EJW clearly defined the moral law and the ceremonial law. He showed that "the ceremonial law was simply the ordinances of the gospel" and to despise the ceremonial law was to reject the only way of pardon and peace. The Covenant rituals might change, but the everlasting Covenant is the same in both the OT and NT and justification by faith is the way of salvation in both OT and NT times. This was the mature position of the Protestant Reformers centuries before.

"Let me repeat the argument: If the curse attaches to the ceremonial law, then violation of the ceremonial law is sin; and if violation of the ceremonial law is sin, then there is sin not forbidden by the ten commandments; and then the ten commandments are not a perfect rule of action; moreover, since the ceremonial law is done away, it follows that the standard of righteousness is not so perfect now as it was in the days of Moses. It this is not a legitimate conclusion from your premises, I must confess my ignorance of logic. Another point: No sin can remove itself, neither can it be atoned for by any subsequent good deed. So then there must be some scheme of atonement for sin. Now if sin were imputed for neglect of the ceremonial law, what remedy was provided for that sin? The ceremonial law was simply the ordinances of the gospel. If condemned sinners were still further condemned by the very remedy provided for their salvation, then indeed it must have been a yoke. A man is in a truly pitiable condition when the remedy given him for a sore disease only aggravates that disease.

"But you will say, and correctly too, that those who refused to comply with the requirements of the ceremonial law were put to death. Why was this, if the curse did not attach to the ceremonial law? I will answer. The violator of the moral law justly merited death, but God had provided a pardon for all who would receive it. This pardon was on condition of faith in Christ, and it was ordained that faith in Christ should be manifested through the rites of the ceremonial law. Now if a man repented of his sins, and had faith in Christ, he would manifest it, and would receive the pardon; and then of course the penalty would not be inflicted upon him. But if he had no faith in Christ, he would not comply with the conditions of pardon, and then of course the penalty for sin would be inflicted. The penalty was not for failure to carry out the rites of the ceremonial law, but for the sin which might have been remitted had he manifested faith. I think anybody can see the truthfulness of this position. Let us illustrate it…. [story of a murder offered a pardon by the governor]. So it is with the sinner in his relation to the law of God. If he despises the offer of

pardon, and shows his disregard by a refusal to take the steps necessary to receive the pardon, then the curse of the law, death , is allowed to fall upon him. But refusing to receive pardon is not a sin. God invites men to receive pardon, but He has no law to compel them to be pardoned. The murderer who has been offered pardon and has rejected it, is no more guilty [of murder] than another man who has committed the same crime but who has not been offered a pardon. I do not know as this can be made any clearer; I cannot see that it needs to be. The sum of it all is simply this: Sin is the transgression of the moral law, and the violation of no other law; for the moral law covers all duty. There is a curse attached to the violation of the law, and that curse is death; ‘for the wages of sin is death.’ But there is provision for the pardon of those who exercise faith in Christ. And this faith is indicated by a performance of certain rites. Before Christ, it was by the offering of sacrifices; since Christ it is by baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Those who have real faith will indicate it in the prescribed manner, and will escape the penalty. Those who have no faith will receive the penalty. This is exactly what Christ meant when He Himself said to Nicodemus: ‘For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already , because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’ John 3:17, 18" [Italic emphases are Waggoner’s; underlining mine].

"I marvel that you can read Galatians 3:11, 12, and imagine that the word law in those verses has the slightest reference to the ceremonial law. I quote them: ‘But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them’…. The question is not what law may be referred to, but what law is referred to ? The law here referred to is a law of which it is said, ‘The man that doeth them shall live in them.’ Now this is emphatically true of the moral law. It is equivalent to Romans 2:13: ‘The doers of the law shall be justified.’ The sad fact that there are no doers of the law does not destroy the truth that the doers of the law shall be justified. Perfect compliance with the moral law alone is all that God can possibly require of any creature. Such service would necessarily give eternal life….

"Again, the text says, ‘And the law is not of faith.’ But the ceremonial law was of nothing else but faith; it was a matter of faith from beginning to end. It was faith that constituted all the difference between the offering of Abel and that of Cain. See Hebrews 4:11…."

What part of Christ's atonement is universal and what part is individual? Christ has made a universal atonement in that the SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD WERE IMPUTED TO HIM (Isa. 53; Rom. 5:18-19; II Cor. 5:17, John 1:29) and so His death expiated the sins of the whole world (II Cor. 5:14-21). This is universal, objective, and forensic (judicial). This provides our temporal life today (John 6; Rom. 5:18), and the promise of eternal life. However, there is a second individual, objective and forensic side of the atonement: HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS IS IMPUTED TO THE ONES WHO BELIEVE (Gen. 15:6 = Gal. 3:5 = Rom. 4:3 = James 2:23; Rom. 1:16-18; 3: 19-28; 4:1-24-25; 5:1-17; John

3:16-19, 5:24; II John 5:11-13, Gal. 2:16; 3:7-8, 11, 24; Lev. 1-17; etc.) This is individual, objective, and forensic (judicial) mediated above at the right hand of God (Heb. 4:12-16; 7:25; 12:20-25; Rom. 8:31-39; etc.). This is what justifies the individual believer and saves eternally.

Scripture is clear on both the universal forensic work and even more at length on the individual forensic justification. To obscure or lose either is to miss part of the Gospel: Especially if the individual, objective part is missing, then the way to eternal life for lost, despairing individual souls is obscured. For it is the individual, forensic imputation of Christ's that justifies and saves the believing sinner eternally.

It must be remembered that the only truth that can possibly change the selfish motivation to an unselfish one is the faith that Christ has paid it all, and that His perfect doing and dying are accounted ours! This is grace! This is the Biblical definition of grace! All other 'graces' flow from and are fruits of this.  

On the ‘added’ law in Galatians

Pages 16 – 20:5. Waggoner  with crisp, starkly beautiful logic shows that the law added 430 years after the Covenant promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:17-19) was emphatically the moral law, not the ceremonial law, but rather the same law referred to in Rom. 5:20.

Page 17:1. "You say that the ceremonial law was added because of transgressions, that is, as a remedial system. Then why was it not added as soon as the transgression was committed, instead of 2,500 years later? I claim that the remedial system entered immediately after the fall, and for proof I cite you to the offering of Abel. Your argument would put off the remedial system until the exode. You may say that at that time the ceremonial law was given more formally and circumstantially than before; very good, but if that argument will apply to the ceremonial law, as it undeniably will, why will it not apply to the moral law?"

Page 19:1. "The very same thing is stated in Romans 5:20, ‘Moreover, the law entered that the offense might abound;’ and I never knew any Seventh-day Adventist to have any trouble in applying that to the moral law, yet it is certainly as difficult a text as Galatians 3:19. The word rendered ‘entered’ is, literally, ‘came in.’ … Although the law existed in all its force before the exode, yet it ‘came in,’ ‘entered,’ was spoken or given, or ‘added’ at that time. And why? That the offense might abound, i.e., ‘that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful;’ that what was sin before might be more plainly be seen to be sin. Thus it entered, or was added, ‘because of transgressions.’… And so it became the school-master, pedagogue, to bring men to Christ, in order that they might be justified by faith, and be made the righteousness of God in Him."

Page 20:5. "Your argument against the moral law being ‘added because of transgressions’ will apply with equal force against the moral law having ‘entered that the offense might abound.’ If you claim that Galatians 3:19 cannot apply to the moral law, then you must claim also that Romans 5:20 does not apply to that law."

On the relation between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law Page 21. "But God had made a covenant with Abraham, and had

promised wonderful things, but only on condition of perfect righteousness through Christ…. So the law entered that the offense might abound; and because the offense abounded, and men saw their depravity, they found that grace super-abounded to cover their sins. The case is so plain, and the argument in Galatians 3:19 is so plainly parallel, that I marvel how anybody who has any just conception of the relation of the law and the gospel can question it for a moment."

Page 26:2-27. "…the law was given upon Mount Sinai, because of transgression, that is, that the people might know what sin was, and might appreciate the pardon that was offered in the covenant to Abraham…." (Gen. 15:6 = Gal. 3:5 = Rom. 4:3 = James 2:23).

Summary of the message of 1888

Pages 32-34. Waggoner summarizes in 8 points the message of 1888 (italic emphases his; underlined emphases mine) from Galatians 3: 19-25:

1)    "Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master.’ By no manner of reasoning whatever can these verses be made to apply to ceremonial law. The reference must be to the moral law, and to that alone, as I shall show.

2)    "The text does not read that the law was our school-master to point us to Christ… [but] ‘to bring us to Christ’ … that is, the was our school-master till we came to Christ. Now the ceremonial law brought no one to Christ. The performance of it was an act of faith on the part of the performer, showing the belief he already had in Christ .

3)    "Faith did not release people from the observance of the ceremonial law; on the contrary, the person did not begin the observance of the ceremonial law until he had faith in Christ.

4)    "…[v. 22] ‘before faith came, we were under the law;’ but before faith came, people did not have anything to do with the ceremonial law.

5)    "If the ceremonial law were referred to in this verse, then, according to verse 25, we should conclude that as soon as people learned to have faith in Christ they had nothing more to do with the ceremonial law; but the truth is that the patriarchs and prophets were most punctual in their observance of the ceremonial law, and no one had more faith than they. Take the case of David; his writings abound with references to sacrifices and to ceremonies in the court of the Lord’s house. He offered multitudes of sacrifices, yet there is no writer in the Bible who shows a more perfect knowledge of Christ, or who exhibits more faith in Him.

6)    "But you say that the apostle is reasoning of dispensations, and not of individual experiences, and that bringing them to Christ means bringing them to His first advent, and to ‘the system of faith there inaugurated.’ But that is the weakest position you could take, for if that were the meaning, then it would follow that the law accomplished its purpose only for the generation that lived at Christ’s first advent….

7)    Again; the text says it brings men to Christ, that they may be justified by faith. Are people justified by faith in a national capacity [or in a dispensational capacity?] …. Justification by faith is an individual, and not a national [or dispensational], matter…. I repeat, justification by faith is something that each individual must experience for himself. Thousands who lived at Christ’s first advent knew nothing of this experience, while thousands who lived long before, were actually brought to Christ for pardon, and they received it. Abel was counted righteous through faith; Noah was heir of the righteousness which is by faith; and Abraham actually saw Christ’s day, and rejoiced in it, although he died 2,000 years before the first advent. And this most positively proves that the apostle, in the third chapter of Galatians, is speaking of individual experience, and not of dispensational changes. There can be no Christian experience, no faith, no justification, no righteousness, that is not an individual matter. People are saved as individuals, and not as nations.

8)    The strongest argument against the ceremonial law view is found in verse 24: ‘Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.’ Now it is an undeniable fact that the possession of faith led to the offering of sacrifices, and not the offering of sacrifices to faith. ‘By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.’… if that [ceremonial law theory] were true, then the text would teach that no man was justified until Christ’s first coming, which is preposterous and unscriptural…. The law must retain its office of pedagogue or task-master, until all have come to Christ who will, and this will not be until probation closes and the Lord comes…. This promise was made to Abraham, not because of his inherent righteousness, but because of his faith, which was accounted to him for righteousness. The promise was confirmed in Christ, that is, none but those who exercised faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins could be heirs of the promise. But forgiveness of sins depends on repentance of sin, and repentance of sin presupposes a knowledge of sin, and a knowledge of sin can be obtained only by the law. Therefore the law acts as a pedagogue, overseer, or task-master, to overwhelm men with a sense of their sin, that they may flee to Christ to be justified by faith. And this office it must perform until all those who can be influenced to come to Christ have come…." (Note the use of Romans 4).

On faith in the Object, rather than faith as the object vs. Dispensationalism

Page 36:1. "In your pamphlet (page 50) you make considerable of the words ‘the faith’ or ‘that faith,’ as though the word ‘faith’ were used in a different sense than a personal faith in Christ. But I repeat again (1), There can be no faith except faith in Christ. And (2) faith in Christ is a

personal matter; each one must have faith for himself. Therefore the coming of faith is to each individual as an individual, and to not to any people as a class [or to a dispensation]. For the same reason I cannot accept your statement that ‘the faith’ refers to ‘the whole system of truth devised by God of the salvation of men,’ and that its coming refers to the revelation of Christ at His first advent. If that were true, it would prove that the system of truth devised by God for the salvation of men, was not known till Christ came, which is so evidently unscriptural as to need no comment. The theory you hold, when traced to its conclusion, inevitably makes God have two plans of salvation, one for people before the coming of the Lord, and another for those after. It makes the Jews judged by one standard, and the Gentiles."

On Justification by faith being the exegetical subject of Romans 3 Page 38. "Galatians 3:22 says that the Scripture hath concluded or shut

up all under sin, ‘that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.’ In the third [chapter] of Romans Paul shows that Jews and Gentiles are alike under sin, in order to prove that ‘the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ,’ may be ‘unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference; for all have sinned [historic past tense], and [continue] to come short of the glory of God [present continuous tense]; being justified freely [present continuous tense] through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.’ Verses 22-24. And in Romans 11:32 he states that God hath shut them all up together (both Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, ‘that He might have mercy upon all.’ All are in the same bondage – all are under the law – and none can be delivered from their prison until they come to Christ. He is the only door to freedom."

On the two covenants – matters of status before God not dispensation Page 39. "The law does no leave the man when he comes to Christ, but

the man’s relation to it is changed. Before he was ‘under the law,’ now he is ‘in the law’ (Psalm 119:1) and the law is in him (Psalm 37:31). He is in Christ, who is the personification of the law, and in Him he is made the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21."

Page 40:3-41:2. "[Quoting GB]. "Here you yourself admit the charge which I have brought against your theory, namely, that it virtually makes two plans of salvation. If the ‘great system of justification by faith’ was not reached till the cross of Christ, pray tell me whether anybody was ever justified before Christ came, and if so, how? My reading of the Bible convinces me that ‘the great system of justification by faith’ was known as soon as sin entered the world. I read that ‘by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous.’ Hebrews 11:4. And in Psalms 32:1, 2; 68:6, 13; Isaiah 1:18, 53:10, 11; 55:6, 7; Habakkuk 2:4, and scores of similar texts, I find the clearest reference to the great system of justification by faith…. I have never seen a man with so much knowledge of God that he could not study with profit the words of David and Isaiah concerning justification by faith…."

Page 41:2. "After the battles we have had to wage with Campbellites concerning the value of the Old Testament Scriptures, and the unity and universality of God’s plan of salvation, it seems almost incredible that anyone should be called on to defend, against Seventh-day Adventists, the idea that the well-informed Jew had a full knowledge of Christ, and was justified only through faith."

On the human nature of Christ and ‘original sin’

Pages 43-48. Waggoner argues that to be "under the law" always means to be "under the condemnation of the law." He protests George Butler’s citation of lexicographer Greenfield (turned commentator) as an authority that "under the law" in Galatians 4:4 means "subject to the law." Waggoner wrote, "Seventh-day Adventists, of all people in the world, ought to be free from dependence upon the mere opinion of men. They should be Protestants indeed, testing everything by the Bible alone" (44:1).

Galatians 4:4-5: "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent for the His Son, having become of a woman, having become under law, that those under law He might redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive" (from the Greek).

George Butler took great exception in his assessment of E. J. Waggoner’s understanding of Gal. 4:4. Butler wrote, "That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under it condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say He was born under the condemnation of God’s law" (Butler, The Law in Galatians, p. 58). Waggoner retorted by quoting John 1:1, 14; Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2: 5-7; Heb. 2:9; Rom. 1:3, Heb. 2:16, 17 to show that Christ really became a human being. He cited II Cor. 5:21 ‘made Him to be sin for us’ as parallel to Gal. 4:4. He cited Isa. 53:4 about Him bearing "our griefs and sorrows" and even cited Ps. 51:5 to show that David, an ancestor of Jesus, had a sinful nature.

Page 46:5. "It may be a perversion of all proper theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies just as much against your position as against mine? You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! Had He then committed sin? Not by any means."

Now concerning the question at which Waggoner seems at first to hesitate: When he asserted "that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law" (46:5; 47:3), did he mean

1)    Christ was ‘born under the law’s condemnation’ becoming our Sin-Bearer because He became a human being                                                             OR

2)    Christ was ‘born under the law’s condemnation’ becoming our Sin-Bearer because our sins were imputed to Him, the opposite of justification by faith.

One of these options is indeed a perversion and a falsehood, but the other is splendid Bible truth. Whatever he taught in later years, in 1888, Ellet J. Waggoner gave the only Biblical answer:

Page 47:2. "Again; why was Jesus baptized? He said that it was ‘to fulfill all righteousness.’ We may not say that it was simply as an example; for that would be really denying the vicarious nature of the atonement. It must have been for the same reason that He died, namely, for sin. Not His own sin, but ours; for as in His death, so in His life, our sins were counted as His. And thus it is that He could be all His life, even from His birth, under the condemnation of the law. It was not on His own account, but on ours."

Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that Christ became our Sin-Bearer because He was born in our humanity. For He who was "holy, harmless, undefiled, having been separated from sinners" (Heb. 7: 26), whose humanity is described as that "holy thing" in Luke’s gospel, was never born as we are with "the carnal mind which is enmity against God" (Rom. 8:7). He is able to "suffer with our weaknesses" because he has "been tempted in all respects according to [our] likeness apart from sin" (Heb. 4: 15, Greek). He was never a sinner by nature as we are. The description of the human race in Romans 3:1-23 was not a description of the Lamb without blemish. As in the Gospel "is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith...[that] the one righteous by faith shall live" (Rom. 1:16-17) so also in it "is revealed [the] wrath of God from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of men" (Rom. 1:18); "for all have sinned and continue to fall short [present continuous] of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23); "the many were constituted sinners" (Rom. 5:19); even the truly converted whose minds have been renewed to serve God, discover the inward battle of that "sin indwelling within me....the sin dwelling in me. I find then the law that when I would do good that evil is present with me...the law of sin, the one being in my members" (Rom. 7:17-23); "if we say we have no sin [present tense] we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (I John 1:8); "for in many ways we all offend [stumble]" (present tense, James 3:2); "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (this is precisely what we inherit; Rom. 8:7); "conceived in sin, shapen in inquity" (Ps. 51:5); "the wicked are estranged from the womb, they stray from the belly, speaking lies" (Ps. 58:3); "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3); "For I know you will surely betray and trespass, from the womb you were called such" (Isa. 48:8); "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9);  "all evil is from within…defiles the man" (Mark 7:18-23); "the day you were born… I saw you squirming in your blood…. I said, Live!" (Ez. 16:6); "who can bring a clean out of an unclean thing, not one" (Job 14:4); "every man is tempted from within, tempted by his own lusts…" (James 1:13-15). All these show that it is by nature that we are sinners, condemned by the eternal Law of a holy God, and not only by our deliberate commissions or omissions. None of these were ever true of Jesus Christ.

Christ became our Sin-Bearer, condemned on our behalf, only through imputation, i.e., because our sins were reckoned as His: "the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all …. He was reckoned with the transgressors; and He bore the sin of the many, and made intercession for the transgressors" (Isa. 53: 12). "He made Him to be sin on our behalf Who knew no sin" (II Cor. 5: 21). "Then said He unto them, ‘But now, he that has a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] wallet: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that what has been written must be fulfilled in Me, And with the lawless He was reckoned: for the thing concerning Me has a fulfillment’" (Luke 22: 36-37). "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; He has put [Him] to grief: when You shall make His soul an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10). Only thus could He "carried up our sins in His body onto the tree" (I Pet. 2:24) because He received the full curse of sin and death within because of an outside-of-Himself sin reckoned as His. Even so, by faith alone we receive the full blessing of life and righteousness within, because of an outside-of-ourselves Righteousness reckoned as ours(Isa. 53; Rom. 3-4; Ps. 32:1).

On E. J. Waggoner’s main desire in writing

Page 52:2. "I have written this brief review, as I did my articles in the Signs, with the desire to vindicate the law of God, and to show its perpetuity, its binding claims upon all mankind, and the beautiful harmony between it and the gospel. The law of God is the groundwork of all our faith. It may be said to be the backbone of the Third Angel’s Message."

Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda On the ‘Reformed Church Ever Reforming’

Ellet J. Waggoner saw himself as helping to recover the faith once delivered so gloriously to the saints in the 1st century AD and recovered so mightily in the 16th century. On the subject of the law and the gospel in the book of Galatians, he declared the need for reform. His words still ring true for us as a people today on our need to more fully grasp the Gospel in its New Testament, apostolic, Day of Atonement context. In 1888, Ellet J. Waggoner stood with Ellen White as a Protestant Reformer to the Advent people:

Page 52:3. "I know you will say that it will be a humiliating thing to modify our position on so vital a point as this, right in the face of the enemy. But if a general has a faulty position, I submit that it is better to correct it, even in the face of the enemy, than to run the risk of defeat because of his faulty position. But I do not see anything humiliating in the matter. If our people should to-day, as a body (as they will sometime), change their view on this point, it would simply be an acknowledgment that they are better informed to-day than they were yesterday. It would simply be taking an advance step, which is never humiliating except to those whose pride of opinion will not allow them to admit that they can be wrong. It would simply be a step nearer the faith of the great Reformers from the days of Paul to the days of Luther and Wesley. It would be a step closer to the heart of the Third Angel's

Message. I do not regard this view which I hold as a new idea at all. It is not a new theory of doctrine. Everything that I have taught is perfectly in harmony with the fundamental principles of truth which have been held not only by our people, but by all the eminent reformers. And so I do not take any credit to myself for advancing it. All I claim for the theory is, that it is consistent, because it sticks to the fundamental principles of the gospel. (1)

Concluding remarks on the overwhelming centrality of Justification by faith

Page 53:1-2. "Before I close, I cannot refrain form expressing my regret to see in your book (on page 78) the expression, ‘the much-vaunted doctrineofjustification by faith.’ Do you know of any other means of justification? Your words seem to intimate that you think that doctrine has been overestimated. Of one thing I am certain, and that is, that those who have held to the theory of the law, which you are endeavoring to uphold, have not overestimated the doctrine of justification by faith; because that theory leads inevitably to the conclusion that men are justified by the law. But when I read Romans 3:28 , and read also that Paul knew nothing among the Corinthians but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and that ‘the just shall live by faith,’ and that ‘this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith’ (1 John 5:4), and that Paul wanted to be found [in Him] when Jesus comes, having nothing but ‘the righteousness which is of God by faith’ (Philippians 3:9), I conclude that it is impossible to overestimate the doctrine of justification by faith. You may call it a ‘much-vaunted’ if you please; I accept the word, and say with Paul: ‘God forbid that I should glory [or vaunt], save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.’

"Hoping that you will read this letter in the spirit in which it was written, and that you will believe that I have written it with only the utmost good-feeling and brotherly love for you personally, and praying that God will guide both of us and all His people to the most perfect knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, I remain your brother in Christ, E. J. WAGGONER."

Comparison of E. J. Waggoner’s position in 1888 with that of the Protestant Reformation:

Topic Protestant Reformation Waggoner’s position in 1888

Justification by faith (i.e. 'righteousness by faith')  

The pardon and righteousness reckoned to all who believe

grasped by faith alone "without works" (Rom. 4:1-8)  

Christ’s life & death reckoned ours continuously not just for past sins but for our present ‘coming

The pardon and righteousness reckoned to all who believe

grasped by faith (not as clear on "without works")  

Christ’s righteousness reckoned ours mostly for past sins (EJW like fellow SDAs not clear on the ‘present

short’ (Rom. 3:24-28; 4:8; 8:1, 31-39; Heb. 7:25)

continuous’ nature of justification)

Nature of the Atonement Substitutionary Substitutionary

Sanctification = "fruit of the Spirit" [in] love, obedience, and good works; to be "completed in you until the day of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 5: 22-23; Phil. 1: 6)

= love and obedience (less explicit on the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification)

Centrality of Justification by faith

"the article of the standing and falling church" (Luther); "the principal hinge of religion" (Calvin)

"impossible to overestimate" (Waggoner)

Nature of faith Faith in the Object, Christ (because faith is without merit or virtue in itself) Not faith as the object, love (as held by the Medieval church)

Faith in the Object, Christ

Nature of sin  

Explicitly and Biblically: Not only what we do but what we are

More implicitly: Not only what we do but what we are (not as clear on the nature of sin)

Human nature of Christ Like us in all things, sin excepted

Like us in all things, sin excepted (although not as clearly articulated)

Christ as our Sin-Bearer By imputation only By imputation only

Old & New Covenants A matter of status before God not dispensation (sinners justified by faith alone in the OT also)

A matter of status before God not dispensation (sinners justified by faith in the OT also)

The Covenant to Abraham = the Gospel = the Gospel

Law in Galatians Both but especially the moral law

Only the moral law

Justification by faith in its NT-apostolic, eschatological Day of Atonement context (Rom. 1-3; Hebrews; John 12; 16; Rev. 12, etc.)

Not fully recovered: Sensed a connection with acquittal in the final judgment, but not the full significance or consequences

Not fully recovered: Sensed its connection with 3rd Angel’s message but not the full significance or consequences

At the gate

Francis S. Greene (25 October 1989)

There came two men to heaven, and at its splendid gate They answered, each man for himself, the Keeper of their fate.

The Searcher there of hidden hearts, Who for each seeker yearned, Gave test to all their source of trust and all their souls had learned.

"What claim for your redemption can grant you entrance here? How do you qualify to walk where holy angels fear?"

The first man said, "My life is clean! Behold me, void of sin. This did the Christ within my life, that I might enter in. All holy, harmless, undefiled, and such a one as He.

All praise to Him, who fashioned thus a miracle like me!"

The candidate who followed next then stood before his Lord To answer Him whose holy voice was as a two-edg’d sword. "What offering do you present? Do you have Heaven's key?

No flesh can come with empty hands. Where is your gift to Me?"

"I have no gift to make Thee, Lord," the second softly said. "All good appearing in my life, Christ wrought it in my stead.

He wove the very robe I wear, and made my eyes to see That there is not a scrap of good belonging unto me.

Therefore, my ransom is His blood; in it I rest my fate. I claim Thy Christ as entrance, Lord, for Jesus is my Gate."

To whom did Heaven open wide? The answer's clear to see: No flesh shall be self-justified, and none can buy what’s free.

Appendix I

A brief compilation of clear statements on Justification by faith

Martin Luther & the Reformers Ellen White & Seventh-day Adventists

"God accounts and acknowledges him as righteous without any works who apprehends His Son by faith alone….This, then, is the amazing definition of Christian righteousness. It is the divine imputing or accounting for righteousness or unto righteousness because of faith in Christ or for Christ’s sake" (D. Martin Luthers Werke, Vol. III, p. 1229).  

"It is faith alone that achieves this that all sins are remitted to us and that the whole Decalogue is fulfilled by faith, because faith alone gives me Christ, who is the fulfillment and the end [ telos completion] of the law. What else does

"Christ was a Protestant…. Luther and his followers did not invent the reformed religion. They simply accepted it as presented by Christ and the apostles" (Ellen White, ‘Visit to the Vaudois Valleys,’ Review and Herald, 06-01-86).  

"The great doctrine of justification by faith, so clearly taught by Luther, had been almost wholly lost sight of…[England, 18th c.]" (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 253).  

"The point which has been urged upon my mind for years is the imputed righteousness of Christ. I have wondered that this matter was not made

faith give? It imparts and brings with it the Holy Spirit, from whom all good works flow" (D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kuitische Gesamtausgabe [Weimar, 1883-], Vol. XXXIX, Pt. 1, p. 482).  

"But the doctrine of Justification is this, that we are pronounced righteous and are saved solely by faith in Christ, and without works. . . . it immediately follows that we are pronounced righteous neither through monasticism nor through vows nor through masses nor through any other works. . . ." (Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians, 1535).  

‘The article of Justification, which is our only protection, not only against all the powers and plottings of men but also against the gates of hell, is this: By faith alone [ sola fide ] in Christ, without works, we are declared just [ pronuntiari iustos ] and saved ’ (Martin Luther, comp. E. M. Plass, What Luther Says, 2: 701).  

‘Therefore a man can with confidence boast in Christ and say: ‘Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, his suffering and dying, mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, suffered, and died as He did’ (Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 31: 297).  

"… the obedience of Christ is imputed to us for righteousness. That glory cannot be taken away from Christ and transferred to either our renewal or our obedience without blasphemy" (Martin Chemnitz, 1522-1586; Examination of the Council of Trent, Pt. 1, pp. 490-491; cf. Rom. 10: 4).  

"Justifying righteousness is the doing and suffering of Christ when He was in the world. This is clear because we are…justified by His obedience… (Rom. 5:19; 10:4). This righteousness resides in and with the person of Christ; it is of justifying virtue only by imputation, i.e. by God’s reckoning it to us, even as our sins made the Lord Jesus a sinner…by God’s reckoning it to Him" (John Bunyan, Justification by an Imputed Righteousness, a sermon; 17th century).  

"…if we are justified on the grounds of the work of the Holy Spirit in us , we are called to rest on a work, which, so far from being finished and accepted, is not even begun in the case of any unrenewed sinner; and which, when it is

the subject of discourses in our churches throughout the land, when the matter has been kept constantly urged upon me, and I have made it the subject of nearly every discourse and talk that I have given to the people. (Ellen White, MS 36 1890 cited in Faith and Works, p. 18).  

"The believing sinner is pronounced innocent, while the guilt is placed on Christ. The righteousness of Christ is placed on the debtor's account, and against his name on the balance sheet is written: Pardoned. Eternal Life" (Ellen White, RH, 08-24-1897).  

"Through His imputed righteousness they are accepted of God as keeping all His commandments" (Ellen White, TM 37).  

"Righteousness without a blemish can be obtained only through the imputed righteousness of Christ" (Ellen White, RH, 9-3-01).  

"Let not the fallacies of Satan deceive you; you are justified by faith alone …. but genuine faith… bring[s] forth the fruits of the Spirit." (Ellen White, Signs of the Times, 03-24-90).  

"They [sinners] are justified alone through the imputed righteousness of Christ" (Ellen White, Mss. Rel., Vol. 8, p. 255).  

"Christ only is the way, the truth, the life; and man can be justified alone through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Man is justified freely by God’s grace through faith, and not by works, lest any man should boast. Salvation is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Many have felt their hopeless condition, and have asked in perplexity, ‘How shall we gain … the world to come? Earth lies under the curse, and is doomed to destruction; how shall we be able to enter the city of God?’ We would point you to Christ, the way, the truth, the life – the mystic ladder between heaven and earth" (Ellen White, RH, 11-11-1890)  

"…What is the ground of our acceptance; And we reply that it is not our righteousness, nor our humility, nor contrition, nor tears, nor repentance, nor anything that the Holy Spirithaswrought in us, but what Christ has done for us" (John Brunson, RH, 12

begun in the case of a believer, is incipient only…marred and defiled by remaining sin…and never perfected in this life" (J. Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, p. 402).

August 1902).  

"When the sinner believes that Christ is his personal Saviour, then, according to his unfailing promises, God pardons his sin, and justifies him freely. The repentant soul realizes that his justification comes because Christ, as his substitute and surety, has died for him, is his atonement and righteousness" (Ellen White, RH, 11-04-1890).

References & Notes

Buchanan, J. (1867). The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of its History in the Church and of its Exposition from Scripture. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust (1961, 1984, 1991, 1997). One of the finest works ever on Justification by faith. Clearly elucidates a Biblical position on the Covenants, showing that believers in the Old Testament were also justified by faith alone in the imputed righteousness of Christ who was yet to come.

Bunyan, J. "Justification by an Imputed Righteousness." For the full text of John Bunyan's timeless sermon on justification by faith.

Chemnitz, M. (1522-1586). Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House (1971). A systematic evaluation of the teachings of the Council of Trent in the light of Scripture and history by a leading Protestant Reformer of the 16th cenutry. One of the best works on the doctrinal issues of the Protestant Reformation.

The General Conference Daily Bulletin (October 17 – November 2, 1888). Battle Creek, MI: The Review and Herald Publishing Association. Primary, albeit brief, historical evidence for what E. J. Waggoner actually taught at the pivotal 1888 General Conference.

McMahon, D. (1979). Ellet Joseph Waggoner: The Myth and the Man (The full text online). Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications. An evaluation of the tenor and development of E. J. Waggoner's teachings from 1882 to his death in 1916 in the light of the NT-Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone. Contains probably the most comprehensive bibliography of Waggoner's works available.

Waggoner, E. J. (1888, December). The Gospel in the book of Galatians: A Review. Oakland, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association. Definitive, primary historical evidence on what E. J. Waggoner actually taught in 1888.

White, E. G. (1888-1915). The 1888 materials. Washington, DC: The Ellen G. White Estate (1987). Collected letters and manuscripts relating to the 1888 General Conference and its aftermath. This collection especially highlights the

need to accept justification by faith and be sanctified by the truth in our solemn time. Ellen White strongly endorsed the necessity of reform and being open to the leadings of the Holy Spirit into all truth, i.e., Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda.