Establishing the Law

“Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” – Romans 3:31 

The Law of God creates an interesting phenomenon, those who proclaim that obedience to the Law is a necessary element of our ultimate salvation are the same people who change or minimize the requirements of the Law. The underlying reason that those proclaiming the role of obedience to the Law in salvation must ultimately undermine the Law itself is that, left intact, the Law condemns everyone as sinners.

“…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” – Rom 3:23 

“All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” – Gal 3:10 

As soon as we turn to the Law, we find ourselves cursed. Not only have all of us sinned in the past, but all of us continually “fall short”. None of us does “everything” written in the book of the Law, yet “everything” is what the Law requires. James 2:10 tells us that breaking any part of the law, even a small item like showing partiality to one person over another, makes us guilty of breaking the whole law. Think about the implications of what James has written. Showing partiality (or prejudice) in how we treat people makes us guilty of murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, and worshipping other gods. And it is particularly important to notice here in James that breaking a Law that is not included in the 10 Commandments makes a person guilty of breaking these commandments as well.

Some people work hard attempting to show how Paul and James don’t teach the same things. But they certainly aren’t looking at their teachings on the Law and sin. You can’t be a little bit of a law-breaker, just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant. Once you break the Law, you are a sinner. You are under a curse, and you have earned death.

Is it any wonder that someone promoting the importance and even necessity of observing the Law would have to soften the requirements of the Law? Unless those requirements are softened, their situation is hopeless. What are some of the ways in which people soften the requirements of the Law?

  • By concluding that God grades on a curve, so salvation comes from sinning less than the people around you.
  • By concluding that God’s judgment is based on the trend of your life. If you are sinning less this year than you were in prior years God is going to reward your progress.
  • By grouping sins into big sins that really matter (the Catholics call these Mortal sins) and smaller sins that, while bad, don’t prevent you from being saved.
  • By limiting the scope of God’s command, so keeping the Sabbath holy means going to church on the correct day and loving your neighbor means only those neighbors who believe the same things that you believe (this was the issue behind the question asked of Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?”).

Those who look to their deeds of the Law as a form of righteousness are forced to either continually conclude that they are a failure or to lessen the full demands of the Law into something that they can come closer to achieving. When one lessens the demands of the Law, they are undermining both the Law itself and the Holiness of God (and minimizing the value of Christ’s death!). But when one has been truly freed from the demands of the Law by a full and complete pardon, they no longer have a fear of that Law. They can see their shortcomings within that Law and not require any softening of its demands, because they know that all of the demands of the Law have already been met and freely credited to them. They aren’t afraid to admit that they are a sinner when they truly know that God has already forgiven that sin.

Our righteousness comes from God’s work, not our own. It is the result of faith from beginning to end, as expressed in Rom 1:17a (NIV)

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed,
a righteousness that is by faith from first to last”

Rick Barker
Latest posts by Rick Barker (see all)

31 comments

  1. Rick, I am blessed to read your article. Thank you for making your point of view so clear. I appreciate what you say in your second last paragraph: “Those who look to their deeds of the Law as a form of righteousness are forced to either continually conclude that they are a failure or to lessen the full demands of the Law into something that they can come closer to achieving.” Many Christians need to learn this truth, but I am most keenly aware of it within the SDA church where I was a pastor for 22 years. If one picks his texts carefully, and misconstrues the context when reading Paul regarding the law, one can make a case either for legalism or antinomianism. But the Spirit does not speak out of both sides of Paul’s mouth. When Paul writes in favor of law keeping (which he does, quite forcefully), he never does so in the context of the means of earning or deserving righteousness or salvation. It is always as the expected fruitage of becoming a “good tree”, or a reborn, new creature in Christ.
    You are right on the mark when you observe that, “When one lessens the demands of the Law, they are undermining both the Law itself and the Holiness of God (and minimizing the value of Christ’s death!).” Christ’s agonized prayer in the garden, “Father, if it is possible, remove this cup from me…” shows clearly that the demands of the law are so irrevocable that not even to spare His “only beloved Son” the experience of the second death could the sentence be lifted.

    May I be so bold to suggest that Christ, as the “second Adam” held within Himself the entire human race. (in some mysterious way analagus to the biological fact that we all came from Adam’s “loins”) So because Christ lived a spotlessly pure life, you and I can by faith inherit that holy history. If we will receive it, by faith in Christ we are made to be the “righteousness of God in Him.” And more, while it is true that Christ gave me His holy history in place of Adams sinful history, the fact remains that I have made sinful choices…I have sinned…way too often and grievously. So if giving me His holy history were all that He accomplished, it would be for naught, because I have ruined my holy heritage by my personal sins. But praise God, Christ did not skip the cross part of the ordeal! Bearing my sins that He took upon his divine innocence, He took that humanity that deserved execution (our humanity, the kind that needs redeeming) to the cross, and in that humanity experienced the excruciating experience of the dark, hopeless, inexpressibly lonely second death, and from His parched lips was forced the cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!”

    Now I am free! Why? Because “I [was] crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live…” Gal 2:20 The just sentence of death has been carried out, I was executed “in Christ”. When I receive Christ as my Savior I receive His holy history and in Christ I also have suffered the righteous punishment for my sinning, “The wages of sin…” have been meted out to me, in Christ.

    If one understands this Pauline theology, one is left speechless at the very suggestion that any good thing I may do, even under the unction of the Holy Spirit, can be even the smallest dust on the universe sized scale of God’s justice. This is why Paul was so riled up over the Galatians! For anyone to even have it enter their minds that their faithfulness to spouse, or truthfulness in business dealings, or carefulness with Sabbath observance (or any other aspect of the law) could contribute an iota to their salvation is on one hand totally ludicrous and at the same time blasphemous (defined as placing a creature in any way analogous to divinity). We ought also to be incensed over this as was Paul, especially when we see it creeping into our own thinking!

    Now let us not neglect what Paul has taught, in harmony with Jesus Himself, regarding the way children of the kingdom of God are to behave. Paul asks, since we have been given such a great gift of salvation by the mighty act God alone (by grace), should we “continue to sin, so that grace may abound?” “God forbid!” Much, much more could be said here, but I’m a guest here and not a contributor so I better “shut up and sit down” ((:

    Just one more thing, call it quibbling if you will. I disagree with your paraphrase of the NIV quote: “Our righteousness comes from God’s work, not our own. It is the result of faith from beginning to end, as expressed in Rom 1:17a (NIV)” The first sentence is excellent and faithful to the Gospel truth, but you stray badly and undo it in the second sentence when you say, “It [Our righteousness] is the result of faith from beginning to end.” What God has done and is doing for us is received by faith, but is NEVER the result of faith.

  2. I have been contemplating the implications of the two room sanctuary as a model of human nature. Paul tells us a number of times that we are that two room sanctuary. That suggests that we have an outer room accessed routinely and also, behind a curtain, an inner room which is relatively unknown and mysterious. I think this is a good match for the biblical mind as the outer room and the biblical heart as the inner room.

    In the righteous model the inner room is the Most Holy, but the wilderness rituals suggest that in a sinful context the inner room accumulates the results of sin and thus becomes the most sinful place in the unregenerate sinner needing a special cleaning.

    Could it be that the Son of God, in taking humanity on Himself, took both rooms, keeping His outer room perfectly clean, while accumulating the sin damage in the inner room to the point where it filled up? Did Christ bear the results of the sins of the whole world in His heart? It’s interesting that Paul tells us to let Christ’s mind be in us, not Christ’s heart. That’s intriguing to me. That would make Christ’s mind victorious over anything that we could have wrong with our hearts. If we could by faith let Christ’s mind be in us, He would be able to perfectly dominate our sinful hearts immediately and the righteous requirements of the law could be fulfilled in me by grace alone.

  3. First off Bruin let me thank you for taking the time to digest what I wrote and provide such a detailed reply. I hope that in contending for my position I may remain as kind as you have been in your response.

    And guest or not I would welcome your thoughtful comments and discussion on Rom 6:1.

    My intended emhasis on paraphrasing from the NIV (not usually my favorite translation) on Rom 1:17 was the “faith from first to last.” But you raise a very intereting point on whether we receive the righteousness of Christ by faith or not. Our difference in views on this subject likely boils down to several issues. Is the righteousness of Christ imparted to us, so that we actually have His righteousness in us? This is the Roman Catholic viewpoint and it was the so-called 1888 message of Righteousness by faith. This point was the central issue for the reformation as Luther and the immediately subsequent Protestants claimed, in accordance with Paul’s teaching, that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (that is, we are “counted” righteous despite our lives). The “counted righteous” description is central to Paul’s description of how we are saved (Rom 4:3-6, 22-4; and Gal 3:6). Let’s examine the specific phrasing, “his faith was ‘counted to him as righteousness'”. I have suggested that as a result of his faith, he was counted righteous. That seems like a very straightforward understanding of this passage. And your claim would result in understanding this passage something like (apologies for any mis-application ahead of time. I am trying to faithfully compare our positions and remain open to correction): “Abraham utilized his faith to receive the righteousness of God.” Certainly we each would like to see our own view reflected in the passage, but which one requires a greater stretch to accept?

    Consider also verse 5 “And to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”

    If Christ’s righteousness is something that needs to indwell us and change us in order to make us righteous and therefore “fit for heaven”; then we would clearly have to receive. Much like we receive the Holy Spirit. But if the righteousness of salvation is something that God “counts” as ours or “credits” to us, then this receiving concept simply doesn’t make sense.

    There is; however, a sense in which you are certainly correct, our faith didn’t cause Christ to die for us. So His death on the Cross is not the result of our faith. However, I think we are both aware that was not the point either of us was trying to make.

    You concurred with my comment that “Those who look to their deeds of the Law as a form of righteousness are forced to either continually conclude that they are a failure or to lessen the full demands of the Law into something that they can come closer to achieving.” In light of this, how do you feel about SDAs proclaiming that they are the remnant of God because they keep the commandments of God? I have yet to meet the person who continually keeps every commandment of God. So, are a number of SDAs actually lessening the demand of the Law by claiming that they are keepers of the Law?

    I would contend that admitting sinfulness, to self and to the church (even in general, not specifics) is much harder to do in SDAism than it is in my current Lutheran church. If you are’t familiar with a Lutheran service, during each week’s service we admit our sinfulness as part of the service (sure for some people that may be rote liturgy, but not for most). As a result, it isn’t so difficult to discuss the subject of sin, falling short, and God’s forgiveness during classes or during any part of the service. And a pastor can discuss that they aren’t perfect either. I don’t know about your church, but I know a few SDA churches where that would be career ending for that pastor.

    I look forward to your responses.

  4. “If we could by faith let Christ’s mind be in us, He would be able to perfectly dominate our sinful hearts immediately and the righteous requirements of the law could be fulfilled in me by grace alone.”

    George,
    I appreciate your response and recognize your desire to serve the Lord in your statements. However, you are failing to understand the basic element of the Gospel as described by Paul in Romans 3 and 4. Our faith is already counted as righteousness. In God’s eyes, once you believe in Christ, you are counted as fully righteous. You continue to fall short. You continue to sin. But, you are already counted as righteous. Instead of beating yourself up that you have never been able to fully let Christ’s mind be in you, rejoice that the minute you believe in Christ with your heart and confess Him with your mouth you are forever righteous.

  5. Rick,
    I am grateful for your concern that I not beat myself up. Don’t worry, I actually believe I am liberated. But you are worrying me a little. It sounds like you are uncertain about whether Christ can handle my sinful human flesh. Romans 8:4 says that Christ did what He did so that, “…the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

    I don’t think fulfilled means half filled. Christ defeated sinful human flesh, i.e. the sinful human heart. It sounds like you’re saying it is inevitable that I will continue to sin and fall short because Christ can’t handle my heart. That’s not what you are meaning is it?

    BTW, I don’t think the 1888 messengers were trying to say that disembodied righteousness was poured into us. What they were saying is that Christ comes in and brings His righteousness with Him. That is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Do you believe Christ comes into you? If so, why wouldn’t He bring righteousness?

  6. George,
    It isn’t just whether you believe you are liberated, if you teach that having the righteous requirements of the law fulfilled in us means that our lives, through Christ’s power, attain this level of righteousness then you have the dilemma that I discussed in this article. I believe it is safe for me to say that you don’t live without sin. So you either have to start redefining sin so that you can achieve what you claim. Or else you are left to question whether Christ really is in you. Because, as you so eloquently pointed out “Christ can handle my sinful flesh.” Every time you sin, in your thoughts, your words, and actions that you failed to do that could have helped others, you prove that Christ has not handled your sinful flesh.

    Every time that you sin, the righteous requirement of the law demands that you die. But Christ has fulfilled this righteous requirement of the law. So the message of Romans 8 is the same message as that of Romans 3 & 4 (and Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3), Christ’s righteousness is counted in place of our own lack of righteousness. This is salvation.

    “BTW, I don’t think the 1888 messengers were trying to say that disembodied righteousness was poured into us. What they were saying is that Christ comes in and brings His righteousness with Him.”

    Again, the 1888 message is the same message as the Roman Catholic gospel, that we are saved by having the righteousness in us, giving us the power to attain righteous lives. The Biblical and Reformation Gospel is that we are saved by having the righteousness of Christ counted in place of our sin.

    “It sounds like you’re saying it is inevitable that I will continue to sin and fall short because Christ can’t handle my heart.”
    It isn’t what I am saying that matters.
    Romans 3:22b-23 “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

    The text doesn’t say that we have sinned and have fallen short, which would put this all behind us, instead it says that we fall short (the Greek indicates this is ongoing so that it can well be understood as we continually fall short). The falling short is something that continues to happen as Christians.

    I John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

    This was written to believers, not unbelievers. So if believers say that they don’t sin they lie to themselves (and others) and the truth isn’t in them. Not only that they call God a liar, and His word is not in us. Now Christ is both the Truth and the Word, so if we claim to made righteous (without sin) the real truth is, according to these verses, that Christ is not in us. These are harsh words from the Bible, not from me.

    There is a time when the reign of this sinful world, and the effects of this sinful flesh will end.
    I Cor 15:42-43 “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.”

    I have known SDAs who try to claim this is referring to what happens in baptism, but the chapter is clearly discussing the resurrecton. If it isn’t already clear from verse 42 (which it should be) just go back a few verses and see the point that sets up this whole discuession “35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” We are changed, and that change does not just involve receiving a body that doesn’t deteriorate, it involves exchanging a body of weakness for one with power.

  7. Rick,
    let me begin by saying you apparently missed the two questions I ended with before, so here they are. Do you believe Christ comes into you? and if so, why wouldn’t He bring righteousness?

    Now, in response to your most recent kind reply I would argue that your assessment of my options in the event that I sin are not quite complete. In the first option, redefining sin, you assume that I am the one trying to achieve what I claim, so I can reject that immediately because Christ is doing the work and making the claim. The second option, to question whether Christ is really in me, is an oversimplification and ignores the fact that I am composed of two rooms. Because of this I have to ask to which room are you referring when you ask whether Christ is really in me.

    In Romans 7:15-25 Paul seems to be describing a situation in which we often find ourselves, where Christ is in our outer room, or mind, but not in our inner room completely yet. In this state some otherwise contradictory thoughts can be true at the same time. Christ can be present in me (in my mind) and able to handle my sinful flesh, and at the same time, it can be true that He hasn’t handled it completely yet because it’s in a different room behind a door I haven’t allowed Him through. I think this is the option I would take as an explanation for why I sin while Christ is in me. But then comes glorious Romans 8, and Galatians 5:16.17. These texts describe the wonderful experience which can be ours of walking in the Spirit, right now, when we let this mind be in us that is in Jesus Christ.

    This doesn’t take anything away from the truth that righteousness is accounted to me as well at the get go. I believe both what happens in books in heaven (Romans 3 & 4) and what happens in me on earth (Romans 8) are part of salvation and both are by grace alone.

    I also humbly and probably incorrectly would question your explanation of the two verbs in Romans 3:23. The falling short is continuing but the sinning has a different tense, always translated as past. Putting this together I think it may be a stretch to make Paul say that continued sinning is inevitable.

    You then quote 1 John 1:8-10 to support your position that continued sinning is inevitable and yet John’s very next statement speaks against continued sinning “…these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins…” Why would John contradict himself this way if his point was the inevitability of continued sinning.

    I also noticed that when you quote verse 10 you again mix up the tense a little. John doesn’t say we make God a liar if we say we aren’t still sinning. That’s what you are trying to make him say. He says we make God a liar if we say we have not sinned.

  8. George, I did not miss you two questions. But I see no point in engaging in speculation, I prefer to be content following what the Word says. All of the speculations that my mind might create do not hold a candle to the Word of God.

    I have to respond in a similar fashion to your claims about which room Christ is in within us. There is no talk of Christ being in different rooms inside of us in Scripture. There are no distinctions of being in us, but not fully in us. Using an explanation that comes from outside of Scripture doesn’t provide any value to believers.

    I also find it a little disturbing that you would conclude that Paul only had Jesus in this alleged outer compartnment, since Paul is referring to himself in Romans chapter 7. I have heard people argue that Romans 7 is referring to Paul’s experience before becoming a believer. But if that was the case, Paul wouldn’t have Jesus dwelling anywhere inside him. Now I would agree with you that Paul’s description of himself in Romans 7 is a post-conversion description. But you are now concluding that Paul wasn’t experiencing a full conversion with Christ dwelling in his heart.

    Concerning Rom 3:23, what explanation can you apply to why everyone would still fall short? How is it possible, within your viewpoint, that Christ’s righteousness in us wouldn’t keep at least some people from falling short? Yet the Word of God is clear.

    John is not contradicting himself. Do you think it would be a sin to lie? Would it be a sin to call God a liar? So I am explaining these things to you so that you will not commit these sins. So how can you, within yourview, accept that believers must always follow the instruction from God that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us?

    It seems that those who acknowedge their sin and confess that sin are Christians who are walking in the light. But those who claim to have overcome all sin are liars, who do not have the light of God. This simply doesn’t align with your view that we have the rightesouness of Christ in us that can “perfectly dominate our sinful hearts immediately” and eradicate sin.

    I can understand why you would read verse 10 as you have, it is certainly a plausible understanding given the verb tense. However, it is equally plausible to read that as believers we always have to admit that we have sinned, not just in the distant past but also in the immediate past. This would certainly be consistent with what John wrote 2 verses earlier. And with what Paul wrote in Rom 3:23.

    So let me ask you, in your view of these multiple rooms within us, if you haven’t let Christ through all of the doors in your life, will you be saved if you die today? In other words, is your salvation based on having a righteous life that is fit for heaven?

    Thanks for the reply, I will leave you a couple of additional verses to consider:
    Eccl 7:20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

    James 3:2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

  9. Having considered my response over dinner, I think that I should add to it regarding I John 2:1.

    The attitude throughout Scripture is not one that proclaims “well you will continually fall short anyhow, so you might as well go ahead and sin”. That is not what I find in Scripture, nor is that what I am proclaiming. Scripture exhorts us to a higher, better life. But it balances these exhortations with the reality that we continue fall short of this calling. The same chapter calling us to walk in the light and not in the darkness; and that tells us God cleanses us from sin; also tells us that if we claim we are without sin, we are liars. The same verse that tells us that it is written so we may not sin, tells us what to do when we sin. In almost an opposite order, James tells us that we all stumble, not just in a few ways, but in many ways. Then he continues on to admonish us to control our words and not sin in what we say.

    These two concepts exist side by side. It is reminiscent of Paul’s struggle in Romans 7 “21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.” (BTW George, it seems here that Christ’s dwelling-if it can be described in the term you employ-would be in Paul’s “inner being” and his “mind”. Yet Paul still commits sins because of the battle with his sinful flesh. This description really argues strongly against your earlier position.)

    The call to a better, higher life, the call to leave sin behind us is just as real, but no more real, than the fact that we don’t achieve this. Several issues are key to beginning to unravel this paradox. First is the truth about the righteousness of God. Before we are born again, we might easily see ourselves as pretty good people, because we compare ourselves to those around us and we don’t have much idea of what “good” is really like. There is no one who is “good” except God. As we move from the darkness to the light, the light reveals God to us and it reveals ourselves to us. Even as others might look at us and see how much “better” we are then we were before we were believers, our greater understanding of God’s righteousness and our sinfulness makes this gap even larger.

    The second key to this puzzle is understanding how we are saved. We aren’t saved by becoming better people. We are saved by believing. God produces fruit in the lives of His people. That fruit doesn’t save us. We do not become righteous (at least not until that blessed day when we are all changed, living or dead). If we try to compare the best of the righteousness produced in our lives (because it is God who produces the fruit, not us), it still falls short of the perfect righteousness of God, shown to us in the life of Christ.

    So if our fruit is worthless when it comes to righteousness, why does it matter? Returning to I John 1, verse 4 may provide one answer, “that our joy may be complete.” Matt 5:15 and I Pet 2:12 indicate that what we do can cause others to glorify God.

    The question in the original post is not about whether God produces fruit in our lives, nor is it about whether God is our sanctifier. The question is, are we willing to let the law do its job and demonstrate our sinfulness to the point that every mouth is closed and every one is held accountable to God (Rom 3:19-20). Magnifying the law only demonstrates further how much we fail to keep the law.

    Paul’s accusation to the Jews in the prior chapter was quite strong regarding this “23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'”

    We notice this same thing throughout the ministry of Christ. Those who boasted of their lawkeeping didn’t need a relationship with Christ. Those who knew they were sinners clung to Christ.

    The law, particularly as Christ described sin, should break us. But when those demands are watered down, they can no longer do their job. Instead of driving people to the cross, people cling to the watered down law, certain that next time they will be able to meet those demands that are barely out of reach. Or they will eventually create a law that they can keep.

    Without opening a debate on whether the Sabbath command is fulfilled element of the Old Covenant (you can find that debate elsewhere if you want to jump into that), I would like to examine the command relative to the SDA church.

    Is the Sabbath command kept by attending church on the right day of the week?

    Or instead is the command to keep the Sabbath day holy?

    I ask this for your consideration, not your public confession, but have you ever had a day in your life where everything you did was completely holy? And wouldn’t a Church keeping the day holy require that every single member have a day exactly like that?

    When SDAs say that the “keep the Sabbath” they are lying and the truth is not in them. Undoubtedly you recognize the allusion of I John. I said this to be shocking, not to be offensive, so please understand it in this light. By claiming to keep a law that you are in fact breaking, you aren’t fully seeing the righteous requirements of the Law. SDAs have changed the requirement from “keeping the Sabbath holy” to “keeping the Sabbath”. This changes the law from something that they fall short of keeping to something that they can attain.

    1. Rick I must agree with you. I fear that too many (I hesitate to say “most” or “majority” for fear of making a judgment that is not mine to make), SDA are keepers of the seventh day and do not enter into or “keep holy” the Sabbath. The Sabbath is only significant to one who is born again, since in truth the Sabbath is a celebration of the mighty acts of God quite apart from any human contribution: Creation, deliverance from Egyption bondage, redemption from sin, resurrection spiritual death to spiritual life. Sabbath, like salvation is all about God’s work, not man’s. Therefore, SDA and their critics who enter into debate about whether or not the Sabbath is a requirement for salvation completely miss the point of Sabbath.

      And regarding the claim to be the remnant because we “keep the commandments of God”, the word hubris comes to mind…unless it is seen as description of the mighty creative redemptive work of Christ alone being manifest in the lives of saved sinners.

    2. Bruin,
      You are actually quite close to seeing Sabbath from the same perspective that many Formers have. I hope you don’t find that a frightening or disparaging remark. From my viewpoint Sabbath is not only like salvation, it was one of the many physical examples from throughout the OT that pointed forward to salvation in Christ alone. I have no qualms with a person who chooses to worship and rest on the Sabbath day when they do so in the recognition that this short period of physical rest is a symbol of the true rest that born again believers (isn’t that redundant?) experience as a result of their salvation. A spiritual rest that is possible only when a person understands that Christ accomplished and finished everything that is necessary for our salvation and has given it to the ones who believe, not to the ones who work (Romans 4).

      I am afraid that with the false teachings and bondage assocaited with the Sabbath that pleny of SDAs have experienced in their life (I avoided the “most” or “nearly all” too) it is exceedingly difficult for any person who was entrenched in SDA teaching (and believed what the church officially taught) to be able to have a fully healthy experience of Sabbath observance. Fortunately we have been explicitly given the freedom to observe it to the Lord or treat all day equally.

      I am a little suprised at your comments about the remnant. If SDAism can’t legitimately claim to be the “remnant church”, then they don’t have any mandate for proclaiming the message that the 3 angels are described as proclaiming in Revelation. That in turn places the another nail in the coffin of this so-called Investigative Judgment since the message that “the hour of His judgment has come” no longer has a link to the SDA movement. It also undermines the idea that Ellen White came on to the scene at a predicted time in history and that she is the “Spirit of Prophecy” (a truly blasphemous title for her or her writings even if one believes they come from God!). SDA theology is so tightly intertwined that once you recognize that one idea is “hubris” rather than Biblical truth, you often find that it is impossible to completely let go of the idea without totally dismantling the SDA theological system.

  10. Rick,
    The idea of what is speculative is a bit mysterious to me. I thought I was being quite literal when I asked, Do you believe Christ comes into you? I was picturing Revelation 3:20
    Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
    I can’t see where you are seeing the speculation in that question, or the next. I think we should clear this up before we go further.

    1. ” If so, why wouldn’t He bring righteousness?”
      Does Scripture say that He brings His righteousness? Book, chapter and verse please.

      Although I am certain if you had clearly stated verses, you wouldn’t phrase questions like these. If Scripture doesn’t say something and you request answers, the only option is to speculate.

      I think I understand why you don’t recognize speculation, it is a foundation of so many SDA teachings and Bible studies that many SDAs mistake speculation with Bible truth.

      If your SDA teachings are Biblical, then we should be able to find the answer directly in Scripture and from Scripture alone.

    2. Rick,
      There has to be a certain amount of inference in understanding the simplest sentence which is short of speculation. The bible doesn’t specifically say that Christ brings His nose with Him when He comes. Does that mean we have to question whether Christ has a nose when He comes in?

      There is no dispute about Christ possessing righteousness and it is reasonable that that righteousness would be with Him as surely as His nose. So when Galatians 2:20 says, “…it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me…” it is reasonable to infer that Christ would be living according to His righteousness which is with Him.

      Do you detect any speculation in this so far?

    3. George,
      I appreciate your discussion and your attitude that is apparent in your replies. I have consistently presented Biblical quotations to demonstrate my viewpoints and have asked for specific Biblical references in reply. However, it is clear that you engage in a vastly different approach to studying Scripture. An approach in which your mind (your speculation, inferences, and imaginations) is given a superior position to the direct statements of the Bible. This is a product of how you were raised and taught to study the Bible. Most SDA beliefs can not be defended without this approach.

      And, I would also argue that Christ doesn’t bring His nose when He comes into us. The presence is a spiritual presence, not a flesh and bone presence. So there is the clear evidence of your speculation and that speculation leading you into error.

      I have given you plenty of verses indicating that, despite being born again, Believers still sin. You have shown no verses indicating that Believers live without sin through the righteousness of Christ living in them and “perfectly dominat(ing) our sinful hearts immediately.”

      Furthermore, your statement that it is only when we have allowed Christ to make us perfect that the righteous requirements of the Law have been fulfilled in us. This leads to the conclusion that perfection is required for salvation. Which leads right back to my original premise.

      If you wish to discuss what the Bible says, I would be anxious to continue this discussion with you. However, if you only want to discuss your speculations about what the Bible infers, then I believe we have no common ground to continue forward.

  11. Rick,

    You sound like Nicodemus talking about the womb when you argue about Jesus’ nose. I’m surprised you thought you needed to go there. But since you did, I have dissected a whole human body in medical school and I can assure you there is no room for Jesus’ body or even His nose inside us. So His presence must be spiritual. But that doesn’t take away from the literalness of His presence.

    For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:3,4

    How literal should we take these verses? Do you believe Jesus Christ can control my heart when He is literal inside me?

  12. See me post on the righteous requirements of the law. They are fulfilled, completely by Christ’s death on the cross. They are fulfilled completely in us when we are born again.

    I have provided you with plenty of Scripture, you respond with speculations. If you to discuss Scripture alone we can do so, but I have no interest in discussing your speculations about what Scripture might mean. It doesn’t matter what we speculate about whether Christ can control your heart (or whether he can create a rock so big he can’t move it), the only thing that matters is whether Scripture says this is what Christ does.

  13. George, the reason the question of what Christ brings when He comes in continues to be so elusive is that you apparently haven’t dealt with the fact that this entire question hangs on the fact that the new birth occurs in our literal, immaterial spirits.

    Adventism says we have no spirit but breath; Scripture says God is spirit, and true worshipers must worship Him in spirit and truth (Jn. 4:24). When Jesus told Nicodemus that the requirement for entering the kingdom of heaven is being born again (Jn. 3:3-6), He wasn’t speaking metaphorically. He was speaking literally of the spirit. Eph. 2:1-3 states that we are born dead in sin, by nature children of wrath. God, in His great mercy, makes us alive with Christ when we place our faith in His completed atonement. When we do this, we are indwelt and sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14).

    This entire conversation about the righteousness of Christ is only a metaphorical word game unless we understand that we have literal spirits that survive our bodies at death (2 Cor. 5:1-10). It is these spirits that did die on the day Adam and Eve ate the fruit. This spiritual death is our legacy from Adam.

    When we are literally born again, made alive with the resurrection life of Jesus, we HAVE eternal life (Jn. 5:24). We do not come into judgment, and we pass from death to life. We ARE counted righteous; we have become the righteousness of Christ in Him because He became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21).

    Our avoidance of sin has absolutely nothing to do with our salvation. Rather, our new birth, our being transferred from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of God’s beloved Son (Col 1:13) is what constitutes our eternal life. Our relationship to temptation after that centers on our surrender and submission to the Lord Jesus and to His word—which becomes alive in us when we submit our temptations to Him instead of struggling directly with the thing we don’t want to do.

    I completely agree with Rick that we can’t speculate about what Christ may or may not do in us. Scripture tells us, and we have to be willing to believe it.

  14. Colleen,
    Thank you for taking the time to help me. I don’t find the evidence that the new birth is limited to an immaterial part of the believer. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says all things are made new when we are in Christ.

  15. From my little perch I see general agreement among us upon these basic points: Salvation is by grace alone through faith. Henceforth “…we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”(Eph.2:8-10) All speculation and supposition aside, these two texts sum up the Christian life, in my opinion.(Gal. 2:20).

    1. Bruin,
      I would like to look at what we share in common too, rather than spend so much time pointing out how our views differ. But i think that there is an unfortunate difference in what each of us means by salvation by grace alone. Previously you have described that we are saved by the grace that tranforms us into righteous beings. That is a different meaning of grace that what Evangelical Christianity describes, a righteousness that is credited to us. I can’t affirm that we agree on salvation by grace alone when we don’t have the same definition of “grace”. These different definitions of the same terms is what makes SDAism so confusing to outsiders.

      I am very glad; however, that you can see that Former SDAs have no desire to pursue the good works that God has prepared beforehand for us. It is quite frustrating when we are falsely accused of such motives. It is important to understand that these works prepared for us have nothing to do with attaining our salvation, demonstrating our salvation, or retaining our salvation. If we agree on that last statement, we agree on a great deal indeed.

  16. George, indeed, all things ARE made new when we are in Christ, but our bodies are not yet glorified. Romans 6 explains that although we now desire to obey God, there is “a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Rom. 6:23-24).

    But our eternal life is not based on our mortal flesh. John 5:25: “…an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Jesus was not talking about bodies but about spirits—the spiritually dead, as Paul also talks in Ephesians 2:1-4. We know Jesus is talking about spirits, not bodies, because three verses later He talks about physical resurrection: “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth…” Notice that verse 25 say “an hour is coming AND NOW IS”, while verse 28 is clear: “an hour IS COMING.”

    The dead in verse 25 are the spiritually dead who literally come to life when they hear the voice of the Son of God. Those in the tombs in verses 28-29 are the saved and the lost who will physically rise when they hear His voice.

    Being spiritually born again is what guarantees our salvation. Our bodies are not “born again” until they are glorified at the time of the resurrection. Until then, if we believe and are born of the Spirit, we live, do not come into judgment, and pass out of death into life. Jesus is the One who said,

    “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (Jn. 6:63).

    Flesh dies; it is not free from the law of sin in its members until it is glorified. Meanwhile, the law of sin and death is destroyed in our spirits; we are transferred from the domain of darkness into the Son’s kingdom, and we will never die. We are adopted because we are born again, even though our bodies are still mortal; even so, we are heirs with Christ is we also share in His sufferings—and the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children (Rom. 8:16-17).

  17. Colleen, I agree with your thought on Romans 6 and 7 but I wonder why not go to Romans 8. There is nothing I see that relegates it to after the resurrection. Verse 2 says I have been set free from the law of sin and death in my members. Verse 4 says this was all done in Christ so that the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in me now.

  18. Indeed. Romans 8 confirms what I’m saying. I have been set free from the law of sin and death; my spirit is alive with the resurrection life of Jesus (Rom. 8:10), and even though my body is still mortal has sin in my members, nevertheless, Christ’s personal, outside-of-me righteousness is already mine and fully credited to me.

    I am justified already, fully and completely. Changes in my flesh do not contribute to nor sustain salvation. Changes in my flesh are progressive and ongoing when we are born again…and these changes are different from those done by people who are devoted to perfecting their characters.

    George, we will not be able to agree because we are seeing Romans through completely different paradigms. You read it through the paradigm of believing humans are bodies plus breath, and the body is the only “real” part of the person. I view Romans through the understanding that we are bodies plus spirits that are either dead or alive. This difference in paradigm changes everything we read in Scripture. It changes how we understand Jesus; it changes how we understand sin and salvation.

    Your arguments are clear to me; I used to share your paradigm. I now see that the gospel is different from what I believed; Jesus has done absolutely EVERYTHING necessary for my salvation. He has already forgiven my past AND future sins. My cooperation is not part of the equation. His righteousness is already imputed to me. I am new; I am adopted into His family and incorporated into Christ’s own body. He keeps me and changes me.

    My flesh is doomed. It will die; my future glorified body will finally be free from sin in my members. But my spirit is now alive, and I am already seated with Christ in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). This position is not a metaphor; it is literal and real. I am now IN Christ, and He is IN me. Nothing will ever separate me from His love. I am eternally secure. The essence of “me” is loved and alive, and I am completely new because of His life in me.

    My sinful flesh does not define my eternal outcome. Whether or not my spirit is born again…that is the issue. Just as Adam and Eve’s flesh followed their spiritual death, so my physical life succeeds my spiritual life.

    Loving Jesus is no longer a cognitive “metaphor” or a “decision”. He has given me my identity, and I can truly say I love Him.

  19. Colleen, you seem to think that when Christ comes in He leaves His righteousness “outside-of-me.” If that’s the case then how are the righteous requirements of the law going to be fulfilled “inside-of-me” as it says in Romans 8:4? Why not just let Him bring it in, too, instead of leaving it at the door?

    1. George,
      The righteous requirements of the Law have been met and fulfilled already by Christ. When you believe and are born again, this successfully completed status has now been credited to you. Simply because Christ is in the believer (and has aeady fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law), the righteous requirement of the Law is then fulfilled within the believer.

      No one (except you) is suggesting that Christ’s righteousness is separated from Him. What we are pointing out is that you are speculating and adding to the Word of God when you teach that this indwelling righteousness is a power source that we tap into in order to become sufficiently righteous in our own actions that our actions now fulfill the righteous requirements of the law.

    2. Rick, I am sorry I was unclear. I am not suggesting we “tap into” His righteousness. I am just wondering why you think a righteous person like Jesus Christ, dwelling inside me, wouldn’t by His very presence, be able to fulfill the law in me?

    3. George,
      Because you have assigned your own meaning to what Jesus has to do in order to fulfill the law, you are looking for some future event to occur that has already been accomplished. Jesus has already fulfilled the law. Completely. For all believers. It is fulfilled in me from the moment I became a child of God. Because He already fufilled the law, His very presence in me means that He brings that completed fulfillment with Him (using your language).

      Whether you want to call it “tapping into” or any other phrase, the implication of your teaching is the same. In order to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law, our lives must meet this standard.

      As a result, you and every single other person must conclude that either your life hasn’t fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law, or else you must greatly lower those requirements. What generally happens is that, sooner or later, hard working religous people will conclude that what they are doing must be good enough. And the righteous requirement of the Law is diminished, God’s Holiness is brought ever closer to man’s sinfulness.

      And all of this occurs because you add your own speculation to go beyond what Scripture actually says. Christ has completed it all. You can trust Him and rest in Him.

    4. Rick, you may not see this, but I think you are the one who is lowering the bar.

    5. George, if you believe that I have lowered the bar regarding the righteous requirement of the law, please explain to me how I have made the law to have any lower demand in even the slightest way. I believe that I have upheld the law as being completely holy and pointed out that the law requires complete and total obedience. Anything less than 100% obedience is unrighteousness. Furthermore this complete obedience to the law includes not just our actions, but our words, our intentions, and our thoughts. This obedience also covers the things that we could have done, but didn’t-such as passing by a person in need. So please tell me, how does stating these requirements lower the bar?

  20. The bible says the new covenant is the Law of God that was written in STONE – the Ten Commandments – are written on our hearts and remain in effect for all mankind – to be kept by “Israel of the spirit” – true Christians – including the fourth commandment of God.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.