Pastor Kevin Paulson Versus Pastor J. David Newman--Two Different Gospels in the SDA ChurchClick to go to our Home Page
Dear Reader, SDA Pastor,
Kevin Paulson, wrote the following rebuttal to J. David Newman's Adventist Review article depicting the
New Movement's false gospel. Kevin
Paulson does teach the correct gospel, but he, like the other dumb-dog
watchmen (Testimonies, Vol. 5, 211
and Isaiah 56:10-12), does not bark concerning ALL the abominations of the
church--ie. the Omega of
Apostasy involved in the church's ecumenical fraternity with Babylon, and
the adoption of the Trinity Doctrine in the early 1930's Here is living proof from two New Movement
SDA Pastors, that the SDA church is indeed a New Movement teaching two different
gospels. God says to
accurse any, even an angel who should come with another gospel. That means that the sacred tithe should
never be used to support a false gospel, and yet tithe monies in the New
Movement SDA church, go to support a false gospel as well. That is diametrically opposed to the Word
of God. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Every SDA pastor is
violating that command of God. Larry
Kirkpatrick protest the false gospel, and then pay
their tithe in support of it. This is blasphemy. This is abomination. I’ll tell you something
ominous: Pastors Kevin Paulson and Larry Kirkpatrick don’t seem to mind
protesting what they believe to be wrong in the church, so they must agree
with the Trinity Doctrine and the ecumenical escapades of the church because
they support these abominations with their tithe as well. Ron Beaulieu 2006-09-19
12:35Z Saved While Sinning? Reflections on J. David Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006 (1). Presenter: Kevin D. Paulson Location: Internet Delivery: 2006-09-11 17:50Z Publication:
GreatControversy.org 2006-09-11 17:50Z Type: Article URL:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-whilesinning.php In summary,
the article in question holds justification, or forgiveness, to be the sole
ground of the believer’s assurance of salvation (2), that justification means
to declare righteous only, not to actually make righteous (3), that this
justification covers Christians “like an umbrella” (4), thus making perfect
sanctification unnecessary as a condition of eternal life. Though it isn’t
explicitly stated, the article clearly implies that perfection of character
is both impossible and unnecessary this side of heaven. In light of this
particular theology, Adventists are chided by the article’s author for not
declaring more readily that they are “saved” (5). The author
declares, near the beginning of the article: We all know
that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. But when I
ask Adventist audiences how many have the assurance of salvation right now,
only half raise their hands. Why? Many of us are confused regarding what God
really expects from us when it comes to salvation (6). Indeed many
are confused! Chances are, those raising their hands at this question are
among the most confused of all! Tragically, the assurance doctrine taught in
this article is both contrary to Inspiration and an unwitting encouragement
to those who indulge occasional sin while still desiring a place in heaven. Defining Salvation Before we can
answer the question, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” we must ask and answer the
question, “What does it mean to be saved?” Saved from what? The first
reference to salvation in the New Testament answers the second question: Thou shalt
call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins (Matthew
1:21). Other verses
define the outworking of this process. In both Old and New Testaments,
confession and the forsaking of sin are cited as preceding the bestowal of
God’s forgiveness: If My people,
which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My
face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will
forgive their sins, and heal their land (2 Chronicles 7:14). He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso
confesseth, and forsaketh them, shall have mercy
(Proverbs 28:13). Let the
wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him
return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him: and to our God, for He
will abundantly pardon (Isaiah 55:7). For if ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father
will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither
will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:14, 15). For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers
of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13). If we confess
our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). According to
the Bible, the forgiveness which follows the confession and forsaking of sin
is defined as part of the saving, redemptive process: Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that
is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24). In whom we have
redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:7). But
sanctification, accomplished through the imparted Holy Spirit, is also noted
by Scripture as part of this saving process: Goth hath
from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13). The work of
Christ for us, in substituting the life and death of His Son for that of the
sinner, is clearly a part of salvation: For He hath
made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But the work
of the Holy Spirit in us, according to Scripture, is also a part of salvation: Not by works
of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5). So in order
to answer the question, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” we must consider how the
Bible defines what it means to be saved. According to the above passages, the
process of being saved includes, confession of sin, forsaking sin, the
forgiveness of sin (often called justification), and the internal cleansing
from sin called in the Bible regeneration and sanctification. Charting the Process The article
in question seeks to remedy what it holds to be confusion in Christian
circles about salvation, claiming this confusion is illustrated in a chart he
describes as follows: We start out
at the bottom left corner with conversion, giving ourselves to God. This is
called justification, what God has done for us, His imputed righteousness. Once we have
given our lives to God we begin the process of sanctification, which is the
imparted righteousness of Christ. Then our life is supposed to be a steady
progress toward perfection. We have ups and downs, but the trend is always
upward (7). Fault is found as follows: The problem
of insecurity is graphically illustrated by this chart. (Everything below the
diagonal line is sanctification and everything above is justification.) As we
grow in sanctification, the thinking of some is that we need less and less of
justification, until it is all sanctification and no justification. But how
do we know if we have reached perfection? And how much sanctification is
necessary to be saved? (8). There are, in
fact, problems with the chart from a biblical standpoint. Such a chart
implies that justifying righteousness is a covering only. But both the Bible
and Spirit of Prophecy writings make clear that justification is
transformative as well as declarative. Moreover, despite the transformation
wrought at justification, one will always require the imputed covering of
Christ’s righteousness for past sins committed. The Christian
life is begun with God’s forgiveness covering not only one’s past, but the
sins one is ignorantly committing as well (9). As sanctification increases,
more and more ignorant sins are revealed and conquered by the believer
through the Spirit’s power, while occasional failures are also covered once
the sin committed is confessed and forsaken. When, through
sanctifying righteousness, total perfection is at last attained, past sins
remain covered by God’s forgiveness, but neither ignorant nor occasional
known sin exists any longer. This is how the end-time saints, following the
close of probation, can “stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator”
(10). According to Ellen White, ignorant sin requires a Mediator’s handling just
as known sin does (11). Which is why the last generation of believers will
attain a height reached by no former generation in history—living not only
free of known sin, but of ignorant sin as well, since all of the latter will
by then have been revealed and overcome. Sadly, what
is often ignored by those who criticize the theology of this chart, is the
reality that both the righteousness above the diagonal line, and the
righteousness below, come entirely from Jesus. Both justification and
sanctification represent the spotless righteousness of Christ. No
righteousness of any kind originates with self. Nowhere do either Scripture
or Ellen White declare justification to be superior to sanctification, or
that either is more or less the perfect righteousness of our holy God than
the other. As noted
above, the article in question asks, “But how do we know if we have reached
perfection? And how much sanctification is necessary to be saved?” (12). The first
question is easy to answer, on the basis of God’s Word. The Bible declares,
speaking of God, “Thou, even Thou only, knowest the hearts of all the
children of men” (1 Kings 8:39). God alone knows the state of every heart.
While you and I can know we have made progress in the sanctified walk, we can
never know when that sanctification has achieved the total removal of sin,
because God alone knows our spiritual condition at its ultimate depths. This
is why Job declared, “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me;
if I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. Though I were
perfect, yet I would not know my soul; I would despise my life” (Job 9:20,
21). For this reason the apostle John writes, “If we say we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:7). At the same
time, of course, God declared of Job that he was “a perfect and upright man,
one that feared God, and eschewed evil” (Job 1:1), and that despite horrific
loss and physical suffering, Job did not sin (Job 1:22; 2:10). And while John
is clear we cannot say we have no sin (1 John 1:8), for the reasons already
noted, he is clear in that selfsame context that through the cleansing blood
of Jesus, believers are not only promised forgiveness, but cleansing “from
all unrighteousness” (verses 7, 9). In short, we
cannot know when in fact we have reached perfection. Not until the voice of
God declares of the translated saints, “‘They come! they come! holy, harmless,
undefiled. They have kept the word of My patience;
they shall walk among the angels’” (13), will God’s people know this
condition is theirs. The second
question asks, “How much sanctification is necessary to be saved?” (14). The
Bible answers this question also: And the very
God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul
and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1
Thessalonians 5:23). Our
sanctification must, therefore, be total. Our all belongs to the Lord. Of
course, the Bible is equally clear—as we noted earlier—that believers are not
held accountable for sins of ignorance (Acts 17:30; James 4:17). The Baptist
Christian who dies ignorantly breaking the Sabbath, the Catholic Christian
who dies ignorantly breaking the commandment against image worship, even the
New Ager who dies ignorantly rejecting Jesus or the
agnostic who spurns nominal Christianity while living for the betterment of
mankind—all are judged solely on the basis of the light and truth shown them
(Romans 2:14-16). Thankfully,
only God knows the heart (1 Kings 8:39), which is why only He can determine
whether one has in fact lived up to the knowledge thus revealed. Complete
sanctification is required of all, but only in accord with the light shown to
each individual. The author of
the article in question, of course, would doubtless claim the above answers
produce the very insecurity he protests. We will address the issue of
assurance as this review proceeds. The article
then introduces a second chart, Figure 2, which the
author claims better illustrates God’s salvation. In this chart,
justification is shaped like an umbrella—a term the author uses for
justification in the article itself (15)—covering not only one’s past, but
the entire experience of sanctification itself. The chart defines
justification as “Complete” and the “Work of Jesus FOR us,” while
sanctification is defined as “Incomplete” and as the “Work of Jesus IN us.” The problem
is that neither Scripture nor Ellen White defines justification as an “umbrella”
covering the totality of our presumably “incomplete” sanctification. The
doctrine of “overarching forgiveness,” as some describe it, is not taught in
the Bible, nor is it taught in the writings of Ellen White. We have already seen how the Bible declares God’s intention that
we be sanctified “wholly,” and kept “blameless unto the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Ellen White echoes this in the
following statements, where she defines sanctification: What is
sanctification? It is to give one’s self wholly and without reserve—soul,
body, and spirit—to God; to deal justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with God; to know and to do the will of God without regard to self or
self-interest; to be heavenly-minded, pure, unselfish, holy, and without spot
or stain (16). True
sanctification consists in the cheerful performance of daily duties in
perfect obedience to the will of God (17). In a passage
quoted by the article itself, in closing, the apostle John declares, “These
things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1) (18).
Notice that forgiveness is available if we sin, not when. For the converted
believer, continuous forgiveness is a provision only, not a necessity. Ellen White
is clear how Christ’s substitutionary righteousness, bestowed in
justification, is applied to the believer: The law
requires righteousness,—a righteous life, a perfect character, and this man
has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God’s holy law. But Christ,
coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect
character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His
life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God. More than this, Christ imbues men with
the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude
of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty.
Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ
(19). Christ bears
the penalty of man’s past transgressions, and by imparting to man His
righteousness, makes it possible for man to keep God’s holy law (20). Neither
Scripture nor Ellen White envision some overarching
umbrella of forensic righteousness covering our past, present, and future
shortcomings. This really amounts to what can only be called “advance
forgiveness”—not too dissimilar to the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, only
in this case the indulgences are free! The Bible hardly allows for such a
concept, since we have seen already that sin must be confessed as well as
forsaken in order for forgiveness to take place (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs
28:13; Isaiah 55:7). Ellen White teaches the same principle in the following
statements: God requires
the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place (21). God will soon
vindicate His justice before the universe. His justice requires that sin
shall be punished; His mercy grants that sin shall be pardoned through
repentance and confession. Pardon can come only through His only begotten
Son; Christ alone can expiate sin—and then only when sin is repented of and
forsaken (22). In light of
this, how could tomorrow’s sins already be forgiven
today, especially since tomorrow’s sins are not only yet to be committed, but
are obviously not yet confessed or forsaken either? Biblical forgiveness
cannot be bestowed until biblical conditions are met. This is one primary
reason, among others, why the theory of “overarching forgiveness” contradicts
God’s Word. The article
in question confuses the issue badly when the author writes, concerning a
Bible passage in which God describes King David as “doing only what was right
in My eyes” (1 Kings 14:9): Did David
always ‘do only what was right in God’s eyes’? No, he did not. But because he
lived in surrender to God and was always repentant when he sinned, God looked
on him as if he had never sinned. In the same way God looks at us through
Jesus (23). David was
certainly not living “in surrender to God” while committing adultery with
Bathsheba and plotting the murder of her husband. Nor is it correct to say
anyone, including David, is repentant “when he sinned.” When one chooses to
sin, surrender to God has momentarily ceased, and self is back on the throne
of the heart. And since repentance is defined by Inspiration as “sorrow for
sin, and a turning away from it” (24), it is hardly accurate to describe
anyone as “repentant when he sinned.” No one can possibly be repentant until
after sin has been committed, confessed, and forsaken. Yes, David is
described in 1 Kings 14:9 as “doing only that which was right in [God’s]
eyes.” But this is only because, throughout his life and at the end, he
confessed his sins and forsook them, thus fulfilling the Bible conditions for
pardon. Therefore, once he died, all of his sins were placed under the blood
of Jesus, and God counted him as though he had never sinned. But in no way
does this passage, or any other, portray God’s forgiveness as an overarching
“umbrella” covering the present and future as well as the past. Justification, Obedience, and the
Conditions of Salvation The article
in question quotes Paul’s statement that “to him that worketh not, but
believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his
faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5) (25). Unfortunately, the
article doesn’t quote the following three verses, which cite an Old Testament
passage describing God’s forgiveness: Even as David
also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto
whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (verses 6-8). When we go
back and examine the last of these verses, taken from Psalm 32:2, we again
see what the conditions are for not having iniquity imputed to us: Blessed is
the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no guile. To whom does
the Lord not impute sin? Those “in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm
32:2). This dovetails exactly with the verses we have already seen, in which
confession and the forsaking of sin are necessary in order to receive God’s
forgiveness (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7). Which means
that Paul’s phrases “worketh not” (Romans 4:5) and “without works” (verse 6)
do not exclude the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, for only through
this work can one become guileless and repentant and thus eligible for divine
forgiveness. The article
in question, in contrast to the Biblical evidence, declares emphatically that
God “justifies the wicked” (26), then cites a dictionary definition of
justification which states as follows: Justification
is the opposite of condemnation (Romans 5:16). Neither term specifies
character, but only standing before God. Justification is not a transformation
of inherent character; it does not impart righteousness any more than
condemnation imparts sinfulness (27). The above
definition, unfortunately, states only part of the truth about justification.
The other part—a change of heart—is shown by other inspired passages. When God
declared at the Creation, “Let there be light,” the Bible says, “and there
was light” (Genesis 1:3). When Jesus declared to the leper,
“Be thou clean,” the Scripture says that “immediately his leprosy was
cleansed” (Matthew 8:3). The word used for forgiveness in Ephesians
1:7, which speaks of “redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins,”
is the same word translated “deliverance” and “liberty” in Jesus’
proclamation at Nazareth: The Spirit of
the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the
poor; He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the
captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that
are bruised (Luke 4:18). One can
hardly imagine that the deliverance Jesus was preaching was something
declared to be so, but not actually so, any more than the leper was told that
Jesus merely looked upon him as though he was clean, when in fact he really
wasn’t! Commenting
both on the Creation and on Romans 4:17, where it is said that God “calleth those things which be not as though they were,”
Ellen White declares: At the
creation, “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” He “calleth those things which be not as though they were”
(Psalm 33:9; Romans 4:17); for when He calls them, they are (28). In one of her
signature definitions, the modern prophet explains the scope of God’s
forgiveness, flatly contradicting the article in question: God’s
forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from
condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin. It
is the outflow of redeeming love that transforms the heart. David had the
true conception of forgiveness when he prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O
God, and renew a right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10) (29). When faced
with passages like the above, we are again compelled to choose between the
fallible opinions of human beings and the infallible Word of God. The role of
obedience in salvation is likewise misunderstood by the article in question.
The author writes at one point: Should we
seek to make ourselves righteous so God can accept us? No, otherwise you are
saved by works. Paul makes this crystal clear [Ephesians 2:8-9 then quoted]
(30). Later he
writes: Keeping God’s
rules only comes as a response to the salvation He has already given in
Christ, never as the cause (or part of the cause) of that salvation (31). Here we see
perpetuated a common distortion of the Biblical statements that Christians
are not saved by works (Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8, 9).
The apostle is clear what kind of works he is talking about in these verses,
and it is not the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the believer—described
elsewhere in Paul’s writings as very much a part of the saving process (2
Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 3:5). When Paul writes in Ephesians 2:9 that
salvation is “not of works, lest any man should boast,” his point becomes
clear. Especially when this verse is compared to Romans 2:17, 23, in which he
speaks of how the Jews in his day made their “boast of the law” while in fact
disobeying the law’s commands. It is this
hypocritical, boastful piety to which Paul refers in the following chapter,
when he declares, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be
justified in His sight” (Romans 3:20). By contrast, the same author writes in
the previous chapter that “the work of the law written in [believers’]
hearts” (Romans 2:15) is very much a condition of justification, for in verse
13 he writes, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the
doers of the law shall be justified.” Paul’s
statement, “Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:9) places
the works thus described in sharp contrast with the fruits of the Spirit
found in the previous epistle, one of which is meekness (Galatians 5:23)—the
opposite of boasting. Hypocritical, prideful religion—like that of the
Pharisees—produces boasting. But the work of the sanctifying Holy Spirit in
Christian lives produces meekness and humility. Paul
illustrates this point more clearly when he compares the old and new
covenant, respectively, to Abraham’s sons by Hagar and Sarah (Galatians
4:24). He writes, “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh;
but he of the freewoman was by promise” (verse 23). But the fact is that
Abraham played an active part in the birth of both sons. Isaac was not
virgin-born, as Jesus was. Isaac was born of the “seed of Abraham,” from
which the promised Messiah descended (Genesis 15:4; Hebrews 2:16). The
difference is that in the birth of Ishmael, Abraham acted in his own strength
apart from divine instruction, while in the birth of Isaac he acted in
cooperation with God's strength—the essence of righteousness by faith
(Philippians 2:12, 13). Hebrews 11,
often called the “faith chapter,” graphically depicts righteousness by faith
in action. The phrase “by faith” in this chapter is clearly the means whereby
men and women of God obeyed God’s requirements. Faith in this chapter is the
means of obedience, not a substitute for it. Regarding Sarah, we read,
“Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was
delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged Him faithful
who had promised” (Hebrews 11:11). But again we recall the Biblical record of
this story, which makes it clear Sarah’s and Abraham’s faith in this matter
was combined with their own cooperative effort. What is said
of Noah in this chapter is perhaps even more significant, since it
specifically mentions how he “became heir of the righteousness which is by
faith”: By faith
Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear;
prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which
he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by
faith (verse 7). How did Noah
become an heir of righteousness by faith? By stepping aside and letting God
do the work? No, by building an ark and warning the world,
in conjunction with God’s imparted strength. In short, it
is the boastful, hypocritical deeds of the unconverted which play no part in
the process of salvation. But the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the
believer is quite another matter. When the rich young ruler came to Christ,
asking, “What good thing must I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Matthew
19:16), our Lord answered, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments” (verse 17). When the lawyer to whom Jesus told the Good
Samaritan story asked the same question (Luke 10:25), Jesus gave the same
answer (verse 28). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus likewise
taught that entrance into His kingdom is conditional upon how we treat our
fellow humans (Matthew 25:31-46). The apostle
Paul teaches the same thing about the conditions of salvation: For if ye
live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify
the deeds of the body, ye shall live (Romans 8:13). And being
made perfect He (Christ) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them
that obey Him (Hebrews 5:9). Ellen White
echoes these words of Scripture in the following statements: Thank God, He
attends us every step of the way through, if we are willing to be saved in
Christ’s appointed way—through obedience to His requirements (32). We are saved
by climbing round after round of the ladder, looking to Christ, clinging to
Christ, mounting step by step to the height of Christ, so that He is made
unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Faith,
virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly-kindness, and
charity are the rounds of this ladder (33). The gospel
that is to be preached to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples
presents the truth in clear lines, showing that obedience is the condition of
gaining eternal life. Christ imparts His righteousness to those who consent
to let Him take away their sins (34). Notice that
none of these statements by Jesus, Paul, and Ellen White describe obedience
as something which, in the words of the article in question, “only comes as a
response to the salvation He (God) has already given in Christ, never as the
cause (or part of the cause) of that salvation” (35). Rather, the above
verses are clear that obedience—empowered and made possible by the indwelling
Holy Spirit (Matthew 19:26; Romans 8:13)—is very much the condition of
salvation. What is done in man’s own strength cannot fulfill these conditions
(John 15:5). But what is accomplished through God’s strength can (Philippians
4:13). We return to
the question posed by the article’s author, “Should we seek to make ourselves
righteous so that God can accept us?” (36). Obviously
if we try this apart from the empowering, converting Holy Spirit, we will
fail. But Inspiration is clear that our acceptance with God is based on
Spirit-empowered obedience, not exclusively on forgiveness, or justification.
The apostle Peter declared in Acts 10:35: But in every
nation he that feareth Him, and worketh
righteousness, is accepted with Him. Ellen White
is equally clear that being “accepted in the Beloved” is conditional on
obedience, made possibly by conversion and sanctification: It was
impossible for the sinner to keep the law of God, which was holy, just, and
good; but this impossibility was removed by the impartation of the
righteousness of Christ to the repenting, believing soul. The life and death
of Christ in behalf of sinful man were for the purpose of restoring the sinner
to God’s favor, through imparting to him the righteousness that would meet
the claims of the law and find acceptance with the Father (37). Many of those
who claim to believe the testing truths for these last days, act as though
God took no note of their disrespect of, and manifest disobedience to, the
principles of His holy law. The law is the expression of His will, and it is
through obedience to that law that God proposes to accept the children of men
and His sons and daughters (38). There is no
way back to innocence and life except through repentance for having
transgressed God’s law, and faith in the merits of the divine sacrifice, who
has suffered for your transgressions of the past; and you are accepted in the
Beloved on condition of obedience to the commandments of your Creator (39). Through obedience to all the commandments of God, we are accepted
in the Beloved” (40). Assurance—the True and the False Perhaps no
feature of the current salvation controversy in Adventism is more emotionally
sensitive than the subject of assurance. The human craving for security is a
powerful thing. Politicians exploit it; insurance companies get rich on it.
And in the spiritual realm, it is often a decisive consideration. Building upon
his theory of salvation by justification alone, the author of the article in
question makes the following statement about assurance: Sinners enjoy
the assurance of salvation because their standing rests not in what they have
done or in what has been done to them but in what has been done to Christ
(41). The author
tries to distinguish his concept of assurance from that of the “once saved,
always saved” doctrine, by drawing a distinction between the choice to follow
Christ and the choice to obey Christ: Just as we
choose to follow Jesus, so we can choose not to follow Jesus. But simply
sinning after choosing Jesus does not mean that we have stopped choosing
Jesus (42). We do not
lose our salvation every time we sin. We lose our salvation only when we
decide that we no longer want to be surrendered to God, when we no longer
want Him in our lives (43). One is led to
ask, How many sins did it take to get Adam and Eve
expelled from the Garden of Eden? Did their eating of the forbidden fruit
mean they no longer wanted God in their lives? Does the Christian executive
who occasionally embezzles funds want God out of his life? Or
the priest who indulges occasional pedophilia? The fact is
that nowhere does Scripture make a distinction between the choice to accept
Christ and the choice to obey Christ. The rich young ruler might well have
followed Jesus had the conditions set by Jesus for discipleship not been so
unwelcome. All it took was one sin to disqualify our first parents for life
in Eden, and all it takes is the breaking of one commandment to cause us to
be guilty of all (James 2:10). Scripture is
clear that the choice to separate from God is identical to the choice to sin: But your
iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid
His face from you, that He will not hear (Isaiah 59:2). Ellen White
agrees: By choosing
to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel
of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death (44). Just as soon
as we separate ourselves from God by sin, which is the transgression of His
law, Satan takes control of our minds (45). The popular
“relationship” theology, so widespread in contemporary Adventism, would have
us believe that first we choose to separate from God, then we choose to sin.
The above inspired statements, and many others (46), demonstrate that the
opposite is true. The article
in question quotes an Ellen White statement which is often wrenched from
context to prove occasional sin is both the inevitable lot of the believer
while on earth, as well as irrelevant to the assurance of salvation: The character
is revealed, not by the occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by
the tendency of the habitual words and acts (47). But the
context of this statement is clear that neither the presumed “inevitability”
of occasional sin, nor the presumed maintenance of right standing with God
despite such sin, is the subject of this passage. The issue, by contrast, is
whether or not one has been converted in the first place, and how the
trajectory of one's life indicates whether or not such conversion initially
happened: A person may
not be able to tell the exact time or place, or trace all the chain of
circumstances in the process of conversion, but this does not prove him to be
unconverted.... A change will be seen in the character, the habits, the pursuits. The contrast will be clear and decided
between what they have been and what they are (48). Only then do
we read the sentence quoted earlier: The character
is revealed, not by the occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by
the tendency of the habitual words and acts (49). But this is
only part of the problem this statement poses for the article in question. We
earlier read the article’s statement that “sinners enjoy the assurance of
salvation because their standing rests not in what they have done or in what
has been done to them but in what has been done to Christ” (50). If this is true,
how then could their standing with God depend on “the tendency of the
habitual words and acts” (51) which allegedly counterbalances the occasional
choice to sin? You can’t have it both ways. Either your salvation is based
entirely on justifying, declarative righteousness, or it is based on
justifying righteousness plus the trend of one’s life. As in any
study of Scripture or the writings of Ellen White, we must compare inspired
statements with each other in order to discover their universal harmony. In Ellen White’s words: “The testimonies themselves will be the
key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by
scripture” (52). A number of statements on the subject of assurance
may appear contradictory, but once viewed in context and in comparison with
one another, no contradiction is found. For starters,
let us consider that according to Inspiration, no one is forced to commit
sin. Such statements as “I couldn’t help it” or “the devil
made me do it,” have no place in a true Christian’s thought process.
The Bible is clear, let us remember, that no one is tempted above that which
he is able to resist, and that a way of escape has been provided for all who
suffer temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13). Inspiration is crystal clear that the
choice to sin is ours, no one else’s: Every man is
tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust
hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin (James 1:14, 15). No man can be
forced to transgress. His own consent must first be gained, the soul must
purpose the sinful act, before passion can dominate over reason, or iniquity
triumph over conscience (53). However great
the pressure brought to bear upon the soul, transgression is our own act (54). With these
statements in mind, let us examine two different sets of Ellen White
statements. The first set makes it clear that when we sin, God doesn’t cast
us off from Him. One of these statements is quoted by the article in question
(55): We shall
often have to bow down and weep at the feet of Jesus because of our
shortcomings and mistakes, but we are not to be discouraged. Even if we are
overcome by the enemy, we are not cast off, not forsaken and rejected of God
(56). If through
manifold temptations we are surprised or deceived into sin, He does not turn
from us and leave us to perish. No, no, that is not our Saviour.... Our
crucified Lord is pleading for us in the presence of the Father at the throne
of grace. His atoning sacrifice we may plead for our pardon, our
justification, and our sanctification (57). When we are
clothed with the righteousness of Christ, we shall have no relish for sin,
for Christ will be working with us. We may make mistakes, but we will hate
the sin that caused the suffering of the Son of God (58). But another set
of statements confirm earlier ones we have seen in both Scripture and Ellen
White—that we separate ourselves from God and His salvation by our choice to
commit sin: Every
transgression brings the soul into condemnation, and provokes the divine
displeasure (59). Every
impurity of thought, every lustful passion, separates the soul from God; for
Christ can never put His robe of righteousness upon a sinner, to hide his
deformity (60). There is no
safety nor repose nor justification in transgression of the law. Man cannot
hope to stand innocent before God, and at peace with
Him through the merits of Christ, while he continues in sin. He must cease to
transgress, and become loyal and true (61). When man
transgresses he is under the condemnation of the law, and it becomes to him a
yoke of bondage. Whatever his profession may be he is not justified (62). How do we
reconcile these two sets of statements? Easily. The
first set simply says God doesn’t cast us off when we sin. But the second set
is clear that we have cast ourselves off by such choices. The
inevitable question which arises at this point in our discussion is, What happens if someone dies while committing a sinful
act? Some of the most bizarre, even disgusting illustrations have been
employed to offer assurance to sinning Christians in case of such
“accidents”—even the claim that an adulterous pastor, shot by an enraged
husband in the midst of the act, is nevertheless assured of salvation because
justification covers him! We should hardly be surprised, with theology like
this in circulation, when sexual immorality brings shame upon the church. But while the
above statements are clear that one knowingly choosing to commit sin has
removed himself from a saving relationship with God, Scripture is equally
clear that God pursues such a one through the appeal of conscience,
conviction, circumstance, and even adversity if necessary. When our first
parents sinned, God went looking for them even as they sought to hide
(Genesis 3:9). The same is true for the straying believer even today. In other
statements, Ellen White clearly ties the believer’s assurance of salvation to
obedience: We cannot
have the assurance and perfect confiding trust in Christ as our Saviour until
we acknowledge Him as our King and are obedient to His commandments (63). His (the
believer’s) life, cleansed from vanity and selfishness, is filled with the
love of God. His daily obedience to the law of God obtains for him a character
that assures him eternal life in the kingdom of God (64). The
commandment-keeping people of God are to walk in the sunlight of Christ’s
righteousness, their countenances expressing cheerfulness and thanksgiving,
joyful in the assurance, “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that
they may have right to the tree of life, and enter in through the gates into
the city” (Revelation 22:14) (65). King David
was certainly under no illusion that his sin with Bathsheba hadn’t cost him
his salvation. In Psalm 51, in his prayer of repentance following this
tragedy, he pleads with God, “Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation”
(verse 12). (Some have tried to claim that David only asked to have the joy
of his salvation restored, that in fact he was still saved while committing
adultery and plotting murder. But since I’ve yet to find a verse which speaks
of “joyless” salvation, I am compelled to acknowledge that David’s salvation
had ceased on account of his sin.) In Ellen White’s words: David was
pardoned of his transgression because he humbled his heart before God in
repentance and contrition of soul, and believed that God’s promise to forgive
would be fulfilled. He confessed his sin, repented, and was reconverted....
The blessing comes because of pardon; pardon comes through faith that the
sin, confessed and repented of, is borne by the great Sin Bearer (66). Two powerful
inspired passages offer the only true assurance a professed Christian can
have when they fall into sin: The Lord is
not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is
longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance (1 Peter 3:9). And for those
who fear they might die while sinning, without being offered the chance to
repent, the modern prophet declares: The angels
never leave the tempted one a prey to the enemy who would destroy the souls
of men if permitted to do so. As long as there is hope, until they resist the
Holy Spirit to their eternal ruin, men are guarded by heavenly intelligences
(67). The author of
the article in question uses a popular illustration when he writes: When you
messed up in your family as a child, were you kicked out? No. You were still
part of the family. When we mess up in God’s family, He does not kick us out.
Christ’s blood still covers us (68). Comforting as
this may sound, it is a classic case of forcing a
Bible illustration to “stand on all fours.” The Father/child symbolism used
in Scripture to describe God’s relationship to His people is an illustration,
a figure of speech. And figures of speech, like parables, are rarely meant to
be taken literally in their every detail. Just as the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) cannot rightly be used to negate the overwhelming
Bible evidence of what happens to people at death, so the family analogy to
our relationship with God cannot be stretched to the point of contradicting
what Inspiration teaches about the requirements for salvation. Again we are
reminded that one sin was all it took to bar Adam and Eve from Paradise, and one sin—unconfessed
and unforsaken—is all it will take to bar the
pearly gates against you or me. “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). And of our
relationship to God as His children, we have already seen from the inspired
pen the conditions for our status in God’s family: The law is
the expression of His will, and it is through obedience to that law that God
proposes to accept the children of men as His sons and daughters (69). Elsewhere we
read: God loves His
obedient children. He has a kingdom prepared, not for disloyal subjects, but
for His children whom He has tested and tried in a world marred and corrupted
by sin. As obedient children, we have the privilege of relationship with God
(70). Certain
events in recent American history brought into public view the theology of
evangelical Christianity regarding the assurance of salvation. During the
presidential scandal under the previous administration, Newsweek religion
editor Kenneth Woodward described the theology with which the former
president had been raised. “Like most Baptists,” Woodward wrote, “Clinton was
taught that because he had been born again, his salvation was ensured.
Sinning—even repeatedly—would not bar his soul from heaven” (71). Woodward
went on to quote certain Baptist leaders who declare—in contrast with the
Bible (Matthew 19:16, 17; Luke 10:25-28; Romans 2:13; Hebrews 5:9; James
2:24)—that obedience is the result, not a condition, of being saved (72).
Woodward stated in closing that the former president “learned his world view
not in the dark of a Saturday night but in the light of a Sunday morning”
(73). What
everlasting shame that some should learn this view in the light of a Sabbath
morning! Or in the pages of a Seventh-day Adventist magazine! Inspired Statements Distorted The article
in question refers us to 1 John 5:13 (74), which says: These things
have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye
may know that ye have eternal life; and that ye may believe on the name of
the Son of God. But John does
not define this knowledge of eternal life as being based on forgiveness only.
To understand his meaning we must finish the chapter, and read verse 30: We are in Him
that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal
life. In other
words, to have eternal life is to be “in Christ.” And how does the same
author define this relationship? And he that
keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him (1 John 3:24). The apostle
Paul, of course, says the same thing: Therefore if
any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17). In His prayer
for His disciples Jesus prayed: And this is
life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom Thou hast sent (John 17:3). And again,
from the same apostle’s pen: And hereby do
we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith, I know
Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him
(1 John 2:3, 4). Putting all
these verses together, it becomes clear that to know that we have eternal
life (1 John 5:13) means to be on the upward path striving by His grace for
faithfulness to His Word. We can be sure that so long as this striving does
not cease, the God who is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9)
and knows the depths of our hearts (1 Kings 8:39) will make us progressively
aware of our spiritual condition, and supply us with all the power needed for
restoration and victory. Very early in
the article in question, the author addresses an Ellen White statement which
warns against people saying, “I am saved” (75). The statement, as quoted by
the author, reads as follows: Those who
accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion,
should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved. This is
misleading. Everyone should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even
when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not
beyond the reach of temptation (76). The author
then writes, incredibly: “It is amazing how we will see one part of a passage
and miss another very important part in the same passage. Look at the second
part of what Ellen White is saying, ‘even when we give ourselves to Christ
and know that He accepts us.’” (77). Amazing
indeed! The author’s problem in reading this and other inspired statements is
that he refuses to allow the statement to explain itself, and instead imposes
upon it a theology that isn’t there. For the author of this article, as we
have seen, knowing that Jesus accepts us means knowing we are accepted based
on justification alone (78). Because this is what the author believes, he
assumes this is what Ellen White is saying also, though not a single passage
in her writings—or in the Bible—teaches salvation based exclusively on
Christ’s work for us and not on what He does in us. And regarding our
acceptance with God, we have already seen that according to Inspiration, this
takes place on the basis of Spirit-empowered obedience (Acts 10:35) (79). In other
words, to give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, means the
surrender of our life’s control to that of God and His written counsel.
Obviously we can know if in fact we are, or are not, holding anything back
from God that His Word has asked for. But once we have done this, our
surrender must still be continuous. Which is why Ellen White warns in this
statement against declaring one’s self “saved,” since this implies the end of
a process whose completion only God can know, since He alone knows the heart
(1 Kings 8:39). In another passage Ellen White declares: It is by
continual surrender of the will, by continual obedience, that the blessing of
justification is retained (80). What is even
more amazing about the way the author of the article in question uses the
Ellen White statement noted earlier, is that he seems not at all to grasp
how—according to Ellen White’s clear implication in this very
passage—yielding to temptation invalidates one’s salvation. We can’t say we
are saved at one moment because at the next moment, like Peter turning his
eyes from Jesus on Galilee, we can yield to temptation and thus become
unsaved. The reason she says we can’t say or feel that we are saved, is
because—in her words—“even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He
accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation” (81). The statement
continues by saying: God’s word
declares, “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried” Daniel 12:10.
Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life (James 1:12)
(82). In other
words, it is by test and trial and endurance—through imparted divine
grace—that the saved are finally made white, ready for the crown of eternal
life. This is not justification-alone salvation at all. Another Ellen
White statement, on this same topic, is worth considering at this point: If we are
disobedient, our characters are out of harmony with God’s moral rule of
government, and it is stating a falsehood to say, “I am saved.” No one is
saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of His
government in heaven and in earth (83). Two other
Ellen White statements whose meaning is misread by the article in question,
we have already examined (84). Two others deserve our attention: Some who come
to God for repentance and confession, and even believe that their sins are
forgiven, still fail of claiming, as they should, the promises of God. They
do not see that Jesus is an ever-present Saviour; and they are not ready to
commit the keeping of their souls to Him, relying on Him to perfect the work
of grace begun in their hearts. While they think they are committing
themselves to God, there is a great deal of self-dependence. There are
conscientious souls that trust partly to God and partly to themselves. They
do not look to God, to be kept by His power, but depend upon watchfulness
against temptation and the performance of certain duties for acceptance with
Him. There are no victories in this kind of faith. Such persons toil to no
purpose; their souls are in continual bondage, and they find no rest until
their burdens are laid at the feet of Jesus (85). Do not wait
to feel that you are made whole, but say, “I believe it; it is so, not
because I feel it, but because God has promised (86). The second of
these statements is really irrelevant to the article’s discussion, since it
speaks of relying—not upon the Spirit’s internal work of regeneration and
sanctification—but upon feelings. Certainly feelings are never the ground of
our spiritual security. On this we can fully agree with the article in
question. The first of
the above statements, in context, is not warning Christians against trusting
the Spirit’s transforming work for acceptance with God, when supposedly they
should trust only the justifying righteousness of Christ. Rather, the warning
in this statement is against the non-surrender of self, the withholding of
certain aspects of our life from Christ’s control and regeneration, and to
therefore claim Christ’s saving power only partially. When speaking here of
“watchfulness against temptation and the performance of certain duties” (87),
she is not speaking of sanctified obedience, but of self-motivated obedience.
The first sentence in the next paragraph makes this clear: There is need
of constant watchfulness and of earnest, loving devotion, but these will come
naturally when the soul is kept by the power of God through faith (88). Since one
cannot have the power of faith without total surrender, any watchfulness or
performance of duty apart from such surrender is powerless. By contrast, what
is performed through faith and God’s imparted strength indeed offers such
power, and is the means—as we have seen already—by which we obtain acceptance
with God. The very book from which the above statement is taken includes one
passage we have seen already, which declares the imparted righteousness of
sanctification to bring acceptance with God: It was
impossible for the sinner to keep the law of God, which was holy, just, and
good; but this impossibility was removed by the impartation of the
righteousness of Christ to the repenting, believing soul. The life and death
of Christ in behalf of sinful man were for the purpose of restoring the
sinner to God’s favor, through imparting to him the righteousness that would
meet the claims of the law and find acceptance with the Father (89). Conclusion—Can I Know I’m Saved? In a word,
yes—if by this we mean striving for faithfulness on the upward path of
sanctification and holiness, trusting to divine strength for progress and
victory. But the inspired command not to utter such words or nurture such
feelings should be taken most seriously, since words and thoughts—especially
self-generated ones—exert great power over us. We may be right with God one
moment, and not right the next, if by choice we depart from the written
counsel where the divine will is revealed. In the modern prophet’s words: Unless we
become vitally connected with God, we can never resist the unhallowed effects
of self-love, self-indulgence, and temptation to sin. We may leave off many
bad habits, for the time we may part company with Satan; but without a vital
connection with God, through the surrender of ourselves to Him moment by
moment, we shall be overcome (90). For me, I am
much more comfortable saying, “I am being saved,” than “I am saved.” When
asked by another Christian about my salvation, this answer enables me to
explain what Scripture teaches about the conditions of eternal life—how Jesus
and Paul declared Spirit-empowered obedience to be this condition (Matthew
19:17; Luke 10:25-28; Romans 8:13; Hebrews 5:9), and how, in our Lord’s
words, “He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matthew
24:13). I can then point out that the God who isn’t willing that any should
perish (2 Peter 3:9) is always there for me with grace and power, but that if
by choice I transgress the law of God in any particular, I am guilty of
breaking it all (James 2:10), and that unless I return to the Lord through
confession and the forsaking of sin (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13;
Isaiah 55:7; 1 John 1:9), that law will serve to condemn me in the final
judgment (James 2:12). The article
in question focuses exclusively on the believer’s personal security, in
presumably knowing he stands rightly with God. But no attention is given to
the eternal security of God’s universe. The reason God can’t take any but
overcomers to heaven is because He must be sure those He takes won’t start
another revolution. God has promised that “affliction shall not rise up the second
time” (Nahum 1:9). Some seem to think that once God gets rid of their sinful
natures, this will guarantee they won’t sin again. Such persons seem to
forget where sin got started in the first place. No one had a sinful nature
when rebellion first began in the courts of glory. Sin is a matter of the
will, not the fleshly nature. Which is why the mere absence
of such a nature will not ensure the end of sin. Only consistent
faithfulness through heaven’s imparted grace, demonstrated here on earth,
will do this. The article
in question complains that salvation based on sanctification and perfection
produces insecurity (91). Perhaps. But that is the
price of liberty. God will not bypass our free will in order to give us
assurance and peace of mind. That is the way of dictators and tyrants, not
the liberty-loving God of Scripture. The reason many Christians feel so
insecure in their walk with God is because of their own cherished lives of
sin and self-indulgence. And since our choice to connect with or separate
from God is tied directly to our obedience to God’s will (Isaiah 59:2), the
primary reason for our insecurity is quickly seen to be our own free choice.
And this God will never take from us, not even to give us the assurance of
salvation. The following
inspired statement offers a fitting conclusion to our review of the article
in question: But the
doctrine is now largely taught that the Gospel of Christ has made the Law of
God of no effect, that by “believing” we are released from the necessity of
being doers of the Word. But this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which
Christ so unsparingly condemned.... Those who are teaching this doctrine
today have much to say in regard to faith and the righteousness of Christ;
but they pervert the truth, and make it serve the cause of error. They
declare that we have only to believe on Jesus Christ, and that faith is
all-sufficient; that the righteousness of Christ is to be the sinner’s
credentials; that this imputed righteousness fulfills the law for us, and
that we are under no obligation to obey the law of God. This
class claim that Christ came to save sinners, and that He has saved
them. “I am saved,” they will repeat over and over again. But are they saved
while transgressing the law of Jehovah?—No, for the garments of Christ’s
righteousness are not a cloak for iniquity. Such teaching is gross deception
(92). That the
gross deception of “saved while sinning” might miserably fail in its efforts
to destroy the witness and pre-empt the glory of God’s final generation, is
my sincere prayer and earnest plea. GCO ------------------------------------------------------------------------ References J. David Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, pp.
24-27. Ibid., p.
26. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p.
25. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ellen G.
White, Early Writings, p. 254. ________, The Great Controversy, p. 425. ________, Early Writings, p. 254; Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1145. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
25. White, The Great Controversy, p. 636. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
25. Ibid., p.
26. White, Our High Calling, p. 212. ________, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 360. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
27. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 762. ________, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p.
1092. ________,
Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 366. ________, The Upward Look, p. 49. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
26. White, Steps
to Christ, p. 23. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
26. Ibid. Ibid. White,
Education, p. 254 (emphasis supplied). >________,
Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, p. 114
(emphasis original). Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
25. Ibid., p.
26. White, This
Day With God, p. 72. ________,
Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 147. ________, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 972. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
26. Ibid., p.
25. White, Faith
and Works, p. 118. ________,
Sons and Daughters of God, p. 45. ________,
Signs of the Times, December 15, 1887. Ibid.,
December 28, 1891. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
26. Ibid., p.
25. Ibid., p.
26. White,
Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 235. ________,
Review and Herald, July 12, 1887. ________,
Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 455; Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 78, 79; Maranatha,
p. 95; Our High Calling, p. 214; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 236; Sons and Daughters
of God, pp. 65,290; In Heavenly Places, p. 99; 1888 Materials, p. 1011.
Christ Triumphant, p. 85. ________, Steps to Christ, pp. 57, 58. Ibid., p.
57. Ibid.,
pp. 57, 58. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
26. White, Steps
to Christ, p. 58. ________,
Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42. ________,
Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 177. ________,
Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 421. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
27. White, Steps
to Christ, p. 64. ________, Our
High Calling, p. 49. ________,
Messages to Young People, p. 338. ________,
Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 623. ________, Our
High Calling, p. 214. ________,
Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 213. ________, My Life Today, p. 250 (emphasis supplied). ________,
Faith and Works, p. 16. ________,
Sons and Daughters of God, p. 42. ________,
Review and Herald, May 3, 1898. ________, Our
High Calling, p. 83. Ibid., p.
23. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
26. White, Sons
and Daughters of God, p. 45. ________, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p.
1077. Kenneth L.
Woodward, “Sex, Sin, and Salvation,” Newsweek, November 2, 1998, p. 37. Ibid. Ibid. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
25. Ibid. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 155. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
25. Ibid., p.
26. White, Faith
and Works, p. 118; Sons and Daughters of God, p. 45; Signs of the Times,
December 15, 1887; December 28, 1891; Review and Herald, May 3, 1898;
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, p. 1103. ________,
Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 397. ________, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 155. Ibid. ________,
Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 315. ________,
Steps to Christ, pp. 57, 58, 64, quoted by Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?”
Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p. 27. ________, Faith and Works, p. 38, quoted by Newman, “Can I Know
I’m Saved?” Adventist
Review, August 24, 2006, p. 27. ________,
Steps to Christ, p. 51 (emphasis original), quoted by Newman, “Can I Know I’m
Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p. 27. ________,
Faith and Works, p. 38. Ibid.,
pp. 38, 39. Ibid., p.
118. ________, The Desire of Ages, p. 324. Newman, “Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, August 24, 2006, p.
25. White, Signs
of the Times, February 25, 1897. © 2006 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals,
wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files
appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use,
unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities
wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with
reproduction requests. Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the
pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Through the years he has published articles in many publications. He is also
editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine
predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin is also the
speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30
p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New
Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College
in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987. |