Lessons on Faith by Jones and Waggoner- Reading club only

[Ted Oplinger]

Like so many topics that I have studied in the Bible, once I get into them they just get bigger and bigger.

I think that the "much more" verses in Romans 5 come into play here, Ted:

Quote:

Romans 5:9

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:10

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

IOW- Paul was also acknowledging that there was more to it than the simple legal status thing involved with grace.

Indeed, Gail. Justification by faith takes in "much more" than the general person conceptualizes it to be. Jones and Waggoner understood justification having at least two distinct aspects/applications.

Jones and Waggoner both answered my question I posited last night concerning how God could be just AND the justifier of the ungodly. The beginning points are on pages 20 ("It is impossible for God to lie...) and 38 of Lessons on Faith.

Later,

[joeb]

Really, JoeB? That's a real stretch of an argument to make. That is such a straw fallacy I am indeed amazed - and saddened - to see it under your name. I am indeed very sorry to have even brought up the forensic aspect of justification. Your posting reveals a very limited understanding of what justification fully takes in, and reflects either a lack of understanding, or a misunderstanding, as to how A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner fully developed their concept of what justification by faith takes into itself. Suffice it to say you are so far off the mark in your assessment of my understanding, as to be insulting.

I will repeat to you, JoeB, the same thing I said to Jackson: if you cannot grasp the gist of the argument as it is born of faith, let it go. Go back to reading the book, and do not set up stumbling blocks for yourself over what you think I meant or understand by what I wrote concerning Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5. I would sooner readers of this thread read the book and get what blessings they can, than to see this thread get sidetracked and derailed.

Again, my apologies.

Whatever, Ted. I'm not setting up any stumblingblocks for myself.

And, I answered your interpretation of the idea of it being impossible for God to lie using A.T. Jones' own words in a later article. Here they are once again in my paraphrase: whatever God says is true even if the entire world doesn't believe, but if someone doesn't believe, it isn't true in them. Thus, if someone doesn't believe, then Christ's entire work for the human race isn't true in them. They receive no benefit. For them it isn't true that God loves them. For them it isn't true that Christ lived, died, and rose again, for them.

None of the things true for those who believe is true in those who don't believe. The exercising, or the not exercising, of the faith that God has given to all men makes the entire difference.

If you want to discuss this further I'd be happy to do so via PM. I spent a lot of time in prayer and study on this before coming to this conclusion as I don't lightly reject anything you put forward because I respect your knowledge of the Bible. I just think you're wrong on this one.

[Ted Oplinger]

His death did not let the guilty go free, nor did it remove their guilt. It rather gave them a period of probation and if during their probation they chose to confess their sins and repent they would be justified. It they persevered in this state til the end, they would be saved. If not, they would die the second death which is the wages of sin.

[Gail]

And while you two are mulling over that...

Quote:

That mistake is made in thinking that when they are converted their old sinful flesh is blotted out.

In other words, they make the mistake of thinking that they are to be delivered form the flesh by having it taken away from them altogether.

Then when they find that this is not so, when they find that the same old flesh, with its inclinations, its besetments, and its enticements is still there, they are not prepared for it and so become discouraged and are ready to think that they never were converted at all.

[Gail]

Dead formalism- around page 60->

What do you think when a person suddenly declares that s/he doesn't really believe? Wouldn't admitting something honestly be better in God's eyes than the dead formalism that Jones talks about in these two chapter?

Fake it till you make it

[Don777]

Dead formalism- around page 60->

What do you think when a person suddenly declares that s/he doesn't really believe? Wouldn't admitting something honestly be better in God's eyes than the dead formalism that Jones talks about in these two chapter?

Fake it till you make it

Belief is such a fragile thing. If I declared I didn't believe, then I would create my own unbelief and then my unbelief seems real to me and, then, I become sure that I don't believe, etc. etc. etc.

It is much better, I think, for a person to say, "I believe, help my unbelief."

Perhaps it is similar to a declared love for someone. Early on in a relationship, some of us have found it difficult to express love as a reality. Later on, an expression of love seems to build on itself. That is why if a person is in a marriage it is quite disastrous to tell a friend of the opposite sex (not one's wife) that there exist feelings of intimate love for them.

Love, belief, etc. build on the expression of same.

The solution for dead formalism is to seek the LORD while He may be found... (IMO)

[Gail]

Glad to see that you are reading along with us, Don!

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Awaiting your answers on Weiland and Short...

As to what the 1888 Message Study Committee contends:, let me just extract from a study by Adventist lecturer, Eugene Prewitt. Prewitt interviewed Wieland in the Wieland home back in 2000 and afterward wrote a critique of the 1888 Committee's doctrine.

Forensic Justification A Synopsis of Basic Misunderstandings- by Eugene Prewitt

One organization that has worked diligently to promote the value of the cross is the 1888 Message Study Committee. Two of its founders, Robert Wieland and Donald Short, proposed a special doctrine of “Forensic Justification.” The phrase literally means “legal justification” and perhaps this term is preferable for its ease of understanding. Its proponents believe a number of ideas that, combined, make up the doctrine. Let me try to enumerate these components.

1.God is agape love.

2.God’s love takes the initiate in our salvation.

3. Jesus died bearing the sins of all men – both of the eventually lost and of the finally saved.

4.When men understanding the love of God and of His Christ, their hearts will be melted.

5.When they understand that God has already justified them many will turn to Him.

6.All men are born into the doomed family of Adam, and so are doomed through his sin.

7.All men are “dead.”

a. Their doom has been reversed by the death of Jesus.

b. They died with Him.

8.When we accept the fact that we are already saved, we are changed.

a. Our faith turns the theory into an experience.

b. We are now “Justified by faith.”

9.It is difficult to refuse the facts that are urged on us by our Loving Father, and so, difficult to be lost. This is the “good news” of the gospel Items

Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 are so true that they deserve an ever increasing exposure. Hearts are changed and lives renewed by the emphasis on the power of Christ’s cross. But items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are all a mixture of truth and error.

The truths in these statements could be worded as follows.

5.When men understand the sacrifice of Jesus in their behalf many will turn to Him.

6. All men would be born hopeless, as a result of Adam’s sin, had not Christ interposed. Adam forfeited the probation that was granted him in the garden.

7.See item 6. All men are doomed through their connection with Adam.

a. But Jesus paid their sin and restored to them probation

b. All will be raised from death to receive judgment for their use of their purchased probationary time.

8.When we are moved by the truths of redemption to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God we are changed.

a. Our faith is counted as righteousness.

b. Christ’s life is credit to our account and we are justified.

9.It is difficult to refuse the pleadings of the Spirit. But it is also perfectl natural to do so. Our natures recoil from “death to self” and it is a continual struggle to keep the “body under” and so not to be a “castaway.”

The In-Christ Motif promoted by Wieland and Short

We were “in Jesus” at the cross, so were killed there. We were “in Christ” during his life, so lived a perfect one. “In Christ” our sins our paid for and our righteousness is established. And this is no “vicarious substitution.” This is literal reality.

[Gail]

P.70: The Power of the word

Jones opens up with this verse that I absolutely love:

Isaiah 55:10,11:

Quote:

"As the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

I think I will chew on that for a while...

[Gail]

And follows with:

Quote:

Notice, too, it is not you who are to do that which he pleases; but, "It shall accomplish that which I please," You are not to read or hear the word of God, and say, I must do that, I will do that. You are to open the heart to that word, that it may accomplish the will of God in you. It is not you who are to do it, but it. "It", the word of God itself, is to do it, and you are to let it. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you."

Can it really be that simple?

[joeb]

And follows with:

Quote:

Notice, too, it is not you who are to do that which he pleases; but, "It shall accomplish that which I please," You are not to read or hear the word of God, and say, I must do that, I will do that. You are to open the heart to that word, that it may accomplish the will of God in you. It is not you who are to do it, but it. "It", the word of God itself, is to do it, and you are to let it. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you."

Can it really be that simple?

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: Gail

Dead formalism- around page 60->

What do you think when a person suddenly declares that s/he doesn't really believe? Wouldn't admitting something honestly be better in God's eyes than the dead formalism that Jones talks about in these two chapter?

Fake it till you make it

Belief is such a fragile thing. If I declared I didn't believe, then I would create my own unbelief and then my unbelief seems real to me and, then, I become sure that I don't believe, etc. etc. etc.

It is much better, I think, for a person to say, "I believe, help my unbelief."

Perhaps it is similar to a declared love for someone. Early on in a relationship, some of us have found it difficult to express love as a reality. Later on, an expression of love seems to build on itself. That is why if a person is in a marriage it is quite disastrous to tell a friend of the opposite sex (not one's wife) that there exist feelings of intimate love for them.

Love, belief, etc. build on the expression of same.

The solution for dead formalism is to seek the LORD while He may be found... (IMO)

I agree. That quote is from one of my favorite Bible stories, and right after the father admits his unbelief in this way Jesus evicts the devil from his son.

It's interesting to me that even such a frail faith was rewarded immediately.

[joeb]

Quote:

A.T. Jones asks the question over and again in Lessons in Faith which stems directly from this concept: Do you believe in Creation (justification and righteousness by the very power found in the Word of God), or in Evolution (where a person believes one receives justification and righteousness through a series of steps one does)? A whole chapter is devoted to this question. It is the "In Christ Motif" that allows one to break with the notion that one's justification comes in a series of steps - that one IS righteous...and can subsequently live righteously...by the power in and of the Word of God, despite the fallen humanity one wears.

Ted,

I absolutely reject the "in-Christ motif" and have no trouble accepting that God's word makes us holy when we are declared just. This is nothing more than "the just shall live by faith" for it is simply believing God and taking Him at His word. There is no need to accept a radical theology to believe God.

[Gerr]

Can it really be that simple?

Perhaps it may not be so simple, Gail. I seem to recall that Jones, and perhaps Waggoner {?} did not remain true to the end?

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: Gail

Can it really be that simple?

Perhaps it may not be so simple, Gail. I seem to recall that Jones, and perhaps Waggoner {?} did not remain true to the end?

What does that have to do with the truths the two of them taught? Ellen White said they were correct in what they taught about righteousness by faith. She says essentially the same things they did. She just says it in different ways. Plus, the Bible itself backs them up. The truths they taught are found in multiple places in the Bible.

[Gerr]

What does that have to do with the truths the two of them taught? Ellen White said they were correct in what they taught about righteousness by faith. She says essentially the same things they did. She just says it in different ways. Plus, the Bible itself backs them up. The truths they taught are found in multiple places in the Bible.

What one says is less important than what one does with it, imho.

[Gail]

Yes, they both left the church eventually, but that doesn't negate the powerful truths they had whilst in it.

Gerry, we are reviewing the book, Lessons on Faith, and you are welcome to join the discussion; the only stipulation being that you must either be currently reading the book or having read it.

[Gerr]

It's true that truth is truth, but for me the impact is less when the one proposing it fails to hold on to it.

[Ted Oplinger]

And follows with:

Quote:

Notice, too, it is not you who are to do that which he pleases; but, "It shall accomplish that which I please," You are not to read or hear the word of God, and say, I must do that, I will do that. You are to open the heart to that word, that it may accomplish the will of God in you. It is not you who are to do it, but it. "It", the word of God itself, is to do it, and you are to let it. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you."

Can it really be that simple?

Yes, it is really that simple... :)

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

A.T. Jones asks the question over and again in Lessons in Faith which stems directly from this concept: Do you believe in Creation (justification and righteousness by the very power found in the Word of God), or in Evolution (where a person believes one receives justification and righteousness through a series of steps one does)? A whole chapter is devoted to this question. It is the "In Christ Motif" that allows one to break with the notion that one's justification comes in a series of steps - that one IS righteous...and can subsequently live righteously...by the power in and of the Word of God, despite the fallen humanity one wears.

Ted,

I absolutely reject the "in-Christ motif" and have no trouble accepting that God's word makes us holy when we are declared just. This is nothing more than "the just shall live by faith" for it is simply believing God and taking Him at His word. There is no need to accept a radical theology to believe God.

That is sad you find it so objectionable, Joe. Leave me to my understandings, however "wrong" you deem them, and I will leave you to yours, however "incomplete" I found them to be.

I will in no way say this principle MUST be accepted in order for the 1888 message to proceed, either, my brother - non-acceptance does not hinder the message from going forth.

For me, Paul's illustrations of this in the Scriptures are clear on the issue, and that is enough for me. It crystallized an issue for me I previously could never adequately explain using the standard Protestant understandings Seventh-day Adventists historically rely on.

For the average believer, the legal footing upon which justification and righteousness are received really aren't major considerations. The major issue for most people is in handling their struggle with regard to belief over unbelief: do they believe justification, and their subsequent life of obedience, is all true, and true for them in their circumstance? How are they going to handle the Romans 7 experience? Those are the points that normally get top billing for most people.

For me, though, I have been questioned by Catholics due to their belief the Protestant foundation is nothing more than a man-made legal fantasy applied to God's holy and just system. As I said before - I am no legal scholar, yet I was tasked to explain how the Adventist position on justification - and the 1888 message of justification in particular - stood on legal ground. Evidently, some of the Catholics in my family had a Catholic teacher on justification pose this question when this teacher found I was the family Adventist.

In short, it became an issue for me, whether I wanted it to be or not.

Looking at this issue from the "In Christ" basis, I have found they really cannot argue against the 1888 teachings of Jones and Waggoner. They must necessarily move to the same position they do with the Sabbath - that tradition rather than the Scriptures is the basis of Catholic teaching. That was when I found the principle a powerful tool for refuting the Catholic teaching of justification. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a radical theological approach to God; it is radical, though, in its ramifications in exposing Papal teachings on justification, death, and God's ultimate action He must take against he wicked at the very end.

I have held to the "In Christ" principle through 20 years and 6 pastors now- and have not been shy about declaring up front to each what I hold to be true. I'd think at least one of them would have taken me to task on the issue if it were so completely dead wrong.

Blessings,

[Gerr]

He probably heard the wrong presentation of the subject. But the subject must be very important because the phrase "in Christ" occurs in the ESV 91x. Eternal life is "in Christ Jesus." Redemption is "in Christ." We are a new creation "in Christ." Free "in Christ," etc. etc. Someone in this forum with the "in Christ" motif used to irk me because the impression he left me was that if one is "in Christ", the law cannot touch you even though you may be willfully transgressing it!

[Gail]

He probably heard the wrong presentation of the subject. But the subject must be very important because the phrase "in Christ" occurs in the ESV 91x. Eternal life is "in Christ Jesus." Redemption is "in Christ." We are a new creation "in Christ." Free "in Christ," etc. etc. Someone in this forum with the "in Christ" motif used to irk me because the impression he left me was that if one is "in Christ", the law cannot touch you even though you may be willfully transgressing it!

I hear ya... I kind of miss him but you guys were best friends for years!

[Gail]

P. 78-

"Let him have you, sins and all."

I love that, don't you? :)

[Gail]

The chapter on Galatians 2:20 might have some explanation on this, "In Christ" motif.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

And the errors attributable to Wieland and Short in this list are...??? It very much appears he AGREES with every point they made. The sole exception is where Eugene Prewitt makes the declaration that the "In Christ Motif" is NOT vicarious,

Ted, I think you are mixing up justification, pardon and probation