If you owe me a debt, and I pay the debt you owed me to myself, nothing has changed. For example, I have $10,000, and loan you $1,000. I now have $9,000. If I pay your debt of $1,000 to myself to pay off your debt, I still have $9,000. So the debt has not been paid, it's been forgiven.

Only if a third party is introduced is it possible for me to pay your debt. If you owe a third party $1,000, and I pay that $1,000 for you, then I have paid your debt, but your debt was not forgiven; it was paid. Also in this case it cannot be said that I forgave you, since you didn't owe me; you owed a third party. Neither did that third party forgive you, since the debt was paid. In this case your debt was paid, but nor forgiven.

Let's deal with this a bit. This is from "Christ And His Righteousness"



So when Waggoner says a person is made righteous, he explains his meaning as "made obedient to the law," which is also, according to Waggoner, equivalent to having the law written in the heart.

From your assertion that you believe one is only "made righteous" at the coming of Christ that you see righteousness as an issue of the flesh. If righteousness were an issue of the heart, one could be made righteous during this life. Only if righteousness is an issue of the flesh would it have to wait. However, if righteousness were an issue of the flesh, then no one could be said to be righteous on this earth, yet the Scriptures speak of righteous people throughout. So you would have to assert that these people were called righteous without actually being righteous, which is, I suppose, precisely what you are asserting with your understanding of "imputed righteousness."

I assume you believe Ellen White agrees with you on this, but that Waggoner does not. This would again bring up to my mind the same question I've asked earlier, which is how is it possible that Ellen White could endorse Waggoner so extravagantly if he were off on such a basic point?

Secondly, the following quote comes to my mind:



This looks to me to be precisely the same as what I quoted to you from Waggoner. He even uses the same illustration:






I didn't follow this at all, but perhaps the answer to your second question will cover this.



I wouldn't say it's meritorious, but it's necessary. It is by the power of God's word that he makes us righteous when we believe in Christ.





By the way, I would appreciate it if, besides the quotes, you gave your answers in your own words in replying to my questions.

No, the debt is both paid and forgiven. Under my perspective, a price is paid, because my patrimony was diminished (I had $10,000 and now I have only $9,000); I absorb the loss. Under your perspective, you are forgiven.

Where is the payment? You withdraw $1,000 from your account to pay yourself back $1,000? I understand the loss being absorbed, but not the payment being made. If a debt is paid, the account is restored to its state before the debt was incurred; that's what it means for a debt to be paid.

No, to me the problem is not one of flesh or heart, but one of perfection or imperfection. I don't believe anyone can be absolutely righteous on this earth, or absolutely perfect. We are perfect in Christ, and that's why we are righteous in Christ.

"He [Christ] keeps His eye upon them [His children], and when they do their best, calling upon God for his help, be assured the service will be accepted, although imperfect. Jesus is perfect. Christ's righteousness is imputed unto them, and He will say, 'Take away the filthy garments from him and clothe him with change of raiment.' Jesus makes up for our unavoidable deficiencies." --Letter 17a, 1891. {3SM 196.1}

That's what I mean when I say that God's children are called righteous without actually being righteous. Waggoner says, "But if unrighteousness is transgression of the law, righteousness must be obedience to the law." Correct, but since none of us obey the law perfectly, this means we are called righteous without in fact being righteous.


You say the objective of salvation is to restore our relationship with God. But the restoration of a relationship doesn't require perfection. However, Ellen White states that "the condition of eternal life is now ... just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents--perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness." None of us obey perfectly, so we just inherit eternal life because of Christ's perfection, which covers our imperfection. I sincerely don't see how aspects like these (God requiring perfection and Christ's perfection being considered as if it was ours) can make sense under your model of the atonement. It just makes sense in a legal context.


Ellen White doesn't describe this declaration as being addressed to the sinner (and thus making the sinner righteous). She describes this declaration as being addressed to the universe.

"The great work that is wrought for the sinner who is spotted and stained by evil is the work of justification. By Him who speaketh truth he is declared righteous. The Lord imputes unto the believer the righteousness of Christ and pronounces him righteous before the universe. He transfers his sins to Jesus, the sinner's representative, substitute, and surety. Upon Christ He lays the iniquity of every soul that believeth. '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 Cor. 5:21)." {1SM 392.2}

When the debt is forgiven a price is paid - a price equivalent to the debt; and, as far as the debtor is concerned, forgiveness means to him that his debt is paid, because he no longer owes it. You are making a distinction that doesn't in fact exist.

If you owe me $1,000, and I forgive your debt, I don't say I paid myself $1,000. Certainly I wouldn't make the argument that justice would not allow me to forgive your debt unless I paid myself $1,000.

If you owe someone else $1,000, then I can pay your debt for you, but in this case no debt was forgiven.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too!



But there is a distinction. Forgiving a debt is not the same thing as paying one for someone else.

We are called righteous without in fact being righteous? This isn't truth.





A righteous person is one who practices righteousness. Or, conversely, a person who is obedient to the law is righteous. A person who is disobedient is not righteous, but unrighteous.



From the SOP



What does it mean to be clothed with the garments of Christ's righteousness? It means "the heart is united with His heart, the will is merged in His will, the mind becomes one with His mind, the thoughts are brought into captivity to Him; we live His life."

Now if a person is clothed with the garment of Christ righteousness -- which means his heart is united with Christ's heart, his will merged with Christ's will, his mind one with Christ's mind, and living His life -- isn't such a person in fact righteous?

Out of curiosity, what you're claiming sounds like Ford's theology. Are you familiar with Ford's theology? If so, do you agree with it?



I don't see a problem here. I think the quote from COL 312 that I just quoted makes perfect sense from my standpoint. I don't see how it makes any sense from yours. I also think the COL 312 quote addresses the concern you are raising here. The perfection that God requires becomes ours when we are clothed in Christ's righteousness, a righteousness which causes our hearts and mind to be merged with His, and results in our living His life.



The standard is perfect conformity to the principles of His law, a standard which is not one we cannot attain, and, more than that, one which we will attain, unless we interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace.



The theology you are suggesting that Ellen White held is simply not possible! It's impossible that one who had a Ford-like theology could endorse someone who held such a dramatically different understanding of righteousness by faith as Waggoner did. I don't understand how you don't see this.

Because she endorsed him does not mean she had to agree with every i that Waggoner dotted, or every t that he crossed, but it does mean there was more than a general agreement. It simply isn't possible that EGW had a "legal fiction" outlook on righteousness by faith, while Waggoner had more of a Wesleyan outlook on it, and have Ellen White endorse him as she did.

For example:



Waggoner spoke of faith in Christ making us righteous, or obedient to the law. She endorses his teachings of righteousness by faith, and then repeats his concept in her own words "made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God." Going back to your earlier assertion that we are called righteous without actually being righteous, isn't it the case that one who manifests obedience to all the commandments of God is righteous?

Here's another well known quote:



This seems in perfect harmony with what Waggoner taught but not with what you are saying.

From Waggoner:



One last EGW quote:



There are so many of these, but I'll stop here. The idea she presented was not the Evangelical "legal fiction" idea where one is declared righteous but actually unrighteous, but the same idea Waggoner taught, which is that by faith in Christ we are, in fact, righteous, meaning that by faith in Christ we "keep the commandments of God."

That's pretty much it.

I'm going to talk about how that's not all that's needed. Crushing the serpent's head is one thing, but his seeds still remain. Their disguise must be torn away also, and there's only one way to do it.

Well, you cannot say that God has forgiven, so you need a new model. R and I have no problem with forgiveness and paying off debt at the same time, so we're fine with it.

Anyway, if a model cannot say that God has paid the debt, then it is incomplete. But I generally don't throw out incomplete models to replace with another incomplete model. I prefer to take whatever works from each model, and just put it all together. And if there's something else that is not covered by the current models, I have no qualms making a new model. Perhaps that's what the kaleidoscope model is.