While what you say is true, that's not what EGW was talking about. She did not say, "His present inability to keep the law must condemn him to death." Rather, the condemnation of the law is for the debt of past transgressions. Jesus paid the debt for past sins, a debt that no amount of repentance or reformation can repay. "Could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, all for sin could not atone; Thou must save, and Thou alone."

I have used a very similar argument against those who make the same complaint about the "advantage" Jesus had because His human nature was not quite as messed up as ours. But that's for another thread.

What's the point of having a cake if I can't eat it? Unless it was for throwing in someone's face.

If we ask the question, "What is the problem that must be solved?" I think that can get us to a right understanding of the issue. The problem is that sin separates us from God. In order to be restored to harmony with God, repentance and submission are necessary. Not as an arbitrary requirement on the part of God, but as an actual fact. Repentance is a change of mind, and submission demonstrates that change of mind. As long as one is fighting against God, one cannot be at peace with God.

If the legal paradigm were correct, in terms of Ellen White's writings, it would have followed that Lucifer could not have been offered pardon without the death of Christ. Yet we read:



Before being banished from heaven, Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin. He would have been restored to his position had he repented.

Now if the legal perspective were accurate, it would have been just as necessary for Christ to have died to pardon Lucifer as it was for man because the legal issues for Lucifer were the same as man. No amount of right actions on the part of Lucifer could make up for past sins. His debt would remain, so the law would require death. Christ should have had to die for his sins. Yet we don't see this. Why not? Because this legal perspective is flawed.

When we read things like "the law must condemn him to death," we should bear in mind that these statements are metaphors. "The law" stands for God, because God is the mind behind the law. The law is not a sentient being that can literally condemn. So to say that the law must condemn a sinner to death for past transgressions is to say that God must condemn the sinner to death for past transgressions. At that begs the question as to why God must do this. It also begs the question as to why the death of Christ would release God from the obligation to do this.

It seems to me clear that God is capable of pardoning past transgressions without death because this is exactly what He offered to do for Lucifer.

It does kind of tie in with this one, however, since it deviates from Waggoner's teaching of righteousness by faith, as does the idea that we are not, in fact, righteous although we are called righteous by God. Waggoner's argument is that God cannot lie, so that when He declares a person righteous, that person is made righteous by the power of God's word. I'm curious as to where you stand on this question. Do you disagree with what Waggoner said on this point as well?

I don't understand the disconnect that would allow one on the one hand to claim to accept Ellen White as a prophet, and on the other reject the teachings of Jones and Waggoner, given she endorsed their teachings over a thousand times. I understand she might not be agreeing that they dotted every "i" correctly, or crossed every "t," but how could they have gotten fundamental issues wrong, such as imputed righteousness, and whether or not a person is made righteous by faith when God declares them righteous?

In your model or paradigm, once repentance and submission are accomplished, is that all that's needed? Or is there something else that must be taken care of?

You are changing the analogy. Certainly several comparisons could be made. Your initial comparison had been with a financial debt, therefore I answered accordingly (see Matt. 18). Now you are speaking about justice – this involves a debt with the law, which is a different thing. If I, as a judge, made a law for whose transgression there is a fine, and you break that law and doesn’t have the money to pay the fine, I (the judge) can pay that fine – that debt – for you and let you go free.


Does this refer to absolute or intrinsic righteousness? Of course not. What do you make of 1 John 1:8?

1 John 1:8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


Not in the sense of an absolute or intrinsic righteousness.
Remember that God requires from us a perfect obedience like that of Adam before his fall - this means no sin at all.


No, what I’m claiming sounds like Luther’s theology (simul iustus et peccator).

And sounds like EGW theology:

“In ourselves we are sinners; but in Christ we are righteous. Having made us righteous through the imputed righteousness of Christ, God pronounces us just, and treats us as just. He looks upon us as His dear children. Christ works against the power of sin, and where sin abounded, grace much more abounds. ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God’ (Rom. 5:1, 2). {1SM 394.1}”

“Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God. But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet. He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ's character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned. More than this, Christ changes the heart. He abides in your heart by faith.” {SC 62} [Please notice that she distinguishes between the sinner being accounted righteous and the change in his heart; these are two different aspects, although simultaneous]

And sounds like Paul's theology:

1 Timothy 1:15 Faithful is the word, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom *I* am the first. [the pronoun is emphatic in the Greek]

Ford’s theology is the theology of the evangelicals. He excludes heart renewal from justification and places it in sanctification. Justification for him – and for them - is only a legal pronouncement.


I think COL 312 refers to sanctification, not to justification. By the way, do you see any difference between justification and sanctification? If so, what is the difference?


It would be more fruitful if you tried to explain what the passage means, instead of saying this theology is impossible.


Again, this is one of the aspects of justification, the one Waggoner concentrates in. But there is the other one, the legal one, which EGW mentions and which does not make sense under your theology. I would like you to explain the EGW passages I quote. There is no use in your quoting other EGW (or Waggoner’s) passages which are concentrating in other points.

Forgiveness is not merely a judicial act, but it is also a judicial act. What, however, does a judicial act have to do with your theology?

From "The Great Controversy"



As far as Lucifer's being restored to harmony with God, this looks like all that was necessary.

If you're talking about man:



This is just dealing with the aspect of man's being brought into harmony with God. There's still the aspect of Lucifer's accusations to be considered.



So, to answer your question, there is something else that needs to be taken care of.

But the law just represents God, so it's not a different thing. The law is not a third party to whom God owes something. The debt that's owed is owed to God.



Here's a comment by Waggoner on what we've been discussing:



This speaks of both a penalty being paid and of God pardoning an injury done to Himself. Do you agree with this?

(continued)

So what? Intrinsic righteousness has nothing to do with our discussion.

Righteousness is by faith. It's not something we have intrinsically.

The point is that a righteous person is someone who is obedient to the law. When God declares a person righteous, the power of His word makes the person righteous, and he becomes obedient to the law; iow, he is righteous.

Another way of seeing this is by way of the New Covenant. How does one become a partaker of the New Covenant? By believing in Christ. What happens when one does that? The law is written in the heart. What can we say of a person in whose heart the law is written? Such a person is righteous.



I think John is expressing a similar thought to the following:





I don't understand why you are speaking of intrinsic righteousness. When I say "righteous," I mean "righteous" as when the Bible speaks of a person being "righteous." When Abraham believed God, it was imputed to him for righteousness. Abraham was born into the family of God, having become righteous. That righteousness was manifest by obedience ("Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.") the same as for any child of God.



This is why He gives us the righteousness of Christ.



Also, this requirement is not something arbitrary. It's a "requirement" as a recognition of fact. In order to be at peace with God, at harmony with Him, we must be righteous, because He is righteous. Otherwise, if sin reigns in our heart, we will have no desire to have anything to do with Him:






Isn't this exactly what you are doing with COL 312?

Regarding SC 62, I think you're misunderstanding her. The "more than this" is not separate from the declaration of righteousness; it is the declaration of righteousness which changes the heart! God declares the repentant sinner righteousness, and that declaration puts righteousness into the person's heart; he is born again, a changed person.



Anyone who has seen the cross and understood it will feel like Paul. By the cross, sin is seen as an ugly thing, as something which caused the death of God's dear Son. When we recognize that it was *our* sin which caused His death, that thought pricks our conscience, and we cry out like Paul, that "that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom *I* am chief."



You think being covered by the robes of Christ's righteousness is not justification?



Will anyone be saved who is not a true follower of Christ? If not, then all saved persons will be covered by the garment of Christ's righteousness. Since all true followers of Christ are precisely those, and only those, who are saved, or justified, it follows that those who are covered by Christ's righteousness are exactly those who are justified.

In other words, there are no justified people who are not covered with the robe of Christ's righteousness.

Immediately following she says:



Receiving Christ as one's personal Savior is simply another way of saying "justified by faith."

A little while later:



Every believing soul, which is to say every justified person, has this robe of righteousness.

Regarding the difference between sanctification and justification, sanctification is the process of a lifetime. It, like justification, is a free gift, by faith in Jesus Christ. Sanctification is the result of justification applied throughout one's life.



I wasn't commenting on the passage, but on the discrepancy between a Ford-like theology (i.e., "legal fiction") and Waggoner's theology. Here's what I said:



At any rate, please pardon the hyperbole. I try to catch these and edit them out, but sometimes they get through. I should have said, "I don't see how the theology you are suggesting that Ellen White held could be possible!" etc. Sorry about that.



But they're not concentrating on other points. There's one subject, which is justification by faith. Waggoner wrote hundreds of pages on this subject. I've asked you to select *any* quote of his which deals with the subject.

I've argued that Waggoner could not have been correct in his teachings of righteousness by faith if he was off in regards to his teaching of imputed righteousness, since this is such a cornerstone to understanding righteousness by faith. I have argued that if no comments of Waggoner's can be adduced which are different than what I've been saying, then it's fair to characterize my view as being the same as his. I've argued that since Ellen White endorsed Waggoner's view, and my view is the same as his, she endorsed the ideas I've been presenting.



This is discussed in the following quote:



The law testifies to the righteousness that a person has in Christ. Since the righteousness of a person who believes in Christ is the righteousness of Christ Himself, the judicial declaration of the person's being righteous is just. The judicial declaration is a recognition of fact.

Returning to this:



Fair enough. I've given a brief description here, but will go back and discuss them in more detail.

I'd like to request the same of you. For example, from the DA 311 quote we read the following:



Any contrite soul is a justified person, right? That is, one cannot be justified without being contrite. Since Christ "always" separates the contrite soul from sin, it follows that all justified persons are separated from sin. Now the contrite person who is separated from sin is not transgressing the law, but obeying it. Therefore he is not only called righteous, but is righteous, since a righteous person is one who obeys the law.