No, but it's possible to not have perfect faith, or to choose not to exercise it when being tempted.

Thank you for answering my question. I agree people can reach a point where they no longer sin, but their salvation is based entirely on the fact Jesus 1) paid their sin debt of death, and 2) clothes them with His robe of righteousness.

I do not, of course, agree possessing sinful flesh prevents Jesus from being our sin substitute and Savior. It is not a sin to possess sinful flesh. Sin is the transgression of the law - not possessing sinful flesh which clamors for sinful expression.

The same applies to Jesus, right? He could have sinned if He hadn't exercised perfect faith every moment of every day of His life.

But I did answer it. Do you remember I quoted 1 John 1:8? (see below).


And, as I had asked in a previous post, what do you do with the same John who says

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8)?

How would you describe a righteous person who is not without sin?
It’s not just that “our vision of ourselves as sinners rests in our having crucified Christ by our sins,” but it rests also in the fact that occasionally we do sin. About this, Gill says,

“The sins of believers are equally sins with other persons, are of the same kind and nature, and equally transgressions of the law, ... now though a believer may say that he has not this or that particular sin, or is not guilty of this or that sin, ... yet he cannot say he has no sin.”

And as I pointed out in my previous post (not to mention the subject of our pre-conversion sins), even if the standard of perfect righteousness – no sin - can and will be attained, only when it is attained could we be called righteous with propriety, otherwise we are called righteous without in fact being righteous.


Aren’t all justified persons still growing in their contrition? Do you know any justified person who has never sinned after his/her justification? As far as I know, both Moses and Elijah sinned just some days before they went to heaven.


Sorry, but I wasn’t understanding what you were asking, and I told you so. Our mindsets are so different we many times talk past each other.


Jones and Waggoner turned the eyes of the church members again to Jesus, whom they (the latter) had lost sight of. But what was distinctive about their message in relation to their predecessors was that righteousness by faith was presented in the setting of the third angel’s message. Ellen White says this:

“The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Jones and Waggoner. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. ... This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel’s message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure” (TM 91, 92).

And Waggoner himself says this, in one of his closing remarks in The Gospel in the Book of Galatians:

"If our people should today, as a body (as they will sometime), change their view on this point, it would simply be ... a step nearer the faith of the great Reformers from the days of Paul to the days of Luther and Wesley. It would be a step closer to the heart of the Third Angel's Message. I do not regard this view which I hold as a new idea at all. It is not a new theory of doctrine. Everything that I have taught is perfectly in harmony with the fundamental principles of truth which have been held not only by our people, but by all the eminent reformers."


Well, I understood he had access to materials written by Waggoner before 1888. I can’t think I once had access to all this material when I worked at the White State Center, and I now live so far from it.
The problem with “The Gospel in Galatians” (and, in fact, with all his subsequent material) is that he doesn’t explain clearly his views on justification and sanctification and doesn’t define the terms.


About the covenants, remember?
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=96613&fpart=6


Have you read attentively the quote you provided?

"Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper." (1888 Mat. 533)

You presented the very same argument in the discussion to which I provided the link, and I gave on the occasion the very same reply that I will give now: Ellen White in this passage is by no means analyzing if Christ’s nature was fallen or unfallen, but the fact that He took “man’s nature,” otherwise “He could not have been tempted as man has been.” As far as I know, man could be tempted both before and after his fall, so she is here speaking of the human condition, not of a pre-fall or post-fall condition.

If I may address this point. First, John isn’t saying in 1 John 1:8 that people will continue to sin until Jesus returns and rewards them with a sinless body and nature. Since this isn’t what he’s saying, what is he saying? The context makes it clear he’s talking about past sins, that is, “all have sinned”, therefore, anyone who says otherwise is a liar and the truth is not in them.

Secondly, 1 John 3:7 is true while believers are abiding in Jesus. That they might sin in the near future is immaterial. Whether they ever sin again or not has no bearing on the truthfulness of what John wrote, which is, believers do not and cannot sin while abiding in Jesus.

John isn’t referring to anyone and everyone. He’s referring to seasoned saints, to people who “have received the knowledge of the truth,” who are “enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come”. Hebrews 10:26 and 6:4,5. People like Paul, Peter, James, etc, people who are thoroughly indoctrinated in the truth as it is in Jesus.

People like this experience real righteousness while they are abiding in Jesus, while they are walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, while they are partaking of the divine nature. It’s real righteousness, not imputed, or a combination of imputed and imparted righteousness.

People who have not been thoroughly indoctrinated like the people mentioned above, who are not obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded because they are unaware of certain aspects of the truth, are experiencing a combination of real righteousness and imputed righteousness to make up for their sins of ignorance. But John didn’t describe these people in 1 John.

Rosangela, I'm not understanding your answer to my question regarding what John says. Johns says whoever does righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous. What do you think he means?

In regards to my request for a statement from Scripture which says that we are merely called righteous, but not actually righteous, you are suggesting that the following is such a statement?



If so, this would seem to me to be forcing John to say something he has no intention of saying. The statement "he who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous" would seem to be so clear as to not be able to be misunderstood. A righteous person is one who does righteousness, or, conversely, one who does righteousness is a righteous person. Especially when you take the context into consideration, this seems especially clear. I don't understand how you can get from John's statement the idea "One who does righteousness is not really righteous, but merely called righteous."



She said, "Christ always separates the contrite soul from sin." This is a clear and easy to understand statement. A contrite soul is separated from sin.

A person's faith may waiver, or a person may fall into temptation, or whatever, but her statement isn't dealing with this, but simply stating that Christ always does something, which is to separate the contrite soul from sin. If a person is separated from sin, then wouldn't he be righteous?

Let's take a look at John again:



This is speaking of one who is born again, which is to say justified. It's very similar in thought to the COL 312 passage. It is speaking in very practical terms of what constitutes a righteous person (i.e. someone who is born again) and what doesn't. Again, I don't see where John's statement leaves room for the idea of a born again person being merely called righteous but not actually being righteous.

Regarding your point about a person not having sin, I understand that John is getting at the same thing EGW addresses here:



This doesn't imply that a person is actively sinning, nor that a person need to sin, as the following (and many, many other statements) makes clear:





Ok, thank you. I understand this, and accept it. I was bringing this up because I would like to avoid what happened recently in the Col. 2:14 thread where I labored for many posts to establish a point that you already agreed with.



What do you mean by this? (the last sentence).



I know she says this. I quoted it to you. I pointed out she says, "it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God" which is to say that one who is justified by faith is not merely called righteous, but manifests obedience to all the commandments of God (i.e., is righteous).



It's natural that Waggoner would write something like this; he was a humble man. However, he, as the porter of the message, was unaware of somethings Ellen White, the prophet, was aware of. For example, she identified the message which Jones and Waggoner presented as the beginning of the loud cry, and of the latter rain. She identified this with the specific message they were being presented, and this was well known by Adventists at the time.

Ellen White wrote that Jones and Waggoner brought light that we would not otherwise have had unless God had sent someone else to bring it. The message Jones and Waggoner preached was not simply what Luther preached. There were distinctive elements to the message, some of which I've been quoting from "Christ and His Righteousness," which is taken from what Waggoner presented at the 1888 GC session.



The book "Christ and His Righteousness" is one of the clearest books on the subject I've every read. Actually, I can't think of anything clearer. One of the big problems of teaching justification by faith is how to relate salvation being by grace on the one hand with obedience to the commandments being necessary on the other. Sister White struggled with this, and knew what she wanted to say, but was unable to express it, except in private conversations with her husband. When she heard Waggoner present righteousness by faith, she lit up. She said, "There is great light here!" She saw in his words what she had been trying to present herself, and immediately recognized it as light from heaven.

In regards to considering Waggoner's writings, the time to be concerned with is the time during which he was being endorsed. Ellen White endorsed him (or Jones) nearly 2,000 times during the years 1888 through 1896. There are many articles available on line that one can look at. His theology didn't change during this time. This isn't to say he didn't have new insights, of course, but the doctrine of justification by faith which he taught was the same as what he presented in Mpls. in 1888 and Ellen White continued to enthusiastically endorse it throughout this time. When Prescott jumped on the bandwagon in 1895, she endorsed him as enthusiastically as she had been endorsing them.



I'm only aware of one disagreement that Waggoner had with Ellen white, which is the one I cited. I wasn't aware of the statement from the Oct. ST that you mentioned, and don't know enough about it to comment upon it. Regarding the Covenants, she writes:



And shortly thereafter:



So *she* obviously viewed her person as agreeing with Waggoner's. Hence I think it is more likely if someone thinks there is a disagreement between Waggoner and EGW, that such a person is mistaken than that Waggoner and EGW differ on this subject, since Ellen White herself didn't think so.



I don't understand what you're suggesting. Here's what I understand:

1.Jones and Waggoner preached that Christ took our fallen human nature.

2.Ellen White was preaching with them.

3.Letters came to her saying that Christ could not have taken our fallen human nature, because if He had, He would have fallen under the temptations we do.

Ellen White countered this by saying:

1.If Christ did not take our fallen human nature, it would not have been possible for Him to have yielded to temptation (which is what most pre-lapsarians believe, that Christ could not have sinned) because He could not have been tempted as we are tempted (with its implied ability of being able to fall to temptation).

I understand that unfallen Adam could have yielded to temptation, and that Christ taking human nature could have been tempted as unfallen Adam was, and failed like he did, which is what you're arguing (at least, what I understand you to be arguing). However, this isn't something Jones and Waggoner talked about, so I don't see how people could have had questions about this.

Also, I still don't understand why you think she said that letters had been coming to her affirming that Christ could not have taken our nature. It seems to me that if what you are suggesting were true, she would have written, "Letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have fallen under similar temptations that we do ..." Why did she mention taking human nature?

That is, as I see it:

1.Letters have been coming to me affirming that Christ could not have taken fallen human nature
2.Because had He done so, He would have fallen under similar temptations that we do.

You have (as I understand it):

1.Letters have been coming to me affirming that Christ could not have taken human nature (any kind)
2.Because had He done so, He would have fallen under similar temptations that we do.

I don't understand how this makes sense. I feel I must be misunderstanding you here. Surely no one was arguing Christ didn't take human nature. (or is this what you are suggesting(?))

Tom, I appreciate very much what you posted above. Thank you for the spirit and the content. Well done. God is good.

He means that he who does righteousness is righteous, in the sense that, while the fruits of Christ's imparted righteousness are seen in his life, Christ’s imputed righteousness makes up for his “unavoidable deficiencies.”


In fact, I don’t get this from John’s statement, but from my observation of Christians, including those of Bible times. I don't see them as without sin, deficiencies, imperfections.


What I’m saying from the beginning is that the Christian is righteous, but not in the absolute sense of the term. The Bible does call Christians righteous and saints but, as I said, this means they are considered to be such, without being so in the absolute sense of these terms.
I would like to know what you think about this: What happens when a Christian sins? Does he cease to be righteous? Yes or No? Why?


“Elder E. J. Waggoner had the privilege granted him of speaking plainly and presenting his views upon justification by faith and the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law. This was no new light, but it was old light placed where it should be in the third angel's message. What is the burden of that message? John sees a people. He says, ‘Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus’ (Rev. 14:12). This people John beholds just before he sees the Son of man ‘having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle’ (verse 14). The faith of Jesus has been overlooked and treated in an indifferent, careless manner. It has not occupied the prominent position in which it was revealed to John. Faith in Christ as the sinner's only hope has been largely left out, not only of the discourses given but of the religious experience of very many who claim to believe the third angel's message. At this meeting I bore testimony that the most precious light had been shining forth from the Scriptures in the presentation of the great subject of the righteousness of Christ connected with the law, which should be constantly kept before the sinner as his only hope of salvation. ... The third angel's message is the proclamation of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. The commandments of God have been proclaimed, but the faith of Jesus Christ has not been proclaimed by Seventh-day Adventists as of equal importance, the law and the gospel going hand in hand. I cannot find language to express this subject in its fullness.” {12MR 187, 188, 193}


Again, as I said in the past, she endorsed the main thrust of the message, which was the moral law as the revealer of sin, as condemning the sinner who is without a Savior, and how this relates to the old and the new covenants and to the subject of righteousness by faith.


What many people believe is that Christ took human nature but was incapable of yielding to temptation. Among those who believe this, there are both some pre-lapsarians and some post-lapsarians (as was the case of Waggoner). These two premises are mutually exclusive, as Ellen White points out:

“Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.” {DA 117.2}

Ellen White's point: If He took human nature without the possibility of yielding to temptation, that is, without one of its liabilities, it wasn't human nature that He took.

How do you get this from "He who does righteousness is righteous?" This seems like a classic case of eisegesis.



Ok, I agree you can't get this from John's statement. Regarding your comment, this is a different comment. You're talking about about perfection. John isn't talking about perfection, but of being righteous. John says a person who does righteousness is righteous. This is very simple. It agrees with the Hebrew concept of righteousness expressed all throughout the OT.



This is from Wiki (and if it's from Wiki, you know it can't be wrong).

This is from http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_NDCT_Righteousness.htm



The above brings out that "righteous," in Scripture, did not mean "someone who kept the law perfectly his whole life." It never had that meaning to any Jewish person. Clearly if this were what "righteous" meant, no one could be referred to as a righteous person.

From the same website:





You said that born again people are called righteous without really being righteous. What Waggoner said was the the power of God's word, which declares the sinner righteous, make his righteous, because God cannot lie. When God says "there is light" in a dark place, even though the place was dark, after God speaks the words, there is light. Similarly when God says, "there is righteousness" where there was none before God spoke, then there is righteousness.



This was Waggoner's argument. This was his understanding of imputed righteousness. I've been arguing that, given EGW's endorsements of rbf, that Waggoner's understanding on this point must have been correct. Either that or her endorsement was bogus. One could hardly be wrong on such a fundamental issue and have a correct view of rbf.



A saint, in Scripture, is simply someone who has believed in Jesus Christ. It seems to me you are using definitions of terms which are not in Scripture (i.e., the definitions), and then making statements about the terms using these definitions. For example, you say no one is righteous because they have not kept the law their whole life. But this was not the Hebrew understanding of the word "righteous." Similarly the word "saint," in Scripture, means simply one who has believed in Christ.



This is how I see it. It depends upon what you have in mind by saying "when a Christian sins". If you mean deliberate sin, then what John says applies:



If you mean an unknown sin, then the following applies:





I was actually asking what you meant by saying "righteousness by faith was presented in the setting of the third angel’s message."

By the way, there are both old light and new light quotes. People complained about both things, so she answered the complaints in both ways. That is, some people complained the J&W were presenting new light, so EGW responded to these people by saying that it wasn't new, it was in the Bible. Other people complained that there was nothing new about, and she responded to these people by pointing out that it was light from heaven that we would not have had unless God had sent someone else to bring it.



This argument doesn't work. It's not considering the historical facts, in particular the controversy in relation to the Law in Galatians.

Waggoner's whole framework on the covenants is summarized by this:



If you can't agree with this, you're not agreeing with his view on the Covenants. Waggoner's entire point, in regards to the covenants, was that it was not a matter of time but of condition. He used this argument to prove that the Law in Galatians was not the ceremonial law, but the moral law. His argument was that Paul's reasoning was not dispensational, as Butler was arguing.



The whole force of Waggoner's argument goes away without the dispensational argument, and also EGW's statement about their being afraid they'd have to change their minds regarding the Law in Galatians. She was correct in her observation, because the same dispensational (or anti-dispensation) argument that is the force of Waggoner's covenant view, knocks out their view of the Law in Galatians as well.

I'll catch the last comment on the nature of Christ later.

Again, if I may add my two cents worth. Jesus is the standard of Christianity – not fallen or faulty sinners. John describes Christians who are abiding in Jesus. While they are abiding in Jesus, walking in the Spirit, they are righteous like Jesus and for the same reasons Jesus was righteous.

When people neglect to abide in Jesus they cease to be righteous like Jesus, but the moment they repent God restores the relationship their sin severed. They resume being righteous like Jesus. They are only able to be righteous while abiding in Jesus. That’s what John is saying. He is not saying they will never sin again or that they have never sinned in the past.

SC 61
We do not earn salvation by our obedience; for salvation is the free gift of God, to be received by faith. But obedience is the fruit of faith. "Ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him." 1 John 3:5, 6. Here is the true test. If we abide in Christ, if the love of God dwells in us, our feelings, our thoughts, our purposes, our actions, will be in harmony with the will of God as expressed in the precepts of His holy law. "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous." 1 John 3:7. Righteousness is defined by the standard of God's holy law, as expressed in the ten precepts given on Sinai. {SC 61.1}

A mere profession of godliness is worthless. It is he that abideth in Christ that is a Christian. For "every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." In every clime, in every nation, our youth should cooperate with God. The only way a person can be pure is to become like-minded with God. How can we know God?--By studying His Word. . . . {SD 297.2}

It is through faith in Jesus Christ that the truth is accepted in the heart and the human agent is purified and cleansed. Jesus was "wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Is it possible to be healed, while knowingly committing sin?--No; it is genuine faith that says, I know that I have committed sin, but that Jesus has pardoned my sin; and hereafter I will resist temptation in and through His might. "Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." He has an abiding principle in the soul, that enables him to overcome temptation. {SD 297.3}

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." God has power to keep the soul who is in Christ, when that soul is under temptation. "Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." That is, every one who is a true believer is sanctified through the truth, in life and character. "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth {not professeth to do} righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; . . . because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil." Now mark where the distinction is made: "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither is he that loveth not his brother." "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth." {SD 297.4}