This is a confusing answer. It looks like, by "He could have" what you mean is "No, He couldn't have," unless you somehow misunderstood my question as asking if Christ was physically able to pronounce these words.

If He really could have, that would make it seem there *isn't* a difference.

Here's a description from "The Desire of Ages" of how one is saved:



This looks an awful lot like a description of how one is justified. Couldn't Ellen White have just as easily asked, "How, then, are we to be justified?" If you're answer is, "She could have, but she didn't, so they must be different," please explain how Jesus Christ, in the case of the publican, is describing justification but not salvation, and how Ellen White here is describing salvation but not justification.



Here it looks like "justification" and "salvation" are being used interchangeably.



There are other explanations as to why things are muddy. Perhaps Waggoner's teachings were rejected even though they were messages from God, as the SOP asserts. If this is the case, the "muddiness" could be resolved simply by ceasing the rejection of light.



I haven't said a word about distinguishing between justification and salvation.

You know, Ellen White said that Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. Given this is true, shouldn't we be considering Waggoner's writings to understand righteousness by faith?

It is a great mystery to me that there are those who are strongly convinced of Ellen White's being a prophet (a good thing) but simultaneously give no heed to Jones or Waggoner, despite her endorsements of their message (e.g. a "message of God to the church of Laodicea.")

Indeed, I believe there are important distinctions - one is the condition for salvation, the other the condition of salvation.


Whoever God justifies, He also sanctifies. The thief was no exception.

Many people wonder how he could have been sanctified while hanging on the cross, since he was unable to "do good works." There are two facts to look at.

First, he DID do good works. Paul said if we confess with our mouths the Lord Jesus we will be saved. The thief did.

More importantly, some need a paradigm shift. There is a belief that justification is what God does for us, while sanctification is what we do for God. Hence, the thief could not have been sanctified. But I believe that BOTH justification and sanctification are works that God does, and we are the recipients. Justification is what God does FOR us, and sanctification is what God does IN us.

So did the thief receive the promise of eternal life without being sanctified? I believe he was sanctified. The holy purpose for which God used him was so great that we're still talking about those few hours over 2000 years later. In contrast, when I give a sermon, even I don't remember what I said a few hours later. That thief did more work than most Christians ever will. Yes, he was sanctified.

Why the mystery, mate?

A quick perusal of the recommended Whidden paper should put your angst to rest.


Evangelical and Adventist theology, when it's all said and done, has little in common as you can see.

Though understanding the moderate and progressive element in post-QOD Adventism is always helpful when dialoguing with friends.

William

I posted something on this a while back, but I can't find it. I'll try to repeat it here.

The Greek for "justified" is dikaioo. Strong gives this definition:
These are the three main meanings I get:
1) to be made holy (Rom 5:1)
2) to show evidence of holiness (Rom 3:20, 4:2)
3) to be declared holy (Rom 3:28)

So EGW can use "justification" as legal (#3) and transformative (#1) and still be within the scope of biblical usage. And of course, #1 inevitably leads to #2, to which James attests. While many claim that Paul contradicted James - one saying that Abraham was justified by works and the other rebutting that Abraham was justified without works - the fact is that they were both correct; just looking at different angles.

I doubt that Paul went around calling James an ignorant legalist. Neither can I imagine James calling Paul a pillar-destroying antinomian. If only we were as charitable and circumspect today, perhaps "primitive godliness" would be practiced more than it is preached. And considering how often it is preached today gives you an idea how much I think it is practiced.

If I may recommend another QOD presentation, check out J. Paulien's stuff.

OK, let me clear it up.

Jesus could have enunciated the word "saved" if that's what He wanted to say. But apparently, He wanted to say something else. If we look later in the chapter, Luke 18:42, we find that Jesus could say "saved" when He wanted to. But it was in the context of healing.


They can sometimes be used interchangeably, but that doesn't mean they always mean the same thing. Remember your long-winded debate with R about propensity/tendency? You're sitting in R's chair now.

I'll provide one quote, which is all that's needed to disprove a theory.

Can we replace "saved" with "justified" in this case, and still be true to Bible doctrine?


Yes, they were unjustly rejected. Why? Because they were tearing down "pillars" of our faith that weren't pillars at all. The truths we could have learned as a people if we were more concerned with mining truth than with defending "Adventist beliefs." There is no excuse in thinking that all our doctrines are without error, no matter how long we have held them.

And now, the spiritual descendants of Jones and Waggoner show that they have learned their history well, using against dissenters the same weapons used to destroy their fathers. Satan seems to play with the "remnant" like a cat plays with a ball of yarn. Will we ever learn?

it is so easy to get caught up in the game.......
great thoughts, succinctly stated.

This makes no sense, Arnold. There are many words one can use to convey meaning in a language. The fact that one chooses a word doesn't imply that one purposefully intends not to use another word. It's possible this could be the case, but it's ridiculous to *conclude* this is the case.

For example, you used the word "enunciated." You could have said, "articulated." By your logic I should conclude that apparently you wanted to say something other than "articulated". Similarly you said "apparently" instead of "seemingly." You said "wanted" instead of "wished" or "desired." At every pass, we have to choose among synonyms (unless we want to talk like the Amplified Bible). The fact that we do so does not necessarily mean there's a reason we choose one word instead of another, other than we're constrained to choose something. It *might* mean something significant, but there's certainly no way to conclude that it does simply because we chose one word instead of another.

If we look at the next chapter, in the case of Zacchaeus, Jesus said, "Salvation has come to this house." Are we to conclude that, because Jesus used the word "salvation" instead of "justified", Zacchaeus was not justified when He accepted Christ?



"Salvation" is a broader term than "justification." There was a context to my question, which was your comment that "sanctification is salvation" whereas justification is a prelude to salvation (These aren't your exact words, but this was what I understood your meaning to be. If you don't think this is sufficiently precise, you can just repost what you said before about justification in the post where you said "sanctification is salvation.")

So my point in asking if "justification is salvation" is using "salvation" in precisely the same way you were; that is, I'm taking your definition for "salvation" in your statement that "sanctification is salvation" and asking if "justification is salvation."



This is a good case of indeterminate pronouns. Let's see:
1."They" = postlapsarians.
2."Dissenters" means prelapsarians.
3."Same weapons" = thinking postlapsarian is a pillar and not an error when it isn't a pillar and is an error.
4."Their fathers" = those who were rejecting Jones and Waggoner.

This is the only way that makes sense to me to understand what you're writing, but seems problematic. It would have those who agree with Jones and Waggoner being dissenters of theirs, as well as making the truth which Jones and Waggoner brought into error.

Given that:
1.Jones and Waggoner had the truth of righteousness by faith.
2.Original sin/the human nature of Christ plays a profound part in understanding righteousness by faith.

doesn't it follow that

3.Jones and Waggoner had the truth about original sin/the human nature of Christ?



I think so. I think some day the message brought by Jones and Waggoner will be accepted.

Justification is something God does in us as well. Here are three quotes which bring this out:







Here's an argument from Scripture that this is the case:



One more:



So justification is what God does in a person every bit as much as sanctification is.

Regarding #111576, William, it would be nice if some SDA historians would write biographies about Jones and Waggoner who didn't disagree with them and weren't set upon proving them "aberant." (This is actually quoting from George Knight, who wrote about A. T. Jones. Not a good starting point for a biography, having the desire to show someone "aberant" from the get go. I know Whidden has no love lost for Waggoner either, speaking from a theological consideration. Rambling on a bit here, which I'm allowed to do, as I'm still within parentheses, I got a kick out of reading Whidden's dissertation, purported on the soteriology of Ellen White. Whenever Ellen White wrote something like Christ took our sinful nature, Whidden described such statements as "problematic.")

However, your comments still don't resolve the mystery for me. I don't understand the belief that Ellen White is a prophet and the simultaneous disbelief in the message of Jones and Waggoner.

I can go for that.