You're partly right regarding the reformers view of the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. They did not have the understanding that we do regarding the immutable nature of the law, and yet they did look to Christ there for all their strength and grace to keep the law as they understood it. And by all accounts they were often more faithful to the truth than Adventists have been to the increased light that we have. Waggoner lost his way and his ministry became ineffective. One of the reasons for his personal tragidy is no doubt a skewed view of the character of God that began in failing to yield in some point to the Holy Spirit and that eventually crippled his theology. The very points that you seize on are the symptoms of his trouble.

Isn't it true that all those who go astray do so blindly. Those who presecute the saints do it as a service to God. But they could have known better if they had permitted themselves to be enlightened.

Because the reformers were not convicted on the Sabbath, does it follow that they were in error on predestination? Not at all. The Sabbath is another progressive truth that many will accept once they are ready for it. Does that bar them from accepting more advanced truth than we might have? No. Not if they follow the light that they do have. And the Sabbath is no barrier to accepting gross error when it is only kept as a form. The Jews who crucified Christ were in gross error on many points and while they clung to the outward froms of the law.

Mark, regarding predestination, I'm not quite sure what your position is. Is it the same as Luther's? Assuming it is, do you realize that this position is contrary to what every SDA taught in the 19th century?

In the twentieth I have come across a few who hold to the Reformationist ideas on predestination, but those who I have met recognize that their views do not agree with Ellen White's views, and set her aside. I have never met anyone who holds to the Reformationist views of predesitination and simultaneously accepted Ellen White's views, since they are so clearly contrary the one to the other.

This is from Waggoner, "The Everlasting Covenant"

In this covenant, securing to Christ the "travail of his soul" (Isa.53:11), lies the predestination and foreordination of the Scriptures, so troublesome to many. It is simply the "election of grace," not of any particular individuals, singled out and made sure of heaven, independent of their own wills, free choice, or mode of action, but only of those who are willing to receive Christ as their Saviour, and do his will. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." John 1:12. Those whom the Father hath given him are the elect; and all are given to him, who make it their will to accept him; and of these he will lose none, but raise them up at the last day. John 6:39,40.

When the plan of salvation had been formed, and Christ had elected to give his life for the redemption of men, he was then, already, in the intent and purpose of that plan, the offered victim, and is spoken of as the "Lamb slain" - "slain from the foundation of the world" (kosmos), or from the time when the redemptive economy was established. Rev.13:8. It will be noticed that he is not said to have been slain before the foundation of the world, implying that the fall of man and redemption by the death of Christ, were events fixed and foreordained before the world was formed, and man created. This would place too powerful a weapon against the divine government, in the hands of the skeptic.

But the disbeliever asks with an air of expected victory, Did not God foreknow that man would sin? Was it not therefore a settled fact that he would sin? And did not God, therefore, when he made man with that certainty before him, become responsible for the entrance of sin into this world? - So it might look from that point of view, and with that method of reasoning. But as the Scriptures do not so express it, it is not necessary to formulate it to such a conclusion.

God made man, as he must make all intelligences who are to serve him, a free moral agent, that such service may not be mechanical and constrained, but voluntary and free. As such, he could obey or disobey; could maintain his rectitude or fall into sin. His course was to be determined by his own choice. God did not force him to sin, nor did he intend that he should sin. On the other hand, he made every possible inducement (short of constraining his free will) to keep him in the path of obedience. Being free, of course God knew that he might sin; but this would be a very different thing from saying that he know that he would sin.(end quote)

This is just what I've shared so many times. God knew of the possibility of sin, which is inevitable because of free will. God predestinates individuals in Christ to be saved, but they can use their free will to choose to be lost.

Tom, it is an equally fatal delusion to seize on the errors of Waggoner and promote them as new light. I accept the main part of their message that Ellen White endorsed. But clearly neither their message nor their experience was error free. You mainly promote the errors found in Waggoner's message. One of the reasons Ellen White warned that they might be overthrown is she saw that they already endorsed some error and also she very likely detected that they were not meeting some of their trials as good soldiers in the cause of Christ. Error in theology has its root in both preconceived opinion and in a false religious experience. If we don't meet our trials in the strength of Christ our theology ultimately becomes skewed.

Regarding Ellen White's theology on predestination and free will I've given evidence of her position in prior posts. She definitely is similar if not identical to Luther on the role of free will. And that view is foundational to the election doctrine.

Mark, what of their message do you accept? Could you quote something specific from Waggoner or Jones? I'd be interested in seeing this. You say you accept the "main part". Would that include elements which they characterize as essential to salvation?

I'm not aware of any error in Waggoner or Jones' message, during the time EGW endorsed them, except for the error that Ellen White corrected Waggoner on, which was that Jesus couldn't sin because He had perfect faith. What error were you thinking of? I assume you would agree with me that any errors they may have had must have been very minor, or Ellen White, who endorsed them over 1,000 times, surely would have warned us about it, right?

Quote:

---

One of the reasons Ellen White warned that they might be overthrown is she saw that they already endorsed some error and also she very likely detected that they were not meeting some of their trials as good soldiers in the cause of Christ.

---

You just made this up, right? You don't have any evidence of this, do you? I'd be interested in seeing any statement from the Spirit of Prophecy suggesting that they might be overthrown because they already endorsed some error. I've read the 2,000 pages released by the Ellen White estate on this subject, and don't ever recall reading anything like this.

You think Ellen White is similar or identical to Luther on free will? That's interesting. I don't recall any evidence you posted suggesting this. I recall you're saying there is not such thing as free will, which is certainly contrary to what Ellen White taught. Perhaps you could indicate the number of the post you had in mind. I'd be very interested in seeing such evidence as I've read quite a lot of her writings, and a fair amount of Luther as well, and don't recall their positions being identical. I find her position to be pretty much identical to Wesley's, not Luther's.

Tom, I did post on some of Ellen White's statements on free will. You'll have to look for those posts. I'm sorry I don't have time to look them up again.

Here is what the German reformers through Philip Melancthon said regarding free will in the famous Augsburg Confession almost 500 years ago.

Article 18: Free Will

"Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc.

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc. "

I looked through the confession quickly and I didn't see any direct reference to the election, which is a good indicator that the reformers did not view the doctrine as essential. But it would be interesting to do a survey of the reformers from Luther for the first 100 years of the reformation. My impression is that they were quite united on the election doctrine. What seems to have happened since that time is that as the protestant church wained in spirituality it lost its hold on some important truths and human reason, which was also the downfall of the early church, came in to make false contrasts. This is similar to your approach Tom in focusing on one aspect of salvation, the relational, to the exclusion of the legal issue. In scripture both exist in harmony and both are aspects of our salvation. In the same way, the election doctine does not exclude free will (as the Bible teaches free will) and as set out in the Augsburg Confession. And free will does not do violence to the election.

What we're dealing with is compatibilistic and imcompatibilistic or libertarian free will. The reformers, taking after Augustine, were compatibilitistic, whereas Arminius, and those who followed after the Arminian tradition are libertarian.

There is a whole structure of beliefs which follow from whether one takes a deterministic (i.e. compatibilistic) or libertarian point of view. This impacts how one views election, predestination, and free will. Adventists have always been libertarian on these views!

It shows great confusion to mix Ellen White's views on these points with Luther. They really don't have anything to do with one another. Luther often writes that there is no such thing as free will; that no being has free will, except God. This is in agreement with Augustine's teachings, but has nothing to do with Ellen White's view, or any other Adventist of the 19th century. This idea is simply foreign to Adventism, until the second half of the twentieth century.

Here's just one simple example of this:

To-day Christ is inviting us, "Come unto me, . . . and I will give you rest." He waits to raise to newness of life those who are dead in trespasses and sins. But he uses no compulsion. He employs no external force. We are left free to act as we choose. If we turn from disloyalty, and place ourselves under the banner of Christ, it is because that of our own free will we choose to do this. (YI 9/20/00)

Ellen White understood that even the unconverted have free will.

Now this does not mean that someone can become converted without God's involvement. Of course not! But God's action is not unilateral, and that's the key point. Ellen White, and all SDA's who were her contemporaries, emphasized the exercising of one's free will in salvation. This is in complete contrast to Luther who emphasized the opposite! Luther stated there was no free will (which you also have stated), and that salvation must be a unlateral decision on the part of God.

Either we have free will or we don't. Either Luther was right, or Ellen White, but not both.

I'll end with the following:

THAT the Bible teaches predestination, is true; that it teaches what modern theology defines the term to mean, we think is not true. As set forth in the Scriptures, it is a doctrine full of comfort and consolation; as taught in the creeds, it is full of spiritual paralysis and despair. In the Scriptures, it is the assurance of salvation so long as we maintain a certain relation to God; in theology, it is a relation determined for us independently of our own will, and a fixed destiny to a life which we cannot lose, or a death, which we cannot avert. Webster defines the word "predestination" in its theological acceptation to mean. "The purpose of God from eternity respecting all events; often the pre-assignment or allotment of men to everlasting happiness or misery."

The tendency of this latter doctrine must be at once apparent. It leads the individual to throw off all responsibility, and intermit all efforts for himself. He says, If my destiny has been fixed from all eternity by an irreversible decree, I might as well resign myself to my fate, and let the current take me where it has been predetermined that it shall take me: if I am to be saved, I shall be saved, and no one can prevent it; if I am to be lost, I cannot avoid it.

It is impossible to arouse such a soul to repentance. The answer comes, If I am to repent, God will make me repent when the time comes; and I need not concern myself about it. Such an one cannot be induced to heed the divine injunction to flee from the wrath to come; for he says, If I am appointed to that wrath, flee as I will, I cannot avoid it; and if not, then for me there is no wrath to come.


I'm not positive who wrote this, but pretty sure it was Uriah Smith. It's a typical 19th century SDA statement on predestination.

What do you find wrong with Article 18 on free will? I'll repeat that Ellen White's view of free will agrees with this statement. Can you provide any scripture or statements from her that disagree? Did you review the statements I provided Tom? We need to look carefully at this pivitol document which, along with the Marburg declaration are the the first two public confessions of faith of Protestantism. As far as I know, all of the European Protestants were in agreement with it at the time, including the Swiss who also sent representatives to Augsburg.

Does anyone know what the English reformers believed - Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Barnes, Latimer, Knox etc. I've heard Knox was Calvinist, but I'm not aware of the rest.

To clarify, I said recently that the election doctrine and the doctrine of free will were initially viewed by the Protestant reformers as being in harmony with each other. I suggested that the increasing tension between the two was a result of backsliding in Protestantism. I just want to clarify that it appears to have occurred in both branches of Protestantism. Those who took the Calvinist path also lost the harmony that the initial reformed church understood.

There is a balance that needs to be struck. Today, on one hand the liberal branch of Protestantism is ready to accept all interpretations of scripture as valid and to acknowledge other 'holy' writings outside of scripture as well. These churches are no longer Protestant. On the other, there are many who take the scripture only but then futher narrow that to texts that will agree with their view. We need the whole of scripture including and especially the parts we don't understand well.