Law, Grace, and Salvation

From the book "Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin

In order to understand the Adventist view of law and grace, especially in relation to eternal
salvation, we must consider the Adventist antipathy toward antinomianism.

The very word "antinomian" (anti, against, and nomos, law) describes the conflict between
those who believe that not only were the Ten Commandments abrogated at Calvary but even the
principles underlying them were "abolished" so that the Christian is bound neither by them nor
by those who believe that the Decalogue is as binding today as when it was given at Sinai.

From the beginning of church history, the great majority of evangelical Christians have been
as strongly opposed to antinomianism as are the Adventists. Unfortunately, however, the latter
have tended to label antinomian anyone who disagrees with their definition of "the law of God."
Consequently, this has created a great problem in semantics, which has disrupted the lines of
communication, so to speak, between Adventists and other Christians. Although we believe in
obeying the laws of God and in good works as the evidence of saving faith, we strenuously
object to "commandment-keeping" to the extent of supposed spiritual superiority. A principal
cause of their legalistic tendencies is the Adventists' abhorrence of antinomianism.

By virtue of the fact that they obey the Fourth Commandment as well as the other nine,
Adventists maintain that they alone are God's commandment-keeping church. To be sure,
theologians have differed over the nature and extent of the moral law of God, and doubtless the
controversy will continue until our Lord comes again. Any group, however, that feels they are
the only ones that keep God's commands is likely to foment schism in the body of Christ.

From their beginning, Adventists have concentrated upon "the law of God," and in
Questions on Doctrine they devote thirty-four pages to the exposition of this subject. Although
the Adventists repudiate legalism, that is, the doctrine that keeping the law merits salvation, a
legalistic spirit does exist in some of their teaching. For example, although denying that the
ceremonial law is binding upon Christians, they quote from it to defend their classifying certain
foods as "unclean." Although Adventists reject antinomianism, in their desire to avoid the
abuses of grace they actually abuse grace by magnifying the letter of the law. How Adventists
arrived at this position has been well explained by D. M. Canright (Seventh-day Adventism
Renounced, chapter 17). In one place, Canright sets forth a series of propositions which, in some
areas, are exegetically irrefutable, and with which I am in full agreement.

Now let us examine the Adventist claim that the law is binding upon the Christian, as stated
in their Fundamental Beliefs, Questions on Doctrine, and wherever their writings touch on this
subject.

I. THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW

To begin with, we agree to the proposition that the principle underlying the moral laws of
God is indeed eternal and consistent with His character. However, we must distinguish between
the principle of the law of God and the expression of that principle in specific statutes such as
those in the Pentateuch. Because Adventists do not seem to make this distinction, it appears to
this writer that they relate law to grace, which is an unhealthy practice. They claim that "the
Law" was in effect in Eden and during all the centuries thence to Sinai. Wherever the Bible
speaks of "commandments" or "law," most Adventists apparently assume that it means the
Decalogue. We must, however, clearly differentiate between the principle of the law of God and
the function of the law of God as revealed in the Pentateuch. Not only the Adventists but many
historical Protestant groups have failed to make this distinction, and therefore have been guilty
of carrying over into the New Covenant some of the legalistic Jewish functions of the law.

A. The Dual-Law Theory

In Questions on Doctrine, the Adventists distinguish between "the moral law of God--the
Decalogue--and the ceremonial law," setting forth the distinctions in two columns.C-75 In
column one is the Decalogue, which was spoken by God, written by Him on tables of stone,
given to Moses, and deposited in the Ark. It dealt with moral precepts, revealed sin, and is in
effect today. They insist that Christians must "keep the whole law" (James 2:10), and that we
shall be judged by this law (James 2:12). They believe that the Decalogue is established in the
life of a Christian by faith in Christ (Romans 3:31), and that Christ magnified the law (Isaiah
42:21), which Paul described as "spiritual" (Romans 7:14).

In column two, Adventists analyze the law of ceremonial ordinances, which were abolished
at the cross. They contrast this with "the moral law of God--the Decalogue," stating that the
latter was not abolished because it was separate from the ceremonial law. Concerning the
ceremonial law, Adventists teach that it was spoken and written by Moses and given to the
Levites who deposited it by the side of the Ark, and that it governed ceremony and ritual. This
law prescribed offerings for sins, but the apostles gave no commandment to keep it, and the
Christian is not bound by it nor can he be blessed by it. Indeed, they say, "the Christian who
keeps this law loses his liberty"; it "was abolished by Christ," and was "the law of a carnal
commandment" containing nothing of a moral nature, the Decalogue being "the moral law of
God."

Now although there are both moral and ceremonial aspects of the law in the Pentateuch, as
well as civil and judicial, nowhere does the Bible state that there is any such juxtaposition of
ceremonial with moral law. In fact, the whole Bible teaches that "the law was given through
Moses" (John 1:17) and that it is essentially a unit, a fact that the Adventists have overlooked.
We make this observation after comparing the application of the term "law" in the Old and New
Testaments.

To illustrate: As noted above, the Adventists claim that the law of Moses and the Decalogue
are separate, the one being ceremonial, the other "the moral law of God." Therefore, although
the ceremonial law was abolished at the cross, the moral law remains in effect; and so they insist
in "commandment-keeping," not to earn salvation, but, as it works out in the practice of many,
to retain salvation. If, however, the ceremonial law and the Decalogue are inextricably bound
together, and if both are referred to as "the law," the distinction that the Adventists and others
make between them is fictitious. To prove this is to nullify their interpretation concerning "the
moral law." Let us examine the Scriptures to see whether such a distinction as they propose can
be sustained.

The highest authority on this subject is the Lord Jesus Christ. When speaking of "the law,"
He alluded to both moral and ceremonial precepts; e.g., Mark 10:19 (moral) and Luke 5:12-14
(ceremonial). The Gospels abound with similar references to "the law" without distinguishing
between the moral and the ceremonial, and certainly not teaching that they are separate codes.

We do not mean that the law has no moral and ceremonial aspects, for it has, but they are
only aspects, not separate codes or units. They are parts of the one law, which "was our
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). The
apostle Paul, certainly an authority on "the law," dogmatically affirms that the role of the
schoolmaster has ceased and that the Christian is "dead to the law." Note, also, that the word
"schoolmaster" is in the singular, which destroys the Adventist notion that there is more than
one law. If the moral law were separate from the ceremonial law, instead of both being aspects
of one law, Paul would have had to write that the laws were our schoolmasters to bring us to
Christ, and that now "we are no longer under schoolmasters." But he knew and taught that the
law was a unit and that it was perfectly fulfilled as such in the life of our Lord and on the cross
of Calvary.

By His perfect life, the Lord Jesus met all the requirements of the moral aspect of the law.
By His death, He fulfilled all the ceremonial ordinances that prefigured His incarnation and
sacrifice. He himself said,

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not
to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew
5:17-18).

Which law did Christ fulfill? If He fulfilled only the ceremonial law as the dual-law theory
states, the moral law is yet to be satisfied. But "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
every one that believeth" (Romans 10:4); and as we have shown, there are no distinct codes
such as moral as contrasted with ceremonial law. The distinction is arbitrary and contradicts the
declaration of Scripture that the believer lives by a higher principle: "The law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2).

In order to maintain the dual-law theory against the biblical declaration that the one law has
divisions or aspects, Adventists must explain why this is true in relation to at least twenty
passages in the New Testament, a dozen of them in the words of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit
teaches that there are not two laws, but one; that this law is not only in the five books of Moses
but in the Prophets and the Psalms as well. Christ looked upon moral, ceremonial, and prophetic
precepts as parts of the one law, which pointed to His life, ministry, death, and resurrection. As
He said to His disciples that first Easter Day, "These are the words which I spake unto you,
while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me" (Luke 24:44).

A study of the relevant biblical passages (including John 8:17 cf. Deuteronomy 19:15; John
10:34 cf. Psalm 82:6; John 12:34 cf. Psalm 72:17; John 15:25 cf. Psalm 35:19; and John 19:7 cf.
Leviticus 24:16) should convince any objective reader that the law is a single gigantic structure
comprised of several aspects: moral, ceremonial, civil, judicial, and prophetic. This whole
structure was referred to by Christ and the apostles under the heading of "the law," and which
structure was completely fulfilled in the life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ who instituted
the universal principle of divine love as the fulfillment of every aspect and function of the law.
Our Lord said:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. … Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the
first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets (Matthew 7:12; 22:37-40).

Instead of the Adventist belief that the law must be "kept" as a sign of obedience to God,
Christ here teaches that the Christian obeys God when he obeys the supreme commandment of
love. This teaching is reiterated by the greatest of the apostles, who wrote to the Galatians, "All
the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Galatians
5:14). Obviously, if we love our neighbors as ourselves, we do so because we love God with all
our hearts, souls, and minds. If we do not so love God, we cannot love our neighbors as
ourselves. Thus on this "great commandment" rests the law in all its aspects.

Note the language of these passages, for they indicate the strong emphasis given by our
Lord. In Matthew 22:40 Christ uses the Greek word holos, translated sixty-five times in the
New Testament as "all," forty-three times as "whole," twice as "every whit," once "altogether,"
and once "throughout." With these renditions all lexicons agree, so there can be no linguistic
doubt that the all-inclusive principle that binds and seals all aspects of the law into a unit to be
fulfilled in the life of a believer, because it has been fulfilled by the Savior, is once again
declared to be "love."

The apostle Paul uses an entirely different word to sum up the unifying principle of the law
and the only principle which the Scriptures say fulfills it. This is the Greek word pas.

In the New Testament pas is translated 748 times as "all," 170 times as "all things," 117
times as "every," forty-one times as "all men," thirty-one times as "whosoever," twenty-eight
times as "everyone," twelve times as "whole," and eleven times as "every man." We see then
how the Holy Spirit rendered linguistically impossible any escape from the clear declaration that
the principle of love indeed fulfills all the precepts of the law in their entirety since the two
terms used most frequently in the New Testament to describe inclusiveness were utilized by
both Christ and Paul to enunciate this vital issue.

Finally, notice Paul's powerful admonition to the believers at Rome:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another
hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not
kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet;
and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to
his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8-10).

In this context the greatest authority on the law in the New Testament, next to Jesus Christ,
used the very emphatic Greek word etera, which is translated forty-two times in the New
Testament as "other." Unquestionably the apostle Paul not only considered the law a unit of
which the Decalogue is only a part (quoting five of the Ten Commandments) but he indicated
the rest of the law--ceremonial, civil, and judicial--by the word "other." Thus if one is to be a
true "commandment-keeper," he has only to obey the divine principle of love, and God looks
upon this as fulfillment of "the law." The Holy Spirit does not specify the moral, ceremonial, or
civil law. He emphatically states that love is the fulfillment of "the law"--a tremendously
important statement, to say the least!

It is significant that in the thirteenth chapter of Romans, after quoting five of the ten
commandments that the Adventists steadfastly affirm constitute "the moral law," the apostle
conspicuously omits what the Adventists maintain is God's great "seal"--the Sabbath. In fact,
the words "any other commandment" must include even the Sabbath in the law of love.
Nowhere is this more decidedly emphasized than in the usage of a peculiar term that appears but
twice in the New Testament; here in Romans 13:9, and again in Ephesians 1:10. The term in
question is the Greek anakephalaioutai, which in both instances means "to sum up, to repeat
summarily, and so to condense into a summary … to bring together."

We see that the apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, taught in both Romans
13:9 and Ephesians 1:10 that as God in the fulness of time intended to "gather together," (KJV)
or "sum up" (RSV), those whom He had chosen in Christ, in like manner He has forever
condensed or summed up, comprehended or gathered together, the law in all its aspects and
divisions under the all-embracing principle of love. By not adhering strictly to the established
laws of sound biblical interpretations, Seventh-day Adventists seem to have overlooked this fact
in the New Testament. In the course of our study of Seventh-day Adventist literature, we have
been impressed by the fact that some Adventists will cite texts largely out of their context and
grammatical structure in what appears to be an attempt to enforce an arbitrary theory of two
laws (moral and ceremonial) upon the believer in the age of grace. In so doing, they violate that
principle which the apostle Paul states "sums up" or "condenses" all of the commandments of
the entire law, perfectly fulfilling them under the one heading, "the great commandment," upon
which, our Lord declared, "hang all the law and the prophets," the imperative of love.

On page 131 of Questions on Doctrine it is stated that the ceremonial law is now
"abolished" (Ephesians 2:15); and, "the Christian who keeps this law is not blessed," but "loses
his liberty" (Galatians 5:1, 3). Nevertheless, Adventists religiously observe some ceremonial
laws, especially with regard to "unclean food." Now, although they deny that their rejection of
"unclean" food is based on Mosaic prohibitions, all their literature on the subject appeals to the
very law that they insist has been "abolished." Under the covenant of law, nowhere but in the
Mosaic ceremonial aspects of the law are people forbidden to eat oysters, clams, lobsters, crabs,
reptiles, rabbits, and swine's flesh, but the Adventists still claim the validity of such prohibition.
We wish that they would be consistent in following their dual-law theory and abandon their
"unclean foods" restriction, which binds them to what even they admit is an abolished
ceremonial teaching; a teaching which they also declare can cause the Christian to "lose his
liberty" and miss the blessings of God. Writing on this subject of unclean foods with apostolic
authority and the power of the Holy Spirit, the apostle Paul unequivocally declared, "Therefore
let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Colossians 2:16, RSV). And he
warns Timothy that in the latter days some persons will "enjoin abstinence from foods that God
created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For
everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with
thanksgiving, for then it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer." Finally, he sums it up
thus:

I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself:
but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. … For the
kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in
the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God,
and approved of men (Romans 14:14, 17-18).

From these texts it is apparent that Adventists limit their own liberty in Christ by voluntary
bondage to ceremonial precepts, and it is the dual-law theory that has largely caused their
confusion and the consequent error of law-keeping.

For this teaching, which lapses so easily into legalism, we find no biblical authority since it
is demonstrably true that the law of Moses and the Decalogue are a unit described throughout
Scripture as "the law." The fact that the Decalogue was written on stones (Exodus 31:18) and
the law of Moses written in a book (Exodus 24:4, 7; Deuteronomy 31:24) in no way proves that
one is moral and the other ceremonial. As we have seen, the law of Moses, written in a book,
and deposited by the Levites by the side of the Ark, deals not only with ceremonial ritual
matters, but with those moral precepts contained in the Decalogue itself. One could not be
fulfilled, as Christ prophesied and accomplished, and the other left unfulfilled, for then God's
sacrificial plan would not have been consummated at Calvary.

B. "Law" in the New Testament

When New Testament writers spoke of "the law," they usually meant all five books of
Moses, which contain moral, ceremonial and civil ordinances. It was national and applied only
to Israel and to anyone who became an Israelite. Nowhere in Scripture is it applied to anyone
else. Although the Gentiles, as Paul says, "have not the law," its great moral principle applied to
them, so that the Gentiles "do by nature that which is contained in the law," but they did not
come under law as given to Israel.

Acts 15:23-32 describes how the leaders of the Christian church at Jerusalem, all Jews, were
very careful not to impose the demands of the law upon the Gentiles. For them, the complete
"law"--moral, ceremonial, and civil--had been fulfilled, and the one law to observe now was to
love God and your neighbor. St. Augustine remarked, "Love God, and do as you please," for if
we truly love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, we do only those things that please Him.
This is "the law" of the New Testament, the only guide for the Christian. We are "no longer
under the law, but under grace," and the function of the "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24) has
forever and irrevocably ceased.

Let us see how these first Christian leaders solved the problem of "the law":

And they wrote letters by them after this manner; the apostles and elders and
brethren send greetings unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch
and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out
from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be
circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It
seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord to send chosen men unto
you. … We have sent therefore, Judas and Silas. … For it seemed good to the
Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from
things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall
do well. Fare ye well (Acts 15:23-25, 27-29).

Since "the law" includes the precepts of the Pentateuch and certain sections of the Psalms
and Prophets, this message to the Gentiles contradicts all dual-law teachers who insist that we
must for any purpose "keep the law." We know from a comparison of the New Testament with
the Old that the Decalogue of itself is not the entire moral law of God, as our Adventist brethren
often insist, for there are many other commandments that are neither inferred from, implied, nor
contained in the Decalogue, but which are just as moral as anything appearing in Exodus 20.
Although nine of the Ten Commandments are enunciated in the New Testament, we have seen
that they are "comprehended, summed up, or condensed" in the words of Paul in the great
commandment of love (Romans 13:8; Galatians 5:14). So the Adventists have no argument
against the total fulfillment of all the law by the life and death of our Savior.

In Acts 15:24, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem reiterate this principle in their letter to
the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: "Certain which went out from us have troubled you
with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom
we gave no such commandment."

Now, although Seventh-day Adventists affirm that law-keeping cannot merit salvation,
nevertheless they teach that by breaking the law one forfeits salvation. They invoke a principle
that was fulfilled in the life and death of Christ, and in so doing they place themselves in direct
opposition to the great law of love enunciated by Christ and the apostles, and are in effect
putting "a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to
bear" (Acts 15:10). To those who invoke the law as the criterion of obedience in the Christian
life, the Word of God replies, "We gave no such commandment" (Acts 15:24).

Paul's phrase "any other commandment" in Romans 13:9, of course, includes abstinence
from meats offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication, for love of God would
enjoin discernment and obedience in all these things.

To support their argument that a Christian must obey the commandments, Adventists and
other Christian bodies cite such passages as the following:

If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my commandments, and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me (John 14:15, 21). And hereby we do know
that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and
keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. … And
whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and
do those things that are pleasing in his sight. … He that keepeth his
commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he
abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. … By this we know that we
love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For
this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments
are not grievous (1 John 2:3-4; 3:22, 24; 5:2-3).

We, too, yield to the authority of those verses; but the fallacy of the position lies in the
concept that the word "commandments" always refers to the Ten Commandments, which
Adventists maintain are "the moral law of God." This claim cannot be substantiated from
Scripture; in fact, it is contradicted by the Bible. Let us see how the Lord Jesus and the apostle
John applied the words "commandments" and "law." First, consider the conversation of our
Lord with the lawyer in Luke 10:25-28:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy
neighbor as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Clearly, the Lord Jesus did not subscribe to the Seventh-day Adventist view that
"commandment-keeping means keeping all of the Ten Commandments," none of which He
mentions in this passage. Christ did not say, "Keep the Ten Commandments, especially the
fourth one, and thou shalt live." He said, in effect, "Obey the law of love upon which all the law
and the prophets rest, and thou shalt live." This refutes the Adventist claim that when Jesus
spoke of commandments He meant only the Decalogue.

Among those who listened to our Lord's discourse in the Upper Room was the apostle John,
who records the "new commandment … that ye love one another; as I have loved you" (John
13:34). To this commandment John refers in the passages quoted from his first epistle. Nowhere
does he mention the Decalogue or any part of the moral law of God. Instead, he writes:

This is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son
Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. … And this
commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also
(1 John 3:23; 4:21).

And in his second epistle he says,

I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee,
but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is
love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as
ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it" (2 John 5-6).

From this it is clear what John means when he speaks of "commandment" or
"commandments."

How different from ironclad obedience to what many, including Adventists, sometimes call
"The Eternal Ten." By "the righteousness of the law" and fulfillment of the law, Christ and all
the New Testament writers mean not the Ten Commandments but the eternal law of love. The
motivating power of the universe--love--is to motivate obedience to God. By loving Him and
one another we fulfill all moral law. The chief function of the law was to reveal sin and to
"slay" the soul that righteousness might come by faith, and it was given for the unregenerate,
not the redeemed: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers
of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers" (1 Timothy 1:9).

C. The Charge of Pharisaism

By believing they are God's commandment-keeping church, Adventists have exposed
themselves to the charge of Pharisaism. Because they monopolize such passages as the
following, they give the impression of claiming to be the only people on earth: (1) "That keep
the commandments of God;C-76 (2) "They that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of
Jesus"; and (3) "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have the right to the
tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city" (Revelation 12:17; 14:12; 22:14).

We admire the desire of our Adventist brethren to obey the commandments of God; but, we
ask, what commandments? If they answer, "The Decalogue," we reject their effort to bring us
under bondage, for we "are not under the law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14). If some fail to
recognize that "the law" of the New Testament is love for God and for one another, and that it
fulfills and supersedes all previous embodiments of divine principle, then the issue is clear. Such
people speak like "a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal," because they do not give supremacy to
the "new" and "great commandment."

Concluding this section on the principle of law, we may sum up our position briefly:

The Adventist insistence that there are two separate codes of laws, the moral and the
ceremonial, and that the former is in effect today and the latter was abolished at the cross, finds,
we believe, no exegetical or theological basis in Scripture. We have also shown that they select
numerous texts out of context and juxtapose them in order to validate their contention. We have
seen that the greatest of all commandments is not included in the Decalogue or "moral law."
And yet upon this great commandment, love for the Lord and for one's neighbor, "hang all the
law and the prophets." The nineteenth chapter of Leviticus alone is sufficient to refute the dual-
law theory, for it contains moral, ceremonial, and civil laws sometimes all appearing in the same
verse, and yet Leviticus is called by Christ, "the law," as are the other four books of Moses.

The Adventist contention that since the Ten Commandments were spoken by God, inscribed
on stone, and placed within the Ark, they are superior to the law written by Moses in a book and
placed by the side of the Ark is fallacious. This is true because the book placed by the side of
the Ark actually contains more moral law than does the Decalogue itself. It is, therefore,
superior to the Decalogue, at least in scope.

The Bible refutes the Adventist contention that the law was in force in Eden and that it was
known to Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the patriarchs. Not one verse of Scripture can be cited
free from inference, deduction, and implication that teaches such a doctrine. The Word of God
states,

The law was given by Moses. … Did not Moses give you the law? … If
therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people
received the law). … The covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul. … The
Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this
covenant with our fathers, but with us (John 1:l7; 7:19; Hebrews 7:11; Galatians
3:17; Deuteronomy 5:2-3).

The Adventists' contentions, therefore, concerning the eternal nature of the Decalogue and
the time of its application to man are mere conjecture. Although we admit that the principle of
the law was, in effect, written upon the hearts of men by the Holy Spirit, so that they were
judged by it (Romans 2), there is a vast difference between the principle of the law and the
embodiment of that principle in a given code (Sinaitic-Mosaic), which the Adventists fail to
recognize.

Finally, the Old Testament Scriptures all teach the unity of the law. Christ endorsed it, and
the apostles pointed out that its chief purpose was to condemn man and show him his need of
redemption that he might come to Christ, the author and fulfiller of all the law. We who are "led
of the Spirit … are not under the law" (Galatians 5:18), for "love is the fulfilling of the law"
(Romans 13:10). This love energizes us to "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" that in
us "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled" (Romans 8:4). In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the
prophet states that under the new covenant, God would write His law "in their inward parts, and
write it in their hearts." In 2 Corinthians 3:3, the apostle Paul declares that Christians are "the
epistle of Christ … written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of
stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." The motive for obedience to this law is the imperative of
love: "We love him, because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

The great foundational moral law of the universe is therefore declared to be unchanging
love. This is vastly different from the national or Mosaic law given only to Israel. That law was
designed to be fulfilled, even though it was based upon the eternal principles of the moral
character of God (Colossians 2:14-17). And when its fulfillment did take place and the
character of God was imputed to the believer and imparted to his life by the power of the
indwelling Spirit, the entire Mosaic system passed away; but the eternal principle, the law's
foundation, remained, and is operative today as the law of love, the supreme "commandment"
and the only "law" under which the Christian is to live.

The concept of law in Seventh-day Adventism, then, leads them to the unbiblical and at
times legalistic position that although they are "under grace," by failing to "keep the
commandments" they are in danger of coming "under law" again.

The Word of God, however, describes the Christian under grace as "dead to the law" that he
might "live unto God" (Galatians 2:19), and nowhere is it taught that one can "come alive"
again so that the function of the law is resumed.

II. The Relationship of Grace to Salvation

Although Adventists lay great stress on "commandment-keeping" and "obedience to the moral law of God as contained in the Ten Commandments," they devote a large portion of their writings to the New Testament doctrine of grace. As we saw earlier, Seventh-day Adventists believe in salvation by grace alone, and vehemently deny that "law" plays any part as a basis for redemption. In their own words,

Salvation is not now, and never has been, by law or by works; salvation is only by the grace of Christ. Moreover, there never was a time in the plan of God when salvation was by human works or effort. Nothing men can do, or have done, can in any way merit salvation.

While works are not a means of salvation, good works are the inevitable result of salvation. However, these good works are possible only for the child of God whose life is inwrought by the Spirit of God. … One thing is certain, man cannot be saved by any effort of his own. We profoundly believe that no works of the law, no deeds of the law, no effort however commendable, and no good works--whether they be many or few, sacrificial or not--can in any way justify the sinner (Titus 3:5; Romans 3:20). Salvation is wholly of grace; it is the gift of God (Romans 4:4-5; Ephesians 2:8).C-77

These and many similar clear-cut statements in current authoritative Seventh-day Adventist literature reveal that, despite the "dual-law theory" and the peculiar concept that the law is still operative in the life of the believer, Adventists confess the basis of their salvation to be grace, and grace alone, the only basis upon which God deigns to save the fallen children of Adam.

In chapter 14 of Questions on Doctrine, Adventists spell out their allegiance to divine grace as the only channel of salvation: "According to Seventh-day Adventist belief, there is, and can be, no salvation through the law, or by human works of the law, but only through the saving grace of God."C-78

Christians who are familiar with historical theology know that the Adventists' position on law, though tinged with legalism, has its roots in the basic Arminian position that one receives salvation as a free gift of God; but, once he has received this gift, the believer is responsible for its maintenance and duration, and the chief means of accomplishing this is "commandment-keeping" or "obedience to all the laws of God."

Since Adventists are basically Arminian, we may logically deduce that, in a sense, their salvation rests upon legal grounds. But the saving factor in the dilemma is that by life and by worldwide witness, Adventists, like other so-called Arminians, give true evidence that they have experienced the "new birth," which is by grace alone, through faith in our Lord and His sacrifice upon the cross. One would be callous and uncharitable indeed not to accept their profession of dependence upon Christ alone for redemption, even though there is inconsistency in their theological system.

Some Christians make a great issue of the teaching of "eternal security," and perhaps rightly so because it is an important truth. However, no matter how strongly we may feel about it, our conviction does not entitle us to judge the motives and spiritual condition of other believers in this respect. This is our principal reason for taking the position that Seventh-day Adventists are Christians who believe the historical gospel message. They cannot rightly be called non-Christian cultists or "Judaizers," since they are sound on the great New Testament doctrines including grace and redemption through the vicarious offering of Jesus Christ "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) and give evidence of "life in Christ."

For many centuries, there has been much controversy over the juxtaposition of the principles of law and grace in the Scriptures. If evangelicals today were asked, "Do you believe that grace and law are in direct opposition?" the answer in most cases would be a strong affirmative. Through the years, confusion has been caused by the abuse of both principles by two groups of equally sincere Christians. One group believes that all law has ceased; the other that the Ten Commandments are still God's standard of righteousness and must be obeyed or salvation is forfeited. What both groups have failed to grasp is that the great conflict is not between law and grace as such; rather, it centers around a proper understanding of their relationship and respective functions.

We have established that love is the ground and source of the doctrine of grace, but the law was necessary to expose the sinfulness of sin and the depth of man's moral depravity. When law becomes the ground of salvation or of restraining the Christian from practicing sin, it intrudes upon the province of grace. When a Christian is not controlled by love, grace is abused and its purpose is nullified. All law is fulfilled by love, as our Savior and the apostles taught, but the Christian can never please God if he obeys for fear of the law. Life under law binds the soul, for the tendency is for man to obey not because he wants to please God but because he fears God's judgment. Under grace, love works upon the regenerate heart, and what was legalistic duty under law becomes gracious obedience under grace. Actually, grace and love demand more than the law, which to the Pharisees required only outward obedience. Grace commands us to "do the will of God from the heart" (Ephesians 6:6). Seventh-day Adventists declare that they obey the law not out of fear but out of love for God. However, it is to be regretted that in a large proportion of their literature on the subject, they declare that the keeping of the law is necessary to maintain salvation, and thus they introduce the motive of fear instead of the biblical imperative of love.

The apostle John defined the issue when he wrote, "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). As a governing principle, a measure of righteousness, a schoolmaster, and an instrument of death, the law was supplanted by grace--the unmerited favor of God. All believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, having passed from death to life through the sacrifice of the Son of God, possess the divine nature and righteousness. Because He first loved us, we are compelled and impelled to love and serve Him. In obedience to the great law of love, the Christian fulfills the righteousness of the law (not the law itself; this Christ alone did); and by the transforming power of the indwelling Holy Spirit he will "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:4).

Seventh-day Adventists believe, we repeat, that they are saved by grace. However, they are often prone to believe that their remaining saved depends on "commandment-keeping."

More recently, an Adventist professor summed up the church's present understanding of this issue as a generally unified but still tension-filled affirmation of salvation by grace alone through faith--evidenced by obedience. Dr. Gary Land, Andrews University in Berrien Spring, Michigan, explained,

The committee issued a statement on "the dynamics of salvation." Because humanity is desperately in need of salvation, it said, God has taken the initiative to provide it. When the individual human being, with the Holy Spirit's help, decides to accept reconciliation with God, he receives a new status in Christ, encompassed by such terms as justification, reconciliation, forgiveness, adoption, and sanctification. This new status involves a new life in Christ characterized by new birth, restoration, growth, grace and faith, assurance, and praise. Consummation is achieved with Christ's Second Coming, which will restore the universe to a "perfect, sinless state."

In essence, the statement addressed the righteousness by faith debate by analyzing the theological terms involved, attempting to bring together all elements of the subject, and placing the whole within an Adventist eschatological context. Although it included an emphasis on sanctification, that concept was now one of several elements. By offering an enlarged understanding of salvation, the statement appeared to provide room for both sides of the debate.

It appears on the surface that the righteousness by faith debate pivoted on the technical issue of a definition. But the fact that so many people could get so disturbed over the question indicates that it hit a raw nerve within Adventism. The justification by grace through faith position seems to have appealed to a large number of Adventists because it offered an assurance of salvation that they felt the traditional emphasis on sanctification had not allowed. On the other hand, many of those who opposed the new teaching feared that it might open the door to an antinomianism that would undermine the Adventist concern with God's law.

In the view of most denominational theologians, Seventh-day Adventists had the unique problem and unique opportunity of understanding the relationship of justification and sanctification, or law and gospel, in a way that did justice to both.C-79

That current Adventist teaching regarding sanctification is based on grace, not works, is clear from the Adventists' doctrinal discussion in Seventh-day Adventists Believe, which states,

True repentance and justification lead to sanctification. Justification and sanctification are closely related, distinct but never separate. They designate two phases of salvation: Justification is what God does for us, while sanctification is what God does in us.

Neither justification nor sanctification is the result of meritorious works. Both are solely due to Christ's grace and righteousness. … The three phases of sanctification the Bible presents are: (1) an accomplished act in the believer's past; (2) a process in the believer's present experience; (3) and the final result that the believer experiences at Christ's return. C-80

III. THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION

Because He took our sins upon himself, in obedience to His Father's will, the Lord Jesus
"became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:8-10). This
truth Seventh-day Adventists believe. They strongly assert their belief in the deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ, His equality with the Father, and His perfect, sinless human nature, and expound
these truths in detail. However, they teach that before His incarnation the Lord Jesus Christ bore
the title of Michael the archangel. This interpretation differs greatly from that of Jehovah's
Witnesses who believe that Christ was a created being and that "He was a god, but not the
Almighty God who is Jehovah."C-81 The Adventists make this very clear:

We emphatically reject the idea … and the position held by the Jehovah's
Witnesses. We do not believe that Christ is a created being. We as a people have
not considered the identification of Michael of sufficient prominence to dwell
upon it at length either in our literature or in our preaching. … We believe that
the term Michael is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the
second person of the Godhead. But such a view does not in any way conflict with
our belief in His full deity and eternal preexistence, nor does it in the least
disparage His person and work.C-82

Although a number of authoritative commentators support the Adventist view, the New
Testament, I believe, does not warrant this conclusion. Most of the evidence that the Adventists
submit is from the book of Daniel, the rest from the Apocalypse. By comparing such
designations as "angel of Jehovah," "angel of the Lord," "Prince," and "Michael," the
Adventists conclude that Michael is another title for the Lord Jesus Christ. But Seventh-day
Adventists maintain that although he is called "the archangel" (archangelos or "first
messenger"), he is not a created being since, in the Old Testament, "angel of Jehovah" is a term
of Deity. In the light of this, we do not judge them because of their view of Michael, but call the
reader's attention to the ninth verse of the book of Jude, which says, "Yet Michael the
archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring
against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (v. 9).

The word translated "durst" in the King James Bible is the archaic past tense of "dare"; so
Michael "did not dare" bring against Satan a railing or blasphemous (blasphemos) judgment.
The Greek word for "dare" is tolmao and appears sixteen times in the New Testament, and in
the negative always means "not daring through fear of retaliation." Thus if Michael was Christ,
according to the Seventh-day Adventists, "He did not dare" to rebuke Satan for fear of
retaliation.

Adventists agree that fifteen times in the New Testament tolmao carries the meaning
indicated. But, since its use in Jude 9 refutes their notion that Michael is a title of Christ, they
reverse its meaning here! As the Adventists know, none of the commentators to whom they
appeal has grammatically analyzed or diagrammed the passage in the Greek or for that matter
commented upon exclusive usage of tolmao in the Scripture of the New Testament. The
agreement of such commentation therefore gives no validity whatever to the Adventists' misuse
of tolmao. The preincarnate Christ, the Logos, having the nature of God (John 1:1), certainly
would not refer the creature Satan to God the Father for rebuke. While He was on earth, Christ
the Creator rebuked Satan many times. Would He then fear him during His preincarnate life?
Scripture contradicts this.

The Adventist explanation is:

The devil, the prince of evil, could rightly be said to deserve a railing
accusation, but to such a thing Michael would not stoop. To say that Michael
could not, in the sense that He did not have the power or the authority to do so,
would not be true. It is not that Michael could not, in the sense of being
restricted, but rather that He would not take such an attitude.C-83

This statement appears to be an attempt to escape the fact that the word "dare" (tolmao) in
the New Testament always connotes fear, including its use in Jude 9. The text teaches that
because Michael did not have the authority to rebuke Satan, "he did not dare" to do so through
fear of superior retaliation. There is no implication that Michael's position was so high that he
"would not stoop." The context, grammar, and root meaning of tolmao contradict the
Adventists' attempt to make this text support their view of Michael. All authorities on Greek
grammar agree that the Adventist interpretation violates the classic and New Testament usage of
tolmao.

Thus the Adventist statement about Michael is neither linguistically nor scripturally
accurate. Although they repudiate the Jehovah's Witnesses' position, they wrest this passage
from its true meaning and read into it their own theory concerning Michael as Christ.

In conclusion, I am convinced of the sincerity of the Adventists' claim to regeneration and
allegiance to the New Testament principle of saving grace. I appreciate their high regard for the
law of God and their desire to obey it. I cannot agree, however, with their insistence upon
linking "commandment-keeping" to observance of the ceremonial law, especially with regard to
"unclean" foods. I feel, moreover, that they err in saying that Michael is a title of Christ, and I
believe that I have shown that they violate the linguistic and scriptural meaning of Jude 9.

Return to 3 Principle Teachings of Adventism

E-mail us at:

truth@navix.net