In going through the many forums and researching I have come across a consistent thread that leads back to Brimesmead and Ford. They have basically seperated Justification from Sanctification by bringing up that a person can only be justified by Righteousness By Faith, but then they disconnect that a person is then transformed or made perfect by sanctification through the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. At this point there seems to be confusion with another view or views of what 'perfection' is. Well let me put the events of what occurred as comes from Geoffrey J. Paxton and asked everyone for input as to the correctness of the events and then examine the issue which they bring to the forefront which is the seperating of Justification from Sanctification. I know what I believe but I want everyones thoughts on this.
The basic events:
"...At the beginning of 1970, Robert Brinsmead and his colleagues became deeply involved in studying the issues of the Protestant Reformation and the implications of Pauline theology In the study of Reformation theology and Roman Catholic theology Brinsmead came to a renewed understanding of the issues of the sixteenth century—in particular, the meaning and implications of justification by faith alone.... It became clear to him what Luther meant in calling justification the article of the standing and falling church.
What this meant for Brinsmead ... was that, whereas in the past the Reformation had always been viewed in the light of the distinctive Adventist perspective, now the Adventist perspective had to be viewed in the light of the Reformation. Brinsmead came to believe that any building upon the Reformation had to be a building upon the Reformation and not in place of the Reformation. Whatever contribution Adventism had to give to the world, that contribution must not conflict with the central article of Reformation theology—the gospel of justification by faith alone.
Theologically, ... meant the following:
1. Brinsmead was forced to accept the position of Heppenstall, Ford, and others on the question of perfection. Although he had taught a modified perfectionism (i.e., perfection in the judgment but not before), Brinsmead now came to realize that even such a modified perfectionism and justification by faith alone cannot live in the same house happily Niebuhr focused the issue for him: righteousness for the Reformers was a faith-righteousness, and they saw their true nature and destiny in terms of this righteousness and not in any tangible, empirical righteousness in the historical process. Heppenstall and Ford were right: there can be no perfection until Christ returns.
2. Using the Reformation gospel as a canon, Brinsmead and his colleagues came to the conclusion that the traditional Adventist way of treating "righteousness by faith" was in harmony with Roman Catholic theology and not with that of the Reformers. As we have had ample occasion to note, traditional Adventism saw justification as initial forgiveness for sins of the past, while regeneration and sanctification were viewed as qualifying a person to stand in the coming judgment. Righteousness by faith was thought to encompass both justification and sanctification. Brinsmead came to the conviction —via Luther and Calvin (and Chemnitz) —that righteousness by faith means justification only. He saw that to continue in the thought patterns of traditional Adventism was to mingle law and gospel, to depend ultimately upon character development and inner renewal rather than upon an alien righteousness for our acceptance with God, and to be forced into positing perfectionism in this life. He concluded that the traditional Adventist sense of "righteousness by faith" leads to a focusing on the saint—the dreadful turning in upon ourselves.
3. Justification by faith alone in the alien righteousness of Christ called Brinsmead's traditional Adventist eschatology into question. In his theology of the 1960's he had sought to keep original sin and in-the-judgment perfectionism under one roof. Now the gospel of Paul and the Reformers made it clear that his in-the-judgment perfectionism was an attempt to deal with original sin in a way which amounted to competition with the active and passive obedience of the God-man Substitute. Brinsmead's in-the-judgment perfectionism was an emergency measure to handle the original-sin problem. But the gospel of the Reformers taught him that justification by faith in the merits of Christ was the only effectual method of dealing with original sin. (2) Whereas in traditional Adventism the initial, mere nature of justification was a concession to final acceptance on the basis of inner renewal, Brinsmead's final renewal was a concession to justification, yet also a vitiation of it. (3) According to him, all this "had to go." Justification was seen to be clearly eschatological. It was God's final judgment-day verdict received here and now by faith.
For Brinsmead, this eschatological view of justification meant that it can never be subordinated to sanctification ..... While the believer stands on justification, yet justification is always that to which he is moving. Like the psalmist, the believer can look forward not so much to a judgment of him by the Judge, but to a judgment for him. The judgment is vindication—a vindication that the believer already enjoys by faith.
4. Brinsmead testifies that this rediscovery turned himself and his colleagues outside of themselves to others. ... he and his fellow agitators approached their estranged Adventist fellow Christians to confess their errors and seek reconciliation. (4)The major expression of Brinsmead's new look outward was his publishing venture...Present Truth was to remind Protestants of their Reformation heritage and of how far they had wandered from it.
During the conflict of the 1960's, church leaders turned to Heppenstall and Ford for an answer to Brinsmead's teachings. Thus, when he capitulated to Heppenstall and Ford's position, one would naturally have expected the leadership to be delighted......Within Adventism in general, opinion regarding Present Truth differed. Avondale's Dr. Desmond Ford and retired Australasian Division President, L. C. Naden, saw Brinsmead's new move to be in the right theological direction. In some respects it was a vindication of Ford and Naden's position on perfection. However, alarm at Brinsmead's "one-sided" view of justification by faith issued from church headquarters in Washington, D.C., where Kenneth Wood and Herbert Douglass, editors of the Review and Herald, began to emphasize such things as victory-life piety, the development of sinless-demonstration people in the last generation, the example of Christ in sinless living, and the sinful human nature of Christ. Leading theologians in the church's Australasian Division began to be alarmed at the perfectionistic emphasis of the Review and Herald and the undoing of the Christological gains of Questions on Doctrine in the 1950's. And in North America, Dr. Heppenstall as well as some leading theologians at Andrews University were also unhappy with the perfectionism of the Review and Herald and its teaching on the sinful human nature of Christ.
If there was any doubt about whether church leaders were taking an opposite stance toward the new Brinsmead message, such doubt was dispelled in 1974 with the appearance of a special issue of the Review and Herald on the topic of "Righteousness by Faith." (5) It was diametrically opposed to Brinsmead's teaching. The special issue defined righteousness by faith as
... more than a doctrine, it is a relationship with a purpose. And if we turn our backs on sin, and let Christ live His life within us, it doesn't matter what we call the process. (6).........
In the same special issue, Don Neufeld describes righteousness by faith as an "experience," (7) and the "no condemnation" of Romans 8 is interpreted in the way of Trent. (8) C. Mervyn Maxwell says unequivocally, "Righteousness by faith is much more than forgiveness of sin; it is also victory over sin." (9) Other passages could be cited to show that the Review and Herald persists in the traditional Adventist definition of righteousness by faith as including both justification and sanctification. (10) Looked at from an academic perspective, it is no exaggeration to say that this special issue majors on sanctification and character development and a hagiocentric (believer-centered) emphasis. (11)
Herbert Douglass has emerged in the 1970's as the one who is seeking to make the Andreasen-Branson perfectionism dominant in Adventist thinking. In the special issue of the Review and Herald, he proposes to tell his reading audience "Why God Is Urgent and Yet Waits." The answer is: "God waits for a people who will prove that what Jesus did ... could be done by His followers . . ." (12) "For such a people," says Douglass, "God waits." (13) This is the here-and-now perfectionism of the early (and later) years of the 1960's, and it characterizes the Review and Herald stand of the church in the period of the 1970's.
A few weeks after the distribution of the Review and Herald special issue in Australia, Brinsmead issued a brochure entitled A Statement to My S.D.A. Friends. (14) Without mentioning the Review and Herald, he called into question the assumption that sanctification belongs to the Pauline article of righteousness by faith. Brinsmead claimed that righteousness by faith is nothing done by us or felt by us and is never a quality in us. The righteousness in "righteousness by faith" is the doing and dying of Christ, which is ours by faith in the merciful verdict of God. Brinsmead declared that this position is faithful to that of the sixteenth-century Reformers and all those Protestants who have stood with them for some four hundred years. To call sanctification "righteousness by faith" is to side with the Council of Trent against the Protestant Reformation.
..... The theology represented in the Review and Herald has always been present in Adventism. Yet it emerges in the 1970's, purified of those elements (e.g., anti-perfectionism) which were bound to retard its effectual articulation.
"The Ford-Brinsmead Mateship" (15)
In 1975, .. Desmond Ford issued a paper entitled The Soteriological Implications of the Human Nature of Christ. (16) It included an appendix of answers to questions, by Dr. Ford. The link of this manuscript with the theology department at Avondale College was obvious.
The paper majored on three highly contentious areas. (1) It looked at the question of the sinlessness of Christ's humanity and clearly repudiated the doctrine of the sinful human nature of Christ. (2) It dealt with the meaning of righteousness by faith, stating clearly that righteousness by faith is justification alone. (3) The manuscript took up the question of perfectionism and repudiated the notion of perfection in this life.
This paper brought a heated response from some influential laymen and retired church workers in Australia. The leaders of the church in North America and Australia arranged for a conference of administrators and theologians in an attempt to settle the issue. This conference took place at Palmdale, California, on April 23-30, 1976.
Before the Palmdale conference, however, a large group of church leaders in Australia met at Avondale on February 3-4 to hear charges brought against Dr. Ford by a group under the leadership of J. W Kent. The main accusation concerned Ford's understanding of righteousness by faith.... as follows:
There are many who find it impossible to distinguish between the teaching contained in the Ms. [of ... Ford] and that of Robert Brinsmead. The Theology Department and Brinsmead are in total agreement both in what they affirm to be true and what they denounce as false. The Ms. from the Theology Department alleges that those who included the work of the Holy Spirit within the meaning of the phrase "the righteousness which is of faith" are teaching a "false gospel." Brinsmead calls it "undisguised Romanism." Both statements reflect an attitude of hostility towards the denominational position. (17)...."
The basic events:
"...At the beginning of 1970, Robert Brinsmead and his colleagues became deeply involved in studying the issues of the Protestant Reformation and the implications of Pauline theology In the study of Reformation theology and Roman Catholic theology Brinsmead came to a renewed understanding of the issues of the sixteenth century—in particular, the meaning and implications of justification by faith alone.... It became clear to him what Luther meant in calling justification the article of the standing and falling church.
What this meant for Brinsmead ... was that, whereas in the past the Reformation had always been viewed in the light of the distinctive Adventist perspective, now the Adventist perspective had to be viewed in the light of the Reformation. Brinsmead came to believe that any building upon the Reformation had to be a building upon the Reformation and not in place of the Reformation. Whatever contribution Adventism had to give to the world, that contribution must not conflict with the central article of Reformation theology—the gospel of justification by faith alone.
Theologically, ... meant the following:
1. Brinsmead was forced to accept the position of Heppenstall, Ford, and others on the question of perfection. Although he had taught a modified perfectionism (i.e., perfection in the judgment but not before), Brinsmead now came to realize that even such a modified perfectionism and justification by faith alone cannot live in the same house happily Niebuhr focused the issue for him: righteousness for the Reformers was a faith-righteousness, and they saw their true nature and destiny in terms of this righteousness and not in any tangible, empirical righteousness in the historical process. Heppenstall and Ford were right: there can be no perfection until Christ returns.
2. Using the Reformation gospel as a canon, Brinsmead and his colleagues came to the conclusion that the traditional Adventist way of treating "righteousness by faith" was in harmony with Roman Catholic theology and not with that of the Reformers. As we have had ample occasion to note, traditional Adventism saw justification as initial forgiveness for sins of the past, while regeneration and sanctification were viewed as qualifying a person to stand in the coming judgment. Righteousness by faith was thought to encompass both justification and sanctification. Brinsmead came to the conviction —via Luther and Calvin (and Chemnitz) —that righteousness by faith means justification only. He saw that to continue in the thought patterns of traditional Adventism was to mingle law and gospel, to depend ultimately upon character development and inner renewal rather than upon an alien righteousness for our acceptance with God, and to be forced into positing perfectionism in this life. He concluded that the traditional Adventist sense of "righteousness by faith" leads to a focusing on the saint—the dreadful turning in upon ourselves.
3. Justification by faith alone in the alien righteousness of Christ called Brinsmead's traditional Adventist eschatology into question. In his theology of the 1960's he had sought to keep original sin and in-the-judgment perfectionism under one roof. Now the gospel of Paul and the Reformers made it clear that his in-the-judgment perfectionism was an attempt to deal with original sin in a way which amounted to competition with the active and passive obedience of the God-man Substitute. Brinsmead's in-the-judgment perfectionism was an emergency measure to handle the original-sin problem. But the gospel of the Reformers taught him that justification by faith in the merits of Christ was the only effectual method of dealing with original sin. (2) Whereas in traditional Adventism the initial, mere nature of justification was a concession to final acceptance on the basis of inner renewal, Brinsmead's final renewal was a concession to justification, yet also a vitiation of it. (3) According to him, all this "had to go." Justification was seen to be clearly eschatological. It was God's final judgment-day verdict received here and now by faith.
For Brinsmead, this eschatological view of justification meant that it can never be subordinated to sanctification ..... While the believer stands on justification, yet justification is always that to which he is moving. Like the psalmist, the believer can look forward not so much to a judgment of him by the Judge, but to a judgment for him. The judgment is vindication—a vindication that the believer already enjoys by faith.
4. Brinsmead testifies that this rediscovery turned himself and his colleagues outside of themselves to others. ... he and his fellow agitators approached their estranged Adventist fellow Christians to confess their errors and seek reconciliation. (4)The major expression of Brinsmead's new look outward was his publishing venture...Present Truth was to remind Protestants of their Reformation heritage and of how far they had wandered from it.
During the conflict of the 1960's, church leaders turned to Heppenstall and Ford for an answer to Brinsmead's teachings. Thus, when he capitulated to Heppenstall and Ford's position, one would naturally have expected the leadership to be delighted......Within Adventism in general, opinion regarding Present Truth differed. Avondale's Dr. Desmond Ford and retired Australasian Division President, L. C. Naden, saw Brinsmead's new move to be in the right theological direction. In some respects it was a vindication of Ford and Naden's position on perfection. However, alarm at Brinsmead's "one-sided" view of justification by faith issued from church headquarters in Washington, D.C., where Kenneth Wood and Herbert Douglass, editors of the Review and Herald, began to emphasize such things as victory-life piety, the development of sinless-demonstration people in the last generation, the example of Christ in sinless living, and the sinful human nature of Christ. Leading theologians in the church's Australasian Division began to be alarmed at the perfectionistic emphasis of the Review and Herald and the undoing of the Christological gains of Questions on Doctrine in the 1950's. And in North America, Dr. Heppenstall as well as some leading theologians at Andrews University were also unhappy with the perfectionism of the Review and Herald and its teaching on the sinful human nature of Christ.
If there was any doubt about whether church leaders were taking an opposite stance toward the new Brinsmead message, such doubt was dispelled in 1974 with the appearance of a special issue of the Review and Herald on the topic of "Righteousness by Faith." (5) It was diametrically opposed to Brinsmead's teaching. The special issue defined righteousness by faith as
... more than a doctrine, it is a relationship with a purpose. And if we turn our backs on sin, and let Christ live His life within us, it doesn't matter what we call the process. (6).........
In the same special issue, Don Neufeld describes righteousness by faith as an "experience," (7) and the "no condemnation" of Romans 8 is interpreted in the way of Trent. (8) C. Mervyn Maxwell says unequivocally, "Righteousness by faith is much more than forgiveness of sin; it is also victory over sin." (9) Other passages could be cited to show that the Review and Herald persists in the traditional Adventist definition of righteousness by faith as including both justification and sanctification. (10) Looked at from an academic perspective, it is no exaggeration to say that this special issue majors on sanctification and character development and a hagiocentric (believer-centered) emphasis. (11)
Herbert Douglass has emerged in the 1970's as the one who is seeking to make the Andreasen-Branson perfectionism dominant in Adventist thinking. In the special issue of the Review and Herald, he proposes to tell his reading audience "Why God Is Urgent and Yet Waits." The answer is: "God waits for a people who will prove that what Jesus did ... could be done by His followers . . ." (12) "For such a people," says Douglass, "God waits." (13) This is the here-and-now perfectionism of the early (and later) years of the 1960's, and it characterizes the Review and Herald stand of the church in the period of the 1970's.
A few weeks after the distribution of the Review and Herald special issue in Australia, Brinsmead issued a brochure entitled A Statement to My S.D.A. Friends. (14) Without mentioning the Review and Herald, he called into question the assumption that sanctification belongs to the Pauline article of righteousness by faith. Brinsmead claimed that righteousness by faith is nothing done by us or felt by us and is never a quality in us. The righteousness in "righteousness by faith" is the doing and dying of Christ, which is ours by faith in the merciful verdict of God. Brinsmead declared that this position is faithful to that of the sixteenth-century Reformers and all those Protestants who have stood with them for some four hundred years. To call sanctification "righteousness by faith" is to side with the Council of Trent against the Protestant Reformation.
..... The theology represented in the Review and Herald has always been present in Adventism. Yet it emerges in the 1970's, purified of those elements (e.g., anti-perfectionism) which were bound to retard its effectual articulation.
"The Ford-Brinsmead Mateship" (15)
In 1975, .. Desmond Ford issued a paper entitled The Soteriological Implications of the Human Nature of Christ. (16) It included an appendix of answers to questions, by Dr. Ford. The link of this manuscript with the theology department at Avondale College was obvious.
The paper majored on three highly contentious areas. (1) It looked at the question of the sinlessness of Christ's humanity and clearly repudiated the doctrine of the sinful human nature of Christ. (2) It dealt with the meaning of righteousness by faith, stating clearly that righteousness by faith is justification alone. (3) The manuscript took up the question of perfectionism and repudiated the notion of perfection in this life.
This paper brought a heated response from some influential laymen and retired church workers in Australia. The leaders of the church in North America and Australia arranged for a conference of administrators and theologians in an attempt to settle the issue. This conference took place at Palmdale, California, on April 23-30, 1976.
Before the Palmdale conference, however, a large group of church leaders in Australia met at Avondale on February 3-4 to hear charges brought against Dr. Ford by a group under the leadership of J. W Kent. The main accusation concerned Ford's understanding of righteousness by faith.... as follows:
There are many who find it impossible to distinguish between the teaching contained in the Ms. [of ... Ford] and that of Robert Brinsmead. The Theology Department and Brinsmead are in total agreement both in what they affirm to be true and what they denounce as false. The Ms. from the Theology Department alleges that those who included the work of the Holy Spirit within the meaning of the phrase "the righteousness which is of faith" are teaching a "false gospel." Brinsmead calls it "undisguised Romanism." Both statements reflect an attitude of hostility towards the denominational position. (17)...."
