- Apr 18, 2007
- 5,639
- 127
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
James White talks with an Adventist
An interesting exchange took place on 4/14/2005 between the Christian apologist James White (not to be confused with Ellen White’s husband) and a Seventh-day Adventist on White’s Internet radio call-in program The Dividing Line. The caller did not initially identify himself as a Seventh-day Adventist and quoted several texts to support the doctrine of soul sleep. White picked up immediately on the caller’s theological position and the following exchange took place:
White: “Would you be coming from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective?”
Caller: “Absolutely, I am a Seventh-day Adventist.”
White: “Well, this particular issue would be one that we would certainly disagree on, but far more importantly, would you be one of those Seventh-day Adventists who holds to the Investigative Judgment?”
Caller: “Oh absolutely.”
White: “I would put that as being as false a gospel as Rome’s. Personally I don’t see any difference between the Investigative Judgment and the grounds that this places one’s relationship to God on, and what Rome teaches.”
[...]
White: “The reason I went to the [Investigative Judgment] and asked you where you’re coming from is because I tend to think (unfortunately) that a lot of these discussions, especially with a believing conservative Seventh-day Adventist, misses the point. Because to me, I could sit around and talk with a Roman Catholic about papal infallibility (which I’ve done) ... and it would be like talking to you about the claims Ellen G. White made concerning her prophecies, her writings and her relationship to Scripture. But, if that’s all I ever discussed, I’m not doing you any favor. Because the real issue—and the issue that I always get to with Roman Catholics—is the issue of what the gospel is (which is most important). That’s why I raised the issue. Because to me, you can be a non-Seventh-day Adventist and believe what you believe about the afterlife, but to be a Seventh-day Adventist—what’s uniquely definitional [and] what addresses the specific issue of the gospel is the issue of the Investigative Judgment. That’s why I raised the issue, that’s why I mentioned it.
[White gives the caller the opportunity to explain the Investigative Judgment. The caller explains the historic Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844.]
White: “What did Ellen G. White say was the basis upon which Christ would decide to apply his atoning sacrifice [to the sinner] or not?”
Caller: “Well, the biblical answer is ‘by faith’. I don’t know which quote of Ellen White you might be referring to.”
White: “So that’s all? Why would there be an examination of their lives if the only ones being examined were those who had believed in [Jesus] anyway?”
Caller: “Well, God doesn’t need to do this examination for His benefit...in other words, He already knows...He’s omniscient.”
White: “Right...”
Caller: “But the heavenly hosts are not. The books are opened not only for the Lord to examine, but the books are really opened for the heavenly hosts to examine the books to see that God’s judgment has been righteous.”
White: “And what books are these?”
Caller: “The book...the Book of Life...the Lamb’s Book of Life.”
White: “But how do you get in there? How do you get into the Lamb’s Book of Life?”
Caller: “By faith.”
White: “By faith alone? It’s not an examination of your life?”
Caller: “Well, by faith you appear in the Lamb’s Book of Life.”
[White asks the caller whether he’s read a book by the Adventist W.H. Branson entitled, In Defense of the Faith, written in response to D.M. Canright. The caller says he has not. White then quotes from the book out of the section on the cleansing of the sanctuary.]
White (quoting Branson): “Someone may say, ‘I thought that when Christ forgave my sins, he took them clear away.’ Yes he did, as far as you were concerned. He promises to make us white as snow, but this does not mean that the sins are finally disposed of. He takes them from us, but the record is still there. We are free because we’ve accepted him as our substitute and sin-bearer, but the record of sin is held in the sanctuary. ... Another may ask, ‘Why couldn’t Christ have immediately blotted out the sins of the people? Why wait until 1844?’ We reply, there must come first an investigation of the records. This is essential. [Consider] a man who has accepted Christ. His sins have gone on before him into the sanctuary. But Christ cannot blot those sins out of the record until the man’s life is finished or until probation closes for him. Why not? Because he may not continue in faith and we are told in Ezekial 33:12-13 that if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, all the righteousness that he has done shall not be remembered. If he does not continue in faith, all his past sins will come back upon him again. Jesus does not plead before the throne of God in the final judgment for one who has died in sin. He cannot plead his blood on behalf of one, who, though once a Christian, refuses to continue in grace. Thus, before the Lord can blot out the sins from the record books, a very careful examination has to be made to see whether those who accepted Christ have remained true. It is not the beginning of the race that gives assurance—it is the successful finishing. ... During the judgment, the names of those who were once Christians but who have given up their faith in Christ are blotted out of the Book of Life. ... God must out of necessity, have a log by which he will test men’s lives, a standard by which they will be measured. And if so, surely in this solemn hour, when court week has already begun and cases are already being tried, it behooves every man to inquire seriously what that standard is, and to take the necessary steps to bring his life into harmony with it before his name is called. ... Do not allow yourselves to be deceived, therefore, into believing that nine points of the law will suffice, and the Sabbath point can be dropped out as non-essential.”
White: “Does it not follow, then, that a person can believe in Christ but if they do not, for example, follow Ellen G. White’s understanding of the Sabbath law, then Christ will refuse to apply his blood to that individual in the Investigative Judgement?”
Caller: “Well, Seventh-day Adventists don’t believe...well...they believe that [Sunday worship] is the Mark of the Beast...in other words, for the last 2000 years, Sunday-keepers who did so, fully believing they were in God’s will, that will not be counted against them.”
White: “Is that what Ellen G. White believed?”
Caller: “Yes...it’s only when the Mark of the Beast comes before the world and is enforced by law that people are faced with a choice as to whether they take the seal of God—the seventh-day Sabbath or Saturday—or the Mark of the Beast, which would be Sunday-keeping. So it is an issue that will be before the world shortly, but it is not something for which people will be condemned in ignorance.”
[...]
White: “So to boil this all down...fundamentally, would you agree or disagree with the assertion that whether Christ applies his atoning sacrifice depends upon your continuance in faith?”
Caller: “Yes it does.”
White: “OK. Obviously then, Seventh-day Adventist theology does not have a concept of monergistic election to where God has an elect people and he infallibly saves those elect people not based upon what they do, but based solely upon his purpose and grace.”
Caller: “Well that’s a topic unto itself, but I believe in what you would probably call ‘Arminianism’ and I believe that we have a choice as to whether we follow Christ or not.”
White: “OK, so you would take the Arminian perspective on that and I don’t know if you’ve listened to the program before...”
Caller: “I believe that we’re faced with a choice, and that choice is either to accept Christ’s righteous blood or to reject it, and to reject it is to be lost.”
White: “And to accept Christ’s righteous blood, though, is not enough if you do not continue and if your life does not measure up to the standards that are going to be used [in the Investigative Judgment].”
Caller: “Faith without works is dead.”
White: “I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that. I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t misrepresenting [the Adventist position].”
Source here, starting around minute 21.
http://www.forthegospel.org/articles/james_white_talks_with_an_adventist
http://aomin.org/James.html
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?query=Adventist&amount=0&blogid=1
