Disclaimer:

My understanding of these concepts and my attempt to articulate them may not fully explain all the nuances in the broader Protestant and Adventist theology. So, I encourage you to check them on your own and feel free to disagree with me. 

Introduction:

The doctrine of salvation is defined by many protestant denominations as salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Seventh-day Adventists just like many protestants profess their belief in this doctrine. Even though this doctrine is so simple, there are several interpretations of this doctrine among the protestants. I am going to discuss three major ones. 

1. Lutheranism: was developed by German monk, Martin Luther. According to Lutheranism, salvation is by Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (Grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), and Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Lutheranism opposes reliance on human works or traditions. 
2. Calvinism: was developed by a French Church reformer, John Calvin. According to Calvinism, humans are depraved and cannot contribute in any way to their salvation. Therefore, salvation is entirely by God’s grace and God predestines who would be saved and lost. Reformed Churches, the Presbyterian Church, the United Reformed Church, and Particular Baptists believe in this view.
3. Arminianism: was developed by a Dutch reformed theologian named Jacobus Arminius. Arminianism rejects predestination. Therefore, salvation is made possible by God’s grace, but humans have free will to accept or reject it. The denominations that believe in view are the Methodist Church, Seventh Day Adventists, Wesleyan Church, and General Baptists.

One thing to note here is that even though all these views especially Calvinism and Arminianism are different, they all have their foundation in the scriptures. You can easily convince one using scriptures for Calvinism or Arminianism. That is why even today people strongly believe in these opposing views. 

The Seventh Day Adventist Church adopted Arminianism, and it evolved its view of salvation much further from Arminianism and made it uniquely Adventist. Today in the Adventist community, there are at least four different interpretations of the doctrine of salvation by Grace. They are different in their views based on differences in their understanding of the roles of God’s grace, human effort, and moral perfection. Today, we will dive into these different viewpoints briefly.

Traditional View:

The traditional SDA view on salvation emphasizes the importance of reaching moral perfection in our character and overcoming sin with the help of Christ’s grace. This view argues that justification comes only by grace, but sanctification requires both human effort and God’s Grace. This view insists that by co-laboring with the Holy Spirit, we must resist sin, develop moral perfection, and be obedient. This view doesn’t believe that we will attain the perfect moral character of Christ in this life fully before the second coming but if we fail to put in our effort, we will hinder our spiritual growth and potentially lose our salvation. 

Last Generation Theology:

Another perspective within Adventism is the Last Generation Theology, which builds upon the traditional view but takes it a step further. This perspective believes that before Christ’s Second Coming, there will be a final generation of believers who will reach a state of sinless perfection. This perfection serves as proof of God’s nature and shows that it is possible to obey the law with the help of Christ’s strength. The lack of human effort is seen as a shortfall in meeting the expected level of excellence and the potential loss of salvation. 

The 1888 Message: 

The 1888 Minneapolis General Conference was a significant moment in Adventist theology. Because of Wagner and Jones’s message, the focus of salvation by the SDA Church since shifted to faith-based justification and the credited righteousness of Christ. This “1888 Message” emphasized the impact of Christ’s completed work and the believer’s connection with Him and downplayed the importance of moral perfection and obedience in the ultimate salvation process. The lack of human effort was not considered a danger to salvation, but it could hinder one’s sense of certainty and spiritual progress.

Dr. Jack Sequeira’s View:

More recently, Adventists have become more interested in the perspective of Dr. Jack Sequeira. Dr. Sequeira stresses the complete substitutionary atonement of Christ, where believers are considered completely righteous in the eyes of God due to Christ’s credited righteousness rather than their own achieved perfection. The growth of character is seen as an outcome of salvation, not a requirement for it. The believer’s position in Christ is not impacted by their own actions, as righteousness is given solely through faith. Lack of human effort does not affect the believer’s standing in Christ, as righteousness is entirely credited by faith.

Comparison and Contrast of SDA views:

These four perspectives cover a range of beliefs in Adventist theology. 

• The traditional view and last-generation theology give greater importance to the believer’s responsibility to achieve moral perfection. On the other hand, the 1888 message and Dr. Sequeira’s perspective downplay the believer’s responsibility and highlight the completed actions of Christ and credited righteousness. 
• These four views differ in how they relate to the doctrines of the Sabbath, the investigative judgment, and the heavenly sanctuary. The traditional view and last-generation theology place a stronger emphasis on the observance of the Sabbath, the importance of investigative judgment, and the ongoing work of Christ in saving humanity in the heavenly sanctuary. The 1888 message and Dr. Jack Seguerra’s view place less importance on these doctrines and focus more importance on the completed work of Christ on the cross. 

Comparison with Other Christian Traditions:

Some other Protestant views of salvation share similarities with certain Seventh-day Adventist perspectives.

• The traditional SDA view regarding achieving moral perfection and overcoming sin with the help of Christ closely aligns with the Wesleyan and Arminian concepts of Christian perfection. This view is not widely accepted among the protestant denominations which typically do not believe in attaining sinless perfection in this lifetime.
• Dr. Jack Sequeira’s focus on Christ’s completed work and the believer’s connection with Him aligns with Reformed teachings on justification and imputed righteousness. This aspect of Dr. Sequeira’s perspective is popular within Presbyterian, Reformed, and certain Baptist congregations.
• The 1888 message, with its strong emphasis on justification by faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ, shares some similarities with the Free Grace perspective found in certain Protestant circles. Both views downplay the role of character perfection and obedience in the final salvation process, focusing more on the finished work of Christ and the believer’s resting in His righteousness.

Conclusion:

The evolution of the doctrine of salvation by grace among Seventh-day Adventists reflects an ongoing dialogue and diversity of perspectives. Despite their agreement that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, Adventist scholars and members grapple with the complicated balance between God’s grace, human effort, and moral perfection.

In my opinion, the temptation of many Adventists is to somehow change salvation from a gift of God to a human effort-based process. We constantly argue over how much of our effort is needed in securing an already secured salvation. This tendency stems from a cognitive dissonance within our minds, where we struggle to fully accept the radical nature of grace and the sufficiency of Christ’s work on our behalf. We wrestle with the idea that our efforts do not contribute to our salvation, as it goes against our natural inclination towards works-based righteousness.

The greatest temptation for me is to believe that my righteousness, which was likened to filthy rags by Isaiah, somehow matters in securing my salvation. The moment, we give in to this temptation, we minimize the sacrifice of Christ and become legalistic. 

The parable of the wedding feast reminds us that both good and evil people were invited to the feast suggesting the importance of the King’s desire but not the individual behavior that qualified each one to the feast. One who refused to put on the wedding garment but thought that his garment was good enough was thrown away into the outer darkness. Such is the judgment for those who give into the temptation of reliance on human effort. 

In John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

The beauty of the gospel is found in its simplicity. Salvation is a gift given to those who believe in Christ’s sacrifice for their sins. Although character development and obedience are significant outcomes of salvation, they are not the path to achieving it. 

In the end, the different perspectives within Adventism regarding salvation, along with their nuanced distinctions, should not weaken the central message of being saved by grace through faith in Christ but rather deepen our gratitude for God’s love and the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.

Next week, I want to discuss how one must view moral law based on this new understanding of Grace. But for today:

• What do you think of the diversity of thought among the protestant denominations and even among the Adventists regarding the view of Salvation by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone? 
• How do you feel that even within the remnant Church that prides itself in the oracles of God, we have four different interpretations of salvation? 
• How can we overcome the cognitive dissonance and accept Grace? 
• Does the notion that our behavior, piety, and observance of unique SDA doctrines like Sabbath, health reform, etc. do not matter for salvation make you feel unsettled? 

C-J: I have to say, God always makes me smile. In this last month, I’ve visited three different churches. Before this, I hadn’t been to church in years. I was invited to these churches, and one of them was the church I attended 50 years ago, this month. It has changed so much—rooms repurposed, walls knocked out, colors changed, and a much younger congregation, though I was young back then too, at 23. Interestingly, the church has moved away from a defined religious identity.

While watching a documentary on Moses, featuring historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists, a phrase caught my attention: “cultural Christianity.” This ties into what Kiran discussed. Cultural Christianity comes in many flavors. I visited two Black churches; one was my student’s church involved in street ministry. I could clearly see the Nigerian culture’s pagan influences in the church’s customs and music. Then, I visited another church, invited by a veteran, which was very Pentecostal, complete with a bishop and pastor, and also mixed traditional praise and worship with very rhythmic music.

With regard to “cultural Christianity,” I realized it’s not about the culture of the Christian faith but about what God is doing in the body of Christ. Considering the street ministry of the first church, they focused on outreach to the most vulnerable. The second, my childhood church, emphasized praise, worship, and community outreach, living as ambassadors of Christ rather than preaching directly. The third church was deeply involved in mission work abroad, spreading God’s word in predominantly non-Christian regions.

At the last church, I was a hot mess. Being the only white person there, I introduced myself and showed respect, especially to the elders. Lonnie, who had invited me, was late because he was picking up people without transportation. When the bishop approached me, I was overwhelmed by the loud environment, as I’ve always been sensitive to sound. I stepped out of the sanctuary, crying and shaking, until the bishop prayed over me, bringing a sense of release. Despite my emotional turmoil, Lonnie’s presence and support were comforting.

Reflecting on my experience, especially after living through riots and dealing with constant fireworks, I realized how much impact those events had on me. The ministry of that church helped me address those buried feelings. What we do as cultural Christians aligns with the church we identify with, but God meets us in unexpected and extraordinary ways. This journey has reignited a joy in me, prompting me to question my place and the reasons I walked away from churches in the past. God’s message to me was clear: it’s not about what I need, but what He is preparing me for. Everything in my life, including this healing, is part of His plan, promising peace, wholeness, joy, and life. That’s the essence of the body of Christ; the rest is cultural Christianity. Thank you for your time and for listening to my testimony.

Donald: Thank you, C-J, for sharing such a broad perspective. Your journey across different churches provided much food for thought, contrasting significantly with the more narrow story I’m about to share. Kiran touched on the Adventist church this morning, and my experiences have been somewhat aligned, though focused through a narrower lens. Living for two years in an Adventist community has perhaps given me a unique perspective on the visibility and perception of Adventism.

Last Sabbath, we visited one of the approximately eight to ten Adventist churches in our area. It was a shock to see how it had changed since our last visit years ago. I’ve often told people I’m proud of our corporate church for its tolerance, a word suggesting acceptance of a spectrum of thought, which was echoed in C-J’s reflections about the diversity within a context.

This church, with around 1,500 attendees at the second service, has made a name for itself, especially since COVID, for its stance on vaccination and its vibrant community engagement in mission and health work. The children wearing shawls reminded me of Shipshewana—almost Amish, highlighting a divergence of perspectives within our community.

I had breakfast this week with a lifelong friend and member of that church who holds a narrow interpretation of faith, emphasizing behavior as critical to salvation. This conversation reinforced the diversity of thought within our church community, from the conservative to the more broad-minded.

I dislike labeling these perspectives as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ because it simplifies complex beliefs. It’s more about the breadth of view, with the village church having a narrower focus compared to the university church’s broader perspective. Yet, all congregations believe they’re following the right path, which underscores the diversity within our Adventist community.

It’s crucial to recognize that everyone thinks they’re correct in their beliefs, which fosters a diversity of thought and practice within our faith. My contribution, albeit narrower than C-J’s, reflects on the varied perspectives within Adventism and the importance of acknowledging and understanding these differences. I hope this adds value to our discussion.

C-J: It all comes down to the body of Christ. It’s not about adhering strictly to rules or staying within a prescribed lane. It’s about recognizing God’s presence and movement, like the unseen currents beneath the waves. The size of a church or a list of detailed rules isn’t the core of our faith. Yes, we agree on the importance of having moral guardrails, and there’s undeniable beauty in the Ten Commandments. But our faith isn’t about being excluded for making a mistake, then struggling to work our way back to acceptance. This understanding embodies the essence of grace.

There are those who believe in predestination, who see faith as black or white—you’re either right or wrong. However, when I shifted my perspective, I understood that it’s not about the cultural practices of a particular church but about the body of Christ as a whole. That’s where true tolerance begins to flourish. I see God in you, I see God moving among us, I recognize the grace and heart within you, and I accept you just as Christ accepts all of us. This realization removes the burden of shame, guilt, and cognitive dissonance. Viewing our faith as God working within His collective body, rather than through isolated individuals, enriches us all.

David: I appreciated Donald’s metaphor about being in a lane. It led me to think that, in a way, all lanes—like all roads leading to Rome—eventually guide us to the same destination. The various perspectives that Kiran discussed, each distinct and valid in its own right, essentially converge towards the same goal. There’s no inherently “right” or “wrong” lane; rather, it’s about understanding that each lane, whether denominational or individual, represents a unique pathway towards the same end—towards God, or towards what some might call salvation.

The concept of “salvation” doesn’t quite resonate with me. Imagine if Jesus had not yet come and wasn’t expected for another 200 years. How, then, would salvation be understood? Was someone like Isaiah saved? The idea of salvation through Christ complicates things further. As Kiran suggested, while doctrine—or as I would frame it, scripture—appears straightforward, it is, in fact, layered with complexity. This plethora of perspectives, however, might just be scripture’s beauty. It unveils various lanes or pathways, all of which hold validity because they lead us to God.

Reinhard: I find a lot of truth in the emphasis on tolerance and diversity within the Christian faith, especially from my perspective within Seventh-day Adventism. When I’m in Indonesia, for instance, and visit churches, I’m struck by the similarities in worship patterns to those in the West, from the liturgy to the preaching. There’s a frequent mention of Ellen G. White in sermons there, which might not be as common elsewhere, but I believe that’s beside the point. The core of our faith, what the Bible teaches, remains constant across cultures.

Looking at the history of Christianity, from its inception after Jesus’ departure up to the present day, significant developments seem sparse until the explosion of Christian denominations in the 18th and 19th centuries, including the rise of Seventh-day Adventism. Key moments like the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and Martin Luther’s Reformation in the 16th century stand out. Yet, it’s arguably not until about 200 years ago that the doctrines of the Second Coming and salvation by faith and grace began to be emphasized more prominently.

Today, we find ourselves in an era enriched by knowledge and understanding, and this dialogue among different Christian denominations, particularly within the Seventh-day Adventist community, underscores the importance of tolerance. While we may not always agree with or accept the customs and practices of other denominations, especially those that differ from our own Western traditions, the capacity for acceptance is crucial. The essence of our gatherings, the preaching that directs us to God, is the fundamental point.

The key takeaway is that despite our differences, as long as we center Jesus in our beliefs and live out those beliefs, we are aligning with what God desires for us. This pursuit of salvation, underscored by a faith deeply rooted in grace, is what we all strive for. I believe that embracing this understanding and practicing tolerance is essential for our collective journey towards salvation.

Michael: I don’t see the value in discussing doctrine because I don’t believe that adherence to any specific doctrine is what will save us.

David: You might argue that any doctrine could save us as long as it’s accompanied by faith. The common thread across doctrines is the belief in God, which might be all that’s necessary. Jesus emphasized the commandments to love God and your neighbor. If you believe in God (a term I associate with Goodness), it’s difficult to imagine not loving God, or hating Him. Thus, all doctrines could be seen as simultaneously nonsensical and true. It doesn’t matter if you’ll tak’ the high road and I’ll tak’ the low road; we’ll both reach Scotland eventually.

C-J: Based on my experiences with people whose faith blends elements of ancient paganism, I believe the outcomes of faith—the fruits—are important. Forgive my broad generalization, but consider individuals practicing voodoo for personal gain, utilizing rituals, herbs, chanting, and sacrifices. I view their actions through the lens of their limited revelation, hesitating to judge the morality of their practices based on their cultural context and intentions.

For those who intend harm, there are consequences, yet it’s not for me to decree eternal damnation. As a self-identifying Christian, my role is to demonstrate grace, trusting God to bring justice and healing where harm has been done.

In my neighborhood, there are practitioners of Santería. While some engage in rituals that seem dark to me, they do so not out of malice but in a plea for evil to leave them. It’s a complex cultural tradition beyond my place to judge. Who am I to consider someone evil for practices they were born into? Yes, I believe in dark spiritual forces, having witnessed their reality. Yet, engaging such forces requires divine commission and protection. It’s a realm fraught with danger, not to be entered lightly.

Don: I believe the context of today’s discussion might become clearer with next week’s topic on the role of the Ten Commandments and obedience in salvation. The notion that salvation depends on having the ‘right’ beliefs is peculiar. What beliefs are we talking about? Which ideas do we deem worth living or dying for? The idea that we must formulate a correct understanding of God or any concept seems at odds with the notion of grace. Grace suggests that salvation isn’t about what we think but rather what God does, liberating us from the burden of ensuring our beliefs align perfectly with divine truth.

David: Consider the Garden of Eden as an example of grace. Imagine Adam and Eve as children in a garden, cared for and protected by their father, enjoying freedom to play and having minimal responsibilities aside from a few chores and one rule. This scenario underscores a state of grace where they could essentially live without worry. Did they need to develop doctrines about their father, or was it enough to simply live in his grace?

Michael: The story of Adam and Eve often misses the point that they represent psychological children. Viewing their expulsion from Eden as a necessary developmental step from childhood suggests that longing to return to Eden is akin to desiring a return to childhood—a concept Freud explored. The challenge is understanding how to embrace the essence of Eden as adults, maintaining innocence or a childlike perspective while achieving spiritual maturity.

Don: Jesus’s call to become like children introduces a paradox: spiritual maturity involves embracing a form of childlike innocence or simplicity. This suggests a profound truth about our spiritual journey, underscoring the importance of maintaining a pure, trusting approach to faith as we grow and mature.

C-J: The essence of childlike faith, I believe, lies in trust and obedience. When we are told something isn’t good for us, we accept it without needing exhaustive explanations, trusting in the wisdom of those who guide us. This simplicity is often lost as we grow, especially among well-educated adults, who might scrutinize and analyze based on their personal truths, experiences, or interpretations of texts.

God’s principle of “to whom much is given, much is required” is a recurring theme in the Bible. Take Moses, for example. Despite his vast knowledge and experience, educated among the elite and familiar with complex matters like warfare and multiple languages, his time in the desert stripped him of all but humility. He learned to tend to sheep, dealing with their less appealing aspects, which contrasts sharply with commanding obedience from people.

Moses’s journey from leadership to humble shepherding, living amongst a community regarded as lowly, eating the same food daily, and braving the elements, emphasizes a powerful transformation. This story illustrates that often, the most difficult individuals to bring to their knees in humility are the highly educated or those with extensive religious access. They might question the rationality of faith, yet, I firmly believe in these divine mysteries.

I’m continually astonished by God’s wisdom in orchestrating encounters, delivering messages, and utilizing humble vessels for His purpose. Jesus’s ministry among the uneducated highlighted this, as He walked with those open to receiving His teachings, contrasting with the educated Jews of His time, who, despite being God’s chosen people, were often too entrenched in their knowledge to accept His message.

Anonymous: In the beginning, God gave a single command during creation week: observe the Sabbath. From that point to the issuance of the Ten Commandments at Mount Horeb, it seems God’s primary expectation was for people to recognize Him as the Creator through this one command, largely overlooking their ways of living—even when sin, like Cain killing Abel, was rampant.

As sin flourished, God felt compelled to clarify the path of righteousness, hence the Ten Commandments. I imagine there was resistance from the people, accustomed to their ways of life, questioning the sudden imposition of rules against adultery, lying, idolatry, etc., with the dire consequence of death for disobedience. In this narrative, Jesus’s arrival marks a pivotal moment: He reassures that past sins are forgiven and urges adherence to a new way of life. Yet, despite this new covenant, human failure persists.

Jesus introduces a revolutionary solution: He will bear the consequences of our sins. All that’s asked of us is to believe in His sacrifice, signifying a new covenant focused not on our actions but on faith. This doesn’t mean we cease to sin, but it highlights God’s ongoing work in sanctification, individually tailoring His guidance, wisdom, and experiences to each person in ways beyond our comprehension.

Belief in Jesus initiates a transformation process, the mechanics of which remain a mystery. How God will restore us to Edenic purity or perfect us for eternal life is unknown, but faith in His grace is paramount.

Jesus perceives us as children—limited, naïve, and incapable of grasping the entirety of His plan. This doesn’t diminish our value but emphasizes our reliance on His grace and the futility of trying to earn salvation through our understanding or deeds. Our role is simply to believe, to trust in Jesus’s sacrifice as the cornerstone of our covenant with God, acknowledging our limited perspective in the vastness of His work.

In essence, our journey is not about attaining perfection through knowledge or deeds but about submitting to the transformative power of faith and grace, embracing our role in God’s grand design.

* * *