(Chapters 1 and 2)
In his Introduction, Sequeira asks us to "put aside all preconceived ideas" (p. 7). A prominent opposer interprets this as a demand that we abandon our solid Adventist convictions of truth. Thus suspicions are planted concerning this book. Sequeira explains his meaning in his next sentence: "new wine cannot be put into old bottles (see Matthew 9:17)." The "preconceived ideas" Sequeira refers to are not the solid truths that Seventh-day Adventists hold, but the same "preconceived ideas" that Ellen White asked her 18 8 8-era brethren to "lay aside" when she appealed to them at Minneapolis: "There are mines to be discovered in which are precious jewels of truth. Let no one close these mines, and cease to dig for the truth lest they should have to lay aside some preconceived idea or opinion" (MS 15, November 1, 1888; The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 163). Four years later she wrote,
"There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation" (Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 35; 1892).
While it may have been better if the order of these two chapters had been reversed, the text itself is clear. It contains no "sin-and-live" leanings. We cannot fault the authors foundation-al statement that "self-love is the underlying principle of all sin" (p. 11; this cannot be Spiritualism). When he says that "sin ... is basically rebellion against God" (idem.), he is in harmony with Ellen White s definition, "sin is the transgression of the law" [anomia, Greek]. No tincture of Augustinian or Calvinist original sin occurs in Sequeira's statements such as these: "we are born self-centered," and "love of self is the driving force of our natures" (pp. 12-14), and "our sinful condition (iniquity) makes it impossible for us to do anything but miss the divine mark (sin) unless we have a Saviour" (p. 15). While this is painfully, universally true, Sequeira says we do have that Saviour, thank God.
What does it mean to be "shaped in iniquity" (Psalm 51:5)? Sequeira deals with the question directly without espousing Augustinian original sin: "We are born with a nature that is bent toward sin or self.... We have all followed the natural bent to our 'own way'.... This self-centeredness [is] the iniquity that was laid upon Christ" (p. 14). But such a "bent" or "tendency" is not sin unless it is yielded to. Sequeira says that although "all we" have yielded to it, when Christ took the nature of "the children" and their "flesh and blood" and took a "self" as we have a self, He perfectly denied self. He took a will of His own that had to be denied in order to follow His Fathers will (John 5:30; 6:38; Matthew 26:39, etc.). A total denial of self is the opposite of selfishness. Thus Christ could take our sinful nature yet not be a sinner. In our case, we have all become naturally selfish in character because we are by nature separated or alienated from God. "There is none righteous, no, not one."
Sequeira's statements do not require an "Immaculate Conception" or an "exemption" for Christ in His incarnation, as does a false definition of sin. He makes clear that in His incarnation Christ took the fallen, sinful nature which we all share, experiencing temptation "like as" we experience it, including the necessity to deny the clamors of self. In fact, no book published by a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house today presents the 1888 view of the nature of Christ as powerfully as does this one. Yet one very prominent opponent, a former General Conference leader, has publicly declared that Beyond Belief teaches that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall, disclosing to thoughtful people the embarrassing fact that he has not read the book.
What does Sequeira say about God's love? We have searched the chapter on "God's Redemptive Love" for some evidence of the "most deadly heresy" that opponents say permeates this book. Speaking of Beyond Belief 'one speaker warns congregations that they should beware of the teaching that "God is love" because love is over-emphasized with the dangerous possibility that the Satanic deception of Spiritualism lurks within it (he cites The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 405, as evidence). Since he regards this book as "Satan's masterpiece of deception," we must give special attention to Sequeira's remarks about love (agape). If the book is satanic, surely something will be apparent in this chapter. Satan is very clever, but he cannot completely cover his tracks. What does Sequeira say about God's love?
He contrasts it with human love, declaring that agape is "unconditional," which troubles his critics. Yet we read that God "justifieth the ungodly." "When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.... God commendeth his agape toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners [enemies, vs. 10] Christ died for us" (Romans 4:5; 5:6, 8, 10). "Herein is love [agape], not that we loved God, but that He loved us" (1 John 4:10). Christ enjoins upon us unconditonal love for our fellow-men ("love [agapao] your enemies, bless them that curse you," Matthew 5:44). Would He ask us to love others with an unconditional love that He Himself does not exercise?
Of course God's love for the sinner is unconditional! We are surprised that some "historic Adventists" wish to deny it. (That doesn't mean that He loves sin.) Ellen White speaks thus of "conditions": "The question will come up, How is it? Is it by conditions that we receive salvation? Never by conditions do we come to Christ" (MS 9, 1890; The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 537). We can receive agape "only as the unmerited bestowal of the Father's love" (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 210). "God so loved the [sinful] world that He gave His only begotten Son."
We do "not work in order to earn God's love" (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 283). Although it requires a response of obedience on our part, we must never give the impression that God waits to love us until we make ourselves good first. This is the key issue here. Since the gospel has to be the good news about God's love, if that love for the sinner should prove to be unconditional it would follow that the gospel that tells about it must also be unconditional good news. And Sequeira's opponents are very unhappy with that statement.
Sequeira does not mean that the repentant sinner does nothing, does not obey, or that there are not dire consequences if he rejects the unconditional good news. He does not mean that love's requirements of obedience and service are lessened in the least, nor does he mean that God's plan of salvation is unconditional. He simply says that the news about God's unconditional love is unconditionally good. That is what the very word "gospel" (euangelion) means.
In other words, the righteousness of Christ by which "the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" was accomplished "while we were yet sinners," totally without our making any contribution, and totally without our doing anything to merit it. Sequeira means that Christ is our Saviour 100%; we cannot save ourselves even 1%. He believes there is no power in the universe except agape that can "constrain" lukewarm, materialistic, egocentric, fear-dominated Seventh-day Adventists to live "henceforth [not] unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again." All motivation based on fear or hope-of-reward will ultimately fail because it is essentially egocentric. (The mark of the beast will be the ultimate test; yet one prominent opposer leads congregations to believe that this book will program Seventh-day Adventists to accept that mark. In fact, this message may be a heaven-sent preparation to help God's people meet that test, because no one can then make the right decision if egocentric concern remains the paramount motivation.)
Sequeira's high regard for the quality of agape-lave is the guiding principle of his book, out of which all of his ideas emanate. In fact, agape, not legal justification, is its real focus. He says: "Human love is conditional, ... changeable, ... self-seeking.... God's love is unconditional, ... unchanging, ... self-giving.... Not until we recognize this threefold quality of God's agape love will the gospel become unconditional good news to us" (p. 23). Is that a "satanic heresy"? In particular, does Sequeira teach the fatal "sin-and-live theology" that opponents attribute to him?
What does he mean by "unconditional good news"? Does he say that there are no conditions for eternal salvation? No. The gospel is not news of what we do, but of what Christ has done (past tense), and does (present tense), and will do (future tense) for us. Any news of what we do cannot be good news, for no merit can be attached to our works, even good ones. The author frequently says that the sinner can reject the good news and be lost. But no lost soul can at last claim that God's love to him was partial or conditional.
Sequeira's analysis of eros, agape, and caritas forces our acknowledgement that it is correct. He declares unequivocally that the only true gospel is agape. The Galatian heresy anticipated the caritas error of a "gospel of faith plus works, or justification plus sanctification, ... die heart of Roman Catholic theology. It is a subtle form of legalism" (p. 25). Opponents consider this a "deadly" disparagement of obedience or of sanctification, but it brings us to the place where we must make a choice between two contrasting and irreconcilable formulas: (a) we are saved by faith and by works, or (b) we are saved by faith which works. We believe the truth has to lie with (b), as we will soon demonstrate.
We must not inject into Sequeira's words what is not there. Justification has to be what God does, and sanctification has to be what we do in cooperation with Him. Sequeira's remarks do not hint that sanctification is not necessary to eternal salvation, or that it is not equally by faith as is justification. He maintains only that the gospel has to be good news of what Christ did for the human race, "while we were yet sinners." The point is, no human being can invent or produce a righteousness that is better than Christ's righteousness, or that can stand independent of it, or substitute for it. It is not correct to confuse Sequeira's definition of the gospel with his understanding of the fruits of the gospel, which he says depend on understanding and believing the former. His position is distinctly different than that of the "Reformationist new theology."
Sequeira's analysis of "agape and self-worth" is on target (p. 26). Contrary to insinuations from his opponents otherwise, this is opposed to every principle of Spiritualism and is the only effective defense against its subtle inroads of egocentric self-esteem. To attribute Sequeira's message of agape to Spiritualism, or even to imply that it is related to it, is contradicted by a careful reading of the evidence in this chapter. We must take our stand firmly that God's agape for sinners is indeed the strongest moral force in the universe and is unconditional, although of course the sinner can resist and reject it because God has granted him the power of choice. ("Unconditional" does not mean irresistible.)
In concluding this section, we cannot agree with the opponents that agape is in any way a dangerous doctrine or that it is possible to over-emphasize or over-state it, for "God is agape"'(1 John 4:8; see 1 Corinthians 13). Nor can we agree that the gospel is "faith plus works." It is the pure good news that arouses in human hearts a "faith which works" (Galatians 5:6). We conclude that we do not see "deadly heresy" or "satanic deception" in this section.