(Chapters 3 and 4)
Since only "the gospel ... is the power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16), the church must learn what is "the truth of the gospel" (Galatians 2:5, 14) if we are to proclaim it to the world with the mighty power described in Revelation 18.
Sequeira's opponents are disturbed because he maintains that the gospel is the news of "a righteousness that is entirely of God's doing without any human contribution whatsoever. ... In Christ... humanity stands perfect and complete before God and His holy law." Sequeira defines this "salvation" as including deliverance from " 1. the guilt and punishment of sin. 2. the power and slavery of sin. 3. the nature and presence of sin." He says that "all three of these aspects ... have already been accomplished in ... our Lord Jesus Christ, ... offered to us in Christ; they cannot be separated" (pp. 29, 30). By entering the stream of our fallen humanity as the second Adam, Christ has redeemed the entire human race. Is this heresy?
If Sequeira is teaching that a legal justification "in Christ" is sufficient for eternal salvation the answer would be yes. His opponents accuse him of this, creating revulsion for his teaching that salvation is "unconditional." But his next sentence clearly says no: "We cannot choose to receive one without the others." In other words, "salvation" from "the power and slavery of sin" (sanctification) is just as essential for eternal life as salvation from the guilt and punishment of sin (legal justification). This on-going, life-long process is what Sequeira defines as "sanctification by faith" (p. 31). Although opponents maintain that he neglects sanctification, he devotes a large section of his book to it (pp. 101-178).
Sequeira's phrase "the finished work of our Lord" (p. 30) does not mean a finished atonement on the cross, even though to some readers the word "finished" is a red flag implying heresy. He uses the word in the same sense as Jesus' prayer, "Father, ... I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do," and as His last cry as He died, "It is finished." Christ did not mean that the process of the atonement was finished—the sacrifice-was finished.
Opponents object to remarks which Sequeira makes on p. 32 where he says: "Confusion comes as a result of failing to see the distinction between what God has already accomplished in Christ some two thousand years ago and what He is presently doing in the lives of believers through the indwelling Spirit.... The imputed righteousness of Christ... qualifies the believer for heaven, both now and in die judgment.... Imparted righteousness ... does not contribute in die slightest way to our qualification for heaven; it witnesses, or demonstrates, what is already true of us in Christ." "Righteousness 'in Christ' is the only means of our salvation, and unless we resist and reject it, it fully qualifies us for heaven." "Jesus Christ has already accomplished everything necessary for sinful men and women to be declared righteous and candidates for heaven." Does Sequeira exalt Christ's righteousness too much? Should he make room for our own righteousness to be given at least some merit alongside Christ's righteousness?
The objection is that this gives readers the idea that obedience to the law is not necessary, that all one needs is a mental assent to the legal event of the cross without a change of heart and life. Is this a correct deduction?
Readers don't have to go far to find that Sequeira effectively refutes this charge on the same page: "If [imparted righteousness] is lacking in our lives, that is evidence that we either do not clearly understand the gospel or that we have rejected the gift of imputed righteousness. A refusal to clothe ourselves with the imputed righteousness of Christ indicates we do not have genuine faith and therefore unfits us for heaven." What Christ accomplished in His incarnation can be despised or rejected by the sinner through his choice to disbelieve. Words could hardly be more clear to emphasize that mere trusting to a legal justification (imputed righteousness) without receiving imparted righteousness "unfits us for heaven." If we choose to refuse a fitness for heaven (internal sanctification) we reject the qualification for heaven that Christ has already effected for us by His sacrifice (external legal justification).
Sequeira's objectors agree that he says many good things, but insist that contradictory remarks are scattered through his book which make it to be "most deadly heresy." That's why, they add, this book is "Satan's masterpiece of deception." A former General Conference leader charges him with using NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) in order to deceive his readers, that is, implanting a heresy on one page while assuringly denying it on another.
Why does Sequeira exalt Christ's righteousness so highly? Why does he take pains to speak in such precise language? He wants to make very clear that salvation is the work of our Saviour, not of ourselves. He is concerned about the lukewarmness that permeates the church worldwide, which is the result of a failure to appreciate "the truth of the gospel." He wants to direct the readers attention to Christ, not to self. He believes that righteousness is totally by faith, not by works. Further, it is not by faith and by works, but by a faith which works. When he insists that we are saved by faith he does not deny that we shall be judged by our works, but our works simply testify in the judgment whether or not our faith has been genuine.
Careful attention to details reveals that there is no contradiction. Sequeira says that "the imputed righteousness of Christ qualifies the believer far heaven." If he had said that the "imputed righteousness of Christ qualifies the unbeliever for heaven," then we would indeed have "deadly heresy" here. "Well," someone says, "the problem is that Sequeira also says that 'imparted righteousness does not contribute to our qualification for heaven.'"
We should make certain what Sequeira means by "qualification for heaven." Does he mean "our title to heaven," or our "fitness for heaven"? Ellen White says that imputed righteousness (justification) is our title to heaven, while imparted righteousness (sanctification) is out fitness for it (Review and Herald, June 4, 1895). According to that statement, the difference is profound. If one qualifies as the owner of a car, he may have a title to it, but it may not have the "fitness" to be driven on the highway. If Sequeira had said that imputed righteousness is our fitness for heaven, we would also disagree with him. But it is not right to read into his words what is not there. He has chosen his words carefully, and they must be understood as he says them, not as we inject into them our own uncharitable surmisings.
The crucial issue here is whether Christ is completely our Saviour. Or is He only partially so with our own good works contributing to our qualification for heaven? The inspired phrase must tell the truth—"Christ our righteousness," that is, we have none of ourselves. Whatever is either imputed or imparted is totally of Him and from Him. Never will we have any merit in ourselves. Sequeira is seeking to combat Galatianism, which is the doctrine of salvation by faith and by works. He sees that this falsehood has seriously infiltrated this church worldwide, including "historic Adventism," producing lukewarmness and legalism. But this does not mean he is downplaying genuine obedience to the law. Galatianism will prepare people to accept the mark of the beast when the test comes because it is based on the egocentric motivation of fear rather than agape. Satan will know how to appeal to this deep fear. Every trace of such legalism must be overcome, or we will face disaster in the final crisis. The pure, true gospel must be restored to the third angel's message in verity.
Does Ellen White comment on this issue? She explains herself in two of the most pointed and emphatic 1888-message statements she ever wrote. Nothing else that she ever wrote can be wrested to contradict this:
"There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more earnestly, repeated more frequently, or established more firmly in the minds of all than the impossibility of fallen man meriting anything by his own best good works. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone... Let the subject be made distinct and plain that it is not possible to effect anything in our standing before God or in the gift of God to us through creature merit. Should faith and works purchase the gift of salvation for anyone, then the Creator is under obligation to the creature. Here is an opportunity for falsehood to be accepted as truth. If any man can merit salvation by anything he may do, then he is in the same position as the Catholic to do penance for his sins. Salvation, then, is partly of debt, that may be earned as wages. If man cannot, by any of his good works, merit salvation, then it must be wholly of grace, received by man as a sinner because he receives and believes in Jesus. It is wholly a free gift. Justification by faith is placed beyond controversy. And all this controversy is ended, as soon as the matter is settled that the merits of fallen man in his good works can never procure eternal life for him.
"The light given me of God places this important subject above any question in my mind...
"Discussion may be entered into by mortals strenuously advocating creature merit, and each man striving for the supremacy, but they simply do not know that all the time, in principle and character, they are misrepresenting the truth as it is in Jesus. They are in a fog of bewilderment" (Faith and Works, pp. 19-23; MS 36, 1890; The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 810ff).
"Must works come first? No, it is faith first. And how? The cross of Christ is lifted up between heaven and earth.... The man is drawn to the One who uplifts him, and the One who uplifts him draws him to repentance. It is no work of his own; there is nothing that he can do that is of any value at all except to believe" (MS 5, 1889; ibid., p. 344).
Note that Ellen White says that mans obedience, manifested in sanctification, "can never procure eternal life for him." "It is wholly a free gift." This is the same as saying that our obedience or our sanctification can never "qualify us" for heaven, which Sequeira says. "All this controversy is ended." In effect, Ellen White is saying that all our good works in sanctification "do not contribute in the slightest way" to "procure," to "merit" for us, or to "qualify" us, for eternal life.
What Christ accomplished on His cross—this is the all-important issue. At the bottom of p. 32 Sequeira makes an arresting statement that again arouses his opponents: "'In Christ,' all humanity was redeemed—legally justified and reconciled to God." If he had said that all humanity "in Christ" will be saved eternally, we would indeed disagree with him, for many will be lost. But we note that he says "redeemed." He defines that word as "legally justified," not as eternally saved.
Christ did in fact redeem the entire planet. Life here would have totally ceased if He were not the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Ellen White has made statements similar to Sequeira's: "[Christ] took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race of men to favor with God" (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 343). In fact, her statement is more than similar; it presents the identical thought. "Redeemed" means bought back. ""We are bought with a price," says Paul (1 Corinthians 6:20). When and where was the price paid? It is hardly "deadly heresy" or "satanic deception" to answer emphatically, at the cross. And whatever happened there relates to "all men." Ellen White frequently says that Christ "redeemed" the "world." "Jesus became the worlds Redeemer" (Bible Echo, August 6, 1894).
Sequeira holds the cross of Christ in very high esteem, clearly as having accomplished infinitely more than those who disagree with him seem willing to recognize. He sees the cross as "redeeming" the entire human race. Christ has taken the initiative in our salvation, not we, and He continues to do so. He has not backed off, leaving us to grope our way to heaven. He has tasted the equivalent of the second "death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9), and His agape continually seeks the lost soul as the Good Shepherd seeks the lost sheep. There is no reason for any human being to die the second death except that he resists the grace of the Lord and refuses by unbelief to let Him be his Saviour (1 Timothy 4:10; John 3:16-19; The Desire of Ages, p. 58). This is glorious news that many have not clearly seen, for they have not known the constraint of the agape motivation. For want of this their hearts have not been truly reconciled to God, and they simply cannot serve Him with joyous abandon. Will "historic Adventists" reject this obvious truth?
Sequeira's opponents see the cross of Christ as only provisonally offering something to the sinner, but accomplishing nothing unless that person first takes the initiative and thereafter continues to hold the initiative (see also, for example, Senior Sabbath School Quarterly, July 23, September 3, 1988; August 4, 1993). But Sequeira sees the life that "all men" now enjoy as the purchase of Christ's sacrifice—their very breath and heartbeat made possible only because He has borne their iniquity upon the cross (see The Desire of Ages, 660). By His sacrifice He has elected "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:3, 4). In that sense, the entire human race has been "redeemed" and thus legally justified.
Jones and Waggoner also both saw that Christ redeemed the entire human race from the second death, having died that death "for every man" and thus "abolished death" (Hebrews 2:9; 2 Timothy 1:10; see following article by Gerald L. Finneman). It is totally wrong however to accuse them of teaching the heresy of "Universalism," for they recognized that the vast majority spurn the blessing through unbelief. They agreed fully with the position taken in Steps to Christ that the sinner must resist this grace in order to be lost (see Appendix E). The 1888 message recognized that the Holy Spirit brought a deeper conviction or sharper definition of sin in those initial "showers from heaven of the latter rain" (see Waggoner on Romans, pp. 69, 101; The Glad Tidings, pp. 11, 13, 14; Jones in General Conference Bulletin, 1895, pp. 268, 269; Steps to Christ, pp. 26, 27).
Sequeira lists a number of texts to support his statement that the whole human race was incorporate in Christ so that '"in Christ' all humanity was redeemed—legally justified and reconciled to God." Thus he glories in the cross of Christ, but the question is, does he glory too much? We must take the trouble to look at each of these texts and see what they actually say:
Romans 5:18: "By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The language of the text appears to support Sequeira's statement, and one prominent speaker quoted earlier who opposes Sequeira frankly confesses he is puzzled by it, dismissing it as one of Peter's "hard to be understood" statements. He cannot explicate it. But Sequeira believes it is as clear as sunlight.
2 Corinthians 5:18, 19: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." Again, it is clear—the "reconciliation" took place at the cross, and the gospel is simply the news about it. If the "trespasses" of the whole world were imputed to Christ, it follows that they can not be imputed to the world. In other words, for God to impute the worlds trespasses unto Christ requires that they not be imputed to us, and that equals a "verdict of acquittal," a legal justification, for "all men." No sinner has as yet borne the full burden of his guilt because none has as yet died the second death. Christ actually did something for "every man," not merely offering him something tentatively or provisionally.
1 Timothy 4:10: "God ... is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." A prominent speaker has misquoted this text in his Paradise, California, tape, objecting to what he supposes Paul said when in fact he misreads it. He reads into it that God will save even those who do not believe, and rightly concludes that is wrong. He even suggests that Paul causes confusion. But the verb "is" is not future tense—it is present tense. Paul says Christ is already now "the Saviour of all men." How? The conclusion is inescapable: He has legally redeemed, "bought," the human race and elected "all men" to salvation. (All of these clear texts our opponent relegates to the back burner, saying they belong in Peter's category that Paul wrote "some things hard to be understood".)
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men" (RSV). There again Paul's idea comes through of a universal atonement, a universal legal justification, with God taking the initiative for the salvation of "all men." Shocking as this gospel may be to some Seventh-day Adventist ears, it is Bible truth.
1 John 2:2: "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world." The Apostle John echoes the same idea. Something was "finished" at Calvary, accomplished for the entire human race—not the atonement, but the sacrifice! Faith simply appreciates what is already an accomplished fact.
We conclude that it is indeed safe to "glory" in the cross as did Paul.
Some vigorously oppose Sequeira's presentation of this "in Christ motif." His conclusion is expressed on p. 33 that "the central theme of the apostle Paul's theology regarding the gospel is the 'in Christ' motif or idea." To get a correct view, one must carefully read his discussion that follows (pp. 33-35). The Scripture support he cites deserves close attention. The problem is that his opponents have confused the experiential life of the believer abiding "in Christ" (John 15:4-7) with the corporate involvement of the whole human race "in Christ" as their "second Adam." As believers, we experientially "abide in Christ" through the exercise of our own consent. But without any consent of our own we are incorporate "in Adam" by birth, and also by redemption (thank God!) we are likewise legally incorporate "in Christ" as members of the human race. By unbelief we reject that blessed privilege which was already made a fact by His sacrifice. Thus our own unbelief becomes the only reason for eternal perdition. It is highly significant that Sequeira found his initial impetus for studying this pure Bible "motif" in the writings of Jones and Waggoner.
Another statement Sequeira makes is arresting: "Jesus Christ can abide in you through the Holy Spirit... and fulfill in your life the demands of God's holy law ... only because of the objective fact that 'in Christ' you have already met all the requirements and demands of the law" (p. 35). The first half presents no problem; the second raises a prominent opposer s concern. He thinks he sees antinomianism here—that because you were "in Christ" corporately 2,000 years ago and He kept the law, therefore he thinks that Sequeira implies that obedience to God's law is unnecessary and irrelevant to Christian living.
Sequeira's keyword must not be overlooked—"objective." We states that the believer in Christ's objective obedience will surely obey subjectively "all the requirements and demands of the law." To the careful reader Sequeira makes clear that he believes in sanctification and obedience to the law. He is insisting only that no sinner can truly meet those "demands" except by living faith in Christ's life of obedience and His sacrifice. Sequeira teaches the possibility of total obedience, of complete character transformation, of perfect sanctification in this life (pp. 63, 64, 71, 90-98). Further, he teaches the certainty that the much more abounding grace of Christ will accomplish this work in God's faithful people prior to the return of Christ (pp. 102, 105, 118, etc.).
Any suggestion that Beyond Belief 'is a "resurgence of new theology" is denied by a careful reading of Chapter 4. Here is a convincing rebuttal of the "Reformationist" view of righteousness by faith which has permeated the Seventh-day Adventist Church in recent decades. And the task is accomplished simply by using "the sword of the Spirit," the Bible alone. The author sets forth Christ as our Example in holy, sinless living.
But the situation created by opponents is phenomenal: in our current denominational literature today here is an unusually clear, convincing Biblical defense of the view that Christ took our fallen, sinful nature, and that complete victory over sin is possible for the believer, a view that overthrows the key doctrine of the "Reformationist theology." Yet those who have supported this view for decades now strangely wish to condemn this powerful presentation of it. This is unprecedented in Seventh-day Adventist history.
Sequeira accurately details how the common Evangelical idea of "substitution" ends in cheap grace, yet his opponents accuse him of teaching "cheap grace." His view demonstrates that God's grace is very expensive. He also demonstrates why injection of the popular "vicarious" idea into Christ's substitution is not scriptural (Ellen White never uses the word). Christ came to save the fallen Adam, not the sinless Adam. To say that He died "as us" is closer to the truth than to say He died only "instead of us." "I am crucified with Christ," says Paul (Galatians 2:20). "If One died for all, then all died" (2 Corinthians 5:14).
When Ellen White occasionally uses the phrase "instead of" she is not supporting the Roman Catholic doctrine of a vicarious sacrifice, that the Father punished His Son "instead of us." All that Christ accomplished "instead of us" He accomplished intimately "as us," having taken our fallen, sinful nature by identifying Himself with the corporate stream of our present humanity. Sequeira does more than merely condemn error; he explains why it is wrong. Through life-long association with Muslims in Kenya he understands how the non-biblical Catholic-Calvinist views are an unnecessary stumbling block to them as well as to Western secularists. The evidence is clear that Sequeira has been emancipated from Catholicism. But are his opponents free of it?
Is this "in Christ motif" "Satan's masterpiece of deception," as a prominent opposer says? Before answering, the reader should carefully examine pp. 33-35, reading the Scripture texts listed. Once the biblical idea is understood of the human race being both incorporate "in Adam" and by grace "in Christ," the problem vanishes. We must look at the texts:
Hebrews 7:10: Levi paid tithes "in Abraham" before he was born. Here is corporate identity.
Romans 5:12: Adam's fall plunged the entire race into sin and death; here is corporate involvement.
2 Corinthians 5:14: "If One died for all, then were all dead" (the Greek says, "all died").
1 John 5:11: "God has given to us eternal life [past tense] ... in Christ." Here again is corporate involvement. One has to reject the gift in order to be lost (SC 26, 27).
2 Corinthians 5:17: The "new creation" is "in Christ."
Ephesians 2:5: The "quickening" took place while we were still "dead in sins." Again, it is past tense.
2 Corinthians 5:21: Only "in Him" can we be "made the righteousness of God."
Ephesians 1:4: God "chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world," without our consent at that time. By faith we ratify that choice that He made.
Romans 5:18: All that Satan did to the race, Christ reversed; thus a "verdict of acquittal" "came upon all men."
1 John 3:1: The love was bestowed upon us before we believed.
Ephesians 2:6: We sit together "in Christ" even now; this is corporate involvement.
2 Timothy 1:8-10: Our Saviour has abolished [the second] death. For "all men" He has brought life to light; for those who believe He has also brought "immortality."
2 Corinthians 8:9: He became "poor" for all of us.
Hebrews 2:6-12: Christ has already tasted [the second] death for "every man."
Romans 8:17: We are already joint-heirs with Christ by virtue of the cross.
There is a contrast between the "historic Adventist" view of righteousness by faith and Sequeira's view.