(Chapters 10 through 14)
The first paragraph of Chapter 10 contains another statement that shocks opponents: "In Christ, all humanity has obtained full and complete salvation ... ." They understand this again to imply that the author does not support sanctification, or the necessity for holy living, and that he teaches "cheap grace" or Universalism. However, by the phrase "in Christ" he means corporate involvement as a part of the human race; "obtained" means that all are elected to "full and complete salvation." But the sinner can choose to neglect, reject, despise, discard, yes disbelieve, the gracious birthright that he has objectively "obtained" by his corporate involvement in the human race "in Christ."
What does the author mean here by "full and complete salvation"? He has already defined it in his Chapter 3, pp. 30-35, as consisting of several "aspects." There is objective salvation "in Christ" and subjective also, which become clear as we note his next paragraph on p. 89 : "In this chapter, we will turn our attention to the subjective aspect of the gospel—salvation as a personal experience. ... In other words, the subjective gospel is making real in our experience the objective facts of the gospel." Are these two words difficult? Hopefully, some careful thought can make them clear.
There is a fundamental objective truth. Christ has abolished the second death for the entire human race (2 Timothy 1:10), tasted it "for every man" (Hebrews 2:9), borne the iniquity of us all which was laid on Him (Isaiah 53:6), and given the gift of a legal justification to "all men" (Romans 5:18).
A powerful subjective experience now follows believing that objective truth. The believers heart is now reconciled to God by a heart-appreciation of this objective truth. The meanings of "objective" and "subjective" are now seen in their importance. In other words, Sequeira is saying that sanctification can never be effective and complete until justification is far better understood and appreciated. This entire section is now concerned with sanctification—the truth that one opponent accuses Sequeira of neglecting so seriously that his book is "satanic."
Our author notes rightly that at present "the church is spiritually bankrupt (see Revelation 3:17). That is why it is so tremendously important that we understand the objective facts of the gospel, the truth as it is in Jesus. Without this understanding, we can never experience genuine faith that is motivated by love (see Galatians 5:6)" (p. 91).
What is the essence of Sequeira's view of a "practical godliness" kind of righteousness by faith, that is, a subjective experience? He tells us in pages 90-98:
(a) Genuine faith is dependent on the revelation of the gospel in Christ, the truth of His cross.
(b) It is a heart-appreciation of that revelation of agape, and goes far beyond the common definition of faith as "trust" which implies an immature self-centered concern.
(c) Such faith transcends our fear of hell or hope of reward; thus it delivers from spiritual lukewarmness.
(d) Such faith motivates the believer to endless good works.
(e) Thus this righteousness by faith is the true gospel.
(f) This faith identifies with Christ on His cross; it replaces the helpless word "relationship" with the vital one that is so essential— "union with Christ," that is, "it unites us with Christ." This true term implies our corporate identity with Him. (Incidentally, the popular word "relationship" almost never appears in this comprehensive explanation of righteousness by faith!)
(g) Faith is not itself a work.
(h) But faith itself does work. It is dynamic, energizing.
(i) A true motivation is the difference between "works of faith" and "works of law." "Works of law" are motivated by selfishness; they "appear externally to be legitimate commandment keeping.... [But they] always originate from a concern with self; they are therefore always polluted by self no matter how good they may appear to ourselves or to others" (p. 97).
Astonishingly, at this point opponents find what they believe is an example of "deadly heresy" in Sequeira's next sentence: "Performing works of law is a subtle form of rebellion against God." They portray this to congregations as au example of a frightful denial of obedience, building revulsion for this book. In the transcript of one such sermon a prominent opponent says, "Look at p. 97 Any attempt to keep God's law is a fatal trap of Satan.'" But this is not a correct representation of what Sequeira says.
In fact, the statement attributed to the author does not appear on p. 97, nor anywhere else in the book! If one so easily misreads what Sequeira says, there is question if perchance he might misread or misunderstand what Ellen White says, and even what the Bible says.
What Sequeira actually says is this: "Many of God's people today have fallen in the same subtle trap of Satan" as did the Galatians—which "trap" he defines in the same paragraph as "trying to perfect their characters through the flesh," or by self-motivated "works of law." Sequeira explains why "performing works of law is a subtle form of rebellion against God" when he says that "such works are actually independent of Him. In the judgment, God will condemn all such works as iniquity, works motivated by self-interest." Waggoner also makes clear that Paul's phrase "the works of the law" does not mean true obedience to the law (see Galatians 3:10; The Glad Tidings, pp. 55-60). This again is in harmony with Ellen White's position in MS 36, 1890 (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 810ff).
Sequeira's extended discussion of justification and sanctification (pp. 101-108) recognizes both are necessary, both are by faith, both fill vital roles in the believers preparation for eternal life in heaven. "The legal justification effected at the cross ... is something we receive as a free gift. Sanctification ... is something we personally experience as we walk by faith .. . sanctification ... actually produces righteousness in us" (pp. 101, 102). He confounds his critics: "Anyone ... who stops with justification and makes it the entire gospel experience has received only half of the good news.... God did not send His Son merely to ... declare us righteous ... [but] to set us free from sin and restore His image in us" (p. 102).
But some say that Sequeira teaches deadly error in this section. Under "Common Misunderstandings" Sequeira makes a statement that our prominent opponent misrepresents to his congregation thus: "Look at page 103: All we need for heaven is justification.' So my conference president is right when he says that Sequeira says that sanctification is not part of salvation." Sequeira's actual statement on p. 103 reads as follows: "Justification means all of Christ's righteousness that He provided for us so that nothing more is required of us to qualify for heaven." Have we finally lighted upon the "satanic deadly heresy" we have been looking for all this time?
Sequeira does mean what he says, for he adds in his next sentence: "In other words, we stand perfect in Him. If we are not absolutely clear on this point, we will continue to be victims of self-concern, constantly fearful about our eternal security. In this condition it is impossible to have a real heart-appreciation for Christ's cross or to experience genuine sanctification by faith."
Now we come to our continental divide. The opponents regard this as inspired by Satan; Sequeira believes this is essential for true Christian experience. How much further apart can people be? The opponents sincerely believe that Sequeira is teaching the heresy that godly living, obedience to the law, sanctification, are unnecessary as a preparation or "fitness" for heaven. They see Sequeira's teaching as opening the floodgates of iniquity.
But let us take another look at what Sequeira actually says in that provocative sentence: "Nothing more" than "all of Christ's righteousness ... is required of us to qualify for heaven.’ His context is clear: "Christ also kept the whole law on our behalf. All this becomes ours the moment we are justified by faith." Note: he is not talking about the legal justification which "came upon all men" at the cross; he is talking about the experience of justification by faith, which is known only by believers. What does he believe about justification by faith? It makes one obedient to all the commandments of God. "Justification remains effective all our believing lives." It means far more than the forgiveness of past sins (as many have superficially assumed); it delivers from the power of sin as well.
Instead of satanic deception, here is a powerful presentation of true Christian experience—faith in both imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness, all of Christ, and all in harmony with MS 36, 1890 (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 810-812). Our qualification for heaven is our "title to heaven," purchased for us by Christ's sacrifice, with no contribution from ourselves. Our fitness for heaven is another matter—sanctification by faith.
Opponents have said that Sequeira teaches the heresy of "once-saved-always-saved," giving the impression that he means that justification by faith remains effective all our unbelieving lives. If that were so, we also would oppose such a statement. In fact Sequeira has specified the word "believing." By such misreading of Sequeira's words opponents build their case that this book is "satanic."
When do we become "unjustified"? Sequeira labels as a "monstrous" error the belief that "every time we fall or sin we become unjustified." What does he mean? Is he saying that King David can presumptuously commit adultery and still go to heaven if he dies in the act? No. We must remember that Sequeira sees there is one justification, legally effective at the cross for "all men," and manifested in the experience of justification by faith which only the obedient believer knows. Until probation closes, thank God, the repentant sinner still has an Advocate with the Father, who pleads His justifying blood in his behalf (see Rom. 5:9). No one as yet has the right to close that door against the repentant sinner. He must be given hope that Christ's sacrifice still avails for him. Sequeira explains: "God does not reject us every time we make a mistake or fall into sin.. .. Such a concept is based on the idea that we are justified because of our obedience—what Christ is doing in us—and not because of what He has already accomplished for us by His doing and dying on the cross. Such an idea makes the gospel good advice instead of good news."
The sinner always needs the gospel. Sequeira says that "justification ... remains effective all our believing lives." He is speaking of the legal justification effected at the cross, which remains meritorious until the sinner irrevocably rejects it. Waggoner also says something that critics of today would probably find abhorrent: "There is but one thing that a man needs, and that is justification. ... It is die gospel." "To preach justification by faith does not detract from or lower the law of God, but is the only thing that exalts it" (General Conference Bulletin, 1891, Sermon Nos. 4, 10). "There can be no higher state than that of justification [by faith]. It does everything that God can do for one, short of making him immortal, which is done only at the resurrection" (Signs of the Times, May 1, 1893). Did Waggoner neglect sanctification? If so, Ellen White would never have supported him. But he also had a very high regard for genuine justification by faith.
What is involved in the cleansing of the sanctuary? Our Firm Foundation disparages die idea that there can be remaining "unknown sin" beneath the conscious surface when one is truly converted (October, 1993). 1 John 1:9 does not say that a blanket confession of sin when we are converted means that no further conviction of sin becomes possible. The great High Priest through the Holy Spirit constantly brings sin to our knowledge, sin that has not yet been seen or confessed. Laodicea is to experience this special work in this time of die cleansing of the sanctuary. Sin that we may commit tomorrow has been buried in our hearts today (The Desire of Ages, 301; Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 85; S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p. 1152; etc.). That conviction of deeper sin and deeper repentance continues until the seal of God is received at die close of probation. A clearer recognition that the Lord hath laid on Christ the iniquity of us all, that He died our second death, that His justification came upon us all totally undeserved—this clearer appreciation of what it cost the Son of God to save us will melt the heart in ever deeper repentance. This is what Sequeira is saying.
On page 134 he makes a statement into which some think they can read original sin: "Sinful man is not lost because he has committed sins, but because he is without Christ—that is to say, because he is born of Adam and therefore stands condemned in him even before he commits sins of his own." That one sentence must not be wrested from the authors close context where he says a few paragraphs earlier that by Christ's sacrifice we are "legally delivered from our condemned status 'in Adam'" (p. 128). Sequeira maintains that all that Adam did to bring the human race under "condemnation" Christ reversed by bringing the race under "justification," or as the NEB renders it, under "a verdict of acquittal." That is light-years away from Augustinian or Calvinist original sin.
By misreading the following statement, some accuse Sequeira of teaching that "Satan is pleased to have us believe" in true sanctification: "[A] Common misunderstanding.... 3. It takes a lifetime or more to reach the goal of sanctification. This is how many interpret the familiar expression, 'Sanctification is the work of a lifetime.' Satan is pleased to have us believe this error... ." (pp. 103, 104). A closer look will show that the author says that the "error" is the statement in italics. Sequeiras point is the opposite of his opponents' accusation. He believes it is possible to "reach the goal of sanctification," that is, holy living, now. We must not excuse our continued unchristlikeness of character by assuming that it is impossible to overcome all sin until we have come to the end of our lives. We grant that a hurried reader could misunderstand that passage and that more careful editing could have made such misunderstanding impossible. But even so, this is an example once again of making a man "an offender for a word," which Isaiah says we should not do.
Do we claim any perfection or infallibility for this book?
Certainly not. There may be places where it could be clearer, where the message the author seeks to express could be more readily apparent to the reader. But the same is true of any author's work, or any editors work. Seldom can one book contain all the truths that need emphasis. For example, Steps to Christ says nothing about the sanctuary truth, neither does The Ministry of Healing. (Incidentally, opponents charge Sequeira with neglecting the sanctuary, yet he speaks of it on pp. 138-140 in a manner in harmony with Jones's The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection)