(1) Some say that Sequeira denies the substitionary atonement, that we die for our own sins and pay their penalty, thus denying the need for a Saviour (pp. 39-49). Sequeira devotes an entire chapter to "Christ Our Substitute." He does not deny substitution, but clarifies it. When Christ died for us it was not primarily "instead of us" but also "as us" (Ellen White almost never used the word "vicarious" in speaking of Christ's substitution: in fact, the word never got into any of her books). Christ's corporate involvement with the human race does not mean that we make our own atonement or pay for our own sins. The true idea is that of 2 Corinthians 5:14, "if One died for all, then all died," and Galatians 2:20, "I am crucified with Christ."
Ellen White is clear: "Christ wrought out a redemption for men. This was not done by going out of Himself to another, but by taking humanity into Himself. ... To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption" (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 250). Sequeira explains this more clearly in his latest book, Saviour of All Men, pp. 25, 26, 34. We do not die for our own sins, but we do identify with Christ as He died for our sins!
(2) Opponents say he downgrades sanctification. They quote, "Imparted righteousness, sanctification, does not contribute in the slightest way to our qualification for heaven" (p. 32). Sequeira defines his word "qualification" as "our title to heaven," not as "our fitness for heaven." In this he is in harmony with Ellen White's famous statement in Messages to Young People, p. 35: "The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted. The first is our title to heaven, the second is our fitness for heaven." Sequeira agrees that sanctification is as much by faith as is justification, but it also includes our works as cooperation with Christ. He insists that there is no merit in those works. Imparted righteousness comes from Christ and not from self.
(3) Opponents say he teaches that salvation for the entire human race at die cross involves irresistible grace and universal-ism (pp. 8, 30, 31, etc). But nowhere does Sequeira teach that there is eternal salvation for unbelievers. Christ did redeem the entire human race from the death which would have been our portion were it not for His sacrifice. Sequeira teaches that what Christ accomplished for the entire human race can be resisted and rejected by the sinner. Those who are lost at last will be lost because of their unbelief (John 3:17-19).
(4) He is charged with teaching that no transformation of life is necessary (p. 103). Reading the entire page shows that this charge is totally untrue.
(5) "It's hard to be saved and easy to be lost," his opponents insist. The answer is that the difficulties in the way become "easy" when the agape of Christ constrains the believer to live "henceforth" not for self, but for Him (2 Corinthians 5:14, 15). The more we appreciate what it cost the Son of God to save us, the lighter the burden becomes as we are yoked together with Him. No Christian dares to deny what Jesus said in Matthew 11:28-30.
(6) Opponents say that Sequeira teaches "two kinds of justification." In fact, he teaches one—effected at the cross, which legally applies to "all men" but is experienced by the believing sinner in justification by faith (which reconciles him to God and to His holy law).
(7) He teaches that we can continue to live in sin "under grace." A careful reading of his context shows that his opponents misconstrue his meaning. His teaching gives no license to sin, not even by remote implication. But when one who believes in Christ stumbles into sin he realizes that he brings shame and disgrace on the Saviour. Then he learns of a new and more powerful motivation for overcoming sin—more powerful than the old self-centered motivation based on fear. Sequeira makes this even more clear in his latest book, Saviour of All Men, p. 42.
(8) His opponents charge him with "reliance" on non-SDA theologians. In fact, he relies totally on Scripture, which troubles his opponents (see objection number 10). He teaches in harmony with the unique 1888 concepts and the Spirit of Prophecy. When he cites some non-SDA theologians it is only in an illustrative way. In particular, some such as T. F. Torrence, Anders Nygren, and C. E. B. Cranfield have steadily been coming to understand the truth of the nature of Christ as Jones and Waggoner did. This is encouragement to believe that the time will come when many non-SDA leaders will take a stand on the right side.
(9) Opponents say that the sacrifice of the cross did not effect a legal justification for "all men." They insist that it only extends grace to "all men," and is a call to the sinner to "come." We reply that grace that does not rest upon the legal foundation of satisfaction for the broken law becomes the essence of antinomianism. The Bible truth is, "by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." What Christ has accomplished is done; it is not contingent on anything we can do. The "call" to the sinner is not for him to take the initiative in his salvation, but for him to respond by faith to that initiative which God has already taken at the cross in His "verdict of acquittal" for "all men" (Romans 5:16, 18, NEB).
(10) Sequeira relies too much on Scripture, not enough on the writings of Ellen White. The answer to this objection is simply that Ellen White herself urges us to base our doctrine on the Bible, not on her writings. Her writings are "the lesser light" to guide us to "the greater light." It is possible to wrest statements out of her context in such a way as to force her to contradict the plain words of Scripture. This she would never want us to do. The time has come for God's people to become "mighty in the Scriptures," and Sequeira would encourage us to that end.