Some of our readers will remember an article I posted on this site a few years ago, titled, “Confused About the Reformation” [1]. That article addressed the confusion among certain modern and postmodern Adventists regarding the issues that divided the Christian world during the sixteenth century.

Sadly, this confusion persists even today.

Those Adventists who have lately insisted that the righteousness of justification is solely declarative and not at all transformative [##2|Jiri Moskala and John C. Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), pp. 59-61,66-69,80-83.##] believe their position to be that of the Protestant Reformers [##3|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, pp. 59-62.##], and hold that those Adventists who differ with them on this point are taking the position of the Roman Catholic Church against the Reformation [##4|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, pp. 64-65.##]. The distinction drawn by recent critics of Last Generation Theology between Catholic and Protestant salvation theology is described, in the words of one quoted scholar, as “a focus on ‘the distinction between infused (transformative) righteousness and imputed righteousness’” [##5|Moskala and Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation, p. 61.##].

More recently, an article on a militantly conservative Adventist website has also accused certain Adventists of taking the position of Rome against the Reformers on the subject of salvation:

There are some voices within the Seventh-day Adventist Church who agree with Rome on the central conflict of the Reformation: salvation by faith. Early in the history of our movement, we discovered that the Sabbath was the seventh day, Saturday, not Sunday, the first day of the week, and that the Fourth Commandment was being traduced by the Sunday-keeping Christian world. This led to an emphasis on the continuing obligation of Christians to keep the Ten Commandment law. Forty years into our movement, we had “preached the law until we were dry as the hills of Gilboa” [6].

The article in question goes on to say:

There was a need to re-emphasize the central truth of Scripture, rediscovered during the Reformation of the 16th Century, which is that salvation is through the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on our behalf—salvation by grace alone claimed through faith alone. This emphasis was brought forward by A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner at the 1888 General Conference Session. They taught that power for overcoming—the imparted righteousness of Christ—eludes us until we claim Christ’s imputed righteousness and cling to Him as our only hope and surety. Ellen White believed that such enormous power would attend the 1888 message that the latter rain would begin, the loud cry would swell, and Jesus would soon return [7].

We’re not going to digress in the present article into a discussion of the substance of the 1888 message and the extent of Ellen White’s endorsement thereof, except to point out that nowhere in Scripture is the imparted righteousness of Christ (identified by Ellen White with sanctification) [##8|Ellen G. White, Messages to Young People, p. 35.##] ever given a lesser standing in human salvation than imputed righteousness (identified by Ellen White with justification) [##9|——Messages to Young People, p. 35.##]. For starters, the Bible is clear that both justification (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14) and sanctification (II Thess. 2:13), both Christ’s work for us (II Cor. 5:21) and His work in us (Titus 3:5), comprise the means of our salvation, not its result.

Far from claiming that “Christ’s imputed righteousness” constitutes “our only hope and surety” [10], Ellen White agrees with Scripture as to the sole ground of the Christian’s hope:

So we have nothing in ourselves of which to boast. We have no ground for self-exaltation. Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us [##11|White, Steps to Christ, p. 63.##].

Ellen White on the Papacy Versus the Reformers

Though the claim that defining justification as including transformative righteousness is a concession to the papacy against the Reformers has been heard in Adventism for several decades now [##12|See Raoul Dederen, “Sanctification and the Final Judgment,” Ministry, June 1978, p. 11; Martin Weber, More Adventist Hot Potatoes (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1992), pp. 39-52; Woodrow W. Whidden II, “The Antichrist: Is the Adventist Interpretation Still Viable?” Adventist Review, May 25, 2000, p. 11.##], it is both theologically and historically unsound. Only one inspired commentator exists regarding the history and issues of the Reformation, and her name is Ellen G. White. Here is her description of the issue relative to salvation between Martin Luther and the Catholic Church:

Many of his (Luther’s) own congregation had purchased certificates of pardon, and they soon began to come to their pastor, confessing their various sins, and expecting absolution, not because they were penitent and wished to reform, but on the ground of the indulgence. Luther refused them absolution, and warned them that unless they should repent and reform their lives, they must perish in their sins….

Luther now entered boldly upon his work as a champion of the truth. His voice was heard from the pulpit in earnest, solemn warning. He set before the people the offensive character of sin, and taught them that it is impossible for man, by his own works, to lessen its guilt or evade its punishment. Nothing but repentance toward God and faith in Christ can save the sinner [##13|White, The Great Controversy, pp. 128-129.##].

Elsewhere in her writings the same author declares: “Repentance includes sorrow for sin, and a turning away from it” [##14|——Steps to Christ, p. 23.##]. Notice how, according to the inspired pen, the problem with Catholic teachings is not that repentance and reformation of life are necessary in order to receive God’s forgiveness, but rather, that compliance with human rituals and stipulations (e.g., confession to priests, the purchase of indulgences, penances, pilgrimages) make one eligible for forgiveness. Ellen White draws this contrast even more sharply in the context of her statement regarding Luther and his congregation:

A salvation that could be bought with money was more easily obtained than that which requires repentance, faith, and diligent effort to resist and overcome sin [##15|——The Great Controversy, p. 128.##].

Ellen White draws a similar contrast when recounting a sermon of Ulrich Zwingli to Catholic pilgrims visiting a shrine to the Virgin Mary, who thought such a pilgrimage could bring them acceptance with God:

To many listeners these (Zwingli’s) teachings were unwelcome. It was a bitter disappointment to them to be told that their toilsome journey had been made in vain. The pardon freely offered to them through Christ they could not comprehend. They were satisfied with the old way to heaven which Rome had marked out for them. They shrank from the perplexity of searching for anything better. It was easier to trust their salvation to the priests and the pope than to seek for purity of heart [##16|——The Great Controversy, p. 175.##].

The Key Issue: Divine Versus Human Mediation

According to Ellen White’s inspired commentary, this was the issue that split Christendom in the sixteenth century. No tug-of-war between forensic righteousness and the work of the Holy Spirit, no struggle between a believe-only gospel and the necessity of obedience as a condition of salvation, is cited by the inspired pen as the cause of this pivotal event in Christian history. Rather, divine versus human mediation—the requirements of the written Word and the change of heart and striving for holiness thereby demanded, versus a mere outward compliance with stipulations devised by human clerics and institutions—this was the great issue that birthed the Protestant Reformation.

The church’s control over the saving process in Catholic theology was demonstrated but a few years ago when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, declared Roman Catholicism to be the “sole path to salvation” [##17|”Vatican Declares Catholicism Sole Path to Salvation,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 2000 (cover headline).##].

Put simply, the problem with Catholic salvation theology is not its reliance on infused or imparted righteousness—whatever term one prefers—but rather, Catholic insistence that the church and its stipulated rituals are the means whereby grace and righteousness are imparted. According to Scripture, by contrast, the dispensing of Jesus’ righteousness to the repenting, believing soul is accomplished entirely by the divine Mediator Himself, Jesus Christ the righteous, with no room for human institutions or man-made rules in between.

REFERENCES

1. Kevin Paulson, “Confused About the Reformation,” <ADvindicate.com> Nov. 14, 2017 https://advindicate.com/articles/2017/11/14/confused-about-the-reformation

2. Jiri Moskala and John C. Peckham (eds.), God’s Character and the Last Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2018), pp. 59-61,66-69,80-83.

3. Ibid, pp. 59-62.

4. Ibid, pp. 64-65.

5. Ibid, p. 61.

6. David Read, “Don’t Calm Down,” <Fulcrum7.com> May 16, 2025 https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2025/5/16/dont-calm-down

7. Ibid.

8. Ellen G. White, Messages to Young People, p. 35.

9. Ibid.

10. Read, “Don’t Calm Down,” <Fulcrum7.com> May 16, 2025 https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2025/5/16/dont-calm-down

11. White, Steps to Christ, p. 63.

12. See Raoul Dederen, “Sanctification and the Final Judgment,” Ministry, May 1978, p. 11; Martin Weber, More Adventist Hot Potatoes (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1992), pp. 39-52; Woodrow W. Whidden II, “The Antichrist: Is the Adventist Interpretation Still Viable?” Adventist Review, May 25, 2000, p. 11.

13. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 128-129.

14. ----Steps to Christ, p. 23.

15. ----The Great Controversy, p. 128.

16. Ibid, p. 175.

17. “Vatican Declares Catholicism Sole Path to Salvation,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 2000, p. A1 (cover headline).

Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan