Ellen White stated, "Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is 'the transgression of the law;' it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government."1 However, when Ellen White made that statement, was she making a theological statement, or was she simply being descriptive and devotional?
When it comes to theological issues like sin and salvation some interpreters have already decided that since Ellen White was not a trained systematic theologian, the statements in her books merely constitute a devotional description. One scholar stated that her "magnum opus on Christology, The Desire of Ages, is, likewise, not a systematic theology, but a descriptive and devotional study on the life of Christ."2 Similar statements have also been made about The Great Controversy.
The purpose of this article is to determine if Ellen White's definition of sin is indeed a theological statement or whether it's simply descriptive and devotional. A broad topic like sin is also inextricably linked to other extensive theological issues like the understanding of the cosmos, the doctrine of God, and the doctrine man, all of which have been interpreted through Greek philosophy.
The Bible tells us that Jesus came to save us from our sins, which means that our understanding of sin is interrelated to other issues like justification, sanctification, and the high priestly ministry of Christ in the holy and most holy places. However, this is not merely an intellectual exercise that is isolated from practical Christianity. The interpretation of sin touches on practical issues like the nature of temptation and the possibility of achieving spiritual, mental, and physical excellence and of developing a perfect character in this sin-filled world.
The Relationship between Paradigms and Data
Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions3 is considered a classic in the field of the philosophy of science. In that book, Kuhn made several observations about the progress of science, which can be applied to our understanding of the correct interpretation of sin.
First, he observed that in the natural sciences data always presupposes a paradigm, yet the meaning of the data can change when the paradigm changes. The classic example for this is the discovery of oxygen, which led to the oxygen theory of combustion. After certain pneumatic experiments, Joseph Priestley, an 18th century British theologian and chemist, identified the gas thus produced as "nitrous oxide."4 One year later in 1775, he stated that this was "common air with less than its usual quantity of phlogiston."5
On the other hand, Antoine Lavoisier an 18th century French chemist, was convinced that something was wrong with the phlogiston theory. "What the work on oxygen did was to give much additional form and structure to Lavoisier's earlier sense that something was amiss."6 "The fact that a major paradigm revision was needed to see what Lavoisier saw must be the principal reason why Priestley was, to the end of his long life, unable to see."7 The oxygen theory of combustion was "the keystone for a reformulation of chemistry so vast that it is usually called the chemical revolution."8
Another important observation is that the assumption of the old phlogiston theory prevented Priestley and others from correctly interpreting the gas they were studying.
Second, when an old paradigm is replaced by a new one, then they are incompatible with each other. As paradigms, the phlogiston and oxygen theories are totally incompatible and cannot be merged into one another. Perhaps a better example is the Copernican system that replaced the Ptolemaic system. "By the early sixteenth century an increasing number of Europe's best astronomers were recognizing that the astronomical paradigm was failing in application to its own traditional problems. That recognition was the prerequisite to Copernicus' rejection of the Ptolemaic paradigm and his search for a new one."10
Copernicus did not wake up one day and all of a sudden create the heliocentric paradigm without first realizing the problems that the Ptolemaic paradigm had with not only more data but also with the traditional problems it had already solved. Also, the Ptolemaic paradigm did not morph into the Copernican paradigm by the accumulation of adjustments to itself. Rather, it was replaced by a paradigm that was diametrically opposed to it and completely incompatible with it. As Leonard Brand, a Seventh-day Adventist professor of biology and paleontology stated, "Putting the sun in the middle of the universe is one option, and putting the earth in the middle is another. One can't make a compromise between them; we must choose one or the other."11 How does this relate to the issue of the interpretation of sin?
The correct understanding of sin, which represents the data, must be placed in the correct paradigm. If this does not take place, then one cannot come to the correct understanding; this was the case with Priestley who never did accept the oxygen theory of combustion because he never questioned the phlogiston theory.
Analyzing The Great Controversy: Greek Philosophical Paradigm
The remainder of this study will look at two diametrically opposed paradigms within Ellen White's classic The Great Controversy in order to determine whether her definition of sin was simply a devotional description or a theological statement.
Those who have had a chance to study historical theology realize that the early church fathers, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, were heavily dependent on Greek philosophy for their understanding of the doctrine of God, the doctrine of man, and by logical inference the doctrine of sin. A standard textbook, such as Roger E. Olson's The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform, introduces the notion that Christianity has been heavily dependent on Greek philosophical concepts.12
Olson stated that it was neo-Platonism that shaped Augustine's thinking about God and God's relationship with the world.13 This philosophy teaches that all earthly reality has its source in heavenly realities that are devoid of time and space. Moreover, earthly realities constitute a reduplication of heavenly reality. In Augustine's day the Platonic characteristics of heavenly reality had for some time been associated with the nature of God, His actions, and His relationship to the world. With the help of Greek philosophy, Augustine "was able to provide certain models for Christian thinking about God, creation, sin and evil that have become absolutely ingrained in at least Western Christian thought ever since."14
In commenting on Augustinianism, Olson stated that "God's agency is all-determining in both universal history and individual salvation. Many people already know a part of this as 'predestination' and automatically link it with the sixteenth century Protestant Reformer John Calvin."15
Olson's analysis of Augustine's inner logic is telling: "If any good thing humans can do is a gift of God, and if every desire of the human will is a work of God, and if God is the all-determining reality, then the only natural conclusion that one can draw is that God sovereignly predestines everything that happens, including both sin and evil on the one hand, and salvation and righteousness on the other hand. Augustine was reluctant to attribute sin and evil to God, but the inner logic of his overall theology moves in that direction."16
The reason it's important to spend some time on Augustine is that the magisterial Reformers like Luther and Calvin tended to accept Augustine's views on this matter. Also, some Adventists tend to base their view of sin, justification, and sanctification on the view of the Reformers. What are the implications?
"The newborn infant as well as the middle-aged person as well as the elderly man or woman is corrupt and guilty because of the connection with Adam."17 Augustine stated that before the fall, Adam and Eve were free not to sin but after the fall "people are free to sin but not free not to sin."18 Thus sin, righteousness, salvation, and damnation are all the results of God's decision, not yours. If you cooperated with God and are saved, it's because He decided, and if you are lost, you had nothing to do with it.
However, under the Greek philosophical paradigm expressed by Augustine, freedom not to sin does not exist. Moreover, if that is the case, then to define sin as transgression and hold a person accountable for it makes absolutely no sense if the person was merely carrying out the irresistible will of an omnipotent God. Within the Greek philosophical paradigm, sin as transgression constitutes an anomaly and is interpreted in much the same way as Priestley, who worked within the confines of the phlogiston theory, concluded that the gas he was working with was just air with less than the usual amount of phlogiston. Priestley's paradigm prevented him from seeing that the gas was actually oxygen.
When Ellen White stated that the only definition of sin is the transgression of the law, was she aware of the relationship between heathen philosophy, predestination, and the doctrine of sin? An examination of several passages in The Great Controversy affirms that this is indeed the case. She said that "it is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. His sophistry lessens the obligation of the divine law and gives men license to sin."19 Thus, the enemy's mission statement includes misrepresenting the nature of sin because he knows that the end result will be a lessening regarding the obligation of the divine law. In the following statement she connects heathen philosophy with the immortality of the soul, which will impact the doctrine of sin.
The advancing centuries witnessed a constant increase of error in the doctrines put forth from Rome. Even before the establishment of the papacy the teachings of heathen philosophers had received attention and exerted an influence in the church. Many who professed conversion still clung to the tenets of their pagan philosophy, and not only continued its study themselves, but urged it upon others as a means of extending their influence among the heathen. Serious errors were thus introduced into the Christian faith. Prominent among these was the belief in man's natural immortality and his consciousness in death. This doctrine laid the foundation upon which Rome established the invocation of saints and the adoration of the Virgin Mary. From this sprang also the heresy of eternal torment for the finally impenitent, which was early incorporated into the papal faith.20
Just as Olson had observed, Ellen White in this passage has noted the influence of "heathen philosophers" who accepted Christianity yet never gave up their pagan notions. Instead, they used them to fight Gnosticism and extend their influence over the heathen. However, the end result of using these philosophies was that "serious errors were thus introduced into the Christian faith."
On account of the body/soul dichotomy, the experience of salvation, including sanctification, takes place in the timeless soul that has no causal connection with the body. Hence, how one treats his body has nothing to do with sin because the issues of sin and salvation belong to the realm of the immortal soul, which is the recipient of grace. Furthermore, the body is where original sin reigns. Within this paradigm, condemnation is the result of having sinful flesh, which includes impulses, tendencies and desires, in addition to thoughts, words, and deeds. However, within the correct paradigm, only cherished thoughts, words, and deeds constitute transgression, thereby resulting in guilt and condemnation.
Moreover, Ellen White stated that one of the most prominent of what she referred to as "serious errors" was the teaching of the immortality of the soul that came directly from Greek philosophy. The immortality of the soul, as it is considered within the paradigm of Platonic philosophy, assumes the absolute sovereignty of God and the total depravity of man. While in this totally depraved state, man's condition is hopeless. He is born into this world already guilty and condemned for Adam's sin. Furthermore, the only freedom he possesses is the freedom to sin. He is incapable of even choosing not to sin. These two cardinal points, the absolute sovereignty of God and the total depravity of man lay the groundwork for what she referred to as the irresistible impulse of divine grace.
In the following statement the connection between irresistible grace, divine decrees (predestination), and the doctrine of sin is seen. The foundation of this relationship proceeds from natural immortality, and the end result is that sin is divorced from transgression.
Others, though admitting the perpetuity of the law, declared that it was unnecessary for ministers to exhort the people to obedience of its precepts, since those whom God had elected to salvation would, "by the irresistible impulse of divine grace, be led to the practice of piety and virtue," while those who were doomed to eternal reprobation "did not have power to obey the divine law. Others, also holding that "the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the divine favor," arrived at the still more hideous conclusion that "the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor to be considered as instances of their violation of the divine law, and that, consequently, they have no occasion either to confess their sins or to break them off by repentance." —McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, art. "Antinomians." Therefore, they declared that even one of the vilest of sins, "considered universally an enormous violation of the divine law, is not a sin in the sight of God," if committed by one of the elect, "because it is one of the essential and distinctive characteristics of the elect, that they cannot do anything that is either displeasing to God or prohibited by the law."...
The doctrine of divine decrees, unalterably fixing the character of men, has led many to a virtual rejection of the law of God.21
"Augustine affirmed what later generations of theologians would come to call 'unconditional election' and 'irresistible grace.' That is, God chooses some out of the human mass of perdition to receive the gift of faith by grace and leaves others to their deserved damnation. Those whom he chooses to receive the gifts of grace cannot resist."22
The implication is clear: sin has nothing to do with the transgression of the law. If God has decreed you to be righteous, then you cannot resist His will. Moreover, since you have been decreed to be righteous, sin has nothing to do with your choices. The concepts of freedom, choice, and sin that have just been mentioned must be interpreted within the Greek philosophical framework, and when that is done, one is either saved or lost by God's eternal decrees. Sin is forever divorced from choice and character development has already been fixed by God.
In the following passage, Ellen White stated that tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the Bible teaching about sin and how God deals with it:
To many minds the origin of sin and the reason for its existence are a source of great perplexity. They see the work of evil, with its terrible results of woe and desolation, and they question how all this can exist under the sovereignty of One who is infinite in wisdom, in power, and in love. Here is a mystery of which they find no explanation. And in their uncertainty and doubt they are blinded to truths plainly revealed in God's word and essential to salvation. There are those who, in their inquiries concerning the existence of sin, endeavor to search into that which God has never revealed; hence they find no solution of their difficulties; and such as are actuated by a disposition to doubt and cavil seize upon this as an excuse for rejecting the words of Holy Writ. Others, however, fail of a satisfactory understanding of the great problem of evil, from the fact that tradition and misinterpretation have obscured the teaching of the Bible concerning the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin.23
According to Ellen White, the immortality of the soul leads to two basic errors. On the one hand is the doctrine of eternal torment. However, the opposite error, universal salvation, is also based upon the immortality of the soul, which greatly affects the doctrine of sin.
A large class to whom the doctrine of eternal torment is revolting are driven to the opposite error. They see that the Scriptures represent God as a being of love and compassion, and they cannot believe that He will consign His creatures to the fires of an eternally burning hell. But holding that the soul is naturally immortal, they see no alternative but to conclude that all mankind will finally be saved. Many regard the threatening of the Bible as designed merely to frighten men into obedience, and not to be literally fulfilled. Thus the sinner can live in selfish pleasure, disregarding the requirements of God, and yet expect to be finally received into His favor. Such a doctrine, presuming upon God's mercy, but ignoring His justice, pleases the carnal heart and emboldens the wicked in their iniquity.24
To strengthen the connection between the immortal soul and its effect on the doctrine of sin, Ellen White quoted part of a sermon by a Universalist minister who conducted the funeral of an irreligious young man. In that sermon the minister quoted 2 Samuel 13:39, which states that David "was comforted concerning Amnon, seeing he was dead."25
And why so? Because by the eye of prophecy he [David] could look forward into the glorious future and see that son far removed from all temptations, released from the bondage and purified from the corruptions of sin, and after being made sufficiently holy and enlightened, admitted to the assembly of ascended and rejoicing spirits. His only comfort was that, in being removed from the present state of sin and suffering, his beloved son had gone where the loftiest breathings of the Holy Spirit would be shed upon his darkened soul, where his mind would be unfolded to the wisdom of heaven and the sweet raptures of immortal love, and thus prepared with a sanctified nature to enjoy the rest and society of the heavenly inheritance.
"In these thoughts we would be understood to believe that the salvation of heaven depends upon nothing which we can do in this life; neither upon a present change of heart, nor upon present belief, or a present profession of religion."... He [the professed minister] declares that the vilest of sinners—the murderer, the thief, and the adulterer—will after death be prepared to enter into immortal bliss.26
The unbiblical doctrine of original sin is inextricably linked with the utter depravity of human nature in this sermon. The sermon stated that it's not possible to be free from the corruption of sin before death, neither is it possible to live a holy life. It's only death or the second coming that makes that possible. The immortality of the soul, original sin, and total depravity lead directly to the conclusion that sin has nothing to do with choice. In addition, notice the connection between the immortality of the soul, last-day events, and the doctrine of sin in the following statement:
When they have been led to believe that the dead actually return to communicate with them, Satan causes those to appear who went into the grave unprepared. They claim to be happy in heaven and even to occupy exalted positions there, and thus the error is widely taught that no difference is made between the righteous and the wicked.... The law of God is set aside, the Spirit of grace despised, the blood of the covenant counted an unholy thing. The spirits deny the deity of Christ and place even the Creator on a level with themselves. Thus under a new disguise the great rebel still carries on his warfare against God, begun in heaven and for nearly six thousand years continued upon the earth.27
He tempts men to excess in that which is in itself lawful, causing them, through intemperance, to weaken physical, mental, and moral power. He has destroyed and is destroying thousands through the indulgence of the passions, thus brutalizing the entire nature of man. And to complete his work, he declares, through the spirits that "true knowledge places man above all law;" that "whatever is, is right;" that "God doth not condemn;" and that "all sins which are committed are innocent." When the people are thus led to believe that desire is the highest law, that liberty is license, and that man is accountable only to himself, who can wonder that corruption and depravity teem on every hand? Multitudes eagerly accept teachings that leave them at liberty to obey the promptings of the carnal heart. The reins of self-control are laid upon the neck of lust, the powers of mind and soul are made subject to the animal propensities, and Satan exultingly sweeps into his net thousands who profess to be followers of Christ.28
Thus, the root cause of the notion that sin is divorced from choice lies in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and divine decrees that spring from the Greek philosophical paradigm. The consequences for Christology and lifestyle issues are enormous. Twice Ellen White referred to the papacy as a system. On one occasion she referred to it as a "gigantic system of false religion."29 On another occasion she referred to it as a "mammoth system of deception."30 In the study of natural sciences, Kuhn observed that paradigms are incompatible. This means that the data can only be interpreted by either one system or the other but not by a blending of the two.
Until this point, only the Greek philosophical paradigm has been analyzed, but Ellen White also referred to another paradigm in which one can view the doctrine of sin.
The Sanctuary/Great Controversy Paradigm
In another passage she referred to the sanctuary in heaven as the very center of Christ's work in behalf of men:
All who have received the light upon these subjects are to bear testimony of the great truths which God has committed to them. The sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work in behalf of men. It concerns every soul living upon the earth. It opens to view the plan of redemption, bringing us down to the very close of time and revealing the triumphant issue of the contest between righteousness and sin. It is of the utmost importance that all should thoroughly investigate these subjects and be able to give an answer to everyone that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them.32
If the plan of redemption itself must be interpreted from within the sanctuary doctrine, then by logical consistency, the doctrine of sin must also be understood from the same paradigm. A study of the following passage has implications for the doctrine of sin.
Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God's people upon earth. This work is more clearly presented in the messages of Revelation 14.33
This passage is clearly in opposition to several areas already discussed under the Greek philosophical paradigm. It mentions being purified from sin and putting away sin. In the previous paradigm, guilt and condemnation arise from simply having sinful flesh which includes tendencies. These have been received by inheritance and are not eliminated by conversion. Becoming purified from sin and putting away sin is not the same as eliminating the sinful flesh. The sinful flesh that we have received as an inheritance will only be eradicated at the second coming. Hence the passage above cannot be referring to that. It must refer to sin as transgression, because it is possible to be victorious over thoughts, words, and deeds.
If sin is to be put away by "the grace of God and their own diligent effort," then human beings must have freedom to sin as well as not to sin. This means that the biblical paradigm does not support the idea of total depravity and the bondage of the will.
It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of the atonement who receive the benefits of His mediation in their behalf, while those who reject the light which brings to view this work of ministration are not benefited thereby.34
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.35
These statements are at odds with the doctrine of divine decrees and total depravity mentioned in the previous paradigm. However, they perfectly harmonize with sin as transgression. "He [Satan] can gain his object only as men voluntarily yield to his temptations."36 This definition of temptation and sin can only make sense in light of the great controversy theme where individuals have complete freedom.
The following statement, which is framed within the sanctuary great controversy paradigm has great implications for sin, temptation, victory, and Christology:
Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ. Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." John 14:30. Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Father's commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble. It is in this life that we are to separate sin from us, through faith in the atoning blood of Christ.... The Lord is ever setting before us, not the way we would choose, which seems easier and pleasanter to us, but the true aims of life. It rests with us to co-operate with the agencies which Heaven employs in the work of conforming our characters to the divine model. None can neglect or defer this work but at the most fearful peril of their souls.37
The following points this passage indicate that sin as transgression is the only definition that will work:
"Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation."
"Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished."
"It is in this life that we are to separate sin from us."
"The Lord is ever setting before us, not the way we would choose."
"It rests with us to co-operate."
In the following passage Mrs. White stated that contamination and defilement come only when a person is free not to sin:
Satan assailed Christ with his fiercest and most subtle temptations, but he was repulsed in every conflict. Those battles were fought in our behalf; those victories make it possible for us to conquer. Christ will give strength to all who seek it. No man without his own consent can be overcome by Satan. The tempter has no power to control the will or to force the soul to sin. He may distress, but he cannot contaminate. He can cause agony, but not defilement. The fact that Christ has conquered should inspire His followers with courage to fight manfully the battle against sin and Satan.38
In the following passage it is willful transgression that separates the soul from God:
Let none deceive themselves with the belief that they can become holy while willfully violating one of God's requirements. The commission of a known sin silences the witnessing voice of the Spirit and separates the soul from God. "Sin is the transgression of the law." And "whosoever sinneth [transgresseth the law] hath not seen Him, neither known Him." 1 John 3:6. Though John in his epistles dwells so fully upon love, yet he does not hesitate to reveal the true character of that class who claim to be sanctified while living in transgression of the law of God.39
Once the sanctuary/great controversy theme is discerned as the paradigm, the only definition of sin that works is transgression. Furthermore, human beings are free moral agents who are held accountable for how they relate to the law of God. Putting away sin does not refer to the sinful flesh but to the deeds of the flesh. Inheriting a sinful nature from Adam does not contaminate our character, neither does it make us guilty; it's transgression that does that. Also, inheriting sinful flesh does not destroy a person's ability to choose to be free from sin. Without the grace of God, a person lacks the power to obey, but this should not be confused with not having the ability to choose for it's when the person chooses to obey that the grace and power of God enters.
Conclusion
The work of a theologian consists of reasoning from the paradigm to the data. Since that is the case, then Ellen White's insistence that "our only definition of sin" is "the transgression of the law" is in fact a theological statement for the following reasons: 1) she rejected the Greek philosophical paradigm that produced natural immortality, total depravity, and the doctrine of divine decrees which sees sin as totally divorced from choice, and 2) when she referred to putting away sin by cooperating with the grace of God with diligent effort, which includes faith and repentance, her statements assume that human beings possess genuine freedom to choose whom they will serve without compulsion, manipulation, or force.
Furthermore, these statements are placed within the sanctuary/great controversy paradigm. The main difference between those who are saved and those who are lost assumes the 1) correct interpretation of the grace of God, 2) genuine freedom to choose without force or compulsion, and 3) judgment only makes sense if sin is defined as transgression. Whether a person possesses sinful flesh has nothing to do with whether a person is saved or lost. At the end of the 1,000 years, those who once had sinful flesh are on the inside of the New Jerusalem, while those who are still warring against God are on the outside. Why are some on the inside and some on the outside? Only two option can be considered: 1) the doctrine of sin is interpreted on the basis of divine decrees via Greek philosophy, or 2) sin is interpreted through the sanctuary/great controversy paradigm as transgression.
When Lavoisier questioned the prevailing paradigm, he discovered that the gas he was working with was oxygen. That discovery led to a chemical revolution.40 If we allow sin to be seen within the correct paradigm, then perhaps a theological revolution may lead to the kind of practical godliness that Ellen White shared with us.