Deeds of the Law vs. Righteousness of Christ: Exposing SDA Confusion on Righteousness by Faith!

This is a beautiful, pastoral chance to sharpen doctrine with charity and careful exegesis. I’ll answer point by point how the Seventh-day Adventist apologists twist the gospel, using historico-grammatical hermeneutics, a bit of Greek exegesis, and conclude with three sharp (but loving) cross-examinations.

Short answer up front

Brothers and sisters, Romans 3:20 is Paul’s blunt point: “By the works of the law no flesh will be justified before God” (διὰ γὰρ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ). Paul is not arguing that good deeds are useless; he is saying they cannot serve as the basis or means of our justification. Justification is forensic — God’s verdict — and that verdict comes through faith in Christ, not through any human attempt to earn God’s favor. Now, let’s walk through the SDA common claims about salvation and gently correct or sharpen where needed.

Point-by-point response & correction

SDA claim#1 — “The deeds of the law… are efforts which man puts forth to save himself.”

Agree — with a crucial qualification.

Paul’s phrase ἔργων νόμου (ergōn nomou) literally “works of the law” refers to works undertaken as a way of meeting the law’s demands to be justified before God. Grammatically and contextually (cf. Galatians), Paul is attacking works as a means of justification, not the value of obedience per se. The law shows what righteousness looks like, but it cannot impute righteousness (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16). The law diagnoses sin (ἐπιγνώσεται ἁμαρτία — “through the law comes the knowledge of sin”), it does not deliver sinners.

Hermeneutical note: Read Romans 1–4 as a unit: Paul indicts Jew and Gentile (3:9–19) and then shows God’s remedy — righteousness by faith (3:21–31; ch.4). To detach the “works” language from that flow is to miss Paul’s argument.

SDA claim#2 — “Therefore, no deeds will meet the requirements of the law; man cannot be justified by his imperfect deeds.”

Agree — with emphasis.

Paul actually goes further: no deeds of the law at all can justify (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ). The Greek future passive δικαιωθήσεται points to the courtroom: no human being will be declared righteous on that basis. That truth sets us free to look for a righteousness outside ourselves — God’s righteousness given in Christ (Rom. 3:22–24; 4:5–8). This destroys any gospel that mixes human earning with divine gift.

SDA claim#3 — “He can only be justified by One who has wrought out for him perfect righteousness… the Lord places His righteousness upon us for all the sins of the past, and His righteousness within us to change us…”

Mostly biblical — but be careful with how it’s used.

Two truths must be kept together (and Paul keeps them together):

1. Imputation (forensic righteousness) — God credits Christ’s righteousness to the believer (Romans 4:3, 4:5; δικαιοσύνη λογίζεται). This is the basis of our justification and our standing before God.
   
   
2. Sanctification (transformative righteousness) — God also renews us by the Spirit so that we increasingly live in accord with the law’s righteous requirement (Rom. 8:4). This is the fruit and evidence of justification, not its ground.

SDA writers sometimes blur these and make the “righteousness within” into a new ground of justification (i.e., you must produce inner righteousness to be finally saved). Paul would strongly resist that. The inner change is the result and the proof of grace, not a second way to earn heaven.

The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ’s one sacrifice truly and finally deals with sin, not only with past sins, as the SDA claim, but with the whole debt that sin creates (so there is no further offering needed). Below, I’ll show the Greek, the context (historico-grammatical reading):

1) The plain Greek and context (what Hebrews actually say)

• Hebrews affirms that believers were sanctified “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ἐφάπαξ — once for all.” The Greek word ἐφάπαξ (ephapax) is emphatic: an act that happens only once and requires no repetition.

• The author continues: “For by one offering he has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). The verbal form used (τετέλειωκεν / teteleiōken, “has perfected/completed”) describes a completed, effective action with continuing results. 

• Then, Hebrews draws the inescapable conclusion: “Where there is forgiveness of these (sins), there is no longer any offering for sin” — οὐκέτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. In other words, if sins are forgiven in this way, the sacrificial system has nothing left to do.

• Earlier (Heb. 9:12, 9:26), the writer had already said Christ “entered once for all into the holy places… and obtained eternal redemption” and that He “appeared once at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” The language is courtroom / cultic: one decisive act that abolishes the old repeatable system.

• Finally, Hebrews 10:17 quotes Jeremiah’s new-covenant promise: “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” That is God’s covenantal, present-tense promise applied to New Covenant people. 

---

2) Hermeneutic & exegesis (how to read these words soundly)

• Historico-grammatical: Hebrews is arguing to Jewish Christians that the temple sacrifices are shadows and that Christ’s one sacrifice is the reality (Heb. 8–10). The recurring sacrifices proved they could not finish sin’s problem; Christ’s single, once-for-all offering does. Reading Hebrews as if it were silent about scope or finality is to miss its whole point. 

• Greek detail: the technical terms matter. ἐφάπαξ (“once for all”), τετέλειωκεν (“has perfected/completed”), οὐκέτι προσφορὰ (“no more offering”), and οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι ἔτι (“I will remember no more”) — these are not ambiguous or tentative phrases. They describe a completed, decisive, covenantal act with ongoing effect.

• What “forgiveness” here includes: The text ties the once-for-all sacrifice to God’s promise to not remember sins. If God truly does not remember them, then we cannot say those sins remain on record as needing later forensic disposal. Hebrews places the believer inside a forgiveness that is legally decisive and practically effectual (both the forensic imputation and the cleansing of conscience are in view — Heb. 9:14; 10:22). 

---

3) So, does Hebrews teach that only “past” sins were forgiven?

No. To say “Christ forgave only past sins” conflicts with the force of Hebrews’ language:

• If only past sins were forgiven, then the sacrificial system would still be necessary (because future sins would remain unatoned). But Hebrews says there is no longer any offering for sin — i.e., the sacrificial system now has no place. That is incompatible with the claim “we still need a later heavenly ritual to clear future sins.” 

• If later sins still required an atoning work in heaven, the author could not say Christ has perfected forever those who are sanctified (Heb. 10:14); nor could God truthfully promise “I will remember their sins no more.” The grammar and context make the atonement decisive and final. 

---

4) Three mic-drop cross-examinations (use these as rhetorical questions)

1. If Christ’s one sacrifice only deleted past sins, why does Hebrews say “there is no longer any offering for sin” (οὐκέτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας)?
   
   
   If future sins remained, wouldn’t there still be a need for offerings? 

2. Why use the emphatic Greek ἐφάπαξ (“once for all”) and the perfect verb τετέλειωκεν (“has perfected/completed”) unless the author intends to teach a finished, sufficient work, not a partial, provisional one?
   
   
   Does “once for all” sound like an incomplete transaction?

3. On what basis can God say “I will remember their sins no more” (Heb. 10:17, quoting Jer. 31:34) if He still keeps a ledger of believers’ sins to be judged later?
   
   
   Would God’s promise be true if He later “looks back” and opens the book again? 

---

5) Pastoral application (short)

• Hebrews does not deny ongoing holiness, discipline, or the need for repentance when we sin (Heb. 12; 1 John 1:9). But it does insist that the believer’s legal standing is secured by Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and that the old system of repeatable offerings is permanently superseded.

• The gospel gives assurance: your sin-debt has been paid; God’s covenant promise is that He does not remember those sins — so stand in the freedom and power of that finished work, and let the Spirit do the sanctifying work in you. 

Hebrews 9–10 uses decisive, technical Greek (ἐφάπαξ; τετέλειωκεν; «no more offering»; «I will remember… no more») and a clear historical argument to teach that Christ’s single sacrifice fully and finally deals with sin — not only the past sins but the legal problem of sin itself — so there is no later heavenly ritual required to “finish” what Christ completed.

SDA claim#4 — “Sin has dominion over us when we are transgressing God’s law and committing sin, and so only.”

This needs correction and nuance.

Paul’s theology makes sin deeper than mere outward acts. In Romans 6–7, he describes a principle — “the law of sin and death” — that enslaves the believer’s fleshly members (Rom. 7:23). Sin’s dominion expresses itself in acts, but its root is a ruling power in the fallen nature. That’s why Paul says, “sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). In other words, being “under the law” means being under the law’s condemning authority; being “under grace” means the Spirit breaks sin’s reign and empowers a different obedience.

So: sin’s dominion is both inward and outward — and grace addresses both by giving a new status (justification) and new power (sanctification).

SDA claim #5 — “God desires that His grace fills our hearts… that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:4).”

Agree wholeheartedly — and this is Paul’s point.

Rom 8:4 is exactly how Paul redefines “fulfilling the law”: not by self-effort, but by living in the Spirit. That is the New Covenant ethic. The law’s righteous requirement is met in us when we are empowered by the Spirit to love (cf. Gal. 5:22–25). But note the order: justification by faith (the gift) → life in the Spirit → fulfillment of law’s righteous requirement as fruit. Never reverse the order.

Greek look (short & weighty)

1. ἔργων νόμου (ergōn nomou) — “works of the law.” Paul uses this idiom repeatedly (Gal. 2:16; 3:2,5,10). It signifies works as a means of justification / covenant-membership, not merely ‘good deeds’ in general.
   
   
2. οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ — “no flesh shall be justified.” This is a forensic statement: no human being will be declared righteous by that method.
   
   
3. ἐπιγνώσεται ἁμαρτία — “through the law comes knowledge of sin.” The law’s primary function in this context is to reveal, not to remedy.
   
   

Questions for Seventh-day Adventists:

1. If ‘works of the law’ could justify, why did Paul boast only in Christ and not in Abraham’s obedience?
   
   
2. Paul appeals to Abraham: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3 — λογίσθη ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνην). If works could justify, why credit faith rather than deeds? If justification depends on human deeds, where is the gospel?
   
   
3. If the law’s works are sufficient, why does Paul say the law actually increases wrath and brings knowledge of sin?
   
   
4. Paul’s point: the law exposes the problem; it does not provide the solution (Rom. 3:19–20; 4:15; Gal. 3:21–22). So do we give people the law to save them, or to show them their need for a Savior?
   
   
5. If sin’s dominion only exists when you outwardly transgress, why did Paul say “I myself with my mind serve the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25)?
   
   
6. Is sin merely a list of bad acts? Or is it a reigning power that corrupts the will and produces acts? If it’s only acts, why the anguished theology of Romans 7? If it’s deeper, then God’s remedy must be both forensic (imputation of Christ’s righteousness) and experimental (Spirit’s renewing power).

If someone answers those three in a way that still makes work the ground of final acceptance, then they have not followed Paul’s logic in Romans.

What to say to a friend who hears the SDA framing

1. Affirm what is true in the SDA text you quoted: we cannot justify ourselves; Christ’s righteousness is the only basis; grace must change us. Those are biblical and good.
   
   
2. But correct what is dangerous in some SDA uses: don’t blend the ground (Christ’s imputed righteousness) with the fruit (Spirit-empowered obedience). Paul insists they are related but distinct. Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8–9); sanctification is the Spirit’s work producing obedient fruit (Phil. 2:12–13).
   
   
3. Encourage: if you feel pulled toward legalism, return to the gospel — there you find both forgiveness and the power to live a new life.

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

Phone: 09695143944