Part 2: "How the Seventh-day Adventist Church Changed What the Protestant Reformation’s Sola Fide (Faith Alone) Really Means"

Introduction

The Seventh-day Adventist Church reinterprets Sola Fide by blending faith with law-keeping, turning a Reformation hallmark into a conditional process of obedience.

The Protestant Reformation’s doctrine of Sola Fide, justification by faith alone, was not merely a theological slogan but the very fulcrum of Martin Luther’s protest against Rome. It declared that sinners are declared righteous before God solely through faith in Christ, apart from any works or law-keeping. Yet the Seventh-day Adventist Church, while claiming continuity with this Reformation legacy, has subtly but significantly redefined the meaning of Sola Fide. In Adventist theology, justification is not a once-for-all forensic declaration based solely on Christ’s finished work; rather, it becomes a conditional and ongoing process that hinges on the believer’s Spirit-empowered obedience, particularly to the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath law as interpreted by Ellen White and SDA tradition. This shift is not a mere semantic difference it represents a theological overhaul that re-centers justification around human response rather than divine accomplishment.

While Adventists may use the language of “righteousness by faith,” their framework often includes sanctification as a necessary component of justification, thereby collapsing the Reformation’s distinction between the two. Ellen White’s writings reinforce this fusion, teaching that obedience is the condition for receiving eternal life and that Christ’s righteousness is imparted only to those who “do all they can” to obey God’s law. This introduces a synergistic model where faith must be proven by law-keeping, especially Sabbath observance, to maintain one’s justified status. In contrast, the Reformers insisted that good works flow from justification, not into it, that obedience is the fruit, not the root, of salvation.

Thus, the SDA reinterpretation of Sola Fide effectively transforms it into Fides et Opera faith and works. This theological pivot places Adventism outside the bounds of historic Protestantism, despite its frequent appeals to Reformation language. The Reformers would have seen this as a return to the very errors they fought against, a gospel that binds the conscience with law rather than liberates it through grace. In this light, the Adventist version of Sola Fide is not a preservation but a mutation that redefines the gospel itself.

This essay unpacks the classical Protestant doctrine, traces where the SDA system deviates, and shows how these deviations ultimately redefine Sola Fide into something the Reformers would have straight-up rejected.

Definition of Sola Fide

The doctrine of Sola Fide faith alone stands as the cornerstone of Reformation soteriology, asserting that sinners are justified before God not by any intrinsic merit, moral transformation, or obedience to law, but solely by trusting in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Faith, in this framework, is not a meritorious act or spiritual achievement; it is the empty hand that receives the righteousness of Christ, a righteousness that is imputed and legally credited to the believer apart from works. This justification is a forensic declaration by God, not an internal renewal or sanctification. While good works inevitably flow from true faith as its fruit, they play no role in securing or maintaining one's justified status. For the Reformers, this distinction was non-negotiable. Martin Luther famously called Sola Fide “the article by which the church stands or falls,” because it preserves the radical grace of the gospel and protects the believer’s assurance. Any theological system that introduces human obedience even subtly or progressively into the ground of justification undermines the gospel’s very foundation and reverts to a works-based righteousness that the Reformers vehemently rejected. In this light, Sola Fide is not merely a doctrinal nuance it is the dividing line between gospel and law, between assurance and uncertainty, between Christ’s sufficiency and human striving. This doctrine insists that:

1. Justification is a legal declaration, not an inward moral change.

2. Christ’s righteousness is imputed, credited to the believer.

3. Good works follow justification but do not contribute to it.

Any doctrine that blends human works into justification, even subtly, ceases to be Sola Fide.

Sola Fide in Scripture and History: The Gospel’s Non-Negotiable Line in the Sand

The biblical case for Sola Fide justification by faith alone is not a thin thread woven into a few verses, nor a vague theological suggestion open to reinterpretation. It is the thunderous, repeated drumbeat of the New Testament, especially in Paul’s epistles, where the apostle goes to extraordinary lengths to slam shut every conceivable loophole that might allow works-based righteousness to sneak back into the gospel. In Romans 3:28, Paul writes with surgical clarity: “We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” He doesn’t hedge his language with qualifiers like “some works,” “ceremonial works,” or “well-intentioned efforts.” He says apart, meaning outside, separate, utterly disconnected from work. Then, in Romans 4:5, Paul drops a theological nuclear bomb: “God justifies the ungodly.” Not the morally improved, not the spiritually promising, not the “almost-there-but-needs-polishing” crowd. The ungodly. This means the basis of justification is not anything found inside the sinner, not his sincerity, not his obedience, not his spiritual progress, but something accomplished entirely outside him: the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to him by faith.

Galatians 2:16 reinforces this with triple emphasis, as if Paul were anticipating centuries of theological debates: “a person is not justified by works of the law,” “but through faith in Jesus Christ,” and again, “not by works of the law.” Paul didn’t stutter. He didn’t blend faith and works into a theological smoothie. He drew a bright red line between the ground of justification (Christ’s righteousness) and the fruit of justification (our obedience). Any attempt to reinsert works into the root of salvation, whether subtle, progressive, or dressed in sanctified language, is precisely what Paul condemns as “another gospel” in Galatians 1:6-9. The apostolic message is consistent and uncompromising: faith is the empty hand that receives Christ, not the hand that adds to Christ.

Historically, when the Protestant Reformers championed Sola Fide, they weren’t innovating; they were recovering the apostolic gospel that had been buried under centuries of sacramentalism and synergism. Martin Luther emphasized that justification is a forensic declaration: God, as Judge, declares the sinner righteous not because of anything inherent in him, but solely because of Christ’s righteousness credited to him. Justification, in Luther’s view, is a legal status, not a spiritual process; it happens in God’s courtroom, not inside the believer’s bloodstream. John Calvin sharpened the distinction between justification and sanctification, insisting that while the two are inseparable in the life of the believer, they must never be confused in doctrine. Justification is based on Christ’s imputed righteousness; sanctification is the Spirit’s work within us. Calvin famously called justification “the hinge on which religion turns,” because to mix it with sanctification is to collapse grace into performance and assurance into anxiety.

Philip Melanchthon, Luther’s theological wingman, made the Reformers’ position crystal clear in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology: righteousness is imputed, not infused. The Roman Catholic view taught that God makes you righteous enough to be justified. The Reformers countered with Scripture: God justifies the sinner while he is yet ungodly, and then sanctifies him afterward. This distinction between imputed and infused righteousness is not a minor technicality. It is the backbone of Protestant theology and the safeguard of gospel clarity.

From Wittenberg to Geneva to Strasbourg, the Reformers stood united on one non-negotiable truth: anything, absolutely anything that makes human obedience part of the ground, cause, or condition of justification belongs in the theological trash bin. Obedience is the fruit of salvation, not the root. Not the foundation. Not the requirement God weighs before declaring someone righteous. The moment you attach works to justification, even the smallest, tiniest act of obedience, you don’t just tweak the gospel. You kill it. You replace Christ’s finished work with human contribution. And in doing so, you trade the liberating grace of the gospel for the exhausting treadmill of performance.

The Seventh-day Adventist Definition of Sola Fide

SDA writers often claim they teach justification by faith alone, but their doctrinal system adds layers that dramatically reshape the doctrine. Key SDA elements include:

1. Investigative Judgment (1844 doctrine)

At the heart of Seventh-day Adventist theology lies the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, a teaching that originated in the aftermath of the Millerite movement and was formally systematized in 1844. According to this doctrine, Jesus entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary to begin a pre-Advent phase of judgment, wherein He examines the lives of professed believers to determine who is ultimately worthy of salvation. While Adventists affirm that faith in Christ initiates the believer’s standing before God, they insist that this faith must be authenticated by a life of obedience, particularly to the Ten Commandments and the seventh-day Sabbath. In this framework, justification is not a once-for-all declaration based solely on Christ’s righteousness, but a probationary status subject to review and conditional upon the believer’s sanctified performance. Ellen G. White, the denomination’s prophetic authority, taught that in this judgment, “character is revealed,” and only those who have overcome sin and demonstrated loyalty to God’s law will be vindicated. This eschatological scrutiny introduces a theological tension: assurance is never final, and justification is never secure until one passes the investigative phase. The result is a gospel that shifts the focus from Christ’s finished work to the believer’s ongoing obedience, effectively redefining Sola Fide into Fides Probata Per Opera faith proven by works. In contrast to Paul’s declaration that “God justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5) and that justification is “apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28), the Adventist model reintroduces law-keeping as a salvific condition, thereby undermining the very foundation of Reformation soteriology and replacing gospel assurance with eschatological anxiety.

2. Final Vindication by Works

Although Seventh-day Adventists affirm that forgiveness begins with faith, their doctrine of final salvation hinges on a believer’s demonstrated obedience—especially sinless living in the end times—making final acceptance contingent not on Christ’s finished work alone, but on the believer’s moral performance.

This concept, often referred to in Adventist theology as final vindication by works, teaches that while justification may begin by faith, it is ultimately completed or confirmed through the believer’s sanctified life. Ellen G. White, the denomination’s prophetic authority, repeatedly emphasized that believers must “overcome sin” and reach a state of moral maturity to stand before a holy God without a mediator during the final phase of the investigative judgment. In The Great Controversy, she writes, “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”. This teaching introduces a profound theological shift: salvation is no longer anchored solely in Christ’s righteousness imputed to the ungodly (Romans 4:5), but in the believer’s ability to attain a level of obedience sufficient to pass divine scrutiny.

This framework effectively redefines the gospel’s assurance. Instead of resting in Christ’s finished work, the believer is left striving toward a future state of sinless perfection, with the looming threat that failure to overcome sin could result in exclusion from eternal life. While Adventist apologists may argue that this obedience is Spirit-enabled and not meritorious, the practical result is a system where final justification is conditioned on human performance. This stands in stark contrast to the Reformation’s insistence that justification is a once-for-all forensic declaration based on Christ’s righteousness alone, and that good works, while necessary as fruit, never function as the root or condition of salvation. In the Adventist model, the line between justification and sanctification is blurred, and the believer’s assurance is tethered not to the cross but to their own progress in holiness.

This teaching not only undermines the biblical doctrine of Sola Fide, but also reintroduces the very kind of performance-based righteousness that Paul condemned as “another gospel” (Galatians 1:6-9). The Reformers would have seen this as a dangerous confusion of law and gospel, grace and merit, faith and works, a theological regression to the very errors the Reformation sought to correct.

3. Fusion of Justification and Sanctification

One of the most critical departures of Seventh-day Adventist theology from historic Protestantism lies in its persistent fusion of justification and sanctification, two doctrines the Reformers labored to distinguish with surgical precision. In classic Reformation theology, justification is a forensic act: God declares the sinner righteous solely based on Christ’s imputed righteousness, received by faith alone. Sanctification, by contrast, is the internal, Spirit-wrought process of moral transformation that follows justification as its fruit, not its cause. However, in Adventist theology, these categories are frequently blurred. Ellen G. White and other SDA writers often describe justification not merely as a legal declaration but as a process that includes making the believer righteous. For instance, White wrote that “justification is not a cloak to cover unconfessed and unforsaken sin; it is the work of Christ to make the sinner righteous” (Faith and Works, p. 100). This language collapses the distinction between imputed and infused righteousness, echoing the Roman Catholic view that the Reformers rejected at the Council of Trent.

In practice, this doctrinal fusion means that justification in Adventism is not a settled verdict but a progressive experience that depends on the believer’s cooperation with grace and obedience to the law. The result is a theological system where assurance is always provisional, and justification is never fully secure until sanctification reaches a certain threshold, especially in light of the investigative judgment and the expectation of sinless living before Christ’s return. This undermines the Reformation’s core insight that the believer is simultaneously justus et peccator—righteous in status, yet still battling sin in experience. By redefining justification to include moral transformation, Adventism shifts the ground of salvation from Christ’s finished work to the believer’s ongoing performance, thereby nullifying the very heart of Sola Fide. The Reformers would have seen this not as a refinement of the gospel, but as a return to the very confusion of law and gospel that enslaved consciences and obscured the sufficiency of Christ.

4. Sabbath as a Salvational Test

In Seventh-day Adventist eschatology, the Sabbath is elevated from a moral command to a salvational litmus test where final loyalty to God is measured not merely by faith in Christ, but by adherence to the seventh-day Sabbath, making salvation contingent on calendar obedience rather than grace alone.

This theological framework is most clearly articulated in Adventist end-time scenarios, where the Sabbath becomes the dividing line between the saved and the lost during the final crisis. According to Ellen G. White and official SDA publications, the last great conflict will center on worship and law, with the Sabbath as the focal issue. Those who honor the seventh-day Sabbath are portrayed as faithful to God, while those who worship on Sunday are often linked to the “mark of the beast” and are seen as apostate, regardless of their professed faith in Christ. Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, a leading Adventist theologian, affirms that the Sabbath “will become the visible sign of loyalty to God” in the cosmic conflict of the last days. This eschatological emphasis transforms Sabbath observance from a fruit of sanctification into a condition of final salvation.

In this system, faith alone is insufficient unless it is accompanied by the correct day of worship. The believer’s eternal destiny hinges not just on trusting Christ, but on passing a divine loyalty test that centers on Sabbath observance. This redefinition of gospel fidelity introduces a works-based criterion into the heart of salvation, effectively turning Sola Fide into Fides cum Die Recta faith with the right day. The Reformers would have rejected this outright, insisting that justification is grounded solely in Christ’s righteousness, not in the believer’s ability to navigate prophetic calendars or ecclesiastical controversies. By making Sabbath observance the salvific fault line, Adventism replaces gospel assurance with eschatological anxiety and shifts the focus from Christ’s finished work to human compliance with a specific commandment.

SDA Divergence from the Classical Protestant Principle

Let’s keep it straight: The Reformers said justification is complete, final, and based solely on Christ’s righteousness imputed to the believer. The SDA system says justification is initial, but final acceptance depends on the believer’s law-keeping, victory over sin, and faithfulness during the end-time crisis. That’s not a minor edit. That’s like rewriting Luther with an Ellen White filter.

Here are the key disagreements:

1. Investigative Judgment vs. Finished Work

Reformers: “It is finished.”

SDA: “It started in 1844 and is still underway.”

2. Imputed Righteousness vs. Character Perfection

Reformers: Christ’s righteousness is enough.

SDA: You need Christ’s righteousness and demonstrable moral transformation to pass the final test.

3. Assurance vs. Uncertainty

Reformers: Assurance rests on Christ’s finished work.

SDA: Assurance is impossible until the judgment ends and you’ve overcome enough sin.

4. Law-Keeping as Fruit vs. Law-Keeping as Criteria

Reformers: Good works are evidence of salvation.

SDA: Good works help determine final salvation.

Chart: Reformation Sola Fide vs. SDA Redefinition

Category	Reformation Sola Fide	SDA Redefinition of Sola Fide
Nature of Justification	Forensic declaration; external, based on Christ’s righteousness	Initial forgiveness + lifelong moral transformation
Ground of Justification	Christ’s imputed righteousness alone	Christ’s righteousness + believer’s obedience
Sanctification	Result of justification	Merged with justification
Final Judgment	Declares what is already true in Christ	Investigative Judgment examines believers to decide salvation
Assurance	Certain, grounded in Christ	Conditional, based on performance
Law-Keeping	Evidence of salvation	Requirement for final vindication (esp. Sabbath)
Sabbath	Optional conviction	Essential test of loyalty and salvation

---

Notes 

1. Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians, in Luther’s Works, vol. 26 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), 125–129.

2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.11.2–5 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960).

3. “The Augsburg Confession,” Article IV, in The Book of Concord, ed. Theodore Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 30.

4. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 482–491.

5. Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1941), 69, 312–316.

6. Seventh-day Adventist Church, Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald, 2005), 147–154.

7. Hans K. LaRondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1971), 128–134.

8. George R. Knight, The Pharisee and the Publican: Adventism’s Anxiety About Assurance (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2010), 44–55.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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