CONSTRUCTED antithesis and unbalanced emphasis are fallacious reasoning devices that are the devil's tools. They are wielded skillfully through brilliant but unprincipled theologians and are copied by less discerning souls whose ultimate objective seems to be that of warring against the law of God and required obedience.
Constructed antithesis consists of wresting two equally important entities out of harmonious relationship, placing them in opposition, setting up a false dichotomy, and then extolling one and discrediting the other.
When two entities of a process, each in its own sphere, do a perfect work of that for which each is intended, they are in perfect working balance and of equal importance to total function. However, when one entity is contrasted against another, extolling the first because it functions well but depreciating the second because it cannot do the work of the first, a deliberate constructed antithesis has been erected. The result is an unbalanced emphasis that leads to erroneous conclusions.
Such illogical thought processes are more easily recognized when applied to concrete objects where they can be visibly proved. In the abstracts of theology, they are hard to recognize and disprove. To illustrate, two entities, gasoline and oil, are both equally necessary to the process of running an automobile. But if gasoline is made to appear all important because that "is really what makes the car run," whereas oil is blamed because it cannot be used as a fuel, to the point where the driver assumes that oil is not very important, the driver is likely to become a victim of constructed antithesis. Unless he sees the fallacy involved before it's too late, his car will eventually break down from a lack of oil.
Constructed Antithesis in Theology
For centuries the antichrist has used constructed antithesis as a technique to twist the truth in its presentations of law versus grace, faith versus works, and love versus obedience. These all work to nullify the law of God.
Certain modern theology also sets up a constructed antithesis in regard to justification versus sanctification, Jesus the Substitute versus Jesus the Example, and the Torah versus the Decalogue. The list appears to be endless and new propositions continue to rise.
True Christians need to be armed to recognize the technique wherever it rears its head. This is not a "new emphasis," but the same old unbalanced emphasis that has confused modern Babylon, placing its doctrines in direct controversy to the law of God and the true Sabbath.
Justification versus Sanctification
When justification is greatly extolled because it functions well, but sanctification is depreciated because it cannot accomplish the work of justification, a constructed antithesis is erected. This kind of illogical presentation produces confusion, endless questions, and discussion.
Ellen White's definitions of justification and sanctification are brief and clear. To those impelled to make extensive arguments on this topic, she warns: "Many commit the error of trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. Into the definitions of these two terms they often bring their own ideas and speculations. Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital questions of righteousness by faith?"—The SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, on Romans 3:24-28, p. 1072.
An unbalanced emphasis on justification by faith alone, which discredits sanctification in any aspect, will lead directly to the Babylonian concept— "only believe." It prepares the way for ecumenical merger. However, this is no new threat.
"The apostle James saw that dangers would arise in presenting the subject of justification by faith, and he labored to show that genuine faith cannot exist without corresponding works."— Ibid., on James 2:21-26, p. 936.
"The enemy has ever labored to disconnect the law and the gospel. They go hand in hand."— Ibid., on Romans 3:31, p. 1073.
Ellen White did her utmost to preserve and establish the perfect balance and relationship that exists between faith and works. For example, she wrote:
"We know that the gospel is a perfect and complete system, revealing the immutability of the law. ... If we were defective in character, we could not pass the gates that mercy has opened to the obedient; for justice stands at the entrance, and demands holiness, purity, in all who would see God. Were justice extinct, and were it possible for divine mercy to open the gates to the whole race, irrespective of character, there would be a worse condition of disaffection and rebellion than before Satan was expelled. The peace, happiness, and harmony of heaven would be broken up. The change from earth to heaven will not change men's characters; the happiness of the redeemed in heaven results from the character formed in this life, after the image of Christ. The saints in heaven will first have been saints on earth."—Ibid., on Romans 3:24-26, p. 1072.
To one minister who was apparently laboring under a false notion that can be traced to a constructed antithesis, she warned: "You repeated several times that works amounted to nothing. . . . The matter was presented in that light that I knew minds would be confused, and would not receive the correct impression in reference to faith and works."—Selected Messages, book 1, p. 377. Later in the same letter she adds, "Do not confuse any mind. . . . Do not go to any extreme."—Ibid., p. 379.
Constructed antithesis cannot exist on the simplicity of description of function. It requires illustrations and devious applications for support. Beware of illustrations that contrast—
1. The Ten Commandments with the mercy seat.
2. The Decalogue with the Torah.
3. The deliverance from Egypt with the gift of the Decalogue at Sinai.
4. Jesus the Person with Jesus as revealed in the law of God.
5. Jesus the Substitute with Jesus the Example.
6. "Revelation encounter" with "revelation doctrine."
The list is endless, but once the Christian is aware of the device of constructed antithesis, he is apt to recognize it in its various forms: first, by its characteristics of contrast, and second, by its objectives, which depreciate the law of God and obedience to the law. A good rule to follow is to look for relationships and harmony, rather than contrasts, when viewing God's marvelous plan of salvation.
Why would a preacher indulge in constructed antithesis? It is difficult to make observations on this without judging motives. It would appear, however, that those who desire to build a fol lowing, forge ahead on eloquence and charm, each introducing his own "new emphasis" with apparent success. A congregation is usually unable, on the spot, to fathom this technique and often concludes that the speaker is a "very deep thinker." Often after such discourses are given you will find a crowd gathered about such a speaker seeking further discussion, but their questions and his answers seldom lead to clarity. The speaker's ego may be fed by a gullible following, but the use of such illogical reasoning actually unfits the preacher for the careful handling of the precious treasures of the Word of God.
