This sounds like the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement by Abelard. Or is there a difference?

Graham Maxwell has proposed the Great Controversy Theory which is the only other subjective theory of atonement I know. It is not the same as the Moral Influence theory, but since you didn't mention a governmental, God on trial, the cross affecting the sinless universe in your article, I assumed it wasn't this one.

Ron,
Two likely sources for the given statement are likely the following:

“Yet Christ had not been forced to take this step… The claims of God's government had been misapprehended through the deceptive words and works of Satan, and the necessity of a mediator was seen and felt by the Father and the Son. And now the great antitype of all the sacrificial offerings had come. In Christ type had met antitype. In the sacrifice of himself was the substance which all the sacrifices symbolized. In surrendering his spotless soul a living sacrifice, Jesus was bearing the sin of the world; he was enduring the curse of the law; he was vindicating the justice of God. Separation from his Father, the punishment for transgression, was to fall upon him, in order to magnify God's law and testify to its immutability. And this was forever to settle the controversy between Satan and the Prince of heaven in regard to the changeless character of that law. {ST, December 9, 1897 par. 5}
The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because he himself was obedient. {par.6.}

Before the foundations of the earth were laid, the Father and the Son had united in a covenant to redeem man if he should be overcome by Satan. They had clasped Their hands in a solemn pledge that Christ should become the surety for the human race. This pledge Christ has fulfilled. When upon the cross He cried out, "It is finished," He addressed the Father. The compact had been fully carried out. Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption. If Thy justice is satisfied, "I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am." John 19:30; 17:24. {DA 834.2}

I believe it is apparent that EGW took the Views of the “classical” Protestant writers of her day in regards to the atonement…Penal Substitution.(correct or not)

Perhaps the best book supporting the biblical aspects of that view is, “The Atonement” –It’s Meaning and Significance. Leon Morris, IVP, 1983. 206pp.

Arlyn, I think you have correctly noticed the different understandings on the Atonement which will be the main source of difference on this blog.

First let me offer the opportunity for readers to view the unabridged article, it is found at:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/

You are correct to think that if one does not accept the Penal theory of the Atonement they will likely find the Moral Influence Theory more appealing. Yet the question we have to ask ourselves is the Penal view the best view of atonement? We all need to continually re-evaluate our beliefs and atonement theory is no exception. Though I do admit few of us ever really do re-evaluate our beliefs and we have to realize that it may be that practice that has led to the decrease in Christianity in the Western World. We have thought our traditions were enough yet we live in a society that questions traditions. Our answers are not all that logical some times.

All theories of the atonement are subjective. We are in no position to be definite so we have to work within the knowledge we have available. It is why the many atonement views are called theories. You are correct that it is not a God on trial, not a cross affecting the supposed other world creatures and it is not governmental theory because that is merely another form of the Penal theory see:
http://newprotestants.com/ATONHIST1.htm

Of course my article was very restricted in what it was addressing. Not trying to make a case for Moral Influence theory but simply showing that what we view as Penal Theory of the atonement is not something the Bible really expresses. It does not say that Jesus paid our penalty, it does not say that the wrath of God was placed on Christ. It certainly never expresses the idea that Jesus suffered the "second death" which Herbert Douglas expresses in his commentary. That is not taken from the Bible it is taken from Ellen White. Now if I wanted my theology to come from Ellen White that may be fine but they should not pretend it is Bible based. (And you may have guessed I don't take my theology from Ellen White nor do I think anyone else should).

The above comment expressing Ellen White's views are accurate, that is where the Lesson study guide got their ideas, and EGW got them from the Protestant authors. But that is not the Bible. However the Lesson Study guide claimed that "According to Scripture, God's wrath against sin, our sin, was poured out upon Jesus." Yet that is not what any New Testament writers expressed so what scriptures reveal this information? A foreshadowing in the book of Isaiah(talk about subjective), well that does not seem to be enough evidence to make such a statement. Clearly the Lesson study guide did not have anything to back it up either or they would have listed some verses to support the statement. After all isn't that the purpose of the lesson study guide...to study the Bible.

Thanks for responding rc.

a. clarification- by "subjective" in the context of atonement theories, I didn't mean subjective as in man-made. But the theological definition of subjective- as nothing in God changed objectively because of the cross (He didn't need to, the books didn't need to, no merit was transferred), only man (the subject) was changed by the cross.

b. The "governmental theory" is, as you pointed out a subset of the Penal theory. The "Great Controversy theory" has governmental issues of truth and trustworthiness of God at stake, but is not the same thing. It is a recent theory.

While reading these responses there are several things that seem constant and unchangeable:
1. God is love
2. God and sin are not compatible
3. Love and sin are not compatible
4. We have sinned therefore at some level we can’t be compatible with God
5. God loves us and wants us to be a part of his permanent family
6. Atonement is one way God has chosen to address that problem

The main ways of explaining the atonement paints God the Father as wrathful or at the very least having to be appeased. This thinking is strengthened with words like “propitiation” used by King James and EGW. The conflict then is, how the Father can be at once loving and vengeful. This dichotomy has to be resolved without excusing or ignoring sin and without prohibiting the sinner from being saved

The only atonement theory that would be acceptable to me has to be based in and totally inclusive of love. All of the common theories from Ransom, to Penal, to Governmental to Great Controversy all have elements of an oppressive and dictatorial God. They all make Jesus look great and the very definition of love. But they all cast the Father in a less positive light. Moral influence seems to suggest that God is hoping that we will set up and take notice without addressing the original problem of sin and separation.

What ever theory comes to the forefront, (in my view) has to be focused on the love of the Father and his effort to reconcile us to Him and His family without destroying the love that defines Him. After all if we are to be free moral agents in heaven, how else can God guarantee that sin will never again appear? It has to be based in the manifestation of his love in this crisis. That way we become part of the guarantee, by becoming Ambassadors to the universe attesting to God’s love. That wouldn’t be possible if the Father were wrathful or vengeful in any way.
Joe Huston

"The conflict then is, how the Father can be at once loving and vengeful. This dichotomy has to be resolved without excusing or ignoring sin and without prohibiting the sinner from being saved."

If the Bible is our only source for information about God how can we possibly reconcile the multitude of contradictory biblical stories that clearly present him as both arbitrary and capricious in his actions? Do we ignore the story of the flood? Do we rationalize (how?) the commands of God to utterly destroy whole tribes? There are too many to enumerate. How does one answer these contradictory passages, if the Bible is our only source?

Yes and I have the added privilege (as maybe some others of you do) of helping my two children (ages 7 and 9) make sense of this too. I have taught them that God is a God of love, creation, and life. A big way this concept has made sense to them is through their love of animals. They are both very tender-hearted and gentle with any living thing and it has been a good way to talk of God's tender love for us. Then we got to the story of the flood. I knew I was in trouble when they both burst into tears. The idea that God would wipe out almost an entire population of humans wasn't distressing (still have some work to do) but the concept of animals dying was horrifying. I had to answer weeks of questions like, "Did God think the animals were wicked too? Mommy, the poor animals trying to swim, couldn't God have helped them? Did God not love animals back then?" The Exodus story wasn't any more of a success ("But Mommy, why did all the first-born things have to die? Mommy I don't like that story. God sounds mean for killing all those people when it wasn't even their fault.") And I won't even get into the trauma around the idea of the sacrificial system. That almost hardened their hearts and I think that if they believed that God really wanted them to kill all those animals it would have done irreparable harm. And these are supposed to be well-loved children's stories not narratives that give kids nightmares. It has been very helpful for me though to hear their innocent responses. And I'm proud of them for empathizing with the "other" in the story. Whoever said raising children wasn't for the faint of heart was so right.

Children can present the ultimate dilemma with Bible stories such as this. We (older and wiser ?) adults have a unique way of justifying and rationalizing, while children see things just as they are. Perhaps they are the wise ones to see that "the emperor has no clothes."

So, Elaine and Beth, how *do* you justify a loving God to children in these stories? Was God "reaching people where they were," i.e. amid a culture that believed in sacrifice to appease their gods? Did the Israelites misunderstand what God wanted, or credit Him with commanding what they really wanted - war? Did "The Flood" really happen, or if it did, was it really caused by God?

"The conflict then is, how the Father can be at once loving and vengeful. This dichotomy has to be resolved without excusing or ignoring sin and without prohibiting the sinner from being saved."

If the Bible is our only source for information about God how can we possibly reconcile the multitude of contradictory biblical stories that clearly present him as both arbitrary and capricious in his actions? Do we ignore the story of the flood? Do we rationalize (how?) the commands of God to utterly destroy whole tribes? There are too many to enumerate. How does one answer these contradictory passages, if the Bible is our only source?
Posted by: Elaine | 01 January 2008 at 8:48

In all seriousness and candor, what do you (or I ) know anything about God?
Who are we to judge He who exists outside of time and space?
We cannot even begin to pretend...
That is my problem with these "judgments".

The most arbitrary and capricious of all are human beings; yet we seem to have a major case of "projecting" going on with respect to God.

Children can present the ultimate dilemma with Bible stories such as this. We (older and wiser ?) adults have a unique way of justifying and rationalizing, while children see things just as they are. Perhaps they are the wise ones to see that "the emperor has no clothes."
Posted by: Elaine | 02 January 2008 at 2:04

I still laugh at the idea the we can feel we can pull one off on our own Creator.

Where on earth do we get this idea that God must "behave Himself"?

Why should we feel indignant when He does things without our approval?

From whence do we gather these "standards" to which we hold Him?

(From our emotional reactions? So far that is all I see offered. The answer to these questions should be interesting.)

What is "good", and why should God be "it" at all?

Within the concepts of "love" and "vengeance"...if someone was attacking you and your family with bodily harm and the police appeared and found it necessary to kill the perpetrator in order to protect you, could that be considered a "loving" act?

Pat, I don't see the relevance between your question and the questions Beth's children are asking.

Ron:

Writing in some haste, and at a foreign computer, but I very often enjoy your observations. This is no exception. Of the many and varied "models" the NT writers used to try and shine a light on the Atonement, I remain perplexed that the legal and market transaction models find such heavy use. Two of my best friends are lawyers and they insist there is nothing at all "legal" about the typical Penal substitution explanations. No legal system they know of allows that sort of transference in a criminal court. (Civil yes; criminal no) Further, payment models have God/Jesus making payment then quickly stopping payment with the ressurction.

Of late, the models which offer new insights for me are the so called Christus Victor model, or J Denny Weavers modified version which he calls narrative Christus Victor, and the explanations which see the cross as God's bursting of the Myth of Redemptive Violence. So I'm wondering if you have found any usefullness to these other explainations. Will get to your expanded essay when able.

Thanks...

No one yet has answered how we can explain to our children, and even ourselves, the Bible descriptions of God. We insist on saying "God is Love" and yet, truth be told, is this the picture of God we believe or is it total cognitive dissonance? Again, if a child can see through this disharmony, why do we continue to ignore it?

Carrol I'll try to answer how I've dealt with it so far but all I can say is it is the best I can come up with. I'm not holding it up as the "right" way by a long shot.

I tell my children that Jesus is the best example of God that we have. His life shows us the nature and character of God and where stories conflict with that image, we must go with Jesus. I believe that the OT writers did the best they could with the information they had without the life of Jesus to guide them. Their understanding of God was, in essence, that if they pleased God (in this case by obeying the laws) then God would make sure good things happened to them. If they didn't, then God would make sure bad things happened. It was certainly not an unusual view of human/God(s) relationship as I think we can see this in other cultures as well. That's also not to say that there weren't improvements over your basic pagan view at the time. But it was a world view that says everything that happens to us is a direct result of how happy God is with us.

There is also a very strong thread of tribalism reflected in the stories. Who is "in" and who is "out" is very important. Those who are "in" or like us are the good guys and those who are different or believe differently are so threatening and so bad that they can be exterminated.

Jesus turned both of these themes on their heads. He spoke of the rain falling on the just and unjust and how it was not someone sinning that caused physical misfortune. Both Jesus and Paul showed us a vision of God as welcoming to all and desiring a relationship with all. We are called to stop being so tribal and believe that God loved the Philistine every bit as much as the Jew. And that viewing an entire race of people as evil is a sure way to end up doing bad things.

I look at the stories with my children with that in mind. We examine them as teaching stories and not necessarily as events that actually took place as described (though that's not to say that some didn't, just that history is not the point). We pray for understanding and I caution them that everyone "sees through the glass darkly." That God really is so far beyond us that our efforts will always fall short but that is no excuse to not keep trying. And best of all, that God understands our flailing and loves us beyond all reason anyway.

Now Anonymous @11 I'll try to answer why I have the hubris to question some of these stories.

1) Jesus tells us the greatest commandment is to love God with all our hearts and minds. Not worship God or fear God (though those have their place) but to LOVE God. In order for a relationship to have love there must be certain behaviors on each side. Deut. 28 says that if the Jews did not obey the law then God would do all sorts of awful things to them culminating in the threat to send an army that would lay siege. They would eat their children (and not share which is a truly surreal example of the importance of hospitality in that culture.) Not only would God do this, but verse 63 says He would delight in doing it. So I am asked to love a God who tells me that if I don't obey all His commandments and decrees (verse 15), He will engineer conditions so terrible that I will eat my children and He will enjoy it? That's a monster. I could worship a God like that, fear a God like that, and even acknowledge that God's ways are not my ways but I cannot love a God like that. It distorts beyond all meaning the word love. I don't say that arrogantly, just honestly. Which brings me to my next point.

2) We are asked to make a decision whether we wish to spend eternity with God or not. In SDA theology God's character is put on trial and we (and other worlds) are asked to make a judgement. Either way, we must decide for good or evil. Are we on God's side or not? What does that mean? So yes, we do have to judge as ridiculous as it may seem for us to be questioning our Creator.

3) Finally we are asked to make practical ethical decisions in daily living. What is good and bad? If I define good as anything God does in the Bible, it is not really helpful for me in making those choices. An extreme example. My husband comes to me and says God has told him he must kill our son. I have to make a decision. Do I let him acknowledging that God has acted this way in the past (even once) and who am I to question? How do I decide whether it really is God asking him that? I can answer that it would be pretty easy for me because that is absolutely inconsistent with love. Hubris yes but you can believe I would label it as evil and let God deal with me later if I was wrong. If I'm going to be wrong I'd rather be wrong choosing what I think is loving.

So far, Anonymous @11, our pattern of interaction seems to be I try and explain something and you critique it. I'd really like to hear how you would solve some of the problems I've raised. I can guess how you might answer but guesses are unfair to you and to the conversation. What would you tell a tearful child who asks you if God thought the animals were wicked and, if not, why did God kill them? I ask because I really want to hear other ideas. I promise I'll keep my mouth shut and listen.

I should add how I would explain to my children the baby-eating verses if, God forbid, they should come across them. We would go back to the view the ancients had of God. Obedience to the law was the most important thing because if they obeyed it, God blessed them as a nation. If they didn't, God punished them. If you wanted to stress the importance of obedience in an absolutely unforgettable way it makes perfect sense to envision such a narrative. This is how important it is to obey folks! We would talk about the importance of obedience now, not because God will make us eat our babies if we don't, but because it is a response to the love and perfection of God. And we would look to Jesus as the example that allows the shift.

Pat, I don't see the relevance between your question and the questions Beth's children are asking.
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 02 January 2008 at 4:47

He is asking the same question I am asking.

Who/What decides the morality of the action? The way you feel about it?

What do you know about what God decides to do? From your earth and time bound perspective thousands of years after the fact?

Whose morality system are you using to pass judgment on God?

In short, just because something is too "rough" for your sensibilities--or maybe even tragic, doesn't mean it's immoral. That cannot be the only piece of information you use to pass judgment.

No one yet has answered how we can explain to our children, and even ourselves, the Bible descriptions of God. We insist on saying "God is Love" and yet, truth be told, is this the picture of God we believe or is it total cognitive dissonance? Again, if a child can see through this disharmony, why do we continue to ignore it?
Posted by: Elaine | 02 January 2008 at 6:34

Elaine, what can a child "see"?

This one is at least 1500 years old: 1 Corinthians 13:11

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Not even human beings are that one-dimensional.
I suggest you re-read C.S.Lewis' great book "Mere Christianity"--particularly the chapter "Beyond Personality" (for I am sure you have read it before).

Now Anonymous @11 I'll try to answer why I have the hubris to question some of these stories.

So far, Anonymous @11, our pattern of interaction seems to be I try and explain something and you critique it. I'd really like to hear how you would solve some of the problems I've raised. I can guess how you might answer but guesses are unfair to you and to the conversation. What would you tell a tearful child who asks you if God thought the animals were wicked and, if not, why did God kill them? I ask because I really want to hear other ideas. I promise I'll keep my mouth shut and listen.
Posted by: Beth (not verified) | 02 January 2008 at 6:47

You see, I think that too often we think that what God does is all about us--when often it isn't.

Now, assuming that the Great Controversy is a correct model for the madness that is going on here on earth, I look at the Bible as a progression of revelation of God and his character.

What was the original accusation? Wasn't it that God was capricious and power-mad? Wasn't it a bolt for so-called "freedom" from God's tyranny.

Then, to me, the Old Testament goes to show--among many other things--why God is the way he is and why he deals with human beings the way he does.

For example, take the story of Jonah. That goes to show what happens if God forces us to do things we clearly do not wish to do.
the story of Israel is a "macro" version of this. He indeed would have laid out such a dynamic to the Israelites at times (do as I say or else).
What good did it do the Israelites? Where did they end up?

He even showed that with His incredible patience, some people will still reject Him. This is very important for the end of time when God has to allow something very "harsh" to happen (or do it rather). People looking on will have to be convinced that "one more chance" would have been to no avail.

So, in that context, we can look at the wide array of tacks that God has taken with his people since the dawn of time and thus appreciate to the fullest exactly what "free will" is, and why it is so important to God.

If you look at the Old Testament like that (sometimes), I think you will better appreciate exactly what Jesus was trying to do/show us about the Father. He is the culmination--the "explanation" rather--of the nature of the Father. Jesus would not have made any sense at all if he had come sooner.

The Bible is a continuous book--a continuous narrative or explanation about the nature at God--which was the beginning of this entire mess that the universe finds itself in.
That is why I think we should read the Bible with an eye out for trends and repetition. We are no different to Israel. Why should the Bible only show us stuff about God? It has plenty to say about us.

Again, I know the Great Controversy is not popular here, but it is the most comprehensive narrative (method of interpretation) that I believe exists out there for the Bible. It's all about the vindication of God's character--and I think that explains the progression of the Bible.

(The ending of the book indicates that that is what it is all about: showing that God is Love).

Love is way, way, way more than what Hollywood (and we) define it to be. Ellen White--and others--have referred to that (feelings-based) counterfeit as a "weak sentimentality". I think that we can only get glimpses of it now, and that we will ultimately see what Love really is at the end of it all. In fact, we will continue to discover it and learn about it in heaven.

Carrol,
The reason I asked the above question was that I have observed that perhaps individuals make their concept of "love" as being God rather than God being "love."

God is Love. Does this keep Him from being just or a judge who executes justice which sometimes ends in death? Is it possible that God sees these roles as necessarily included in His role as a King of love?

I plan to later segue this into Ron's article.

I should add how I would explain to my children the baby-eating verses if, God forbid, they should come across them. We would go back to the view the ancients had of God. Obedience to the law was the most important thing because if they obeyed it, God blessed them as a nation. If they didn't, God punished them. If you wanted to stress the importance of obedience in an absolutely unforgettable way it makes perfect sense to envision such a narrative. This is how important it is to obey folks! We would talk about the importance of obedience now, not because God will make us eat our babies if we don't, but because it is a response to the love and perfection of God. And we would look to Jesus as the example that allows the shift.
Posted by: Beth (not verified) | 02 January 2008 at 7:01

I also wanted to point out that some in Israel did end up eating their babies during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD (among other things like leather from their belts etc.).

Carrol,
The reason I asked the above question was that I have observed that perhaps individuals make their concept of "love" as being God rather than God being "love."

I plan to later segue this into Ron's article.
Posted by: pat travis | 02 January 2008 at 11:39

If I may add something I also believe (I didn't wish to masquerade as your "interpreter" in the above comment it just struck a chord).

I think that if we seek to find out more about God, then we will begin to understand what Love is.

I personally think too many people, doing what you described, are getting it backwards.

They try to define "love" and then use the text to project the subsequent notions on God.

But who are we--natural enemies of God--to know what "love" is?
I don't think we can even begin to fathom what Love is naturally. That is why I was "laughing" above. In other words, what are our qualifications?

This is like me attempting to do peer review for the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy.

Good point Anon 11. I am not the best with words and you have verbalized valid points in my opinion.

So if God is "unloving" in destroying all created beings excepting those on the ark then we can "legitimately" say the story was a "myth" or "reframe the Bible" or reject it entirely where it disagrees with our concepts? Is this not what has in fact occurred?

Anonymous@11,

My eyes just caught two unsupported assertions about the Bible.

1. The Bible is a continuous book--a continuous narrative or explanation.
2. We are no different to Israel (sic).

I'm not sure what you're basing these assertions on. While they are common assumptions in popular Adventism, you might consider supporting them to an audience that has read the Great Controversy, but also textual criticism.

Attention to the history of the construction of the Hebrew canon would help -- as would a note about the genres, and pre-scientific method assumptions in Bible. Also, thinking about the moral, cultural, geographical differences between nomads in 5000 BCE and 2008 CE might clear up that second generalization.

Random question inspired by Daneen's post on top books. What novels have you read this year?

Beth, I like the way you are teaching your children to be critical thinkers. And I like your answers to Anon-11, which I don't think he has really responded to. Seems we talk past each other. How would Anon or Pat explain these stories to tearful young children?

Does it strike anyone that more men on these blogs seem to have a literalistic, legalistic way of looking at things (they call it logic, I believe), and more women seem to look at things in a nurturing, big-picture, spirit-instead-of-letter way? Now I know that is a generalization and reflects my bias, so please don't take offense anyone.

Carrol et others,
I have 3 adult children and none ever became tearful about the animals lost in the flood after reading "uncle Arthur."
Do they become tearful when also hearing that "all creation" will be destroyed with the brightness of Christ's second coming unless "we" are "in Him."...or is that also a literalistic and legalistic way of looking at scripture?

Anonymous@11,

Random question inspired by Daneen's post on top books. What novels have you read this year?
Posted by: Alexander Carpenter | 03 January 2008 at 1:26

I have noticed in the Bible reading that it is a "continuous" book. It deals with the same themes over and over and over again, and much of the New Testament is built upon the old (in terms of who/what the writers quote etc).

If you read the Bible looking for themes and narratives you will see what I mean.

I couldn't care less about the history of compilation, because I believe the book to be inspired.

Maybe "repetitive and interwoven" would be better than "continuous".

Now as to the second question, who's being literal now? :^)

I do not read much fiction anymore.
I like to read lots of history, and did so last summer. I also read a lot about wooden boats--but that is another story altogether.

I'm going out on the very tip of the "proverbial" limb here and suggest that the Hebrew religious system was no more authored, guided or protected by God than any of the polytheistic cults that surrounded it and gave birth to it.

The New Testament is not a continuation of the Old Testament as SDA theology purports. Jesus' message was as shocking to the Hebrews as it was to the rest of this self-absorbed world. In fact, the Hebrew religion was the ultimate example of self-absorption. Their invocations for God's blessings fell on deaf ears and so they were constantly beating their heads against the wall in an attempt to justify and understand that.

Jesus was a Jew - born and bred. His culture and religion (which is interchangeable) was, of course, Jewish, enmeshed in the Law and the Prophets. He lived and moved in a Jewish world and His mission was "to the House of Israel"; but Jesus' message was not a continuation of the Old Testament paradigm. He did reference the Old Testament and even died, quoting it, but He was talking to the crowds that surrounded Him, and they were Jews.

Perhaps the correlation between the God of the New Testament to the God of the Old Testament is similar to the correlation made by Paul as he told the Greeks that he was there to introduce them to the "unknown god" which they were already worshipping.

Someone will undoubtedly point out that the New Testament continuously points back to the Old Testament for supportive texts and admonishes us to use it for "doctrine, reproof, ..."., but there is no logical or ethical way to equate "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR" with Israel's march into Canaan, for example.

While we certainly can't pass judgment on God as someone has said, we are told to "reason together" with God and it should be unnecessary to turn logic and common sense on its head in order to "justify" everything attributed to the actions of God in the Old Testament. The Bible is supposed to be God's Word to man and one has to assume its language and content is one that is understood by men, or why bother. When all is said and done, the final word from God is in Christ as the opening of the book of Hebrews attests. Regardless who the author of the book of Hebrews may have been, it is clear that this book, maybe above the rest, specifically explains to the Jews, that Christ is above all of their "sacred cows". He is not a continuation of the ceremonial system, despite what we claim in our convoluted time-lines.

Jesus and His message rises far beyond what the Old Testament shows us about God. Even the Ten Commandments were specifically focused on a people just released from prison and unable to live in freedom without specific guidelines. Jesus didn't come to overthrow that system or to "do away" with its guideposts, but He did show the Hebrews and all the rest, how we should live above the "thou shalt nots".

The Old Testament is a microcosm of civilization as a whole -groping to find meaning, but it doesn't have a corner on God. It is the record of a people's perception of their own importance in this big world as they dealt with their own trials and tribulations. Jesus came into that world and gave them and us a vision beyond our little corners of existence.

Carrol et others,
I have 3 adult children and none ever became tearful about the animals lost in the flood after reading "uncle Arthur."
Do they become tearful when also hearing that "all creation" will be destroyed with the brightness of Christ's second coming unless "we" are "in Him."...or is that also a literalistic and legalistic way of looking at scripture?
Posted by: pat travis | 03 January 2008 at 2:25

Well, the funny thing is that that was my first reaction--which I did not type:
I was going to say that I, and none of my four siblings--or anyone else I know--had ever burst into tears about the people in the flood--or the animals.

We were raised not to hurt animals--even ants--but by golly some of what I see would appear to be pure obsession in the eyes of non-Americans (I grew up for a substantial time outside the USA).
As far as we were concerned, they were God's animals, and He could do whatever He pleased with them.
(I do not remember, however, ever thinking about the animals that did not make it in.)

Here is a funny story about that:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-fg-zoo30dec30,1,4549523.story?tra...

Jesus and His message rises far beyond what the Old Testament shows us about God. Even the Ten Commandments were specifically focused on a people just released from prison and unable to live in freedom without specific guidelines. Jesus didn't come to overthrow that system or to "do away" with its guideposts, but He did show the Hebrews and all the rest, how we should live above the "thou shalt nots".

If that is true, then how is the New Testament not a continuation of the old?

You know what?
I will pedal forward again, Alexander.

The Bible is a continuous book. What makes a novel "continuous"? I would say a progression of character development.

In a novel, you don't have the same story about the character in every chapter. There are new stories, with references to the old--or things that have gone before.

In real life, some patterns are lifelong and play themselves out on larger and larger scales. In other words, some things do change--maybe even major ones. Yet other things remain the same.

“The conflict then is, how the Father can be at once loving and vengeful. This dichotomy has to be resolved without excusing or ignoring sin and without prohibiting the sinner from being saved”
Posted by: Joe Huston (not verified) | 01 January 2008 at 8:05

“If the Bible is our only source for information about God how can we possibly reconcile the multitude of contradictory biblical stories that clearly present him as both arbitrary and capricious in his actions? Do we ignore the story of the flood? Do we rationalize (how?) the commands of God to utterly destroy whole tribes? There are too many to enumerate. How does one answer these contradictory passages, if the Bible is our only source?”
Posted by: Elaine | 01 January 2008 at 8:48

“So, Elaine and Beth, how *do* you justify a loving God to children in these stories? Was God "reaching people where they were," i.e. amid a culture that believed in sacrifice to appease their gods? Did the Israelites misunderstand what God wanted, or credit Him with commanding what they really wanted - war? Did "The Flood" really happen, or if it did, was it really caused by God?”
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 02 January 2008 at 5:38

“No one yet has answered how we can explain to our children, and even ourselves, the Bible descriptions of God. We insist on saying "God is Love" and yet, truth be told, is this the picture of God we believe or is it total cognitive dissonance? Again, if a child can see through this disharmony, why do we continue to ignore it?”
Posted by: Elaine | 02 January 2008 at 6:34

“Beth, I like the way you are teaching your children to be critical thinkers. And I like your answers to Anon-11, which I don't think he has really responded to. Seems we talk past each other. How would Anon or Pat explain these stories to tearful young children?”
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 03 January 2008 at 1:37

On Friday 10th January I came across the discussion on this topic. It is now ten days since the last comment, and on reading over each of the comments, it appears to me that this question remains unanswered.

It is my understanding that Seventh Day Adventist believe that they have the truth, and yet it seems that fundamental questions as asked in the comments above remain unanswered to any degree of satisfaction from the man in the street point of view. As a man in the street this concerns me. If those who believe they have the truth cannot provide satisfactory answers about who God is, even to their own children, what hope is there for the man in the street?

I understand that Jesus taught that not a sparrow falls without the father’s knowledge. By the context of his comments Jesus implied that his father loves even the insignificant sparrow and therefore loves humanity even more. Was Jesus lying about his father? If Jesus was not lying, why then the flood?
In this world a General who has any common sense cares for and values all his troops from the highest to the lowest. After all it is with each and every soldier that the General will win the war he is waging. In war we expect (but do not like) casualties and it may be necessary for the General to lose some of his troops in order to achieve his objectives. Recent TV programs here in the UK suggest that this was the case with Omaha Beach on D-Day when many American soldiers died. In the context of WW2 and the need to establish a beach head in Europe the leaders of the Allied Forces could justify this loss, hard that it may have been. It is only now, with the passage of time and the release of all “classified information” that Joe Public is in a position to assess and begin to understand in the true context the decisions made by our Generals to see if those decisions were justified.

If God is what he claims to be, i.e. Love, then there must be a very good reason why he would take or allow such action. Whatever this reason is, it must be of greater importance than the short term lives of animals and of men. After all do you not believe that God can restore life to those creatures that have had life taken away? Surely our questions ought to be “What is this reason?” and “What would have been the consequence if God had not taken or allowed this to happen?”

Afriend,

Those are the questions that have been asked, did you not read the other comments? Are you offering an answer, or simply repeating the questions? Assumptions are so easily made.