I sat at Dr. Maxwell's feet for several years as he presented his unique view of the cross. One illustration he used is still fresh and crystal clear in my mind:

"Suppose your teenager son commits a crime, and he repents of his misbehavior and asks for forgiveness, but his father responds: 'I am ready to forgive you, but justice must be met, and the penalty must be paid. This is what we will do: If you agree to kill your little brother, then I will be able to forgive you without ignoring the demands of justice."

One day, after church, I decided to check my dictionary in order to verify whether what I had heard Maxwell teach in Sabbath School that Sabbath morning made sense. I found the follwowing definition for the term forgiveness: "A willingnes to forego the punishment for an offense."

So I thought, if God demanded that the penalty for sin be paid in full by the death of the most innocent being in the universe, then the alleged forgiveness is no true forgiveness, because payment was made for the offense.

Later on, as I read my Bible, I came accross the passage where Jesus said to his disciples: "You are now clean by the word that I have spoken to you." He did not say: "You will be clean after I have paid the penalty for your sin."

And then, I found another biblical text which states: "We are saved by his life." If we are saved by Jesus' life, then why do we insist that we cannot be saved except by the blood of Jesus?

When Jesus was confronted by the paralitic man, he said to him: "Your sins are forgiven." Should he not have rather stated, "Your sins will be forgiven you after I have a chance to shed my blood on Calvary"?

Nevertheless, should we ignore all the texts which talk about being saved thanks to Jesus sacrifice on the cross? Ellen White comes to our rescue. She has a statement which goes as follows: "The cross was a window designed to give us a glimpse of the pain and suffering God was subjected to since the inception of sin."

My solution to this conundrum is: The Lamb of God, which was "slain from the foundation of the world" suffered the consequences of sin and rebellion, and the penalty for sin was not an arbitrary demand to balance the books of heaven, but rather the natural consequence of infinite love.

The cross was not merely an event in history, but rather a process which began with the rebellion of Lucifer in heaven, and will end with the eradication of sin from the universe.

Then, the main culprit for the death of Jesus Christ, the one who has been a "murderer from the beginning," and the one who inspired Jesus enemies to shout: "Crucify him," "crucify him," will reap the natural consequences of his sin and rebellion.

Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com

Jared,

First, thanks for the kind words and the recommendation that people check out the upcoming GNT in Loma Linda. I too encourage people to listen and decide for themselves. All too many rely on a "thus sayeth Elder Such-And-Such" rather than making their own decision.

There are some things I would like to correct. And by way of "full disclosure" I am on the HeavenlySanctuary.com and Good News Tour team.

While Dr Graham Maxwell's approach to bible study has been very influential for some of us, others on the team have had very little exposure to him. Nor do we completely agree with everything that he teaches. The loving nature of our God however is the central point which unites the team and in that I believe that we are in agreement with Dr Maxwell as well as many others. But we are NOT associated with Dr Maxwell nor are we trying to point to him or any other individual. That would very much get in the way of the real message we would like people to hear - and that is that God is their friend, on their side and utterly trustworthy - in fact, God is just as Jesus portrayed him to be.

With regard to the "outcry" in Portland over the poster, I went with the KGW reporter who covered the story to one of the malls. The initial reports were that there had been "many calls" to the malls and the advertising agency about the poster. But the mall we visited reported that they had gotten NONE! In fact, they weren't even aware that the posters had been taken down until we asked why they had been removed. The the reporter eventually got in touch with someone at the ad agency. It turned out that ONE person in ONE mall had gotten upset, thrown a blanket over the poster and made enough of a stink to convince the ad agency that the path of least resistance was to pull the ad. Subsequently on KGW's web site they had a poll on what people thought and the responses ran 3 to 1 for "it should have stayed up." At any rate, I wanted to clear up the misconception initially put out by the ad agency that there had been some vast hue and cry to remove the posters. It is a very powerful picture and it seems that almost no one can see it without some sort of reaction, one way or the other. I would like to emphasize that it is NOT a political statement of any kind - which is what some who object to it seem to think. The point of the picture is to show how the most powerful being in the universe would treat the most powerful humans on earth.

I'll not try to speak to the theological objections to the GNT other to note that there has been a lot of misinformation about what the GNT is saying and that I would encourage people to listen and decide for themselves. If you can't attend in person, the videos are available on DVD or on line.

Again, thank you for your good reporting and kind words.

Mark

Hey Jared,

Wow, I wish I were in SoCal and could attend this conference.

Here would be my question:

How do you reconcile your view with Romans 3:21-31, In particular vs. 25-26? (This to me is the strongest text to support the propitiation view.)

Also, as interesting coincidence, our reading group at church is reading a book called "The Reason For God." Last week, we read a chapter entitled "How Can A Loving God Send People to Hell?", where the author responds to people who have a problem with the idea that God judges, gets angry, etc. Here are some relevant quotes:

"Think how we feel when we someone we love ravaged by unwise actions or relationships. Do we respond with benign tolerance as we might toward strangers? Far from it...Anger isn't the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference...God's wrath is not a cranky explosion, but his settled opposition to the cancer...which is eating out the insides of the human race he loves with his whole being." ~ B. Pippert

"If God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make a final end to violence--that God would not be worthy of worship...The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God...My thesis that the practice of non-violence requires a believe in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many...in the West...[But] it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human non-violence [results from the belief in] God's refusal to judge. In a sun-scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die...[with] other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind." ~ M. Volf

question: what does God's judgment mean? Does there remain a punishment for those who are not interested in being part of the Kingdom of Heaven? Also, what was the purpose of all those years of animal sacrifices, with the sinner putting his hand on the head of the poor sheep, etc.?
Thanks,

Nic - the example you present as being Dr. Maxwell's thoughts on forgiveness is one where he presents an absurd example that is 180 degrees opposite of what he he really taught. Maxwell uses those examples to demonstrate an illogical view. You must take the quote in the context of what all he taught. Just like we must with the Bible.

BH

Thanks for this post Jared--my husband and I were just discussing this morning how we'd like to read more about nonviolent atonement theories (the Christus Victor model being one).

I met Graham Maxwell while in the eight grade. I sat in his SS class while he was studying at the U. of Chicago. I spent seven years in his SS class at LLU and his Wednesday evening reading the Bible through in one year--several times.

The basic point of Graham is that eternal death is the result of man's rejection of God, the Life Giver, not the Rejection of man by God.

The phrase Graham uses is that Christ turns away in loving disappointment and allows man to his own decision to go it alone!

I think that is the story line of the Gospel and the Epistles--and is prefigured in the Old Testament as well. Tom

MrBadger, thanks for correcting a few points and providing context for us. You know how reporters sensationalize things to make for a more interesting read...

Well, that wasn't exactly the point in writing about the poster controversy. Having heard the story about the flyers in the mall a while ago, the story grew from one person creating a big fuss to public outcry in the retelling. Like all good stories do :-)

In any case, I think the poster is one of the best visuals to come out of Adventism in a long time - it is a powerful message about the kind of God we serve, and I daresay about the kind of people we aim to be as followers of such a God.

For those who might be interested in getting a better feel for the content of the Tour than this article gave, you can watch loads of video content from a previous tour by clicking here.
(previously broken link now corrected)

Nic,

While I can't vouch for exactly what Dr. Maxwell may have said since I wasn't around when he was teaching Sabbath School, you make a good point about forgiveness that I think many Adventists overlook: forgiveness was certainly available and operable before Jesus' death! It wasn't "Abraham, your sins will be pardoned well after your death by the death of the perfect sacrifice in the distant future..." Rather, God forgave the sins of people throughout Scripture well before Jesus' death demonstrating that it was not the death that made forgiveness possible.

Your comments also got me thinking about another strange view articulated by my wife's Adventist co-worker, a doctor. The man said that true forgiveness only happens when the sin is entirely forgotton. If the offense is remembered, it has not been forgiven. He meant this in reference to offenses between people and between people and God. Strange idea, no?
--------------------------------

Zane,

Good points. While I won't speak for the GNT folks as if to presume what their answer might be, I would venture a response of my own to the Romans 3 question. That passage explicitly states (and this is something that the opponents of a so-called forensic view of atonement have to account for) that Jesus blood offerening was necessary:

...and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

So it is certainly scriptural to say that Jesus' blood was necessary to make atonement. But the problem is that other models of atonements (moral influence, christus victor) are also biblical. Scripture in many places at different times offers several takes on how atonment happens.

People start to freak out (not you Zane, but many Adventist folks), when we invoke anything other than Scripture in creating theology. But we have to invoke something else, namely, logic and rational thinking. If God is love, if violence is the problem, then there are some conclusions we can make logically. Violence cannot be both the problem and the solution. (Like the bumper sticker says, we don't kill people in order to prove that killing people is wrong!)

The line of reasoning that says God's anger against injustice and abuse is warranted and results in the destruction of the wicked is the line that Marvin Moore followed in the article I cited above.

He says for example, if someone raped your daughter in front of you, would the loving thing be to respond passively or actively? And by active, he means a violent if necessary intervention.

I think the illustration may be off, but that's for another time and place, perhaps.
---------------------------------------

One final thing about a loving God sending a person to hell--Marco Belmonte's signature message with a cheeky or tongue-in-cheek title (I'm going to hell and looking forward to it) argues that our conceptions of hell are wrong. I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with the way he explains hell and the destruction of wickedness...but see for yourself.

Zane--

It's been some years since I listened to Doctor Maxwell's tapes, thanks to a member of my congregation who provided them for me. Yet I do remember something about the scriptures you mentioned.

As I recall, Dr. Maxwell thought that the words used in the passage had broader meanings than those generally translated. Minds that had been steeped in reformation theology might translate the various forms of dikaios as just/ify/ied/ier, when the root word righteous might do just fine or actually be preferred.

I resisted his thinking for quite a period of time, particularly after living through the whole Brinsmead-Ford-Paxton discussion in the 70's and 80's. But out of courtesy to my church member Ilistened to Maxwell's tapes. Once I had listened to a few I began to understand the overall schema and it seems to have some merits, particularly when describing God to certain personality types.

Cheers.

Tim,

Thanks for channeling the spirit of Dr. Maxwell. =) I've never heard Dr. Maxwell speak, but read some of his ideas in a book we were required to read in undergrad called "Who's Got the Truth?: Making Sense of the Five Different Adventist Gospels" edited by Martin Weber. It compared the views of Sequirra, Maxwell, Knight, Venden, and Larsen. I remember being highly resistant to reading it, but now understand why it was assigned! (I think the book is now, unfortunately, out of print.)

I love the word "just/ify/ied/ier", by the way. To this explanation, I'd say, fine, but what about the "punishment" that is used in that same text? The most natural read seems to be to connect the idea of "just/ify/ied/ier" with "punishment."

Pastorally, I see Maxwell's teaching and the draw it has for many people, as the result/reaction/welcome corrective to an overemphasis on the IJ.

Jared,

Just to be clear, I'm not against the moral influence theory in general, and believes it has clear Scriptural support. I just think it is being terribly one-sided when it tries to say that other views are somehow inferior or in error.

My thinking on this matter has been influenced most by John Stott's "The Cross of Christ." Stott argues that Paul uses metaphors from different areas of life to explain what happened on the cross--legal (justification), family (reconciliation), marketplace (redemption), temple (propitiation)--and that they all illuminate in their own, complimentary way, what happened on the cross.

My issue is with one-sided theologies (ransom, substitution, propitiation, etc.) that are oversimplifications of the richness found in Scripture when discussing this topic.

On reasoning about love and violence...Hmmm. What do you think of Volf's quote (above)? (This is the Miroslav Volf from Yale.) He, as you probably know, is a survivor of the war in Croatia. He reasons that belief in God's justice (violent?) is the only thing that will stem human violence and our desire to enact vengeance on our own. (This is line of reasoning contrasts nicely with the line of reasoning that belief in a God that judges leads to violent humans.)

I also think the image of God sending someone else to do the dirty work and then beating him up for something he didn't do (the punish your little brother illustration cited above) is based on a inadequate understanding of the Trinity.

On the cross, God himself is in Jesus, taking on the responsibility of his rebellious creation. He can do this because he created everything. God is not arbitrarily taking his "anger" on an innocent being.

Zane,
Again, points well made and well taken.

John Jones, professor of Religion and former dean of the school of religion at La Sierra pointed out while teaching a course on the Corinthians that Paul and other writers employ a wide range of metaphors to explain salvation and atonement (as you point out). The danger, Jones argues, is in absolutizing any one image or metaphor and saying that this one is the right one and the others are wrong.

Now this raises some questions in my thoroughly Western, rationalistic mind. It seems to me that some models may by definition preclude others from being true. It can't be both A and B when A and B are antithetical. But my brief studies of Jewish culture and Scripture suggest that the Hebrews had much more appreciation of and even need for tension and contradiction (think for example of the conflicting accounts of creation mashed-up in Genesis).

We modern Westerners say either / or, while they seem to have said both / and.

Now, as for Volf, far be it from me to contradict someone of his stature and understanding! I will say that I have difficulty in grasping the idea that human non-violence only makes sense in light of God's ultimate act of violence (to put his thesis more crudely). Again, it seems that it would be difficult for violence to be the problem (on physical, moral and spiritual bases) and at the same time the solution to the problem--the answer to violence.

That is what I meant when I said in the original post that it seems God has become something of a utilitarian God, using reprehensible methods (violent punishment) to bring about an ultimate Good (an end to violence).

I need help reconciling those seemingly opposing acts.

"The basic point of Graham is that eternal death is the result of man's rejection of God, the Life Giver, not the Rejection of man by God."

And yet, that still leads back to God as Life-Giver, and Destroyer. If he is in charge of our life, he can withdraw that power, can he not?

Having heard literally thousands of Maxwell's taped SS lectures (I recently discarded nearly a dozen large garden trash bags filled with them), his lectures always could be depended upon to have that consistent theme throughout; so much so that he even said his wife asked him before a sermon, "Why do you study so much, they always sound the same."

I'm still listening to The Teaching Company lectures on the Philosophy of Faith and Reason and have heard the great philosopher-fathers of the church: Augustine, Anselem, Abelard, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, attempting to prove the existence of God and his nature and meaning.
Ultimately, it's all a matter of faith, and one chooses either to believe or not believe. Unless you believe first in God, all the "evidence" one can muster is still not factual, objective evidence.

As to his actions and meanings for us, there are as many theories as there are preachers and theologians. Much of their discussion is so confusing as to be meaningless to the average person and in so doing, they are very selective of certain Bible texts, while ignoring the others. While Maxwell is a wonderfully gracious speaker and his conclusions are far more palatable than the "Hell-fire and brimstone" ones, beliefs will never save anyone; only actions and those depend and can only be demonstrated in our relationships with other people.

Jared

Thanks

Tom

Elaine

Very good, but the actions must be the consequences of Assurance not the means. Tom

Jared,

I'm all for some nice both/and reasoning as long as the two conclusions adopted are not clearly contradictory.

It would be contradictory to hold that the ultimate reason for the cross was that God had to pay the devil off (the ransom theory) and "pay" himself off (substitutionary atonement). On an issue like this, one belief clearly excludes the other.

I'm not so sure this is the same case with the moral influence theory and the subsitutionary atonement theory. In my mind, they seem to compliment each other and be different sides of the same coin. God's sense of his own justice AND his great love for us is what makes the cross, as traditionally understood, so powerful.

I've also found the notion of "divine simplicity" very helpful in thinking about this matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity

On the Volf quote...yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. Perhaps "justice" is the better word than "violence" as in a faith/hope in God's final justice is the only antidote for human violence?

I guess this leads us to the question of if justice can be non-violent?

"...can justice be non-violent?"

That is a great question!

“This is what the LORD of Armies says: Administer real justice, be compassionate and kind to each other.” (Zechariah 7:9)

Does God administer that kind of justice?

There is so much evidence in the Bible that God's justice involves a compassionate "making things right" kind of justice rather than a retributive sort of justice.

When you justify a word document you arn't punishing your computer, rather you are "setting things right" or "putting things in alignment". I think that God's justice is ultimately restorative and healing, not punishing or retributive.

Hey Brad,

I think that we are now getting to the heart of the issue.

First of all, I'm in totally agreement with you about needing to widen our understanding of Biblical justice as "setting things right." The OT prophets are clear that this includes care for the widow, the orphan, and the poor.

The question would then be: "does a wider conception of justice as "setting things right" exclude all retributive justice or God's act of justice on those that reject him/harm others?"

This, in my mind, then leads to the question of why people ultimately reject God/hurt others.

And here is the central question:

1. Do people reject God/hurt others because they are ignorant of God's nature and the nature of their own actions?

or

2. Do people reject God/hurt others because they choose to, (at the end, with full knowledge of God and their own condition)?

If you answer 1, the problem is human ignorance and the solution is enlightenment or a fuller revelation of God's nature and our true condition. Also, one is not culpable in the fullest sense, for acts committed in ignorance, so "punishment" is inappropriate.

If you answer 2, the problem is one of the will, the response is punishment, and since God cannot force someone to change their will, at the end of time, it's either abide with evil forever or extinguish it ("violently"). The individual is also responsible for their actions, and punishment is appropriate.

Christian theology, at least since Augustine, has affirmed option #2 and this seems to align well with Adventism's traditional Arminian stance, hence substitutionary propitiation and judgment at the eschaton.

Now, there is obviously an interplay between knowledge and will here...but I'm not ready to give up a concept of "free-will" to defend the moral influence view.

Oh, and I should add...

I'm not saying that in some cases human rejection of God and acts of evil against others are not based on ignorance.

Sometimes they clearly are.

In the end, only God knows...and he will judge fairly.

I'm only saying we should not discount judgment of the retributive kind...or punishment of the putative kind.

Hi Zane,

I would say "yes" to both:

"1. Do people reject God/hurt others because they are ignorant of God's nature and the nature of their own actions?"

The classic example here is Saul. Prior to the Damascus road he "hurt others" by killing the early Christians. What changed at the Damascus road was that his picture of God now became Jesus - "I am Jesus who you persecute". So when Saul became Paul what ultimately changed was his picture of God (he was previously ignorant of God's nature - as you said) and after that he never persecuted those who disagreed with him again.

This is why I have great hope that when people come to really believe that God is just like the humble carpenter of Nazareth ("if you have seen me, you have seen the Father") that like Saul, there will be a dramatic transformation and that the character of God will be reflected in his people.

"2. Do people reject God/hurt others because they choose to, (at the end, with full knowledge of God and their own condition)?"

Again, I would say there are already examples where we would say "yes" to this as well. Lucifer, for example, rejected God despite living in his very presence. Judas walked with Jesus for 3 and 1/2 years and certainly had a great deal of knowledge of both the King and the Kingdom, yet still rejected Jesus.

The question is, what is the "punishment" for rejecting God? Is it retributive? Judas rejected God and then went out an hung himself. Does God need to resurrect him in order to pay him back fully - to satisfy justice?

I've tried to address some of these questions over the last month or so - - if you click on my name you can read a little more.

Of course we know from Jesus saying that "he will judge no one". We all judge ourselves in the court of our own conscience. And Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the father. "If the father had come in place of the son, history would have been no different." (EGW statement).
Bill

Brad,

I think we're in agreement about a lot of things, but that several issues are beginning to blur together. The issue, broadly speaking, is God's judgment. More specifically, does God "judge" sinners and also did Jesus endure God's judgment on the cross?

We might ask the following questions:

1. Does God's sense of justice ("wrath") need placating? (propitiation)
2. Is it just/fair/legitimate for God to transfer his wrath onto Jesus, who was innocent? (substitution)
3. Does God actively "punish" sinners and will he do so at the final judgment?

Traditionally, Christians have affirmed "yes" to all three of these questions. I've tried to defend these conclusion by appealing to:

1. Divine simplicity (Love and justice in God are not distinct, as they might be in the human mind.)
2. The Trinity (The Father and the Son are One.)
3. Free-will (Humans have choice, and are hence, responsible for their actions, although ignorance clearly has to be factored in.)

The issue of God resurrecting Judas to punish him again is not one I've really thought about in relation to all this, but if you have a problem with the notion of a resurrection of the unrighteous, that's a separate issue!

Bill,

I'm not sure exactly what text you're referring to, but isn't Jesus saying this to make the point that only God, the Father, will judge? I think this is very different from "judging ourselves in the light of our consciences." If anything, the Bible teaches that our hearts are deceitful above all things!

Those are all great questions, Zane, and they are deserving of more than a snap answer. But, these are exactly the kind of questions that will be discussed at the Good News Tour conference. It will also be broadcast on LLBN. If you can make it there will be a panel discussion at the end with questions from the audience, but the questions you have asked are always raised during that time as well.

All the best!

Brad

Jeannieb43

Zane:

Please DON'T judge Graham Maxwell by the writings of Martin Weber! His book "Who's Got the Truth?" was pure sensationalism -- written to catch your attention at the Adventist Book Center, but written without even *interviewing* the five Adventist theologians who were the purported subjects of his blather.

Martin Weber himself has absolutely no credentials as a scholar or researcher.

It's a blessing if the book "Who's Got the Truth?" has actually gone out of print. There were many inferences and much innuendo in it which could have been actionable if the subjects had so chosen.

There's no need to wonder what Graham Maxwell has said. His Sabbath School lesson study tapes are still available. Go to www.pineknoll.org, where the lessons are available on tape. If you want to know what Graham Maxwell says, listen to him!

Brad,

As I said to Jared, wish I could be there! Thanks for dialoguing with me on this issue. (I guess it would be redundant to say everything you're going to say at the conference right there.) =)

Jeannieb43,

I hope I didn't come off sounding negative toward Graham Maxwell. I was just raising honest questions I have about the position. I'm actually very sympathetic to the moral influence theory way of seeing things, just not at the exclusion of other views about God/Jesus/atonement.

Thank you for the link to the Pine Knoll site. I look forward to some more internet perusing.

I don't have the Webster book with me, but from what I remember, after his autobiographical introduction, each of the chapters were written by the proponent of the particular view. Others responded, and the author had a chance to respond back. It was pretty even-handed from what I remember. (It was a while back.)

Happy Sabbath to you both!

Jared,

In response to Zane on Romans 3 you wrote:
That passage explicitly states (and this is something that the opponents of a so-called forensic view of atonement have to account for) that Jesus blood offering was necessary:
This is a common misconception about alternative to the "forensic view of atonement" - namely that if Jesus' death was not necessary for "forensic" reasons then it must not have been necessary at all. I would like to propose that there is an alternative that is being missed. And that is that because of Satan's charges against God that attempt to lay the blame for the consequences of sin at God's doorstep. From Eden, and probably before, Satan has claimed "You won't really die..." EGW is eloquent on this in the P&P chapter "Why was Sin Permitted?" There she says that had God left Lucifer and his followers to the awful and inevitable consequences of their choice they would have died - but the onlooking universe, having never seen this, would have misunderstood and would have served God from fear.

I would like to suggest that in order to make the true nature / consequences of sin, required a demonstration of exactly what would happen. I think this is the reason for the necessity of Jesus' death. There are also implications about it needing to be a fully divine person who did this, that the one who did it have no taint of sin that might contaminate the demonstration etc. It really fits quite well with all we are told about the reason for Jesus death. And it does not have the drawbacks of Forensic Substitution, the MIT, Christus Victor or the Ransom theories. It seems to me to be be a fifth atonement metaphor that deserves to be considered side by side with the existing ones, not forced to conform to one or the other. And it includes the uniquely Adventist perspective of God acting in the Great Controversy over the character and government of God.

Mark

Gerhard,

You asked some questions that intrigued me. Since no one else "bit" I'll toss in my brief thoughts.

question: what does God's judgment mean?
Two thoughts on this one. In the context of the Great Controversy, could it be God himself who is being judged with respect to the charges made against him by his Adversary?

The one you were probably thinking of however, is God's judgment of those who choose not to be part of his Kingdom. In that context, I think the judgment is not God deciding "You're in vs you're out" but simply God's "diagnosis" of what is manifestly true "You would be happy in my Kingdom vs you are so out of harmony with reality that you would be unhappy living with me for eternity."

Does there remain a punishment for those who are not interested in being part of the Kingdom of Heaven?
This is an intriguing question. I wonder if it is only those who have a "complaint" against God who are given their "day in court" to try to prove their case against God - so that no one can every say that God did not give them every opportunity.

Also, what was the purpose of all those years of animal sacrifices, with the sinner putting his hand on the head of the poor sheep, etc.?
I can only think that given the nature of the people at the time this is the best way God could communicate with them. It makes one wonder what God would like to tell us that we are not able to hear!

Mark

Hi Zane,

Earlier you said: "How do you reconcile your view with Romans 3:21-31, In particular vs. 25-26? (This to me is the strongest text to support the propitiation view.)"

Since I'm not a Greek scholar, I used to wonder about Romans 3:25 myself as it seems to state so clearly that Christ's death was to propitiate (appease) the Father's wrath. Here are a couple of different translations of this verse. Some use the word propitiation, others use different expressions which I have emphasized below with a *:

KJV: Whom God hath set forth to be a *propitiation* through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

NIV: God presented him as a *sacrifice of atonement*, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

GOD'S WORD: God showed that Christ is the *throne of mercy* where God's approval is given through faith in Christ's blood.

TEV: God offered him, so that by his blood he should become *the means by which people's sins are forgiven* through their faith in him.

I remember how surprised I was when I found out that Paul never used the word "propitiation" (which is Latin). Instead, the term used by Paul is "hilasterion" which simply means "the lid". Paul makes reference to the lid of the covenant box - the place where reconciliation took place between the Israelites and God in the most holy place.

So essentially Paul is saying that Christ became God's means of reconcilation ("the lid"), because of his life and death on earth ("his blood") which causes us to trust ("have faith") in Him.

And the second part of the verse tells us *why* God did it: "God did this in order to demonstrate that he is righteous.."! Jesus life and death was the only way to reveal the righteous and trustworthy character of God - a God who would demonstrate absolute humility and selflessness even unto death, forgiving even those who tortured him to death. There's simply no violence seen on God's part at the cross. What we see is forgiveness personified in the face of our violence.

Dorothee

These are models, metaphors, from Genesis to Revelation. They are not designed for defending, but enriching.

I mean this respectfully when I say they all have an important place in the compost pile. They were intended to be rich loam for rich relationships, each one adding nutrients and perspectives for spiritual health.

In various stages of my life each one has played an important developmental role, and I still draw on them for myself and to help others along the way when they get stuck.

The best conjunction for the relationships of the salvation models is "and" not "or."

Jeannieb43

Okay, Zane, I stand corrected [partially, that is] about Martin Weber's contacting the subjects of his book. Eld. Maxwell said in his Sabbath School lesson tapes of that period that he had been contacted AFTER the piece had been written about him -- and that it was so drastically far off his true message that Dr. Maxwell declined to reply. In other words, there was no way he could rehabilitate the untrue allegations written by Martin Weber.

And by the way, I don't personally know what the moral influence theory is, but I've heard Dr. Maxwell's colleagues say Dr. Maxwell's message was absolutely NOT the M I T.

Zane,

I read your comments dated on 22 August 2008 at 5:59, and I did read the biblical passage you suggested: Romans 3:25-26. My answer is that after the fact explanation do not always portray adequately the truth of what had transpired.

Take the case of Joseph of old. His brothers sold him to a caravan of Ishmaelites. That was a very cruel and unfair action which caused a lot of suffering to Joseph and to Jacob, his father. Nevertheless, look at Joseph's reaction and explanation years later when, now second in command in Pharaoh's court, he told his remorseful brothers that it was God who sent him to Egypt in order that he might be an instrument to eventuallly save them from a future famine.

My question to you: Did the Lord mastermind the cruel treatment Joseph was subjected to by his brothers? Was it God who inspired them to sell him for the price of a slave? Was it not rather Satan who instigated them to be so unkind to their own flesh and blood? Was God dependent on their evil action in order to save them from a future famine? Is God's saving power contingent on the cooperation of evil agencies? Was this the only way the Lord could have saved Jacob and his children from famine?

Try to apply what I have just said to Jesus' death on the cross. Who instigated his crucifixion? Was it God or Satan? Good came out of this, but this doesn't mean that God masterminded and required the death of his Only Son in order to allow him to be kind and forgiving. There is power in the blood of Jesus, no doubt, but we must not forget that said blood is merely a symbol of the one who has the power to heal and forgive.

Please read John 6: 53, and 63. Jesus told his hearers that they must eath his flesh and drink his blood. They were offended by this saying. They figured out that a literal interpretation of what Jesus had stated made no sense, and Jesus agreed. Then he went to explain the symbolic meaning of his pronouncement: "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

The real life giving power is not in the blood he shed on Calvary, but rather in his words. His divine words brought the universe into existence. His divine words restored the life of Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus. His words provided forgiveness to the paralitic, and the same divine words of Jesus healed the son of the Centurion. Quite often we get stuck with sumbols whose meaning we fail to search and decipher.

Please, take the time to read the chapter entitled "The Lifework" in Ellen White's book "Education." There we find the best explanation for Jesus' death: "Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God."

Think this way: If God's suffering began from the moment Lucifer rebelled in heaven, if you consider that "In all their afflictions, he was afflicted," if you compute the accumulated pain God was subjectd to throughout the history of crime and rebellion sin has caused to his children whom he created and loves, then you might conclude with me that by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the price for sin--suffering resulting from love--was more than fully paid even before he was crucified.

The cross was not a payment in terms of suffering, but rather an overpayment. It was not God who demanded that humans kill his Only Begotten Son. The Lord permitted Satan to have his pound of flesh that we might have a window through which we could have a glimpse at the suffering sin has caused to the heart of the One who has created us and the One who loves us so much that every time we sin and rebel, his heart of love suffers the consequences of our evil actions.

Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com

Gerhard,

Here is my answer for the question you posted on 22 August 2008 at 8:02: The purpose of all those animals that were slaughtered as part of the sacrificial system instituted by Moses was to provide God's children the following spiritual lesson: that sin and rebellion produces suffering in God's heart. Read my answer to Zane above.

Consider also the following: The Bible states that the Lord relished the smell of barbecued meat offered as part of the sacrificial system. Should we interpret this in a literal way? Who consumed a portion of said barbecued meat? Wasn't it the priests and the penitent worshippers. Notice also that offerings of cereal and wine was also accepted by God.

Thinks this way: What would have happened with the sacrificial system in the event the Israelites had accepted the vegetarian diet God attempted to give them in their desert wandering for 40 years? My suggestion is that the sacrificial system was rather a concession to them, due to the hardness of their hearts, like easy divorce and polygamy.

Do not forget that there are many biblical passages indicating that the Lord did not delight in the slaughter of animals, but rather in a contrite and penitent spirit in the life of true worshippers.

Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com

Dorothee commented earlier concerning the translation using the word "propitiation" in Romans 3 an I have When I previously investigated this issue, however, I ran across some other fascinating information. The English word "propitiation" now has a very negative connotation and is often described by using the word "appeasement". Certainly after Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler 70 years ago this produces a very negative reaction from most people. When I looked into the underlying meaning of appeasement, however, I found that it came from an old French word relating to making peace. Given the Norman Conquest of 1066 it is easy to see how an old French word would get into mainstream English. It certainly made me wonder if in 1611 (when the KJV was translated)propitiation could have had more of a "peacemaker" meaning than we now appreciate. In other words, could Paul have been understood by his 1611 translators as telling us that Jesus is our Peacemaker? Fascinating, isn't it?

BH,

Thanks for your comments dated on 22 August 2008 at 8:41.

You are quite right. I listened to Dr Maxwell's teachings for many years, and you might know that he had the habit of repeating the same arguments and illustrations over and over again. I heard him use the fictional anecdote I referred to on several occasions, and it is like you said: it was meant to show with forceful irony how illogical the substitutionary or legal view of the cross is.

Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com

" Did the Lord mastermind the cruel treatment Joseph was subjected to by his brothers? Was it God who inspired them to sell him for the price of a slave?

"Is God's saving power contingent on the cooperation of evil agencies?"

Given so many conflicting stories and explanations, why should someone believe in God?
The Hebrew people persisted in calling upon God and yet they were captured, oppressed, endured many diasporas, finally the Holocaust--which was the final straw for most of them.

There is not one story, but many, that are told about God, both found in the Bible and elsewhere.
What authority has anyone, or any book been given to say that any one of the various stories and theories are the "True" one and all the rest are counterfeit? What measurement or standard is used?

If one believes that in the end God will not only destroy all those who have not chosen to believe in him, but not be content with letting them simply die, but raise them up again, only to be destroyed the second time, is that the essential and major factor in causing one to believe out of fear?

OTOH, if one is to be drawn by love, how will he ever know if that love and obedience is sufficient and who knows one whit about the promised reward, other than it has been promised since the beginning of the Hebrew Scripture.
Has anyone received anything but earthly reward?

hi
i live here on brazil,and i had not listened about ,
maxwell and his teachings,then when i had understood about
god's character,i have been too glad because i was not alone
in this journey which i have been walking for.
besides some brothers im christ here in brazil, there are more
people anothers countrys thinking as same as think my self.
i have taugth in my church of course sda church ,god never
killed nor will destroy anyone because god is love and will
be always love the pure love.any thing bad cannot come out of
god,people inside the churches teaching who god has sent the
flood who god has destroyed sodom,whom has killed more,god or
satan?i worship a god or a murderer?and worse people inside
the church teaching who god has demanded jesus death,to save us of destruction eternal.have i served a cruel god?
there is death because there is a evil ,the father of death
is a demon, who demand the death is satan and not god.
who has demanded sacrifice of animals has been satan himself
because he has pleasure in the death of animals and people too.god had used sacrifice of animals to teach his people
about as dangerous is the sin,but was not god's plan to sacrifice animals,was satans's plan to make it.
then now god do what satan demands,is it?
god does what is need to reach the salvation of mankind.
it was need to come jesus to die for me ,then god has paid the ransom not to him self but to him who demanded it satan
himself.never was god's plan sacrifice animals and neither was
god's plan ask the death of abraham's son isaac,it was satan's
plan,god now obey satan?no god makes what i need to helpe me
in my journey to the heaven.have not been god who gave the key
this world to satan.adam has been the one who has made it,nobody was able to take out of satan's hands,unless the one
perfect being come and dying in the cross ,we would be lost,
and this demanding was placed for satan yes satan that bad angel.and god has made not because obeyed satan but because i needed of him to save me of satan's hands.
i am too glad now and i am thanked to god beacause i am not
alone in my journey which i have walking for.
laercio

Dorothee,

I'm not Greek scholar, either. =) I do know that the word "hilasterion" has traditionally been translated by most NT scholars as "propitiation", although there has been an argument made by some for it to mean "expiation" (or as the TEV puts it "*the means by which people's sins are forgiven"). It seems that one's take on the translation of this word, if not on purely exegetical grounds, stems from what view they want to defend of the atonement.

With this said, even if one goes for the "expiation" view, I'd still ask how one gets around the word "unpunished" in the following verse. The direct implication of this word is that Jesus is somehow bearing the punishment of sins that were left unpunished before.

Jeannieb43,

Thanks for the background to publication of the book. It looks like we both have our work cut out for us. I need to listen to Maxwell and figure out if he in fact is a moral influence theorist and you, perhaps, need to learn about moral influence theory and figure out if this is what Maxwell teaches! =)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone11.htm
http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ

Nic,

I've never read/heard of this Ellen White quote before. Do you see what is said here as articulating an entirely new view of the atonement or complimenting any one view?

Laercio,

I believe the view you are articulating is the earliest view of the cross found in the church called "the ransom view." On this model, Jesus' death paid off a debt to Satan, and actually caused a surplus of "righteousness" to be made available to sinners.

Try this on for size.

Blood is the symbol of life (as in “the life is in the blood). The Israelite who “sinned” and wanted to be reunited with God, took blood and placed the blood in God’s presence indicating his desire to again be at oneness with God.

Now since he could not put his own blood there he used animal blood. (Sadly the animal died – but death was NOT the object of the sacrifice – obtaining the symbol for life was.)

Paul, being familiar with this method of reconciliation, says Christ is the Lid. Christ was God and Man. That is, He, Christ, is “the place” where human life and God are reunited. In Christ, humanity and God are at oneness.

Donna,

You said:

"Paul, being familiar with this method of reconciliation, says Christ is the Lid. Christ was God and Man. That is, He, Christ, is “the place” where human life and God are reunited. In Christ, humanity and God are at oneness."

Amen and thank you for this.

-sb

Truth only really works when we don't force one element of truth to take over and silence the others. The Good News Tour people say wonderful things but turn these against other things that are in the Bible.
Its better to hold two truths together, with some unresolved ambigiuities, than to destroy one truth by another. The same can be said to people who hold the other side (penal substitutionary atonement).
I'd rather allow for mystery, due to my inability to resolve the universes complexities, than to hooble revealed truth by eliminating essential components.
I'd rather have a less than perfect harmonisation of scripture that has a genuine place for both real justice and real love, than one which redefines either justice or love in such a way to confuses them or distort them.

an ant, that is exactly where I end up after listening to some of the Good News Tour videos. They are good but...

A Luthern pastor I know says, "Some people don't believe that God has two hands."

An Ant,
I loved your post.
When confronting with seemingly conflicting concepts and/or texts in the bible I often say to my self, Some arrangement or understanding of these 2 concepts or verses is the truth.
They fit together somehow and only an understanding of how they co-exist with each other will give the right interpitation of the principal being discussed.

Anything less than that and you will only have cherry picking of texts that support a preconcieved idea or interpitation, or worse, a throw the baby out with the bathwater discounting of the bible altogether.

My trouble with exclusively forensic theories of the atonement is that they trivialize sin by making it seem that its negative consequences are wholly extrinsic.

If I am not learning my material in school, of what lasting value would it be for someone else to give me his or her high grade? The problem is not the grade; it is that I do not know the things I need to know.

Likewise, the problem with sin is not that we might fail to pass the FINAL TEST and not get to graduate to the next higher level of being. It is that sin actually does hurt me and others and God here and now and in the future.

I agree that forensic metaphors make their contributions to our understanding of how God brings about at-one-ment; however, they are not the only ones or, in my view, the most important ones.

That Jesus made so little of them might be a clue. But I have heard that Jesus was not a theologian. If so, I say all the worse for theologians [like me]!

It will be easier for me to take exclusively forensic theories of atonement seriously when they start taking sin seriously.

Thanks!

Dave

Hi David,

I appreciated your comments. I wanted to just add that some, by contrast, have viewed the “Good News Tour” perspective to be “soft on sin” (perhaps you were alluding to this with your comment about God having 2 hands?). I suppose that this is a matter of perspective but my own opinion is that the view that blames all destruction and punishment on sin (“sin pays the wage”) is the hardest view on sin.

For example, doctors may occasionally amputate fingers and toes, and dentists may occasionally need to pull teeth (just as God has had to intervene very dramatically and with much power at times - the flood, etc.), but yet dentists do not insert cavities into the teeth of their patients who don’t brush. To some, the phrase “soft on sin” refers to God not punishing and adding some painful penalty on top of the natural consequences of sin. But to parallel this with the medical model, would we call a dentist “soft on patients who refuse to brush their teeth” because he does not insert cavities into the teeth of his patients who do not brush?

I also just wanted to add that the primary “rallying point” for all that are helping to put on this conference is not to promote a certain view of the atonement or to “collide” with those of a more forensic mindset. Rather, the fact that God invites us to know him intimately and as a friend and that he obviously wants to be known (“eternal life is to know God”) and that Jesus came to reveal God (“I have fulfilled THE mission you gave me to do...I have revealed your name/character)” – is what is so exciting. That is not to deny God’s power or to deny the “mystery” of God that Julius described. We will spend eternity trying to come closer to a true intimate knowledge and a knowing relationship with God. The point is, that journey and the experience of eternal life is to begin now.

Said another way, what motivates me is that it was the all-powerful God that came in human form; it was God that spent 9 months in the womb and 3 nights in the tomb; it was God that washed the feet of Judas and it was God that allowed his own creatures to torture him to death and as he died he forgave them. And then he turned to you and me and said "if you've seen me, you've seen the Father...the Father and I are one." That kind of a God is so good it’s hard not to talk about him!

"Jesus crucified is God crucified, so we believe. Jesus is the total and final embodiment in history of God's loving mercy; and so this cross is a unique, terrible, extreme act of violence - a summary of all sin. It represents the human rejection of love. And not even that can destroy God: with the wounds of the cross still disfiguring his body, he returned out of hell to his disciples and wishes them peace...he proclaims God as the one who, above all others, has the right to forgive." (Rowan Williams)

Hope to see you there!

Brad

Dave,

I suggest that only those who have begun to see the necessity of the propitionary atoning death of Christ and forensic justification truly understand the depths of sin, themselves and the love and cost in the cross of christ that saved us.

Only those that truly understand this in my view are truly ready for sanctification.

pat

I was taught that one really can't begin to "do theology" until three questions are answered. What is law? What is sin? What happens to those to violate law?

Law can be defined as descriptive or proscriptive. Descriptive law defines reality; proscriptive law is an arbitrary code of required behaviors.

Sin is either an infraction of the code or a break with reality; it is either separation from the source of life or a violation of an understood list of prohibitions.

What does God do to those who violate law? If law is descriptive he has only to allow natural consequences to take place; if law is proscriptive then he must arbitrarily impose and exact the required penalty.

Many folks mix and match these two approaches. Solutions to the "sin problem" (or atonement theories) can also mix the two approaches. Is the problem relational or legal? You choose.

Is the problem legal? Then it can be solved with a trial and a sentence.
Is the problem economic? Then it can be solved with a surplus and a trade.
Is the problem medical? Then it can be solved with a surgery or a medicine-cure.
Is the problem habitual? Then it can be solved with behavior modification.
Is the problem relational? Then it can be solved with an apology and restitution, forgiveness and change.
Is the problem ontological? Then it can only be solved by recreation, and only by another, higher being.

My opinion is that the sixth solution secondarily addresses the five preceding "problems," but none of the five solutions can ever address the sixth "problem."

Donna,

I don't think that the Scriptures force us to choose between the above apparent dichotomies. Again, I think the picture is both/and, not either/or. We must learn to live with both poles in tension...i.e. God's wrath is illustrated as him giving sinners up to destroying themselves by their own choices, balanced with his wrath being pictured as an active agent in their destruction. The Bible gives both pictures. How we live with both without compromising either is the same difficulty we face in negotiating much biblical truth.

Also, the idea of the Hebrew kippur as the lid, also carries multiple meanings. It is the place of the presence or Shekinah. Thus atonement is to bring man into the very presense of God through the mediation of the priest with the blood of a lamb. A presence we could enter into in no other way.

Kippur also carries the idea of cleansing. This would focus on the cleansing from sin that is achieved through the same mediation. It seems to carry more liturgical attributes, but again points to the elimination of what separates man from God. Confession and repentance would seem to also come to the fore here, especially when connected to the services of Yom Kippur.

It also carries the idea of covering. In fact, the first use of kippur in the Hebrew scriptures, refers to the covering of pitch that Noah was to put on the roof of the ark. When such meaning is viewed in light of the atonement cover, it can carry the idea of a broken law underneath the lid being covered by the mercy offered to those who have broken it. Hence, the idea of the mercy-seat. This seems to then carry more legal or forensic implications.

All complementary pictures of the same reality.

Thanks...

Frank

Where does one begin to "know God"? Do we rely exclusively on what the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures tell us? Are they rightful owners of God? Does anyone or any institution have the hubris to claim that they are exclusive arbiters of who and what God is?

Even if we limit our knowledge to what many and various peoples have written about him throughout thousands of years, why should we rely or depend on their perceptions as the final authority? The Bible, as we are well aware, can be used to "prove" most anything as there are such contradictory and confusing passages that by choosing certain texts and eliminating or refusing to recognize others, have we not distorted the picture?

Are Christians the only ones who know God? Do they not totally depend on the Hebrew Scriptures to tell us about him? Do the Hebrews use their Scriptures faithfully, or do Christians--with their multiple and confusing pictures?

When anyone or any religion claims to have the truth about God that is arrogance personified! God can never be known, nor seen, he escapes all our understanding. Since no one has ever seen him, nor can prove his existence or non-existence, it is all in the realm of our human fantasies, desires, hopes, and wishes that create a god like us, or the admirable traits in humans; yet God is not a human.

The first premise in any discussion is to define one's terms. Can this be done? If so, why the need for discussions? Let everyone hold, in his mind, an idea with which he is comfortable and cease the arguing about things than cannot be known; or does someone dare to say he knows God?

It is a very good point, Frank, that these tensions are present in scripture. Here's a good example:

“My anger will flame up like fire and burn everything on earth. It will reach to the world below and consume the roots of the mountains. I will bring on them endless disasters and use all my arrows against them.” (Deuteronomy 32:22,23)

Now, should we use this verse as a stand alone on the subject that “God’s wrath is to bring endless disasters and to shoot all his arrows.”

Others might say, “Moses really misrepresented God here. This is not God speaking because it sounds too scary, so I reject it.”

But did the one who spoke face to face with God as a man speaks to a friend make up these words? No. We read on for clarification:

“They fail to see why they were defeated; they cannot understand what happened. Why were a thousand defeated by one, and ten thousand by only two? The Lord, their God, had abandoned them; their mighty God had given them up” (Deuteronomy 32:29,30)

And, in this same passage in Deuteronomy:

“They will abandon me and worship the pagan gods of the land they are about to enter. When that happens, I will become angry with them; I will abandon them, and they will be destroyed. Many terrible disasters will come upon them, and then they will realize that these things are happening to them because I, their God, am no longer with them.’” (Deuteronomy 31:16-17)

One interpretation would be to say that God does both: he shoots arrows in his anger AND he "gives up" or "abandons" in his anger.

I like the interpretation that God always speaks a language that we can understand. For a people wandering around in the desert that needed to be plead with and shouted at not to chase after the cruel fertility cults that demanded child sacrifice, God spoke a hard language ("I will punish to the 4th generation", etc.). But yet even within the hard words is the reality:

"Love cannot exist without the freedom to reject love, and if you stubbornly persist in rebellion to the point that I can no longer reach you by any means, I have no choice but to abandon you to the natural consequences of separation from your loving Creator. I refuse to override your freewill and to become the puppet master of your soul."

But would not love require that God speak a language that even a stubborn mule can understand?

"The children of Israel are as stubborn as a mule; how can I feed them like lambs in a meadow." (Hosea 4:16)

I sometimes just wonder if in holding to a view that affirms all aspects of all the metaphores if we allow for a picture of God that incorporates retributive punishment and eye for an eye punishment, when the reality is that God was only shouting (as any good parent would do) as he watched his children running of a spiritual cliff.

Can't we all agree that man, humans, not God, wrote those words? They attributed many various acts to God; which does not imply they were God's but that man SAID they were God's actions.
We often call the Bible "God's Word" which is totally inaccurate: it is man's ideas of God, which explains the great variety within.

Can't we all agree that man, humans, not God, wrote those words? They attributed many various acts to God; which does not imply they were God's but that man SAID they were God's actions.
We often call the Bible "God's Word" which is totally inaccurate: it is man's ideas of God, which explains the great variety within.

Dear KM,

I agree the problem is ontological. It must be dealt with totally outside of our human experience. The question for me becomes just “how” does a higher Being go about bringing restoration and recreation. Can we even know? And can we know the nature of this Being who undertakes the enterprise? What do our suggested solutions say about his nature and character? And what difference does it make anyway?

While I suggested only two ways of approaching “the problem”. My main thesis was to point out the tendency to mix and match solutions which can really muddy our thinking. Each of the above solutions that you suggest can be deduced from Scripture. However each of the above solutions also carry very different pictures and images of God.

Since we tend to conceive of God through the window of our experiences, the solution that appeals to us might have more to do with our upbringing than our theology. As a dear teacher often said, “We don’t see things as they are but as we are.”

I, personally, tend to prefer the “covenant solution ” which can be phased as follows: God creates free beings with the promise to himself that should his children choose to leave him, he would take whatever action necessary to bring them home and restore them to their rightful place. Admittedly relational.

“In Christ” God keeps his promise. Humanity and God are reunited.

I am reluctant to leave unchallenged the impression that Graham Maxwell believes that God never interferes in human affairs with overwhelming coercive power. Maybe he believes this; however, I don't recall him saying so. I do recall him saying other things that suggest to me that he thinks otherwise. Thank you!
Dave

Donna, I understand you. :)
Also think you're right to sense that each lens colors reality with a different tint: Emerald City is a great model for this kind of thing. (Tom Z: did you post a link to a schema like the one I posted earlier? Does it look familiar to you?)

"We don't see things as they are, but as we are." I think a few perceivers have come to that conclusion, but still we resist the implications of it because they blow the world wide open and that openness can be frightening. But God is Sum, and I have learned to be drawn to His expanse.

God is at work, and my recurring prayer is that I swim with His current in my life and in His world.

KM

Yes I think I did months ago. Tom

Dave

earlier I wrote about my call to LLU. In retrospect among the things I cherish the most are the conversations with Graham, Jack, and Paul Heubach.

Graham has a keen and kind mind. One of his frequent comments during Reading the Bible through was: "When reading the books of Moses it is well to take a breather and read a few Gospel accounts of Christ's ministry to get the entire picture of God revealed to man."

Tom

Hi David,

I hope that it is clear (despite the title of this article) that no one is claiming to speak for Dr. Maxwell - only Dr. Maxwell can do that!

I'm curious though as to what you mean my "overwhelming coercive power"? I would agree that God shook Mount Sinai and sent the flood to rescue "the last man" on earth who he had a trusting relationship with.

At the same time, however, I would agree with these wonderful quotes which Dr. Maxwell has on his site:

"The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan’s deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God’s government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known." The Desire of Ages 22 (1898)

"We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death." Letter 96, 1896

I enjoyed attending Graham Maxwell's Sabbath School class at LLU. His emphasis on seeing God's love in all 66 books of the Bible was especially helpful. I once suggested to Dr. Maxwell that the SDA interpretation and application of Christianity was a 'Religion of Responsibility.' He approved.

I love the picture of Jesus and Bin Laden. I placed it on the wall of my office at an Episcopal church. No one objected.

Did God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit require the sanctuary service? Or was it Satan who required the sanctuary service? The sanctuary service involved sacrifice(killing) and ultimately human sacrifice. When we hear about heathens sacrificing their children, we cringe in horror(I do). But isn’t traditional Christianity centered in God the Father sacrificing his child? Is there a problem here? Does the sanctuary service involve a sort of appeasement of ‘the gods’?

It seems to me that Satan had more to do with the sanctuary service than God. Jesus did away with the sanctuary service. It further seems that Satan claimed ownership of the human race, and required worship, and that God had to literally strike a deal with the Devil to liberate us. Jesus waged spiritual warfare with all the forces of hell and won, thus opening the door for our liberation. The death of Christ on the cross was symbolic of a victory which had already occured. The spike that was driven through Christ’s heel continued through the serpent’s head. Unfortunately the serpent is still writhing and will continue to do so until human beings win a spriritual warfare with the forces of hell in a manner similar to that of Christ. Jesus showed the way, but he has had few true followers for nearly 2,000 years now. Ellen White tried to rally the troops, but few seemed to grasp the full implications of her ministry. So this thing keeps dragging on and on. A concerted spiritual warfare might well culminate in what is refered to as Armageddon. Satan and his cohorts will not give this earth up without a huge fight.

The substitutionary atonement was not to satisfy a bloodthirsty God…but rather to silence the demons infesting this earth. The crucifixion of Christ was the first payment, and when a critical mass of human beings do what Jesus said to do, the 2nd and final payment will be made. Might this be the final application of the atonement that Adventists catch so much flack over? Does Satan, rather than God, require the so called Investigative Judgement? Isn’t Satan the ultimate legalist?

Forensic-only justification is legalistic. It is simplistic legalism(Ford's better idea) offered as the solution to complex legalism(historic Adventism). Responsibility is the real solution....being responsible caretakers of our world, ourselves, and each other...by exercising personal responsibility. Being right with God and others...by being right with God and others...not simply being declared to be right. But perfection is not required...because God is not a legalist. We can always do better...but we should not have a nervous breakdown trying to be 'perfect'. There should be Kaizen(continual improvement)...without ever 'arriving'. We don't have to be 'perfect' to be 'good enough' for God. An Adventist school I attended had the motto 'where only the best is good enough'.

Furthermore, does Revelation teach a 'Final Solution' which involves killing all 'undesirables'? In other words, human beings being killed by a God of Love for rejecting a God of Love. I have stated this very bluntly...but is this a misrepresentation?

For those who choose to follow Satan...would it be ethical and appropriate to allow them to follow and worship their leader on a distant 'Devil's Island' planet for all eternity...rather than being tortured or killed by God?

This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?

Tom

The people you mention, and others like them, are among the most important reasons why I have remained at LLU over the years. I share your appreciation for each one.

Brad:

You write: "I would agree that God shook Mount Sinai and sent the flood to rescue 'the last man' on earth who he had a trusting relationship with." I believe Graham would concur and this is what I had in mind.

I am familiar with the paragraphs you cite from EGW and I make them central to my own thinking.

Anybody

Someone above cited Volf to the effect that belief in nonviolence on our part requires belief in vengance on God's part.

I wonder how long God must inflict vengance upon wrong doers before Volf can agree that God has been just.

Would this require a second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade, century or millenium?

Can wrong doers negotiate with God, perhaps trading less intensity of divine vengance for more duration or the other way around?

I am surprised that Volf would start down this theological street. Perhaps he has been quoted out of context. I hope so!

Thanks again!

Dave

If God is the life giver, what is the natural fate of one who insists on denying or defying God? Without the breath of life are we not immediately clay once again? Tom

orthodoxymoron

Where in the world did you get a second payment? Christ said: It is finished!" Not It is Finished Part 1!" Watch and be ready for Part 2.!

Sounds like Herbert Douglass out of page 648 of Great Controversy.

Certainly it is neither Maxwellian or Scriptural. Tom

Tom: This is obviously heresy. Go ahead...burn me! It is simply my attempt to make sense out of salvation history...to help to explain the delayed return of Christ...and to deal with concepts which have drawn fire from Adventist critics for more than a century.

The Great Commission has been at the back of the bus for 2,000 years. "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and TEACHING THEM TO OBEY EVERYTHING I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."---Matthew 28:18-20(NIV).

Have Christians been busy doing this for 2,000 years...or doing everything but this? Is this the Great Omission? I'm guilty too. I'm no poster child. By the way, why does Jesus say 'all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me?' Given to him by whom, and when? Did he win this authority away from Satan during his earthly ministry? Is this the first part of the deal with the Devil(Holy Place phase)? Is doing what Jesus told us to do the second and final part of this deal(Most Holy Place phase)? Is this where the Investigative Judgment comes in? If people don't do what Jesus said to do...the salvation of the human race is not a done-deal. Some might even call it insubordination.

I have problems with the scriptural(Dan. 8:14, Heb. 9;12) and numerical aspects(2300 days/years, 1844) of the Investigative Judgment...as well as that it is something which God needs or requires(the Lord knows them that are his). But if it is something which Satan requires as a part of a legalistic, lawyer-like, celestial courtroom, universal power struggle, legal wrangling regarding the souls of men and the fate of the human race at the end of this present darkness...then I am all ears. It can help to explain why 2,000 years after Jesus paid it all, and saved the human race...things are worse than ever. Does anyone know how many people have been tortured, injured, or killed in wars since Ellen White died in 1915? So what went wrong? We can't say everything is fine when it obviously is not. I don't think Ellen White was kidding when she wrote, 'Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then shall the Lord come to claim them as His own.'--Christ's Object Lessons, pg 69. Try taking the teachings of Jesus seriously, and start talking about them and implementing them at the local church or conference level...and see how much trouble you get into. How about the 28 Fundamental Teachings of Jesus Christ? How about Teachings of Jesus Seminars? This applies to all Christian churches. Christianity is a religion about Jesus...not the religion of the teachings of Jesus. Who needs the Anti-Christ? To answer Des Ford's question, 'Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?' The answer is both. The early Adventist/Millerite mistakes should be freely admitted...but the Investigative Judgment should be promoted and defended on a conceptual level...extrapolating from the issues involved in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan in the Conflict of the Ages. This isn't a fairy-tale.

I have a hunch that Herb Douglas would not agree with me. I think I believe in a sort of ‘harvest eschatology’…but certainly with a very different flavor than that which is found in ‘Why Jesus Waits’ or in ‘Jesus: Benchmark of Humanity’. To me, the U.S. Constitution and the Red Letter Teachings of Jesus are much more important than the 28 Fundamentals. I’m probably more on the wavelength of the following:

“Not many people of moderate persuasion have much sway in the church any more. I was reminded why recently when the Episcopal Church did two important things: It elected a woman bishop to head the denomination, and it backtracked on appointing gay bishops. The first move seems Christian. Women deserve to hold church office as much as political office (one diocese, however, was so incensed that it voted to leave the church, and worldwide there are still Anglican movements that do not permit women to be bishops or ordained priests). The second move was an act of cowardice because it did not reflect the ideals of love in Christianity and was motivated by reactionaries in the Episcopal denomination. Countering a long tradition of laissez-faire tolerance, the reactionaries have gotten tough and threatened to form their own church if gays are promoted in the priesthood. The worldwide Anglicans are more intolerant, upholding that homosexuality is forbidden, unnatural, wrong or an outright sin, depending on who is doing the disapproving. You'd think that someone would stand up and ask a simple question: Who are we to condemn gays if Christ didn't? In fact, who are we to condemn any sinner, since Christ didn't? Christianity is about forgiveness, and for the past two decades, as fundamentalism swept through every Protestant denomination, moderates and liberals have been driven out, and were roundly condemned as they left. Along with them went tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention love. Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias? In the current climate, it's hard to remember, but one thing is certain: Once a tight cabal of fundamentalists takes over any denomination, Christ's teachings go out the window. The reversal of Christianity from a religion of love to a religion of hate is the greatest religious tragedy of our time. Those of us who haven't been swept up in worldwide fundamentalism, which has corrupted Islam, Hinduism and Judaism as well, have been caught in a double bind. We can't join any sect that preaches intolerance, yet we can't fight it, either, because by definition fighting is a form of intolerance. To escape this double bind, moderates have stayed silent and stayed home. But that tactic failed. As healthy as it is to nourish your own devotion and faith, it's disastrous to allow extremists to take over the church, because the statehouse, the board of education, the Congress, and eventually the presidency are next. Perhaps civil society will solve the problem of religious extremism. So far it hasn't. America finds itself in the sad plight of being the world's most prominent secular society hijacked by sectarians. One can only hope that the church comes to its senses and regains its moral center. If that doesn't occur, the core teachings of Christ will be lost, for all intents and purposes, to this generation.” --- Deepak Chopra. (Deepak Chopra is the author "Peace is the Way," which won the Quill Award in 2005 as well as 41 other books. He is also the founder and president of the Alliance for a New Humanity, an international network of people from all walks of life who are networking together to see a positive change take place in the world. This article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2006.)

David, I'd have a hard time taking that conclusion from Volf's forgiveness book, "Free of Charge." I haven't yet ordered his follow-up, "End of Memory" -- but I can't see how it could consistently validate that conclusion either. His theology explains how God works and how we therefore work. He could not advocate either unselfish, ceaseless, transformative grace or an end to maintaining relational breaks with offences if he then turned around and claimed that giving, forgiving, and restoring relations were not Godly. His very reason for proposing them is that they are Godly, and we become grace instruments ourselves because we are His children and because we have received.

It would indeed be an odd turn.

This is my heresy: The greatest vengeance on evil is its redemption.

"The crucifixion of Christ was the first payment, and when a critical mass of human beings do what Jesus said to do, the 2nd and final payment will be made. Might this be the final application of the atonement that Adventists catch so much flack over?"

Adventists catch so much flack over a view like this because it is nothing more than righteousness by works, pure and simple! Where in the world can we find Scriptural support for our works, lifestyle, imitating Christ, etc., being a second payment? Payment for what?

If we're speaking in terms of payment, what could we possibly pay by what we do that Jesus hasn't already paid? It's what Paul means when he says, "You've been saved by grace through faith, and that is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." How can we make a second payment on a gift that has already been handed to us? It's for free...that's the nature of a gift! It's the nature of grace!

And speaking a little more about payment, Christ uttered "tetelestai" (it is finished) right before he died. Tetelstai was also a term stamped on commercial documents and bills of the day. In that context, it meant PAID IN FULL.
Coming from the mouth of Jesus, that's the best news in the universe! What "payment" could we ever add to that?

What's amazing to me, is that we will entertain such stuff in the Adventist church without batting an eye, but someone like Des Ford came along challenging 1844, while uplifting the centrality of salvation by grace through faith, a central pillar of Christianity, and he had to hand in his credentials!

And this isn't sour grapes over Ford. I joined Adventism well after.

Thanks...

Frank

When Jesus 'paid it all' on the cross...who or what got paid? Wasn't that enough? And why didn't heaven begin right at that moment...or at least at the resurrection? Something seems to be missing here...a missing-link, if you will. What is Jesus waiting for? Do the teachings of Jesus support salvation by grace through faith? Do they support character-related salvation? What about Matthew 25:31-46? If salvation is character-related...then perhaps the realization of heaven, and the end of Satan's reign of terror, is also character-related. It's not over till it's over...and this mess obviously isn't over by a long-shot. My suspicion is that Satan won't let go until he or she absolutely has to. We seem to be hostages...and until all conditions of release have been met...we will remain in this prison-like situation.

”When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another.” Thus Christ on the Mount of Olives pictured to His disciples the scene of the great judgment day. And He represented its decision as turning upon one point. When the nations are gathered before Him, there will be but two classes, and their eternal destiny will be determined by what they have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and the suffering. In that day Christ does not present before men the great work He has done for them in giving His life for their redemption. He presents the faithful work they have done for Him. To those whom He sets upon His right hand He will say, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” But those whom Christ commends know not that they have been ministering unto Him. To their perplexed inquiries He answers, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. How surprised and gladdened will be the lowly among the nations, and among the heathen, to hear from the lips of the Saviour, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” How glad will be the heart of Infinite Love as His followers look up with surprise and joy at His words of approval!’—Desire of Ages pgs. 685 & 686 (Home Library Edition)

orthodoxymoron

Your Point?

Assurance in a complete salvation (payment) brings a mission.
Acting on that mission validates one's faith or belief in the Finished Work of Jesus Christ.

Read John 1:51 The ladder reached all the way from earth to heaven. NOT almost with a gap we must jump!

Conversion means having the same mind-set as Jesus. Not the recapitulation of the Christ Event.

As Luther explained a "Proper Righteousness" is the consequence of faith in the assurance of Christ's gift from above.

You would say: If captured by a band of terrorists with a demand for a million dollar price on your head. Your friends take up a collection and send it. The leader counts it and finds it two pennies short. The leader says: "Shoot him!" You look down and see you are wearing penny loafers. You cry out: "Wait, Wait". You reach down and get the two pennies.

You are released and sent home. When you get home, you are a media hero. In the interview you hold up two cents and say to the listening audience. If it weren't for these two pennies, I would have ben shot. Tom

Ortho,

It would help to go beyond the red-letter words of Jesus, and into the book of Acts and the letters of Paul, to begin to get a perspective as to why "heaven didn't begin" at the moment of Jesus' resurrection. It might also help to clear up the difficulty you seem to have between the relationship of salvation by grace through faith and the lives we are called to subsequently live... a difficulty that seems to have you pitting Paul against Jesus (and EGW).

The conditions for release have been fully met by Jesus. When the disciples realized this, standing in Jesus' very physical post-resurrection presense, they too wanted to know why "heaven still needed to wait." Jesus told them, "It's not for you to know the times or the seasons..." He then called them to live as his witnesses...witnesses of this good news to the entire world.

Our calling is no different. Neither are the limitations of our knowledge of the when and the why. The first is our responcibility to live out, not as payment, but as grateful recipients of grace. The second, the when and why of our salvation, is God's. We can trust him with the second while we are occupied with the first.

It's called faith.

Thanks...

Frank

Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me
Text: Augustus M. Toplady, 1740-1778

1. Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the Double Cure;
Save from Wrath and make me Pure.

The "Double cure" of the Protestant divines.

pat