The official view of Dan.8:14 is unsupportable by classic higher criticism. D. Ford tried to throw the brethren a way out of the delimma. The brethren knew that any change would spell the end of Adventism. Now Ford is trying to get back in through verbal proof that he is on board despite his attempt at rehabilitation of the rock bottom of SDA theology.

Graham Maxwell attempted the same thing by painting a picture of God winsome to the longings of man.

I have found Maxwell swallows a lot easier than Ford in both motive and clarity. So if in Loma Linda, I would attend the Campus Church and not the Hill Church on that pivotal weekend.

The problem was that Neal Wilson et al were trying to "save" an institution rather than "save" a doomed world. That institution is now essentially a third world enterprise.
Tom

Could there be a third option? Admission that we know ONLY what the NT writers chose to tell us based on their reconstruction of an inexplicable event? That they were writing to convince both themselves and others that the crucifixion of their beloved leader surely had to have some reason other than Roman fear of an uprising?

Even the words or Jesus were supplied by the writers, none of whom were there; even to the extent of "knowing" about Jesus temptation by Satan. Who was there to record it? Who was there to overhear his prayer in Gesthemane if the disciples were sleeping?

The first writer, Paul, attempted to explain Jesus' death in a way that he had constructed and as a Jew, he naturally drew analogy on that and the Hebrew sacrificial system which both the Jews and Gentiles were familiar. Two thousand years later can we still use those same analogies when they are so far removed from our perceptions? What would a 21st century metaphor be like if someone offered an explanation that had meaning today?

Truth be told, all the major Christian doctrines were constructed long after Jesus' death and resurrection and we are dependent upon them for their explanations: expanations that no longer seem relevant or hold meaning for us today. Just as the Sanctuary doctrine within Adventism which has played such a major part has absolutely no viable or valid reason to be understood today. We have refused to listen to William of Ockham and made the entire "Good News" a message so convoluted that it is essentially meaningless. What does it have to do with one's life today?

Tom,

I am sorry to hear you say this. As to the article of JBF alone it has no biblical meaning without "forensic justification." As to 1844 needing "higher criticism" to show it is lacking, on this you are mistaken. Conservative Protestants don't use higher criticism but sound biblical exegesis to show 1844's errors. Made simple, Christ sat on the throne in the holy of holies at the fathers right hand at his ascension.

I suggest Des got "the slight" by two groups at Glacier view. The conservative traditionalist adventist AND the progressive liberal adventist. Neither fully embrace the Protestant necessity of forensic atonement as the foundation for justification by faith alone. Then you may add a third group...the uninformed "status quo" administrators who simply don't like to see the boat rocked.

Blessings Des if you look in. What an informative weekend is in store for LLU. God speed my friend!

pat

Dr. Nam states a "priceless" comment expressing the difference between "conservative protestant exegesis" and the underlying attitude of "liberal/progressive" theology. His conservative antagonist could not have said it better.

Says Nam..."At the same time, I just don’t like the substitutionary/propitiationary view that is expressed of Scripture. The Bible teaches it, but I don’t like it–and reject it. I think this metaphor was powerful in the New Testament and apparently effective in describing the cross event for Paul and his readers. But it doesn’t work for me."

The Bible teaches it ...but I reject it. Conservative Protestant exegesis vs. liberal exegesis made clear in a few sentences!

regards,

pat

PS. Could an informed voice please confirm that Des will speak on Saturday, Sept 6...thanks

Pat,

Responding to your question, I am posting the following announcement I received from Adventist Today dealing with Des Ford's forthcoming visit to Loma Linda:

*********
"The Loma Linda Campus Hills Church will be the venue for the 2008 Richard Hammill Memorial Lecture to be presented by Dr. Desmond Ford on Sabbath, September 6, 2008 beginning at 3 pm in the Loma Linda Campus Hill Church on the campus of Loma Linda University.

The title of his lecture will be "The Theory of the Forensic Atonement in Light of the Christian Gospel."

The Richard Hammill Memorial Lecture series is sponsored by the Adventist Today Foundation, publisher of Adventist Today. This lecture series is sponsored by the Adventist Today Foundation in the interest of fostering dialogue on sociocultural, historical, and theological issues of concern to Seventh-day Adventist Christians.

Following the lecture by Dr. Ford, comments and questions will be offered by three respondents including Larry Christoffel, Loma Linda Campus Hill Church, Professor Fritz Guy, School of Religion, La Sierra University, and Professor Kendra Haloviak, School of Religion, La Sierra University. Following dialogue between Dr. Ford and the responders, there will be an opportunity for written questions from the audience.

Dr. Ford will also be making a presentation on Sabbath evening
beginning at 8 pm at the Loma Linda Campus Hill Church entitled 'This I Believe.'"

*********

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

Hi Pat, Yes see the Adventist today website for the confirmation of Des Ford's 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. meetings on Saturday September 6 at the LLU Hill church. Also I really appreciate the honesty of Dr. Julius Nam.

As a teacher when teaching something abstract, I start out using no technical words. I first explain the concepts, and once the students understand them, and have shown me that they have, I then carefully explain to them what the school means by those big words. I think it could be the same with the big words and symbols used in the Bible. Obviously the symbols mean different things to different cultures at different times. In some cases the only Bible people read are our lives.

It would be an interesting project for someone like Dr. Nam to re-write the Bible according to symbols that he would feel comfortable with. However, history is history, and the way mankind treated Christ - spitting in His face, yelling out to "Crucify Him" while all along he had lived a perfect life of love and compassion - is a demonstration of the wonderful love of God on the one hand and the dirty rotten sinfulness of mankind on the other.

Thanks Mike and Nic...I may make an attempt at a cross US visit. I sincerely hope it will not be cancelled as a previous Des Ford engagement several years back arranged by the sponsers due to Calif. SDA conference...as I understand it...may be wrong in that understanding.

pat

Pat

Thanks

Tom

Tom,

Thanks for your comments posted on 23 August 2008 at 1:49. Both Des Ford and Graham Maxwell atttempted to solve the dilemma posed by the traditional Christian understanding of the cross. I had the privilege of listening to both and of reading the books they published. They are very insightful; nevertheless, I believe that the best explanation for the death of Jesus is found in what Ellen White wrote in the chapter entitled "The Lifework" in her book "Education.

"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."

This way of looking at the cross seems to widen the understanding of what happened to Jesus, and it is probably not in conflict with the other biblical explanations for the atonement. If God's suffering began with the inception of sin, then it was not God who demanded the death of his Only Begotten Son in order to balance the books of heaven: God's pain and suffering was the natural result of infinite love.

Such a view seems to agree with what we find in Revelation where it is stated the God's Lamb was "slain from the foundation of the world," and with another biblical statement where we read that "in all their afflictions, he [God] was afflicted."

If God's suffering began with Lucifer's rebellion in heaven, then we can conclude that by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, God had suffered more than enough, and Jesus' death did not represent a payment for sin, but rather an overpayment.

This theory of the atonement gets God off the hook as someone who masterminded the death of the most innocent being in the universe in order to gain the right to offer forgiveness to sinners, and places the blame for the death of Jesus on the shoulders of the one who was "a murderer from the beginning."

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

Pat, Adventist Today came to Ford's rescue by scheduling the meetings in another location close by.

Jared: Thanks for extending the conversation this way.

Pat: Glad to provide a "priceless" quote, but I don't know if I'm the best specimen of "liberal exegesis." I reject certain things in Scripture not because I think it's wrong, but because it carries (as of now) no meaning for me. But I may react violently against something, but I can also embrace it as part of the overall mosaic. My rejection is a personal, subjective, and gut-level response, and is not a denial of its objective value.

Mike: Thanks for seeing my blogpost as what it is--honest, personal reactions to some major views on the cross-event. I don't wish to rewrite history or Scripture. The story is just there--with all the metaphors and loose ends. And even if I react negatively to some of them, I can't wish them away or deny their importance. So at times I find myself sucking up and taking it--especially when we sing all those wonderful hymns about the cross! But the project you suggest is interesting. I like what Yancey does. I don't think I can ever top a genius like him. All I can do is to read, wrestle, and pray together seeking wisdom and humility.

Tom,

Often personalities and presence effect our views. Perhaps some preferred Apollos more than Paul due to his presence. Des to me focuses on first of all "a mind for truth and a heart for God." Some may find that focus not as "warm and personal." Perhaps Paul was not considered as "warm" yet God chose him to write at least 13 books in the NT for the accuracy of His desired message.

Regards and Peace

Pat

PS. Julius, you may not represent the best of liberal theology yet I believe you have best expressed their starting point exceptionally well...thanks for your often not expressed honesty and regards,
pat

Jared,

You wrote: This “picture of God” theology feels nice, but I can’t wipe away the sense that it involves creating God in human image.
Ah... I really don't mean to be flippant but, doesn't "creating God in human image" go by the theological term "Incarnation"? Isn't that exactly what God did in order to reveal himself to us?

Mark

Nic

You quote EGW as follows: "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."

I'm glad you brought this paragraph to our attention. To me it is more faithful to Scripture than anything I've yet found in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin.

Thanks again!

Dave

Mark (MrBadger),

Actually, that quotation was an excerpt from Julius Nam's post. My apologies for the ambiguity there!

Jared,

That's what I get for reading too fast! Someone else pointed out that I had incorrectly attributed the quote to you rather than the person you were quoting. Sorry about that!

I am still struck with the irony of Julius' objection to "this picture of God" would also seem to apply to God's approach to dealing with the issue - Jesus' mission was exactly that of revealing God in human form!

Mark

Considering that Dr. Desmond Ford will be discussing his beliefs at the evening session, I decided to share some of Dr. Ford's views on creation with the readers of this forum. They were selected from an article entitled "The Genesis Debate" written some time ago. It sould be interesting to find out whether he still believes what he wrote then:

*********
"But it is certain that most well-read Adventists have moved well beyond George McCready Price."

"Radiometric dating and comparison of the sequence of strata in all continents have made Price's views untenable."

"Is not the idea of long ages of creature strife before the advent of man an intolerable one for the Christian?" [Dr. Sean Pitman is especially critical of God allowing the pain imposed of sentient animals for "billions" (sic) of years before the appearance, or creation, of home sapiens, or Adam and Eve.]

"We must keep in mind that this rebellion began before our solar system was formed." [This argument was defended by Jack Provonsha.]

"But what about the universality of the Deluge? Because there is no geological evidence of a worldwide deluge, most evangelical scholars believe that the Genesis Flood covered the existing civilization, not the entire globe."

"As regards Noah's flood, we can choose between two options: it is a history of a local flood long before the early kingdoms of Egypt, or it is an inspired parable drawing upon some ancient memories of a diluvial catastrophe."

To read Dr. Ford's entire article, click on the following Internet link: http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.html

To read a critical review of Des Ford's Article, "The Genesis Debate," by Dr. Sean Pitman, read the following posting on the SDA Forum: "Are the Genesis Creation Days Literal or Symbolic?" http://www.sdaforum.com/page240.html

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

If Adventism can employ an individual in a religion department who is uncomfortable with the Pauline gospel, then I don't understand why there would be an issue regarding the employment of science teachers who are uncomfortable with the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.

Julius, if the Pauline gospel doesn't work for you, you should hand in your credentials and find some kind of job that does. Obviously, you are not a minister of the gospel.