A friend sent me this email after the second meeting. I took out the identifying marks to protect the innocent! It is nice to be posting when everyone else is asleep in America.

Hi, Gill, We just walked in the door! It was an incredibly full day and Des was awesome! I'll tell you all about it.

[We went to church this morning] and then we grabbed a bite to eat and headed to Loma Linda to try to get good seats. We got there more than half an hour before the meeting was scheduled to begin and already the church was filling up. But we managed center seats about four rows back, so were satisfied we had prime seats.

The meeting began a little late; seemed they were waiting for the church to fill up, which it did. The La Sierra church was represented by maybe 25-30 people. Des was introduced by Larry Christophel and Erwin Taylor from Adventists Today; glowing, positive introductions that would have made you proud.

Des preached for almost 1 1/2 hours, and yes, he did speak more slowly. His message was very strong, completely grace oriented, and not at all controversial. There were lots of amens, plenty of tears, and much applause. Most of the time the church was very quiet; people seemed riveted and respectful. Des' voice held up remarkably well for about an hour and 15 minutes. He coughed a few times after that and it was obvious that he was getting tired. But he persevered. A panel with Larry, Fritz Guy, and Kendra Holoviak was moderated by John Paulien, who had prepared questions. Fritz was a little mischievous, by his own admission, but Des answered every question with grace, displaying considerable biblical knowledge, and persistence.

Then questions came from the audience and this time there were a few questions that seemed to have a little barb in them, mostly about Glacier View, or the Investigative Judgment. Des stayed calm, referred a few answers to the evening meeting, and gave short, to the point answers that were both full and cryptic at the same time.

A couple of hours passed. [We] went out to eat, but got back in time to sit a couple of rows closer. The format was similar; Des first, questions later. His voice had recovered and was very strong. His message seemed to me to be a distillation of your last couple of books (thank you again for having those sent). This time Des broached a few of the more controversial topics, but, again, he spoke of those things in words few people there could have disagreed with.

I was able to speak to Des for just a few seconds before the afternoon meeting and after the evening one. Tonight I told him I was going to email you and let you know how it went. He said, "Oh, good. Please tell her that I'm well."

It was a very inspiring afternoon and evening. So many people there were hearing just what they needed to hear and you could tell how blessed they were. The only thing that could have made it better was if you could have been here as well. But thanks, at least, for sharing him with us for these few hours. I'll take whatever greeting you send to him on Tuesday. Hope that sufficiently catches you and the cats up to the minute. Talk to you again soon.

Not being there or having heard the presentation, I need to ask a question. Perhaps this was asked during the Q&A time.

Did God need Christ's death in order to forgive humankind? Was the death of Christ necessary in order for God to forgive sin?

If so, why?

Thanks,
Donna

Donna,

That question did come up in the Q & A session, and while I can't quote Dr. Ford's precise response from memory, I recall that he was insistent that Jesus death was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, and he peppered all his responses with biblical quotations.

Again, while I don't remember Ford's words verbatim, a textual example that might be cited to support such a view would be

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

-or-

Romans 3:24-26
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
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;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty certain that the Romans text showed up either in Dr. Ford's presentation or in the following Q&A time.

Now as for attendance, I'm not sure whether the comment above about there being 25-30 people reflects the attendance at the second gathering at 8:00 PM, but earlier, during the 3:00 presentation the Campus Hill Church was pretty packed. I estimate the attendance at well over 100, maybe 200.

Donna Asked:

"Did God need Christ's death in order to forgive humankind? Was the death of Christ necessary in order for God to forgive sin? "

When you don't have a moderator that will press the person to answer the question, the question won't be answered in a straight forward way. As it appears Ford answered with completely different ideas. Yes, most Christians agree that Jesus died for the remission of sins. But is that because we need to learn to trust God and accept His offer of forgiveness or does it mean that God demands that someone must die to pay a penalty. Then it is payment which is paid for forgiveness and forgiveness is not really offered it is bought.

It is why it is so important to also ask the question in a more direct way. Because the Penal side are very good at taking Bible verses and assuming that they support only one particular model. So the better question or a good follow up question would be: Did the death of Christ change God or change humans. They would be forced to say it changes humans because God does not change. Yet the whole penal theory is based upon the premise that God has to be changed so that He can forgive. There is never an argument that man has to change, God was not the problem, He does not have to change, does not have to be appeased, those are pagan ideas that have overrun Christianity.

What did Fritz Guy say? His article in Spectrum way back when would make for an interesting exchange in this event I imagine.

Thanks!

RC, don’t you love these initials? it could be Ray Charles, Robert Cole or Roman Catholic.

The whole Jewish economy was based on the law. Think of the covenants and the use of the word testimony and witness, never mind the Ten Commandments. In Roman 3, we have a global court scene. First the Jews come to put their case. Paul says of them, quoting the OT, ‘None is righteous, no, not one’. Then in come the Gentiles, but the Apostle Paul declares them all unrighteous. In fact, he says, in v. 23 ‘for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’. We are all alike levelled in the Judgment. In the law courts in Judaism, testimony was given and at the end the witness put his hand over his mouth to signify nothing more was to be said. Here ‘every mouth is stopped’. The whole world [is] accountable to God.’

Mankind has nothing to say on his own behalf. But the mighty gospel says that we are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received with faith’ (v. 24 and 25). This shows God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (vv. 25, 26).
There are two other metaphors in here, propitiation and redemption, but they build up one picture of a God who has found a way out and restored us through taking our place.

A metaphor states that something is like something else. It expresses salvation ideas that are bigger than we can comprehend by emphasizing one facet. All the metaphors are limited in what they can say; the true picture is bigger. But this metaphor of justification is the one used most, and it’s used to explain how God saves us from our universal problem of sin and changes our state before him. And how he can be just in doing this. It is the fountainhead of all metaphors, without which none have real meaning.

I mentioned on another blog, remember the Bible is literature. It uses parables, for instance, and the key to interpreting a parable is to look for the main thing the parable is teaching. Don’t press the details of the parable or you will come to wrong conclusions. The best example is Abraham and Lazarus. We don’t teach hell fire based on that parable. It’s about the evils of self-reliance, storing up riches and despising and ignoring the poor. Likewise with metaphors, they teach a facet of truth, but we are not meant to go off at philosophical tangents, build straw men and imply meaning metaphors don’t intend to teach.

Des makes justification big, because the Bible does. It's the metaphor that most closely tells us how we sorry people can have a right standing with God. To many who lived with perfectionism and legalism for years, it brings a fountain of joy.

ISAIAH 52:7 ‘How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation’. (Isa 52:7).

Gillian wrote:

"The whole Jewish economy was based on the law."

As is true for every society, it comes down to what they think is right and wrong. God however is not based upon law because He is the creator of everything, He is not under law because He is God. God is love. Love is God's law. Love acts by relationship, love acts by forgiveness and mercy. Remember what James says mercy triumphs over Judgment: (James 2:12 NIV) Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,
(James 2:13 NIV) because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Why does mercy triumph over judgment and law...because mercy is about love not law, Freedom in Christ is about seeing God as love and not the stern taskmaster who needs to be propitiated. Think about when was the last time you heard that word used outside of theology. It only has that pagan appeasement meaning in modern language inside and outside of theology. Modern translation don't even use it. The KJV uses the word in Romans but most modern Bibles such as the NIV say this:
(Rom 3:25 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--

Sacrifice (something given up)of atonement (reconciliation). So who gave the sacrifice, God, we all agree with that, God gave the sacrifice. Clearly the sacrifice was not directed at God since it was God presenting Christ as the sacrifice (Christ is God right?). Who is God trying to reconcile with? Mankind, God is taking the steps to reconcile the world to Himself.

(2 Cor 5:18 NIV) All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
(2 Cor 5:19 NIV) that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Not counting men's sins against them. Is that judgment (law) or mercy (love)? In the story of the prodigal son is the point judgment or mercy. In the examples of forgiveness such as the parable of the forgiven debt:
(Mat 18:27 NIV) The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

Is that Judgment or mercy?

I have not even got to the problem with believing that justice is provided for by substitution. In fact I don't know of any land that has a law that would say that justice was served if an innocent person was punished so that a guilty one goes free. Even as corrupt as mankind is we know that is not justice...except in traditional Christian theology.

And as for my initials I do know that many of the Traditional Adventists I have spoken to on discussion forums like to imply the Roman Catholic thing to my use of my initials. But they are in fact the initials of my name Ron Corson. And you can read more of my writings at my blog or website:
http://www.cafesda.blogspot.com

http://newprotestants.com

How does Des Ford say that wicked will eventually die? Does God execute the wicked in the end? Is it an active destruction? Gillian, what happens?

Yes, Elder Des Ford delivered a magnificent Adventist sermon at the Campus Hill Church, the kind that stirs a pew-sitter like me to relax a little and anticipate upcoming hospice and death in the right religious mindedness. Most of us older individuals understood the impending interruption of life and the dangers of not knowing whether it will be a long-suffering bubbling cancer or a thundering cessation of the heart. He said no one knows for sure, most likely it will be awful. When he mentioned that part I sat there praying for an easy exit and to follow him on this direct journey to a wonderful city with a sea of glass where he said us terrible unwashed sinners had no passport or immigration papers except through the blood of Jesus Christ. This didn't exactly fit my boyhood theology because I was taught "sinners ought to be made to feel that they have something to do and something which they can do and no one else can do it for them." I wondered as I walked away from the meeting is this what David Hume meant, "It sounds like it should be right so it ought to be right."

'Jon Paulien asked whether the metaphors used more often than others (referring to the substitutionary metaphor) deserve prominence because they are mentioned more frequently. Dr. Ford replied that he feels it necessary to emphasize what God emphasizes; "When God shouts, I shout...when God is quiet, I am quiet."'

As far as Des is concerned, being a self-confessed Evangelical Adventist, the Bible is Word of God to him. I believe this is why he takes seriously the prominence of this metaphor - of sacrifice and substitution - in Scriptures. Thank you, Jared, for your concise and accurate reporting.

My wife and I attended both meetings, first at 3 pm with her 80-some uncle who lives in Loma Linda and then at 8 pm without him. In the latter session, I noticed Fritz Guy was seated on a side directly behind us and I saw him join those who offered Des Ford a standing ovation in the end. In a center aisle, a row in front of us, was Kendra Haloviak. The presence of these scholars and their show of support, whether or not they totally agreed with Des, means a lot to many of us who value honest, open inquiry that is done in a mutual spirit of love and acceptance.

Responding to PLM, who asked a question in another thread, regarding the Brinsmead brothers who visited our mission college in the mid to late 1960's: Evidently, RDB was in the first phase of his faith/theological journey. Since SDA Answers to Questions on Doctrine was then used in our school as a main text in an advanced Bible Doctrines course, which I didn't take, his Awakening Message caused quite a stir as it spelled clearly the points of departure from traditional Adventist teachings. A falling away of some of the most thoughtful ministerial students and recent graduates I knew - those who took their vocation and faith seriously - resulted mainly from the way their cases was handled by our administrative clergy. Outside North America, it seems, any threat to the official stand of the General Conference, no matter its currently accepted view, must be safeguarded at any cost.

Well,

My wife and I are back from a cross country flight to LA from Orlando.

We saw my dad's grave site in Brea,Calif. We went by where my family lived on the hillside one year in San Bernadino with my uncle while my dad rehabilitated from back surgery.

Then on to the Campus Hill church for the 3:00 meeting. Jared, I would guess at least 250 at that meeting.

Donna,Des said the substitutionary atonement (as other classical Protestants) was necessary for atonement and forgiveness of sins. He also said the "moral influence" position is ok in what it says about God's love and example BUT is inadequate in what it denies as necessary. The propitionary, substitutionary death of Christ for justification.

Johnny, Fritz was in accord with some of what Des said but I suggest his focus was on the "metaphors of Atonement." Des I think, while politely agreeing no language adequately expresses God's saving act at the cross is sufficient pointed out that justification (just & justifier) is used over 70 times as the most prominent language of the act of the cross and atonement.Fritz also focused on one's subjective experience in how one views the cross. My question to Fritz would have been..." isn't it necessary that all regardless of their experience must ultimately see their sinfulness and look to the cure of the cross of Christ for we must be born again."

Des also points out that God's "wrath" is mentioned over 500 times in scripture as an attitude and action against sin and it can not be carelessly discarded as some would have us do.
His "wrath" is a sign of His holiness and a moral action against sin.

Thus Christ does destroy the wicked at His appearing and after the final judment. 2 Thess.1:7-10.

A brief overview from my perspective of a theologian who differs from the other meeting held "on tour" on these issues.

Gill, I was glad to be able to give Des a quick hello. Many wanted to speak to him and I felt that was most important. I wanted to say hello as I may not see him until by God's grace in Christ we meet again in the eternal kingdom.

regards,

pat

PS. Also Jared, thanks for the video and the "fair and balanced" reporting.

Pat, I see you were taking notes! That wasn't you I spoke with after the 3:00 meeting after doing a video interview with Chris Oberg...was it? I'd feel terrible to have met you and not even officially introduced myself.

I wish I would have known you were going to be there - I would have made it a point to seek you out.

Incidentally, I've spent much of the day working on getting together some interviews I did during the weekend. I hope to be able to share them soon...the computer gods are conspiring against me right now.

Jared,

Unfortunately I did not meet anyone on this blog.

Mental notes only.

regards,

pat

I think I remember your saying that your wife is from the Philippines, and I spoke briefly with someone who fit that description. Obviously someone else.

Could a pre-crucifixion human ask God the Father directly for forgiveness...and be completely forgiven? Did the death and blood connected with the sanctuary service gain access to God the Father, and the forgiveness of sins by God the Father?

Can a post-crucifixion human ask God the Father directly for forgiveness...and be completely forgiven? Or, is it necessary for them to pray to Jesus for forgiveness, and then have Jesus plead with God the Father, and present his blood on their behalf, in order for them to gain access to God the Father, and the complete forgiveness of sins by God the Father?

Could it be that Christ mediates between us and Satan...rather than between us and God the Father? Was it Satan who occupied the Most Holy Place in the earthly sanctuary? Is this why death and blood was required? Is this why the veil separating the Holy and Most Holy Place was ripped from top to bottom by an unseen hand...rather than being reverently and carefully removed? Was this God the Father exposing the God of This World?

Is the substitutionary atonement required to deal with Satan, rather than to deal with God the Father? When we believe in the substitutionary atonement, can we stop battling evil and corruption in our lives and in the world? If the victory has been won...why do we need to resist evil? Can we be declared to be right with God the Father when we refuse to do what Jesus told us to do?

What if the human-race has always been good enough for God the Father...with or without the sacrifice of Christ? What if the legalistic perfectionist is Satan, the God of This World? What if Satan required the sanctuary service, the substitutionary atonement...as well as requiring the dreaded Investigative Judgment? Theological milestones...or Satanic necessities?

We can have truth or repose. We can have one...or the other...but we can't have both.

Dear Ron:

Sorry about the crack about the Roman Catholics. It was just a joke. If you knew me you’d understand I can’t help it. I don’t come online to represent Des. But surely God is both just and merciful, and justification describes how God can be merciful to the sinner and yet remain just. Justification (a synonym for the term righteousness by faith) and its cognates are used more liberally than the other metaphors. They all have their place and tell us one aspect of God’s dealings with us. And they all have their limitations. I think it’s a mistake to philosophize beyond what Scripture tells us. If this mean this; then that logically means that. Because I believe in justification doesn’t mean I must therefore believe God is some tyrant who has to be satisfied and wants his pound of flesh. It’s not given us to fully understand how God works; there is a lot of mystery in his dealings, and we all have lots of questions. I know I am in good company in this because the Bible saints prayed, ‘How long, O Lord?’ But I do know what has been revealed—that God in Christ has taken my sin upon himself, and taken my place in the judgment. And not just me, but he has taken the place of the whole world, did they but know and accept it.

Jared,

Thank you for posting this report of Des Ford's Loma Linda meeting. Regarding the Adventist church failure to apologize for the way he was treated at Glacier View, I would like to add that one of the panelists commented that it took the Caholic Pope 300 years to apologize for the church's past mistakes. That was not any consolation for Dr. Ford, of course!

What the panelists failed to mention is that the Adventist Church did aplogize on one occasion, and it did not take three centuries, but rather merely 60 years. It was recently officially reported that the German and Austrian leaders of the Adventist Church did issue a public apology for the Adventist cooperation with the Nazi regime while the Jewish extermination was taking place.

Regarding Des Ford's preference for the forensic metaphor, he argued that the substitutionary illustration for the death of Jesus surpasses by far in number count any other explanation for the atonement. This is true, nevertheless, none of the panelists pointed to the fact that most of the instances where the forensic view of the cross is referenced in the New Testament, it is almost always Paul the author.

Suppose we could summon everybody who had ever referred to the atonement among those whose opinion we have on record in the N.T. And suppose we asked for a vote on which theory of the atonement had more votes. Would Paul's vote be counted as one or equal to the number of times he defended his forensic view of the cross? It would be counted as one instead of many. This means that the argument based on the number of times a theory is being mentioned is flawed.

Besides, Ford hardly ever mentioned Jesus' own explanation for his death. Wouldn't you grant Jesus theory of the atonement more than one vote? Notice that to Nicodemus, Jesus said: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all to myself." This doesn't sound to me like a legal explanation for his death.

On another blog dealing with the same issue, I posted the most inclusive and explanatory reason for Jesus' death. Its author is Ellen White. This is the way she explained the cross in her book "Education," page 263:

*********
“Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ’s agony; but that 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.”

*********
Here Ellen White suggests that God's suffering is not an arbitrary legal requirement designed to balance the books of heaven, but rather the natural result of sin and rebellion. She also tells us that said suffering did not start nor end with the events surrodunding his passion and cricifixion, but rather began when sin enterd God's universe.

If we accept this explanation, the cross ceases to be an event in history, and becomes a process by which suffering starts with sin and ends with its eradication. And the crucifixion becomes a mere window designed to reveal to sinners the pain God was subjected to since Lucifer's rebellion opened the floodgates of hell.

Is there biblical support for such a view of the cross. Well, we are familiar with the passage in Revelation where the Son of God is described as the "Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world." We are also told in Holy Writ that "In all their afflictions, he was afflicted."

At the meeting, I submitted this explanation for the cross from the pen of Ellen White, and added the question to Dr. Ford: "Was the cross a payment in terms of suffering, or rather an overpayment." The moderator evidently decided to ignore my question. Of course, there were many good question, and he probably felt that my question was not worth very much.

Dr. Ford cited the opinions of many renowned theologians. This is great! Nevertheless, we need to bear in mind that theology is actually a branch of philosophy, and the main tool in philosopy is not the Bible, but rather human reason. Reason is God's gift to humanity, but I wonder how much weight we should assign to human reason when dealing with a subject like this.

And let's not forget that Paul was a theologian, and a lawyer at the same time. Lawyers have a tendency to be rather verbose, and quite often rather obscure in their arguments. This is why Peter told us that there is a danger of misinterpreting the peculiar writings of Paul.

I would like to add that when I got home following the 3:00 O'clock meeting, I turned my television on, and heard Pastor Randy Roberts describe this way the atonement: "The cross is God's gift to us. The crucifixion is what we did to God."

And let us remember that even Paul admitted that it was not God who was reconciled towards us by the death of Jesus, but rather we were reconciled to God: "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." [Romans 5:10] I see no forensic view in this text! God needed no appeasement. We needed a visual illustration of what sin does to God and man.

Donna,

In answer to your question posted on 07 September 2008 at 8:26, I would like to say that when Jesus told the paralitic "Your sins are forgiven," he did not add a contingency. He did not say "Your sins will be forgiven provided I am killed for your sins." And when Mary broke the alabaster box full of perfume on Jesus, he remarked: "Her sins are forgiven because she loved much," implying that forgiveness is based on love instead of death. Jesus did not attach to this forgiveness any condition such as his death.

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

Nic,

If you are dependent on EGW, How might these EGW quotes add meaning to your EGW quote?

" Upon Christ as our substitute and surety was laid the iniquity of us all. He was counted a transgressor, that He might redeem us from the condemnation of the law. The guilt of every descendant of Adam was pressing upon His heart. The wrath of God against sin, the terrible manifestation of His displeasure because of iniquity, filled the soul of His Son with consternation. All His life Christ had been publishing to a fallen world the good news of the Father's mercy and pardoning love. Salvation for the chief of sinners was His theme. But now with the terrible weight of guilt He bears, He cannot see the Father's reconciling face. The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man. So great was this agony that His physical pain was hardly felt...It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. {DA 753.}

"Before the foundations of the earth were laid, the Father and the Son had united in a covenant to redeem man if he should be overcome by Satan. They had clasped Their hands in a solemn pledge that Christ should become the surety for the human race. This pledge Christ has fulfilled. When upon the cross He cried out, "It is finished," He addressed the Father. The compact had been fully carried out. Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption. If Thy justice is satisfied, "I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am." John 19:30; 17:24.
The voice of God is heard proclaiming that justice is satisfied. Satan is vanquished. Christ's toiling, struggling ones on earth are "accepted in the Beloved." Eph. 1:6. Before the heavenly angels and the representatives of unfallen worlds, they are declared justified. Where He is, there His church shall be. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Ps. 85:10. The Father's arms encircle His Son, and the word is given, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." Heb. 1:6. {DA 834. }

regards,

pat

And when Mary broke the alabaster box full of perfume on Jesus, he remarked: "Her sins are forgiven because she loved much," implying that forgiveness is based on love instead of death. Jesus did not attach to this forgiveness any condition such as his death.

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

Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 08 September 2008 at 9:43

So you just choose to forget about Hebrews 9:22?

The bible speaks pretty clear on that. I would probably be more convinced by that than looking for "implications".

pat,

I will try to respond to the question you posted on 09 September 2008 at 3:46. Dr. Des Ford stated last Sabbath afternoon in Loma Linda that all the explanations for the death of Jesus are metaphors, but that he has a strong preference for the forensic theory of atonement because it is the most often quoted explanation for Jesus' suffering and death in the New Testament.

Of course, it is the most quoted explanations because it is the one favored by Paul, and he was the most prolific writer in the N.T., which means that his theory must be the winning one if we base our conclusion on a math count of references to the cross. On the other hand, if we were to limit one vote to each N.T. individual who has spoken on the subject, then Paul would not be the winner.

You quoted two statement by Ellen White supporting Ford's position on this issue. I made an attempt at performing a search of Mrs. White quotations dealing with this topic and found over two thousand references to the cross. You can find in Ellen White's writings all the theories of atonements that have ever been advanced. Of course, since she was a prolific writer and copyist, this explains why she used everything that dealt with the death of Jesus.

What can we do when a single author offers many explanations for the same event? Ford suggests that we perform a mathematical count, and whichever one has more references to it is the winner. I am of the opinion that we grant Paul no more than one vote for the theory of the atonement. If we do this, we have one problem, because he also supported the moral view of the atonement in Romans 5:10: "We were reconciled to God through the death of his Son."

Notice the clear implication of this statement. The cross did not appease an angry God, but reather reconciled us to God. We were the ones angry at God, and alienated from his love and mercy. The cross did not change God, but rather us! This is why Jesus said to Nicodemus: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself." The cross became a magnet drawing repentant men to Jesus."

Compare the two E.G. White statements you cited above with the one I am posting below and decide which one makes more logical sense:

*********
"Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that 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.

Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him. When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death--it is said that "his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction he was afflicted: . . . and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old" (Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9)." [Ellen White, http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/cgi-bin/egw2html?C=26155157&K=0934590... ]

*********

If you choose this explanation for the death of Jesus, the cross ceases to be an event in history, and becomes a symbol of the suffering sin and rebellion God was subjected to since Lucifer's rebellion in heaven. Jesus' suffering is no longer an arbitrary imposition by God, and becomes the natural result of a loving God when his children rebel against his love. God ceases to be an accomplice in the death of his Son, and Satan becomes the real culprit for the death of God's Son. Understood this way, the cross has a much deeper meaning. This is why Revelation talks about God's Lamb as "slain from the foundation of the world."

I believe that when several competing explanations are cited by the same author, one of them most likely is the best one and the others are mere metaphors. We do not use metaphors to base our doctrines on. Most Christians have used Jesus' metaphor describing Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham to support the doctrine of hell, but we don't. Jesus used the metaphor of a communication between heaven and hell as a metaphor, which means that a literal reading of what Jesus stated is wrong.

There is noting wrong in the use of metaphors to illustrate what otherwise seems mysterious. Nevertheless, let us not confuse reality with mere symbols of the reality we want to portray. Metaphors should not be carried to extremes in our search for truth.

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

Nic,
I prefer these manifestations of the "love and justice" of God that made the cross a necessity.

regards,
pat

“ Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.”
1 Jn.4:7-12.

“ I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” Jn.8:24.

“Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Mt.26:27-29.

Ah! It revives old, almost forgotten memories of the battle between two opposites, both saying, "But Mrs. White says...." Who wins the argument when both quote the same person, or when each has his own Bible "proof text"?

Elaine,

Or, we could say that the Bible is just man's words. Then only our own reason becomes one's incontestable "proof." ;~)

Actually, I am not trying to win an argument with Nic. It is about maybe someone looking in on the site and maybe seeing the importance of the atoning sacrifice of Christ for them so they may receive peace...whether by scripture alone (even without Paul) or if they value EGW by adding supportive information.

regards,

pat

Thank you for your response Gillian:

I did not take any offense at your comment about my initials. As I have said it has come up before, even though my website is NewProtestants.com or maybe because of that. A Roman Catholic attempt to counter the reformation again, who knows.

You said:

Dear Ron:

" But surely God is both just and merciful, and justification describes how God can be merciful to the sinner and yet remain just. Justification (a synonym for the term righteousness by faith) and its cognates are used more liberally than the other metaphors."

I completely agree here but would like to point out that Western civilization has a much more penal oriented idea of justice then many other cultures particularly of the East. There justice is a return to harmony and balance setting the relationship right rather then extracting a penalty. With the advent of the Satisfaction atonement theory atonement theory took on the European view of justice as crime and punishment. I don't think that is the Biblical model however.

Gillian continued:

" They all have their place and tell us one aspect of God’s dealings with us. And they all have their limitations. I think it’s a mistake to philosophize beyond what Scripture tells us."

The fact is that we all have to philosophize beyond what Scripture says. We can't live in the literal wooden written material of words from 4,000 to nearly 2,000 years ago. We have to deal with the culture, the time and the individual writers intentions as well make sense of them in the light of modern concepts. The Bible is a guide but even the words of a guide my be interpreted by the ones being guided.

Gillian continued:
"If this mean this; then that logically means that. Because I believe in justification doesn’t mean I must therefore believe God is some tyrant who has to be satisfied and wants his pound of flesh. It’s not given us to fully understand how God works; there is a lot of mystery in his dealings, and we all have lots of questions. I know I am in good company in this because the Bible saints prayed, ‘How long, O Lord?’ But I do know what has been revealed—that God in Christ has taken my sin upon himself, and taken my place in the judgment. And not just me, but he has taken the place of the whole world, did they but know and accept it."

What is interesting is that the view I gave of God is love and God forgives is the Biblical clearly given reason for the atonement. It was not until nearly 1000 years later that Christianity embarked upon the satisfaction theory and then the Penal theory. We see this by the commentary written from the time of the Early Church Fathers. True they did not write much on atonement for it was simply an accepted part of Christianity but when they did talk about it it was to emphasize the love and forgiveness of God and His power over death.

It is only when the Bible writings are viewed through the perspective of the late middle ages, the Reformation period of Protestants that people make the claim that the Bible is Penal in the atonement model. Since we live in the age after the Reformation we tend to think in their terms, rather then the terms of the New Testament or the Early Church.

What I have also always found interesting is that the most often used Penal texts are those from the book of Isaiah, texts which are not even used in the New Testament when Isaiah is quoted. So they knew about the possibility of using those ideas yet they did not use them. They never said God poured out His wrath on Christ, or Christ paid our penalty or any penalty for sin. They never said that Christ died as punishment of God but those are the key elements in the Penal theory.

Even when the New Testament talks about Christ bearing our sins it is in the context of receiving in His person the results of sinful actions of people. the torture He endured and the death caused by the people who as Peter said in Acts 3 "you killed the author of life". Because I would submit they had no idea of a cosmic bookkeeping program where sin is transferred from one person to another or from billions of people to one person or from time past and time future to time past. Those things make no sense to what sin is. Sin is personal, it is part of the individuals thoughts and actions. I think that is why salvation is the term used because it is not a legal matter but one of a healed person (salve) and a healed relationship.

Michael,

I am responding to the question you posted on 09 September 2008 at 7:53. I do not forget about Hebrews 9:22, I just treat it as a metaphor. Dr. Ford suggested that all the explanations for Jesus' death were metaphors. I am saying that perhaps one of them is not a metaphor. Ellen White's reference to the cross seems to meet said criteria. If you accept it, then every other theory of the atonement becomes a metaphor.

My dictionary defines forgivenes as a willingness to forego payment for a debt. If God did demand payment of the debt, then forgiveness looses its meaning. If I get a speeding ticket and my friend pays the fine on my behalf, it would make no sense for the judge to tell me: "You are forgiven." If that were to happen, and the judge were to say this to me, I would respond: "Are you kidding? My friend did pay for my fine!

You probably have noticed that the author of Hebrews was writing to the Jews, who were accustomed to seeing lambs being sacrificed before the priest would absolve them of their sins. Within that system, there was no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

When Jesus died, the priestly system was eliminated. The veil of the Jewish Temple was torn apart, and the separation between the Holy and the Most Holy Place did no longer exist. This is why it says that we now have direct access to the throne of grace.

The book of Revelation describes God's Lamb as "slain from the foundatiomn of the world." Ellen white explains that God's suffering started the moment sin entered the universe. The blood symbolized said pain and suffering. By the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God had suffered more than enough, not as an arbitrary requirement by God to balance the books of heaven, but rather as the natural result of sin and rebellion.

After the fact explanation are unreliable. When Joseph of old met his brothers after a long separation, he atributed to providence what had taken place when he was sold as a slave by his brothers. Was God to blame for the cruel treatment he had received when he was sold as a slave? Was God dependent on their evil act to save Jacob and his family from the famine that took place? The answer is No.

Likewise, God was not dependent on Satan for the salvation of sinners. There was no need for Jesus to be killed. His symbolic blood had been shed when sin entered the universe. God permitted Satan to have his pound of flesh that we might understand the suffering and pain God was subjected to when Lucifer and men rebelled against him.

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

Ron, I have never heard Des, for instance, say God poured His wrath on Christ or Christ died as a punishment of God or even talk about the penal theory, a manmade title that implies things I think the NT teaching doesn't intend. This is what I mean by forcing the metaphor, making inferences from the specific to the general. It's a straw man. Though the Trinity is also a questioned doctrine with some in Adventism, don't we generally believe that God was one person with three persona or facets rather than being three separate entities? We are not tritheists. So it is not God meting out punishment on Jesus. God is on the Cross, he participates and he suffers along with Christ. He suffers not only death, but the second death on our behalf. As the Representative Man he by his perfect life and atoning death is able to offer the sinner a way back to God. God can only accept us because he looks at Christ instead of us. Christ is our Substitute in the judgment. Someone has suggested Jesus made the atonement, but it was given to Paul to explain it because of his scholarly background. The justification model explains how God can be both just and merciful at the same time. There's more to be said about the Christian life, but justification is the master key that lets us into everything. We need it at every stage. In the beginning, on the way, and at the end. It's that which spikes a fountain of joy and gratitude within us that bubbles up and overflows. Blessings to you. Gill

Hi Gill,

I recognize you speak for yourself and not Des.

You may want to discuss the doctrine/theory of penal substitution and the doctrine of the Trinity with Des sometime and how that relates to atonement theory.

regards,

pat

Gillian, you may want to read the little summary article I have on the various atonement theories through out the church age. http://newprotestants.com/ATONHIST1.htm

Penal theory is also known as substitionary theogy. These are the accepted theological terms not straw men. For people who say they don't see Christ as suffering the wrath of God or being punished by God I can point you to numerous contemporary Christian songs that we sing in church as well as numerous hymns which take that position as well as countless sermons and websites. But I use one that I think is very powerful because it was written in the first decade of the 1900's as particularly demonstrative of the reality of the wrath on Christ concept in my article http://newprotestants.com/Subatone.htm

"In many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin." (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 7 page 270)

Pat,
Thanks for your reply! Interestingly enough I'm in Orlando now and will be at Forrest Lake this coming Sabbath. What church do you attend? Drop me an email johnny@spectrummagazine.org

Thank you for the video. Thank you Jared for your well-written reports on this eventful weekend! I look forward to reading more reports. Thanks!

Pat

Although Loma Linda has the most number of Filipino Adventists in North America - more than a thousand of them, maybe two, in the four or five ethnic churches around there, plus several who worship in the Campus Hill and University church - only about ten or less than 20 Fil-Ams were in the Campus Hill that afternoon. There was not a Filipino pastor that I knew, if there was one, who came to hear Dr Ford. I'm not surprised.

My wife and I were seated on the left facing the platform about four rows back. I was wearing a Filipino "barong" with short sleeves. On the other side across the center aisle, there was one couple that seemed to fit your description (a beautiful Filipina, about 5 ft 3, and a huge white ole man with a prominent midsection and white goatee-:). The exact spot is shown in the video (approx 1:04 and 3:13 frames) above where another white man with dark goatee was seated. Behind them in the next row was my wife's aunt (shown in the video) and a Filipino couple from La Sierra. However, the man who I thought might be you seemed in a hurry to leave after the service. He was following another white ole man of slight build while the beautiful young Filipina (or Southeast Asian woman) seemed to have vanished.

Hi Joselito,

Sorry I missed you too! We are not in either frame you mentioned but my wife noticed that we are at the 6:30 frame kind of teary eyed.

We did leave quickly because my dearest accidently left her billfold at a gas store on the way out from LA and she noticed at the meeting. Unfortunately no one turned it in upon re-visitation plus we missed the 8:00 meeting...but she is more important! Now that is the correct thing to say isn't it ladies and gentleman! But...I mean it!

We saw and old friend by the name of Eric Tsao that we had not seen since leaving HK in 1995...that was nice.

I appreciated Des'presentation. Hope you did as this, I believe, was your first exposure to Des' preaching. Sorry we did not meet.

I hope Des got home safely and feels better soon.

All the best,

pat

Gillian,

I read your comments dated on 09 September 2008 at 2:30 regarding the Apostle Paul's role on the atonement issue. You said that "Someone has suggested Jesus made the atonement, but it was given to Paul to explain it because of his scholarly background."

If that is the case, then I wonder why the Apostle Peter warned us about the danger of misinterpreting Paul's writings? Notice what he stated in 2 Peter 3:16: "His letters contain some things hard to understand."

My question is: If Peter, who was one of the most prominest disciples of Jesus Christ had a hard time understanding what Paul had written, how can we be confident that we are interpreting correctly what he wrote? Given this, isn't it wiser to rely less heavily on Paul, and study what Jesus himself wrote about the reason for his death?

I know, Jesus was not a theologian; nevertheless, perhaps this might be a reason to trust what he said more. Theology is a branch of philosophy, and the main tool of philosophy is reason. Reason is a useful gift granted humans by God, but we must not give reason the pre-eminence in our search for truth.

Besides, Paul was a lawyer, and lawyers are known to complicate with their specialized language what otherwise is simple, clear, and easy to understand. Quite often, you need a lawyer to understand what another lawyer has written. I have a strong preference for straight talk; and, of course, nobody has ever matched the simlicity with which Jesus explained the Gospel.

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Thanks, Pat! Once, while serving parttime as a student secretary for our dean of the school of theology, I sent a letter to Des Ford inquiring about the possibility of his conducting a Week of Prayer in our school. Since then, I have read magazine articles under Des Ford's byline and, later, his subsequent books/commentaries. Shortly after I started teaching Daniel and Revelation, I wrote the religion dept at Avondale College requesting supplementary materials on the subject.

I survived the Brinsmead Awakening Message, phase one of his faith journey, partly because I was not equipped to deal with the issues at the time of his visits to our school in the mid to late 1960s. I was too young then, since the educational system in my country enabled many 15 and 16 year-olds to begin their college/university education. Another reason, that I count as a blessing, was the beginning of graduate education in religion at our mission college, despite the crisis of faith - a shaking of the foundations - it may have unintentionally spawned, that I witnessed amongst us. Phase 2 Brinsmead Reformation theology in the '70s didn't appeal to me partly because other questions we faced in the classroom such as the authority and inspiration of Scriptures, let alone Ellen White - issues that Elaine seems to have singlehandedly brought up again and again in many threads on this site - competed for our attention. In my own mind, however, Ford's formal training in the New Testament under the guidance of noted Evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce was worth a closer look.

Briefly, continuing on a historical/autobiographical note, by an aging Spectrum reader: In 1979, about the time when Des Ford delivered his Forum address on the IJ in Angwin, Dr Hammill, as a GC VP and in charge of seminary education, was visiting in the Philippines. With him was an accreditation team composed of AU president Joseph Smoot and the academic deans of Walla Walla (Malcolm Maxwell) and PUC (Gordon Madgwick). PUC president John Cassell had been to our mission college on previous accreditation visits, but I don't recall his attendance with them then. Although I had earlier dropped out of denominational employment and was already enrolled in a public university for a career change, still I was asked to join the group as a representative from the field.

The seminary faculty at the time was headed by dean/president Leslie Hardinge. He, plus a Japanese academic, would later represent scholars from the FED in Glacier View. Another representative to GV, the mission college president, received Ford's 900+ page document in the mail one day prior to his departure for the meetings. John R. Jones, a member of the seminary faculty, was requested by him to pore over the material overnight and write some comments. I've read the exact same document plus the copious notes John turned in. After GV, an open forum on Daniel 8:14 and the Atonement was held by the seminary faculty with a panel representing an assortment of views including: Leslie Hardinge, John R. Jones, Larry G. Herr, Raymond Holmes, Roy Adams, and Hedrick J. Edwards.

I met Des in 1987 for the first time and again on his return visit to the Philippines in 1991. Where I come from, based on what I've seen so far among university students and independent professional laypeople who are not employed by the church, Dr Ford's preaching of the gospel was so refreshing and has caused much rejoicing.

Joselito,

"Dr Ford's preaching of the gospel was so refreshing and has caused much rejoicing."

Amen!
-----------
Dr.Madgwik taught me Freshman English at SMC in 1962. Very good English teacher and a nice guy!

My wife and myself will visit yours and her country next week to visit her family. Always a great experience but a "killer" plane trip as you know.

All the best,

pat

My first exposure to Des Ford's teaching was through his book dealing with Daniel 8:14. I had to read it several times before I realized that I had been teaching a non-biblical doctrine.

Had I not read his book, I would still believe that Jeus did not have access to the Most Holy place until 1844. I have no idea how I missed the truth about this issue every time I read the Bible trough. I needed someone like Dr. Ford to open my eyes. Had this come from a non-Adventist author, I would have rejected this new view.

His straight and convincing arguments forced me to read the book of Daniel many, many times. For all this, I praise God for giving Dr. Ford the courage to face opposition and rejection regarless of the consequences. We need more men and women like him!

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

I thank God for Desmond Ford whose spiritual gifts of discerment, teaching and exhortation has made me to rethink my opinion about God and the destiny of Mankind in Christ. I feel tears when I listen Desmond's preaching. I See the SDA church as delaying to grasp the right gospel. Today as most of Adventist know, the church is loosing itself. It lacks vision, purpose of existance and it's moving theologically toward pentecostalism. I know that some irroneous RC teaching are manifested in Pentecostal church and these are the ones that the Adventist now wants to follow.

May God revisit reformation to the SDA church as Martin Luther said 'ecclesia sempa eccleasia refomanda'.

Pastor Joseph Chaggama

Gillian,

Thank you for beautifully and eloquently exalting what the Scriptures teach on the meaning of Christ's death and the gospel of justification by grace through faith, even in spite of the many Adventist spiritualists that seek to misrepresent Scripture or cast the Bible aside as obsolete.

To all of you

I want to make you aware of a big problem that I have with the interpretation of sacrifices in the OT how Rodriguez and SDA theology presents it.
Look carefully at all these following statements in the SS Nr. 6 and 7. The sacrifices are all represented as if they were to be brought by the sinners in their stead and as their substitute.

Here it goes this way:

“When repentant sinners brought their sacrifices to the Lord, they were acknowledging that they were sinners who deserved death. But they also were manifesting faith, trusting that the Lord would grant them forgiveness by accepting the life of the sacrificial victim in their stead.”

“In the Bible, the sacrificial victim and the repentant sinner who brought it were identified with each other so closely that the life of the animal stood for the life of the person, and the animal’s blood became a means of atonement (Lev. 17:11).”

“A lot of symbolism is found in the biblical sacrificial system. First, because the death of an animal stood for the death of the individual, the sacrificial act was an act of salvation, a manifestation of God’s grace and love. He was willing to accept the death of another creature in order to preserve the life of humans and to continue fellowshipping with them.”

So this would mean to me that God would have not preserved the life of a sinner and would not have been ready to fellowship with him if he would not have brought an innocent substitute to be killed by the sinner in his stead!

Here another one in this same direction:
“Because the cleansing takes place through the blood of a sacrificial animal, atonement also can express the idea of ransoming. Freeing a person from sin is done at the cost of the blood/life of the sacrificial victim (Lev. 17:11). It was offered in place of the sinner, substituting for him or her, and therefore it ransomed the life of the person (see Matt. 20:28, 1 Tim. 2:6).”
I ask you if you could show me only one verse in the Bible where God asked the priests in Israel to teach the people, that if they commit a sin they would have to offer an innocent animal instead of them or in the place of them. What sense would that make? Would they have to be sacrificed themselves if they would not sacrify an innocent animal on their place? Is that the real sense of a sacrifice in OT-time?
You will not find at any place in the Bible the use of the word “substitute” or “in the place of” in connection with the word sacrifice. There is no such a thing in the Bible what we call “substitutionary sacrifice” as it is called everywhere in Christian literature!!!! Look it up and you will find it so.

The Bible says that they should bring an offering for their sin to God but not an offering instead of them or on their place!!!! This is a great difference to me. Look up yourself how it is formulated by God and Moses! Here you find some examples where you can find no idea of a kind of substitution of a sacrifice. These are all called sacrifices for the sin and be brought before God and offered to the Lord. But they are not sacrifices instead of sin or instead of the sinner!!!

Leviticus 4:14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.
Leviticus 4:23 Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:
Leviticus 4:28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
Leviticus 4:32 And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.
Leviticus 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. So I think this is the basic of a false sense of the whole idea of sacrifices and by that way also of the false concept of the death of Christ.

I would propose that we would speak and express our self in this very important theological area as we find it in the Bible and not as we find it in all catholic literature! So I wonder what are we going to do with this information