It was always somewhat of an irony that Des Ford probably was far more of a conservative, both in theology and lifestyle than most of the participants at Glacier View in 1980. My imprssion has always been that one reason why Adventist scholars abandoned Ford to his fate was his conservativism.

Des Ford is a forceful speaker, a man who oozes integrity, but he is also fairly rigid--I'm sure he'd call it 'principled', and I'm sure that the corporate theologians were uncomfortable with somebody unwilling to compromise. I'm reminded of a line in a poem quoted by Os Guiness in a book he wrote in the 1970s: "I'm the liberal Jesus and I have no blood to spare."

Des Ford bled for his beliefs. He will no doubt go down in Adventist history as a heroic figure in the struggle to move the SDA church into the mainstream of conservative Christendom.

But the world is changing. The issues that Ford championed--a return to the Reformation--are no longer burning issues, as the attendance at the conference testified to.

The greatest challenge that Adventism and Western Christendom face is survival in a world hostile to concepts such as "propitiation" and "blood sacrifice." I doubt it is possible to reach the younger generation with language that suggests that God is some sort of celestial Don Corleone brandishing a metaphysical baseball bat to induce religious illiterates to buy protection.

The Reformation was the triumph of Paul over Jesus. In my opinion, the Christian church will have to lead with Jesus if it's going to make an impression on today's world (My background is European, and that colors my thinking, but where Europe is today--with less than 5 percent attending church--is where the States will be tomorrow.)

Paul needed Jesus as an X or a Y in his theological equations. He didn't seem to have much use for the person who wandered the Galilean hills. This, to me, is the achilles heel of Reformation theology.

"I once taught a passionate Sabbath School lesson in a big camp-meeting tent to 1000 people....wholly on the legitimacy of the 457 BC date, at a time when I knew almost nothing about OT chronology, but had lots of conviction."

How many have also been passionate about dates, simply accepting those given by the SDA church? Had they thoroughly studied the history of that period, and its relation to Daniel, they would not have been so self-assured. It has been a repeated mantra without question. Few have been fully conversant of that period, as well as the fallacy of a year-for-a-day adoption that allowed that doctrine to be maintained. No less than in preliterate times, the majority have had little knowledge of the Bible and thus have been gullible and willing subjects of the clergy who told them what to believe.

Aage,

"Your comments, "My imprssion has always been that one reason why Adventist scholars abandoned Ford to his fate was his conservativism.... Des Ford bled for his beliefs. He will no doubt go down in Adventist history as a heroic figure in the struggle to move the SDA church into the mainstream of conservative Christendom."

I think you are correct.

Perhaps the last time at a SDA chance towards "conservative Protestantism"...not to be equated with "conservative or traditional SDAism" on many fronts.

As I listened to Des Saturday, I wept inside that as a fourth generation SDA I saw this "travesty" occur. I question the validity of the remaining "SDA hybrids" of both sides myself. One questions scripture and makes metaphor,allegory and reconstruction the "rule" and the other tests scripture's meaning by EGW.

That's my view and it's lonely out here.

regards,

pat

Pat,

You've got some company.

Frank

"He even credited the moral influence theory as having some validity for us, but not an adequate framework to explain the horrors of the crucifixion."

What does that mean. Is there some legal reason that Jesus had to be nailed to wood or nearly flogged to death (remember many victims did not even make it to the cross after some floggings since they did not survive the flogging).

I guess I am simply frustrated that these people don't seem to be able to support their positions yet imply other views as simply not up to what they view does...even though they can't articulate what they view does. Perhaps it is simply the lesson of politics moved into the church world. What is wrong with the Moral influence theory is that it is not the Penal theory. Apparently God is too holy to demonstrate love He is so holy that He has to cause the horrors of Crucifixion.

Frank,

I have noticed...thanks.

pat

Loneliness has long been the Adventist experience, Pat.
Think of the early Advent hymns like,"I'm but a stranger here, heaven is my home."
The letters to the editor in the first years of the Review were often marked by the loneliness of someone who had found Sabbath truth, but who knew no one else that believed the same way. It was lonely then. It is lonely now, coming to terms with one's beliefs. The joy of fellow believers is sweet. And then as you talk to them you discover that they don't really think about it exactly like you either.

Your phrase--"That's my view"--is the classic postmodern confession. We paste our ideas and beliefs together with great bravado and then turn around to see if anyone else agrees. Suddenly it is lonely. In reality, we're all there with you in that loneliness, because we've all done the same thing. Whether it is taking Des Ford's ideas and morphing them into our own, or Fritz Guy's, or Norman Gulley's. There are probably some who see it in a similar manner, but you can be sure that there are plenty who see it differently.

So what to do you with your loneliness? I guess you've brought it here to us. And while there are those who disagree with you here. You have been listened to. Your voice has been heard. I do hope our listening helps your loneliness.

Des Ford has always been a model of preparation. His public presentations are hard to beat. Another well prepared speaker who I have watched is Robert H. Schuller(senior). The more I reflected on these two men, I recognized some similarities. Both use catch phrases and one liners. Both make their subjects easy for all to understand. Both are mostly positive. Both speak as though they cannot be controverted. Both present flawlessly. And both use contrast effectively to make their points.

Schuller contrasts pride with shame, or self-exaltation with self-degradation. Ford contrasts simple legalism with complex legalism, or Reformation Theology with Historic Adventism.

Schuller's theology(which Walter Martin described to me as a corrupt theology) is not biblical, even though there is much to be learned and emulated in his presentations and ministry. Self-exaltation is not the answer to self-degradation. Self centeredness is the problem, and a focus on responsibility rather than self is the answer. Chronic positive thinking is not the answer to chronic negative thinking. Isn't "I am God" the epitome of positive thinking and self-esteem? Realistic thinking and responsibility are the answer.

In some ways, Ford reminds me of Bishop Fulton Sheen, regarding presentation. Sheen won an Emmy Award for his television program, accepting the acknowledgment by saying, "I feel it is time I pay tribute to my four writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." Ford's theology is biblical in a Pauline-limited sense. Ford equates the substitutionary atonement with the totality of salvation, rather than salvation being multi-faceted. Accepting his teaching in total moves one away from many principles and concepts which receive a unique emphasis and presentation in Adventism. The substitutionary atonement is a Satanic necessity...something not required by God. But to receive the benefits of the substitutionary atonement requires being in harmony with the teachings and character of Christ...rather than being insubordinate to them. To be right with God...we need to be right with God...not simply declared to be right with God...while still at war with God. Simplistic legalism is not the answer to complex legalism. Ford's statement of the problem is articulate and compelling. His solution(Ford's better idea) is a step in the right direction...but it is not the final destination.

I just finished re-reading 'Facing Life's Record' in 'The Great Controversy' concerning the investigative judgment. I don't see eye to eye with Ellen White on this subject, but I think she is on to something which is genuinely a theological milestone. The sanctuary service, substitutionary atonement, investigative judgment, and possibly the eucharistic liturgy...are Satanic requirements...and are not required by God. God requires that we do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God(Micah 6:8).

Christianity needs to repent, and turn it's eyes upon Jesus and His teachings. The central principle is responsibility. Responsibility to God, self, and others. The religion of Jesus is a religion of responsibility. Salvation, in a comprehensive sense, is character-related. The proof? The teachings of Christ.

Pat, Frank,

I hear what you say and see it myself too. I find myself viewing it as that narrow path that few will find. Both sides off the path are dangerous and deadly.

The realization of the last couple generations has been that it exists even inside the Church.

orthodoxymoron said:
"I just finished re-reading 'Facing Life's Record' in 'The Great Controversy' concerning the investigative judgment. I don't see eye to eye with Ellen White on this subject, but I think she is on to something which is genuinely a theological milestone. The sanctuary service, substitutionary atonement, investigative judgment, and possibly the eucharistic liturgy...are Satanic requirements...and are not required by God. God requires that we do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God(Micah 6:8)."

I would be interested in knowing what quotes from the chapter give rise to the idea that those things are Satanic requirements. Personally I think our understanding of the sanctuary service is so tied to the idea of sub atonement that we have little in common with the thinking of Israel...anytime. I also find it hard to believe that God does anything for Satan. It is hard to try and do anything for someone you have labeled a liar and murderer from the beginning, someone who as Christ said stands condemned.

I would agree that the idea of appeasing (propitiation) God through penal/substitution is very likely an evil idea, yet I don't think it precludes people from being in a right relationship with God and accepting salvation. It is merely another of those stumbling blocks we foolish humans throw in the path of other people, it does not make God that way it just makes it harder for thinking people to accept a God thought of that way. In other words, not really acting as a good ambassador.

orthodoxymoron said:
"I just finished re-reading 'Facing Life's Record' in 'The Great Controversy' concerning the investigative judgment. I don't see eye to eye with Ellen White on this subject, but I think she is on to something which is genuinely a theological milestone. The sanctuary service, substitutionary atonement, investigative judgment, and possibly the eucharistic liturgy...are Satanic requirements...and are not required by God. God requires that we do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God(Micah 6:8)."

rc said:
"I would be interested in knowing what quotes from the chapter give rise to the idea that those things are Satanic requirements."

orthodoxymoron says:
Read Leviticus 21 regarding requirements pertaining to the sanctuary service. Is this chapter Christ-like in nature? Sacrifice(including human sacrifice) is found in Pagan religions and rituals. Were these religions inspired by Christ? Do we serve a blood-thirsty God? Does God require death and blood? If not...then who does? The sanctuary service and substitutionary atonement are all about death and blood...as is the eucharistic liturgy...especially if one includes the doctrine of transubstantiation. There is no body of evidence to substantiate transubstantiation. Christ hanging(bleeding and mostly naked) from the walls of churches around the world is sick. Isn't this a bit like placing pictures of the Kennedy assassination in government buildings throughout the US? Did Jesus tell us to build churches, and conduct rituals centered in death and blood? If He didn't...who did?

The investigative judgment is an extrapolation from the sanctuary service and the substitutionary atonement. It only makes sense if it is a Satanic requirement, rather than a Divine requirement. Desmond Ford is correct in saying that God doesn't need an investigative judgment. God already knows them that are His. It is a courtroom scene with Christ and Satan going head to head in a custody case...with the future of the human race hanging in the balance. Satan is the legalist...not God. I can almost hear Christ exclaming, "They're mine...I bought them with my life, death, and blood! Give them to me, and then go to hell!" To which Satan shrieks, "They're mine as long as they do what I tell them to do! Do they follow your teachings, and do what you told them to do??!! They don't, do they?! And they won't!! They haven't for 2,000 years, have they??!!"

QED. Case closed.

Why are we blaming God as the one requiring blood sacrifice in order to "forgive"? It's my understanding that God abhors sacrifice and is only looking for "a contrite heart". It is JUSTICE that requires payment, not God. Aren't we sophisticated enough to make that distinction?

Bonnie Thanks,

I appreciate your thoughts. My "loneliness" is not within the "Christian Church- The body of Christ" but within the "present Adventism." I have many fond memories of seminary at RTS with non adventist who share my beliefs on the "essentials."

So, my "loneliness" is an expression of the desire for the gospel of Christ to be preached within the SDA realm as the primary focus. I recognize there exist that message but in my view it is expressed by a minority.

With Jesus, we are never alone.

regards,

pat

PS. Thanks for your thoughts also Michael.

I would definitely agree with Aage that Des, in comparison to contemporaries in the academy, was a conservative. His view of Scriptural authority is evangelical.

Although I would have loved to hear Alden Thompson, I made up my mind to focus on the 2 Campus Hill meetings and not go to the Good News Tour in the University church. Nobody said anything about the comparative attendance, which may indicate the current interest among Loma Linda Adventists in regards to the "opposite" (?) messages.

Orthodoxymoron,

I agree with your opinion posted on 10 September 2008 at 8:10 in which you suggested that “Ford's theology is biblical in a Pauline-limited sense.” Evidently Des Ford relies almost exclusively on Paul for his favorite metaphor for the theory atonement.

He argues that he does so because the forensic explanation for the death of Jesus far exceeds the biblical references to the other symbols for Jesus’ death on the cross. This heavy emphasis on a mathematical count of the number of times the legal view of the cross appears in the New Testament is misplaced, I believe.

Paul was a prolific N.T. writer, and it is natural to expect more references in the N.T. to his pet explanation for the atonement. Personally, I prefer to grant Paul only one vote for the theory of Jesus’ death.

At the same time, I grant Jesus more than one vote, because he is the one who came to reveal to us the Gospel of salvation. He described the purpose of his death as follows: “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.” [John 12: 32]

Please, notice two details: First, his death is couched on a contingency basis: It says “If I be lifted up.” It doesn’t say: “I will surely be killed.” Second, it states that his death will be the means for attracting all men to him. It doesn’t say that it will be the means of making a payment for sin.

If you are surprised by the contingency we find in this biblical passage, then consider what the prophet Isaiah affirmed regarding this topic. We believe that Isaiah 53 is the clearest revelation of the Messianic role of Jesus. Well, read what verse 10 says:

“If he gives his life as an offering for sin …” My question to you: Why would the prophet use the “If” term connected with this Messianic prophecy? The reason, in my view, is based on the fact that God wanted to allow for the freedom of his chosen nation to either accept or reject the Messiah as their promised King.

This is why, following Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he was overcome by emotion, and could not hold his tears back, realizing that his chosen nation was about to reject him as their rightly ruler. He stated: “If you had only known what pertains to your peace.”

Even at that moment the chosen people of God had the opportunity to reconsider their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. This is why Ellen White did write that, had the Jews accepted Jesus as their King, Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital of the entire world.

The same inspired author did record the most explanatory reason for the death of Jesus in her book “Education,” page 263. In it, she says that “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.”

As far as I am concerned, this theory of atonement is not a metaphor, but rather a simple and clear explanation for the death of Jesus. His death was not an arbitrary requirement for balancing the books of heaven, but rather a concession to sinners who needed a visual illustration of the suffering God was subjected to sin the inception of sin.

The sacrificial system had the same objective. It failed in its divinely appointed objective, and God allowed Satan to carry out his murderous plans. We need to stop depicting God as demanding his pound of flesh. If the Lord required that Jesus be killed, then he would be considered an accomplice to the most atrocious miscarriage of justice in the history of mankind.

Suppose Israel had welcome Jesus as their rightly ruler, would God have said: “Whoops! What do we do now? The Jews have decided not to kill Jesus as we had planned. The plan of salvation has been wrecked. I cannot forgive sins now!”

Two decades ago I wrote a manuscript entitled: “Redemption in Spite of the Cross.” I never published it, because Adventists are not interest in a bloodless sacrifice. They want their pound of flesh.

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Nic

The Great Controversy is between Satan and Christ not between Adventists and Paul--that is just a minor incident.

The Great Universal question is: How can God be Just and the Justifier of them that believe in Jesus Christ?
That is not Adventism that is Pauline Theology.
Tom

If one believes that it is the Spirit of Jesus that inspired the biblical, and in this case, the NT writers, then isn't it interesting that the Spirit led the most prolific writer of the NT to use forensic language as his central atonement metaphor? Isn't it interesting that the Spirit would allow that to be the predominant metaphor in terms of number of references and space alloted?

This pitting of Jesus' words (recorded by human authors by the way) against and ascribing more weight to them than Paul's, is a false dichotomy if one believes that all the NT is inspired by the same Spirit. The only way such a dichotomy holds up and thus allow one to diminish the importance of forensic justification language, is to either create a canon within a canon, or to begin to assign degrees of inspiration within the Bible itself.

I see the merit in all the pictures of atonement. But this type of argument that arises out of a reshaping of and cherry picking from the overall text in order to trumpet one image over the most pre-dominant one I just can't buy.

Thanks...

Frank

Are Leviticus and Romans equally authoritative for us today? Did Paul follow the Great Commission...or create a New Theology? I would love to know all of the behind the scenes details of how and why the various books of the Bible were written. I perceive that all of the Bible writers were inspired...but that they wrote what was possible and expedient in their particular circumstances. I'm trying to read between the lines...rather than taking the Bible as a set of gold plates inscribed by God...intended for us to take very literally today. This goes for the writings of Ellen White as well.

The unfortunate part of religious debates is that a lot of people get caught in the crossfire...and lose their faith. One night at PUC, I overheard a female student crying that the Bible was not the word of God. A pastor authoritatively countered that the Bible was the word of God. The student was weeping.

I have repeatedly noticed a Christophobia among Christians. They prefer Paul. Some Adventists seem to prefer Ellen White over Jesus or Paul. Some prefer Desmond Ford. Is there a Christian Constitution? The U.S. Constitution is simple and concise...yet comprehensive. This is to avoid confusion. Don't we see legion theologies in Christendom? Historically, doctrinal purity has been obtained through dogmatic assertions, persecution, and execution. Wouldn't it be better to do what Jesus told us to do?

I sometimes wonder if the next few years will be a contest between Jesus/Constitution and Pope/Vatican. Why can't there be an integration, rather than a stand-off? I'm not fatalistic regarding the future of our world. I'm hoping for a happy ending(or beginning). I know I'm a naive dreamer. Go naive dreamers!

Nic

I agree that the motive of the High Priest and the Motive of the President of the General Conference were the same. It was better that one man perish than a whole nation or institution be destroyed.

But Jesus did not go to the cross under Roman rule just to escape the wrath of the blood thirsty Seventh-day Adventists.

One cannot hang ones theology on an "If". Tom

Nic,

This is on another strand but since you are using the above thought on both I will repeat a question to you.

How do you harmonize these texts? Is the later but a metaphor? Is the harmonization that Christ willingly "fulfilled the contingency" and obeyed the Fathers "predetermined" will? "Let this cup pass but not my will but thine be done."

Also, what is this "guilt offering" and "bearing of iniquities?"

10 But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities. Isa.53:10,11.NAS

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts2:22,23.NAS

pat

Orthodoxymoron,
Your point is well taken.
Things are not so very different now that back in Christs time. Or shortly after.
Remember in the bible where they said to each other, Which baptism did you recieve? Are you of John? Apollos? Cephas? Paul?

These days many choose Paul. Like shopping for groceries possibly?

Its not that one or the other is correct right? No, its a beauty pagent. You get to pick which one appeals to you.
Especially if what that person wrote in the bible is easier is easier to frame as you choose.

I have been interested to see the problem people have with justification, and I am looking forward to playing the devil's advocate with Des when he gets back. However I would remind you that Des was asked to speak about forensic justification, and this is what he attempted to do. There were four problems he worked on for months: the NPP (the writings of N.T. Wright and others); the moral influence theory, perfectionism, and effective justification as taught by Hans Larondelle. These are all taught within Adventism. This was a lot to get through in an hour. In the end he preached devotionally (what I heard of it).

Des just wrote a book called Jesus Only, which is based on his former class The Life and Teachings of Christ, focussing on the four gospels. He has been going through the Bible books, and these are currently becoming available on You-Tube. Nobody can fairly accuse Des of being fixed only on the book of Romans. That he sees it of unique importance is undoubted, because it alone spells out the way we are saved. Jesus made the atonement; it was given to Paul to explain it.

Uh...Ortho...

If you read Acts, you'll see that Paul was fufilling the Great Commission. If you read his letters, you'll see that he also fleshed out the things that Jesus commanded in the so-called ethical portions.

While complaining about Christians choosing Paul over Jesus, you have adopted your own interesting and individual version of the NT. You now choose the words of Jesus, as recorded by human writers as well, as more authoritative than everything else. Did a different spirit inspire Paul, or Peter, or James or John in their letters? Or, did the Spirit inspire their writngs to a lesser degree?

While I can appreciate the neccesity of a nuanced reading of the text and its authority in light of cultural factors, I cannot see how such a major motif as justifcation can be twisted or thrown out by simply diminishing Paul's writings as no longer authoritative, or by somehow casting them outside an arbitrarily determined canon within the canon.

There is real truth and beauty not only within, but also beyond the red letters. And if you would read the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the parable of the landowner and the workers, and Jesus words to the thief on the cross in Luke, you would also see that there is real agreement between Jesus and Paul concerning the basis of salavation as justification through faith in God's unmerited favor... plus nothing.

Thanks...

Frank

Gill,

I sent forward a question because N.T. Wright was mentioned and that perhaps he uses the "metaphor" of justification for the pupose of the Jews national acceptance , community and identity.

My question which was not read was... if Wright's position is complete, what is the meaning of Acts 13:38,39 which requires "individual" belief?

“Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses."

regards,

pat

Ortho...

I re-read your post and did see that you say that all the Bible writers were inspired. My bad!

I too don't believe that God gave it all on gold plates. I also agree that all the writers had individual circumstances and theological agendas that shaped their writings. But that also includes the gospel writers who all recorded their own versions of the words of Jesus.

Thanks...

Frank

frank7,

My answer to your comments dated on 11 September 2008 at 1:43 is: I think that nobody, not even Paul, had the right to superimpose his explanation for the death of Jesus over the opinion of the Son of God. Nobody could have understood better than Jesus himself what he came down to earth for.

Besides, do not forget what the Apostle Peter said about some of the things Paul had written: "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand." One of those things which are hard to understand is how a loving and forgiving God would demand that an innocent being pay the penalty for the sins of somebody else.

Demanding the death of a substitute is a flagrant miscarriage of justice in my book. Another thing hard to understand for me is: If God forgives, how come he demands a payment for the debt. My dictionary defines forgivenes as a decision not to collect payment for a debt.

Another thing I have a hard time understanding is: If the debt is owed to Satan--the Redeemer metaphor--why would God pay a redemption price to a murderer? If the debt is to God himself, then: Who would take money from one pocket and put it in another pocket and say: "Your debt is paid"?

Actually the list of things connected with Paul's metaphor for the atonement which are hard to understand is quite long. I am giving you a few examples to illustrate the fact that Paul's metaphor is deficient for the purpose it was selected for.

Even Des Ford admitted that all metaphors are imperfect in their attempt to depict a spiritual reality which is much richer than whatever we can imagine or try to explain.

Given a choice between Jesus and Paul regarding doctrinal issues, I will always choose Jesus' opinion above Paul's. Paul was a lawyer, and lawyers have a tendency to be rather verbose, and quite often they obscure what is crystal clear. Do not try to disuade me from following and sticking with the Man from Nazareth!

On top of this, Paul was a theologian. Theology is a branch of Philosophy, and the main philosophical tool is reason. We need reason, a gift from God indeed. Nevertheless, reason should not be granted pre-eminence in our search for truth.

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

During Christ's ministry, one of His primary goals was to convert the Jewish leaders. The door for them was still open when He said: "If" God held out the opporunity for acceptance of His Son rather than the rejection and murder of His Son. The "If" was stated during the "deciding time".

The Jewish leaders could have joined in on the Triumphal entry rather than scheming to slay the Lamb of God.

The "if" was for the yet undecided--a last plea for their souls. Satan used men but his intent would have been direct if the Jewish and Roman leaders did what they knew to be right. The question remained "How to be just and yet the justifier". It took the cross to lay aside any doubt. Thanks Be to God. Paul got it right. Tom

The Great Commission: "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).

In which New Testament passages does Paul teach everything which Jesus commanded? In which passages does Paul teach Matthew 25:31-46? The following is an example of teaching based upon the words of Christ:

‘”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)

How does this square with accepting the finished work of Christ on the cross plus nothing as our basis of salvation?

Oxy,

Develope that for me from scripture.

Interesting to have Dr. Ford back in town!

I find it fascinating how so many folk decry the "mistreatment" by the church of Dr. Ford and laud his 'heroic graciousness' in response.

While many debate from afar the machinations of "church versus Ford", I was, by a curious rendering of divine Providence, thrown in the middle of the late 70's and early 80's tumult over the "New Theology."

Let me just say that from personal experience, Dr. Ford's "movement" was not the benign "discussion of challenging topics" that so many readily believe.

The reality is much more sinister. I, among many, while teaching my students to be supporting members of churches that were enmeshed in Ford's ideas, was subjected to serious harassment and a late night Inquisition for not going along with the new enthusiasm for rewriting Adventist doctrine.

I'm not complaining, on the way into the "hearing", my school board chairman told me not to "let 'em intimidate you". Well, I didn't have to worry; God dramatically rescued me from what was suppose to be a ganging up by several Ford supporting church representatives and I went on to relish a gratifying teaching experience at the school.

I share this little vignette (in writing for the first time) to simply state that I'm continually amazed at how intellectuals have revised the very reality of this quarter century-old controversy and how successful they've been in creating, for the uninitiated, a brave new world...

Could say much more! But, as educators intone: I don't want to transgress the threshold of readiness to absorb "new things".

Tom,

Regarding your comment on 11 September 2008 at 2:36.

That's two "Ifs:" One in John 12 and the other in Isaiah 53, and I just began counting.

pat,

Thanks for your 11 September 2008 at 3:15 question.

You might have heard Des Ford state last Sabbath afternoon that all explanations for the death of Jesus are metaphors. All would include this one as well. The only exception for me is what Jesus said about his own death: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself." [John 12:32]

In line with this statement by Jesus, we have the Ellen White quotation on page 63 of Education where she explains that God's suffering did not begin nor did it end with Jesus death on the cross. It started with the entrance of sin into the universe, and the cross is simply a window provided for us that we might have a glimpse of the pain God was subjected to when rebellion opened the floodgates of hell.

Jesus willingly submitted himself to the cruel treatment that we might understand what sin does to the heart of God. The bearing of iniquities sumbolizes the suffering of God as a result of sin. Sin is not an object that can be born on our shoulders.

Bearing somebody else's sin means suffering the consequences of somebody else's misbehavior. The Bible states that "In all their afflictions, he was afflicted." God's suffering is not an arbitrary imposition by God but rather the natural consequence of infinite love. Whenever we suffer, God feels the pain as well.

Notice that verse 10 of Isaiah you cited includes a contingency for the death of the Messiah because of the presence of the term "If." Did you see that? Why would the prophet incluse the word "If" in something that was predetermined? Because, the prediction was contingent on human response. Had God's chosen nation accepted Jesus as their King, there would have been no need for Jesus to die.

Last Sabbath afternoon, at the Loma Linda University Church, Pastor Randy Roberts explained Jesus' death as follows: "The cross was God's gift to us, and the crucifixion was what we did to God." Most Christians prefer to word it this way: "The crucifixion was what God required in order to grant him the power to forgive sin."

The contrast between these explanation is like night and day. The first one places the blame for Christ's death on us and Satan. The second one makes God an accomplice to the murder of God's Only son. Take your pick!

Regarding God's foreknowledge, let me suggest that foreknowledge does not imply God's complicity in the death of Jesus. If God demanded the death of his Son, he is morally guilty of Jesus' death. If Jesus demanded this of himself, than he is guilty of masochism.

Who demanded that Jesus die? The crowd which shouted, "crucify him," "crucify him." Who moved the crowd to ask for this? The one who has been a murderer from the beginning! Why did God allow this, and why did Jesus go along with this? That me might have a taste of the suffering God was subjected to when sin and rebellion broke the peace of heaven.

Foreknowledge does not imply complicity. God knew that when the brothers of Joseph of old decided to sell him as a slave that this would eventually allow him to one day save his family from famine, and Joseph told his brothers that God's providence brought him to Egypt for a good purpose.

Does this mean that God had no other way for protecting Jacob's family from starvation? God did not incite Josephs brothers to treat him in such a cruel manner, but God in his providence transformed what was evil into a blessing. We can say same the same about the way we humans treated Jesus.

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Yes, both deal with the probationary time for the Hebrews.

Both "Ifs" precede the event.

Paul writes after the event. To Paul there are no ifs, ands or buts! It is a done deal!!!! We with Paul benefit from the selfless act of God.

That is the vantage point that Paul takes and that I accept.

I suggest you reread 1 Cor. 15. Tom

Dear oxy,

Here is your concluding question:
"How does this square with accepting the finished work of Christ on the cross plus nothing as our basis of salvation?"
You were referring to Christ's parable regarding the sheep and the goats, and Ellen White's commentary on it in "Desire
Of Ages."

Really, I fail to see the conflict that you perceive. Our salvation is indeed based soley on Christ's finished work on the cross, plus nothing. But faith in Christ's finished work bears fruit in loving obedience (esp. service for others), and that fruit is the outward evidence that we really have faith in Christ. There's a big difference between obedience as evidence of salvation and obedience as
a partial basis for salvation. The attitude of the true Christian is summarized in these words: "I would not work my soul to save, for that the Lord has done. But I would work like any slave for love of God's dear Son."

orthodoxymoron,

Thank you for the courage it must have taken you to go against the modern evangelical cheap grace crowd when you posted your comments on 11 September 2008 at 7:28.

The contrast betwen what many Christians are preaching and what Jesus expects from us is undeniable. Of course, Christian behavior is all God's doing, and the Lord get all the credit for this.

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Bernard Brandstater wrote "He also referred to a Consensus Document that was prepared by a select group of scholars at Glacier View, towards the end of the event, on the basis of which he was invited to "recant". But he replied there was no basis for recanting, since the Consensus Statement agreed with much that he had presented. He added that that Consensus Statement has not been made public, which showed a sad lack of openness."

Dear Dr. Brandstater, Just a point of clarification of your well written report. You mention the word "consensus" as referring to two documents: the Consensus statement voted on by the general assembly of delegates, and the 10-point critique written by the "select group of scholars."

The latter document was NOT VOTED on by the general assembly. There was no discussion about the document. It was simply read to the group by Elder Neal Wilson within the context that further study would be given to it. There was no consensus vote by the general assembly of delegates present at Glacier view. Therefore I think it is best not to refer to this document as a “Consensus Document” as it may mislead people.

So why would the SDA publications promote and continue to refer to the 10-point critique that was not voted on by the General Assembly? Why did the GC administrators bury the Consensus statement that WAS VOTED on by the General Assembly? Answer: Their belief that Dr. Desmond Ford teachings were heresy. The 10-point critique was used to fire the so-called “heretics” starting with Desmond Ford and removing some heads of our Colleges and knocking out 40% of the workforce of the church in Australia. Yet the Consensus statement voted on by the General assembly contains some of the same points. (Heresies in the mentality of the GC). So the GC had to cover that up and not let the church know. After all, they couldn't openly attack the Consensus statement of the General Assembly nor could they show the inconsistencies of one document supporting Ford (in part) and the other document condemning him.

When will the GC admit these mistakes and make it right with the church and with Dr. Ford? Without the Consensus statement, Glacier view was a total waste of money, as well as the issue of the administrators not respecting the consensus document that was to a large part influenced by the Bible scholars and voted by the general assembly of delegates at Glacier view in 1980.

Bernard Brandstater wrote "He also referred to a Consensus Document that was prepared by a select group of scholars at Glacier View, towards the end of the event, on the basis of which he was invited to "recant". But he replied there was no basis for recanting, since the Consensus Statement agreed with much that he had presented. He added that that Consensus Statement has not been made public, which showed a sad lack of openness."

Dear Dr. Brandstater, Just a point of clarification of your well written report. You mention the word "consensus" as referring to two documents: the Consensus statement voted on by the general assembly of delegates, and the 10-point critique written by the "select group of scholars."

The latter document was NOT VOTED on by the general assembly. There was no discussion about the document. It was simply read to the group by Elder Neal Wilson within the context that further study would be given to it. There was no consensus vote by the general assembly of delegates present at Glacier view. Therefore I think it is best not to refer to this document as a “Consensus Document” as it may mislead people.

So why would the SDA publications promote and continue to refer to the 10-point critique that was not voted on by the General Assembly? Why did the GC administrators bury the Consensus statement that WAS VOTED on by the General Assembly? Answer: Their belief that Dr. Desmond Ford teachings were heresy. The 10-point critique was used to fire the so-called “heretics” starting with Desmond Ford and removing some heads of our Colleges and knocking out 40% of the workforce of the church in Australia. Yet the Consensus statement voted on by the General assembly contains some of the same points. (Heresies in the mentality of the GC). So the GC had to cover that up and not let the church know. After all, they couldn't openly attack the Consensus statement of the General Assembly nor could they show the inconsistencies of one document supporting Ford (in part) and the other document condemning him.

When will the GC admit these mistakes and make it right with the church and with Dr. Ford? Without the Consensus statement, Glacier view was a total waste of money, as well as the issue of the administrators respecting a document that was to a large part influenced by the Bible scholars of the church in 1980.

"Why did God allow this, and why did Jesus go along with this? That me might have a taste of the suffering God was subjected to when sin and rebellion broke the peace of heaven."
- Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 11 September 2008 at 10:03

Jesus had to suffer on the cross to understand the suffering of God?? How does this reconcile with "I and the Father are One"??

Dear Nic,

The fact of the matter is that modern, so-called evangelicals seldom teach justification by faith.

What is more, forensic justification is not cheap grace. It's costly grace. It cost Jesus everything. And when it is accepted, it always bears fruit in loving obedience.

It should be noted that the Consensus statement to which Dr. Ford referred was published in the October 1980 issue of "Ministry Magazine." But I'm not aware that it has been subsequently published.

What other kind of justification is there but forensic justification. "The devil made me do it?" A law was broken. A broken law is a violation os a legal provision.
Such a violation requires a legal remedy. If the penalty is death, than whose death is required? The violator or the violator's creator? Since all have sinned, then all must die or the common creator must step forward and accept the punishment for the group. One Creator for one creation.

" For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Not a difficult concept, but and incomprehensible act of mercy--no one but the mind of God could have conceived of such a remedy. It totally confounded Satan. He would prevent as many as possible to reject such a gracious gift.

He represents the star example of "I do it myself school of thought!".

I for one need Christ's covering Righteousness and His shed blood for my transgressions. Praise be to God. Tom

David Grams
You stated:"The reality is much more sinister. I, among many, while teaching my students to be supporting members of churches that were enmeshed in Ford's ideas, was subjected to serious harassment and a late night Inquisition for not going along with the new enthusiasm for rewriting Adventist doctrine."

I would be curious to know in which part of the world you would have feared for job opposing Des Ford's theology? With the full weight of the official church behind you, I don't see how you risked more than losing a late-night debate, at worst.

Clansi,

Here is my answer to the question you posted on 11 September 2008 at 11:36:

The mystery is solved if you accept the notion that God the Father and Jesus the Son are one in purpose and character. When Ellen White refers to the suffering of God, it includes both God the Father and God the Son.

Pastor,

Bob,

You are right in what you stated on 11 September 2008 at 11:49. Forensic justification is no cheap grace. Forensic justification is a metaphor. Des Ford admitted this. The legal view of the cross distorts the character of God. It is not the best description of what took place on Calvary.

The best description is found in John 12:32, and the book Education, page 263. Theologian have been trying to unravel the mystery of God's love as revealed by the way Jesus behaved while on earth, and especially during his trial and execution. This rsulted in the many metaphors for the cross. We need to study all of those explanation for the death of the Son of God.

Nevertheless, if we are going to crown one of those symbols to illustrate God's love for us, we need to be careful and avoid enthroning one that does injustice to God's character. My reference to cheap grace was meant for some theologians who preach half of the Gospel. I did not have Des Ford in mind when I stated this.

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Oxy,
Your DA quote is instructive. EGW is all over the place theologically. In the 1970s the surest way to notice within the SDA church was to believe that you had found a universal field theory of EGW interpretation.

I remember C. Mervyn Maxwell telling us in class about the discovery of the Baker letter in the 1950s (5BC 1125-30, if I remember correctly). I looked at the statement in DA, he said, which said that Jesus came to this world with all the inherited weakness of the race and then I looked at this letter, in which EGW warns against holding up Jesus as if he were one of us. How could one and the same person have written both statements, he wondered. I never became privy to how he personally resolved this conflict. Most people have done it by editing out whatever is contradictory to their own views, the way fundamentalists always do. Reality, to reference Stephen Colbert, has a certain bias so it's better to go with your gut feeling.

The same tension, or outright contradictions, if you will, are found in the NT also. Jesus and his brother James, who took over after him, would be on the side of good works, Paul on the other.

Of course, people with a universal field theory of the Bible, wouldn't agree with me on that.

"The Reformation was the triumph of Paul over Jesus," Aage writes (see the first comment of this thread).

I admire Ford, and agree with a whole lot of what he says. But he is dead-wrong to think that the reading of Paul that came to the fore with Protestant Scholastics is the the best reading of the Atonement.

Jesus was forgiving sins long before he died. Was all that forgiveness CONDITIONAL?

The fact is that in brandishing a theory of atonement that puts more emphasis on the crucifixion than on the life and teachings of Jesus, the Reformers and their followers smoothed the way to the kind of (ethics-de-emphasizing) Christianity that ended up quite comfortable with Hitler.

We need to embrace and and thank Des Ford for liberating us from the Investigative Judgment. (Just the premise that God has to do RESEARCH is, well, startling.)

As regards the atonement, it's best, actually, to read Paul through Jesus' eyes. When you do, you begin to see that even Paul never bought into the PENAL substitutionary account of what Jesus accomplished at the cross.

There is no one metaphor that conveys every nuance of meaning in Jesus' life, death and resurrection. But the New Testament account of atonement never gets any better than this: The Son of God came here "for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8)

It was the RADICAL Reformers (Anabaptists and the like) who, among the Reformers, saw this point most clearly. Des Ford never paid attention to them, not, at least, enough to make a difference. And this is truly ironic, since Luther's INTROSPECTION is of a piece, in its way, with the introspection we associate with the Investigative Judgment: both tend to keep people inside the prison of self instead of liberating them to think about, and offer service to, the wider world.

Chuck

Tom,

Here is my answer to your posting dated on 11 September 2008 at 10:30:

Yes, Paul wrote after the death of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, bear in mind that after the fact explanation do not always give us a true picture of what took place. Read my comments dealing with the experience of Joseph of old. He atributed to providence the cruel treatment he received from his brothers when he was sold as a slave.

Can we conclude that it was God's plan that they sell their brother into slavery? Was the Lord to blame for such a cruel treatment? I hope you agree with me that Joseph brothers' evil deed was not God's idea. God could have saved Jacob and his family in many ways. Providence was manifested by the fact that God transformed an evil deed into a blessing.

If you apply this way of interpreting what happened to Joseph to the experience of Jesus, you will draw the correct conclusions about the meaning of the cross.

Tom,

I read your comments posted on 12 September 2008 at 12:21.

There are two ways of responding when a law is broken. One: you demand full restitution and full payment for the harm done to the victim. Two: you forgive. Forgiveness is defined by my dictionary as a decision not to insist on payment. It is called "grace." If full payment is demanded, then there is no grace. A judge cannot say, "I forgive you," if full payment of the fine was made by the defendant or a friend of the defendant.

If God is entitled to a full payment of the debt, and if he insists on his right, if he demands his pound of flesh, then he cannot turn around and say: I decided to forgive you. This would be justice, but not grace. He cannot say: I took the price out of one pocket, paid the fine from my own resourcess, and placed it in another pocket of mine.

In Old English, when the Bible was written, grace was a synonym of forgiveness. True forgiveness is based not on the demand of full payment, but rather on grace. Since Paul was a lawyer, the only way he could understand forgivenes was within the Roman legal system, and in Roman justice, there was no forgiveness.

Rome had a saying that went like this: "Dura lex, sed lex." The Law is hard, but it is the law. A human judge has no power to forgive. This is where we find a contrast between human law, which is based in justice, and God's law , which is basd on grace. God can forgive, because he is the Creator.

I hope this helps!

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Jesus said: Abraham saw my day and was glad. What day was that Nic? Tom

I see in Paul's writings the salvation motif of freedom from captivity...deliverance from the tyranny, power, reign and lordship of sin, into the freedom of the lordship of Christ.

To me, this is in keeping with one of the main motifs of the entire Scriptures. Salvation was often described and experienced as deliverance from cruel captivity, be it from Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and then in the NT, more fully developed...the over-arching power of sin and death.

In fact, many of the poetic passages in Isaiah as well as portions of the Psalms, place righteousness/tsedaqah and salvation/deliverance, in parallelism. Thus, righteousness was not simply some legal declaration from God imputed to the individual. Righteousness was often depicted as God, the righteous judge, hearing his people's cry on the basis of his promises and goodness in his "court," then acting in accordance with his promises by coming to their aid to deliver them from bondage.

In the NT, Romans 6, on the heels of justification in 3-5, develops this thought...freedom from one power through the intervention of another, Christ. Thus, how can one go back and live under the former...like Israel wanting to go back to Egypt. Galatians 5 poses this indicative and imperative, "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free, therefore, do not be entangled again in a yoke of bondage."

The agency of freedom is the blood of Christ. This was the substance of the preaching of the gospel which Paul spoke of that transformed lives from bondage to freedom. Christ the crucified Lord preached, brought the power of the Spirit to his hearers, and once recieved, created a new creation/community from a formerly divided people. Such a freeing experience carries with it a new way of being for Jesus, and being in the world...individually and as community.

Maybe this is a little different slant on justification. Just some thoughts...

Frank

And just to stir the pot a little more, didn't Jesus tell his disciples that he was giving them the authority to forgive sins? How in the world does that fit into any atonement metaphor? I don't even have any idea what that means - giving human beings the power to forgive sins.

Grams wrote: "I share this little vignette (in writing for the first time) to simply state that I'm continually amazed at how intellectuals have revised the very reality of this quarter century-old controversy and how successful they've been in creating, for the uninitiated, a brave new world..."

How true, how true. Intellectualism is supposed to save us??

I wince whenever I hear/see the word 'intellectual' used pejoratively, as I believe ‘Your Friend’ has done, above (but I hope I am wrong). Perhaps s/he can clarify and considers ‘intellectualism’ to be analogous to ‘scientism’ in that it genuflects before a particular ‘altar’ (e.g. reason or science). Certainly anything can become an idol. But there is a sickening tendency in our church to disparage the process of critical thinking (meaning hard-effort, expansive thinking, not criticism). And that seems, to me, like a thinly veiled attempt to hide inside an oversimplified, binary world-view.

Tom,

Regarding the question you posted on 12 September 2008 at 8:20:

My question to you is: Was Abraham shown the two alternative scenarios described in biblical prophecy for God's chosen nation, namely the glorious future with Jesus as the promised King of the Jews, or only the "If" suffering Messiah alternative alluded to in Isahiah 53:10?

You shouldn't ignore what could have taken place "If" God's people had chosen to receive Jesus as their Messiah just because the other alternative was chosen by the Jews. God's promises and warnings are always contingent on human response. This was true about the future of the nation of Israel, and it was true about Jesus.

You seem to ignore the true function of biblical predictions. They are meant to encourage us to make the right moral choice. They were not written so that we could read tomorrows paper today.

I cannot ask Abraham what he was shown, because he is dead; nevertheless, my guess is that he was most likely shown both alternative potential futures for Abraham descendants. This is evident from God's promises to both King David and King Solomon regarding their descendants. There was a contingency included with those promises.

We tend to forget that, like an earthly parent, God's promises and warning are designed to encourage us to behave the proper way and make the right choices. When a parent says to his son: "Johnny, you'll get a spanking," the parent is less concerned about the accuracy of his/her prediction than about the boy's proper response to the warning. The same can be said about the parent's promissed rewards for good behavior.
Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

I agree that there are many metaphors for describing the atonement. And we should make use of all these metaphors,
including the forensic one. Granted, the moral influence metaphor has some validity. Jesus' death was indeed a demonstration of God's love. But those who promote moral influence theology want to run with this one metaphor and reject the others, particularly the forensic one. But without the forensic metaphor, a great injustice is done to God's character. Moral influence theology makes God into a cosmic Santa Claus with no concern for law and justice. This is not the God of scripture!

Pastor Bob said:

Moral influence theology makes God into a cosmic Santa Claus with no concern for law and justice.

Two questions:
[1] Is God's law, natural law, or enacted law? A corollary question would be are the consequences of breaking the law intrinsic or extrinsic?
[2] Define Justice.

One definition I read recently for justice in a secular professional journal is this: Justice: “to treat all persons fairly, to aid the worst off, to defend the vulnerable from exploitation”. That definition fits the Old Testament quite nicely.

Do you like that definition? Or does justice imply punishment? Of course, if breaking God's law has intrinsic consequences, then does extrinsic punishment need to be applied?

Chuck
I have often asked myself why it is that Christians so often have embraced societal forces of evil, such as segregation and the holocaust and the Rwanda massacres. You suggest that it has to do with Christians focusing on theories of the atonement instead of the imitation of Jesus. I tend to agree.

It's hard to believe that non-doctrinarian saints, such as Francis of Assisi and Albert Schweitzer, would have condoned crimes against humanity. And conversely, maybe Luther would not have endorsed the drowning of Anabaptists and the persecution of Jews if he had been more concerned about living like Jesus instead of thinking like Paul.

When religion or politics become reduced to doctrines and principles, it's easy to lose sight of the humanity of the people who don't feel like signing on the dotted line of established dogma.

I remember watching a Norwegian union evangelist in 1977 browbeat a couple of fine, and by then weeping, women who had attended his series of meetings but who still hesitated to embrace--not Jesus, they already had--but the doctrinal truths he had been hawking. He accused them, in the words of James, of being nothing but "hearers of the word", and by implication, mere cordwood waiting for the blaze at the end of time. The evangelist used cruelty to promote his god's agenda, presumably because religion to him was a Bible quiz you had to pass, were God to give you a second glance.

Christianity started out as a fellowship around a person, as mentoring for life, not as a graduate seminar in theology. Religion easily becomes dehumanized when it becomes ideology, and under such circumstances it becomes harder to see the essential humanity of those who won't sign on our dotted line.

Religion is about absolutes. That's why they can go so wrong.

And a final question to those of you who have more faith than I: Do you believe Francis was saved?

These posts seem to breathe disdain for Paul. Has it ever occurred to anyone that Jesus and Paul could be saying the same thing, but in different words?

BH - I can't answer your question completely without receiving your definition of natural law and enacted law. However, I would agree that Biblical justice is certainly concerned that all persons be treated fairly, that the worst off be aided, and that the vulnerable not be exploited. However, what should happen when selfishness (sin) ruins this beautiful picture? This is the point where Biblical justice departs from the fake justice that is prevalent in the modern world. Biblical justice is retributive. It takes evil seriously, and punishes it to the point of destruction. Modern liberal "justice" questions whether evil really exists. It holds to a positive view of human nature and only wants to rehabilitate. Such justice is really injustice!

Pastor Bob Helm is correct that the two consensus statements were published in the Ministry Magazine after Glacier View. Des apparently had a glitch over that one. One of the consensus statements was on Ellen White (Ministry, Oct 1980, p. 19), and the other on the sanctuary, p. 16. The ten-point statement with ten points on where Des did not agree with traditional Adventism was yet another statement, (Ministry, p. 20). All three were published. It was not voted on by the whole group which met on the Friday afternoon, but used to discipline Des. Milton Hook in his bio of Des goes through all this. You can download the Ministry Magazine from their archives, and likewise with Ray Cottrell's article after Glacier View in Spectrum to see another view.

Aege and Chuck,

Why do you think Bonhoeffer appealed to the "German Christians"/Church to join the "Confessing Church?"
This seems inconsistent with your thoughts on the necessity of sound doctrine as put forward in the "Declaration of Barmen."

http://www.creeds.net/reformed/barmen.htm

Rather I suggest the "liberal theology" of Germany produced a people who substituted human and national perfectability with Christ as an utilitarian example rather than the concept of original sin and the necessity and humility of Christ as substitute.

History may repeat itself...
That's my take.

pat

Thanks to Pastor Bob Helm and Gill for the clarifications about the Glacier View Consensus statements. Here is the link Gill mentioned from the Ministry archives: http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1980-10.pdf

It's interesting to compare and contrast these reports with those in Spectrum in 1980.

Authoritarianism and Power Worship seem to be major culprits in the Nazi mess. It is very dangerous to unquestioningly submit to the powerful, or to those who promise power. It is probably equally dangerous to unquestioningly submit to rebellious leaders seeking to overthrow the existing 'powers that be'. One seems to play off the other...resulting in conflict escalation...rather than conflict resolution. Some have suggested that Neo-Conservatism is a case-study in authoritarianism and power-worship(including John Dean in 'Conservatives Without Conscience').

Do many prefer to worship a God of Power and Might...rather than commune with, and cooperate with, a God who became human? Might this preference play into the hands of those who wish to rule the world with a global theocracy? Did this happen in Germany? Could it happen right here in the United States of America? Some, such as Naomi Wolf, have suggested that the U.S. is sliding toward fascism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc.

One rather slanted view of the role of religion in Nazi Germany is found in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9zBX4gt0eo. At the time, the participants probably thought they were doing the right thing.

The rest of the universe must be truly amazed at how badly we get it wrong...century after century.

Pastor Bob said:

I can't answer your question completely without receiving your definition of natural law and enacted law.

Simple examples:
1) enacted law - 55 MPH. Go 65 MPH, and unless there are police around, you may go unpunished. And nothing truly bad happens most of the time.
2) natural law - gravity. Step off a 40 foot building, you get hurt when you hit the ground. Our bodies demand that we not experience sudden rapid decelerations. Stepping off the building violated the deceleration law that was caused by gravity. Did God inflict any punishment, or did gravity cause its own retribution?
You then said:

However, what should happen when selfishness (sin) ruins this beautiful picture? This is the point where Biblical justice departs from the fake justice that is prevalent in the modern world. Biblical justice is retributive. It takes evil seriously, and punishes it to the point of destruction. Modern liberal "justice" questions whether evil really exists. It holds to a positive view of human nature and only wants to rehabilitate. Such justice is really injustice!

Jesus said, Love God, Love your neighbor, this really is the Law. Can he really command Love? Can God force Love? If we violate Love, does it have a natural consequence? Or does God has to say, "since you do not love, I will bring my retributive punishment down on you, how dare you not Love me!" Rephrased another way, "Love me, or I'll kill you!". Do you believe that violating Love, does not have natural consequences. Consequences so horrible that it can total mental and physical anguish that it will ultimately destroy the sinner, by the separation from God that sin causes? Did God execute Jesus on the cross, or was it being like sin, suffered the consequences that a sinner would experience, and showing for the first time in all history, and still the only time in all history what separation from God causes? Would you call this soft on sin? Lack of real justice? The sinner is dead, and God only had to let him reap the natural consequences.

Mat 1:21 She will have a son, and you will name him Jesus---because he will save his people from their sins."

Jesus came to save us from our sins, not save us from the retribution that God is going to inflict on us if we sin.

Or so it seems to me.

A rather forensic view of the atonement is one of the few things about which my father and Doctor Ford agreed.

Although they probably don't remember this, one evening many years ago I drove my father and the Fords to Loma Linda, California after a meeting at the home of Doctors Jack and Margaret Provonsha in Yucaipa.

As I now recall it, Mrs. Ford was very weary and swiftly fell asleep, or appeared this way. I deliberately said something negative about forensic theories of the atonement and, just as I expected, both my father and Doctor Ford assailed me theologically all the way down the hill. At one point my father said, "Get him, Des!"

After all this time I am still happy that at least once my father and Doctor Ford were on the same side, even if it was against me on behalf of convictions that I don't share!

Aage
Do I believe Francis of Assisi was saved? Yes! Dave

Nic

Why do you think God had a ram caught in the thicket just at the right moment? Can you think of a more dramatic moment in which Abraham saw Christ's day?

Who is Israel and Who are the Children of Israel in view of the Christ event?

Tom

Dave

If you believe Francis of Assisi was saved was it because of his works or his faith? Tom

Hi Tom!
His faith.
Dave

Dave said:

both my father and Doctor Ford assailed me theologically all the way down the hill. At one point my father said, "Get him, Des!"

Yep! Just like God will do to the wicked - "Get'm".

Pat (and Oxy)
You said:"Why do you think Bonhoeffer appealed to the "German Christians"/Church to join the "Confessing Church?"
This seems inconsistent with your thoughts on the necessity of sound doctrine as put forward in the "Declaration of Barmen."

My point was that when Christianity is reduced to disembodied doctrines--when people become more concerned about thinking right instead of living right--faith is privatized. Living right, especially if right is defined by a person such as Jesus, is not something private. It affects the way you treat other people, it affects they way you look at people around you who become victims of persecution. It makes you shudder when you see water fountains labeled "whites only."

For German Lutherans and Adventists, privatizing their beliefs and reducing their religion to convictions about certain beliefs, allowed them to close their eyes to the evil that was going on around them.

I don't know Bonhoffer's story well enough to put his appeal in context. Germany was religiously speaking very liberal----as was he, and my guess is that he was fighting against the idea that being liberal means that you have no principles, that the liberal Christ "has no blood to spare."

When it comes to Adventists, why they supported Hitler, I can only add to what Spectrum Magazine has suggested, by pointing to the fact that Adventists historically focused on authority (EGW) and not moral principles.

Moral choices were resolved, not by applying one's moral values, but calling up the White Estate to find out what EGW wanted you to do. And if she had nothing to say, the conclusion was that it must be ok.

She condemned movies, but fortunately did not live to see TV, so TV is ok. She said nothing about abortion, so abortion must be ok (I'm pro-choice, but that's beside the point.). She did not condemn depriving African-Americans of their civil rights, so why should we care--and the church didn't. She did not speak out against aparteid in South-Africa, so why get into that thorny briar patch? (The General Conference actually condemned aparteid, but only when it was crumbling and it was safe to take a stand.)

Since EGW does not--to my knowledge condemn anti-semitism and labor camps, maybe it wasn't that bad, especially since Hitler was a vegetarian. (It showed principle, didn't it?)

The atheistic Soviet Union promoted atheism and one of its first official acts was to kill and imprison thousands of Orthodox priests. But when it was accused of religious persecution, it would point to all the churches, including the SDA church, that existed--with the blessing of the authorities. The rub was that the Communist authorities would only accept private faith. As long as faith was understood as a set of beliefs, as long as it had no more impact on the social order than belief in euclidean mathematics, it condoned it. (So, incidentally, did the General Conference, to the eternal shame of Neal Wilson and Alf Lohne--at the time, which embraced the emasculated SDA church while publically repudiating the leader of the red-meat Adventists, Vladimir Sholkov, who bled for his and their faith for decades in the Gulag.)

When religion or politics become reduced to doctrines and principles, it's easy to lose sight of the humanity of the people who don't feel like signing on the dotted line of established dogma.
Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 12 September 2008 at 1:04

Aage (and Chuck)

About reading Jesus (as portrayed by gospel writers) contra Paul, did Des Ford not speak briefly about this during the Q & A? I believe he did and expressed awareness of their differences - the need to hold them together in tension and proper balance.

Should we blame forensic justification (or the teaching of penal substitution) for the alleged lack of social engagement on the part of those who've embraced it? Might it be it's the combination of religion and politics that pose the real danger? (To cite an example: Four hundred years of Spanish colonization in the Philippines was interrupted by American occupation for religious reasons - the conversion of the indigenous population, who were mostly Catholics, to Protestant Christianity - we're told. But first, a Philippine-American war (1899-1905) that resulted in the deaths of 1.4 million Filipinos.

- U.S. Genocide in the Philippines: A Case of Guilt, Shame, or Amnesia? by E. San Juan, Jr.)

http://www.selvesandothers.org/article9315.html

Aage
Your 13 September 2008 at 6:20 is a gem. Rarely have I read a more incisive and yet respectful critique of privatized and authoriatarain Christianity. Thank you!
Dave

Dave
Thanks for your kind words.

Joselito
You ask:"Should we blame forensic justification (or the teaching of penal substitution) for the alleged lack of social engagement on the part of those who've embraced it?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. You can't help having opinions one way or the other, if you use your mind. I was talking about a religion that largely consists of opinions.

Christianity grew out of Judaism, a religion with its share of beliefs but whose focus has always been on values, and that was a priority reflected by Jesus.

Jews historically cared much more about right living than right thinking (orthodoxy). Spinoza is said to be the only heretic ever excommunicated from Judaism, and that to the regret of most Jews. Jews have sacrificed clarity of doctrine to communal values. They are foggy on metaphysics but they know who they are.

Aage wrote: "Moral choices were resolved, not by applying one's moral values, but calling up the White Estate to find out what EGW wanted you to do."

Thank you Aage for your insights. I think this lack of "applying one's moral values" extends beyond EGW to how we interpret the Bible. I remember the shock that I had when an Aussie missionary (Pastor Nelson Palmer) said to me, while I was a self-supporting worker in Zambia, that if he was in an extreme situation where there was no other food to eat, he would have no hesitation in eating pork. He explained that the principle behind those OT rules on diet was health.

In extreme circumstances, I think many conservative SDAs would probably eat the pork and then have feelings of guilt afterwards. Imagine the irony of some SDA starving himself to death over this issue, when the issue is to eat foods that would best support life.

"He explained that the principle behind those OT rules on diet was health."

That the ancient Israelites understood health is demonstrated--by quarantining those with leprosy? By quarantining women every month? By
differentiating between "clean" and "unclean" foods?

The story of Noah and the clean and unclean animals coming into the ark is so contradictory:

"Of all the clean animals you must take seven of each kind, both male and female; of the unclean animals you must take two, a male and its female (Gen. 7:2-3)

Then,
"Of the CLEAN animals and the animals that are NOT CLEAN....two of each kind boarded the ark...Gen. 7:8-9).

But in another story (Gen. 6:10-20), Noah was told to "take two of each kind aboard the ark...they must be a male and female."

Which one is correct? Two of each animal, or two of the unclean and 7 of the clean? Three stories, two are different. Two out of three?

This had to have been written AFTER the Levitical codes were written, as not until then was there any differentiation between clean and unclean animals.

Which Genesis story is the correct one? How could Noah have known anything about clean and unclean animals, since there is nothing prior to the flood that mentions this? And even then, they do not agree?

Beth said: And just to stir the pot a little more, didn't Jesus tell his disciples that he was giving them the authority to forgive sins? How in the world does that fit into any atonement metaphor? I don't even have any idea what that means - giving human beings the power to forgive sins.

I say: We simply need to be good. Not narrowly following a short-list(or a long-list) of rules and rituals...and then becoming spiritually proud, vindictive, and scornful toward those who don't jump through the same hoops that we do. We should try to be better people, and to try to make the world a better place, every day...with progress...not perfection.

Now to the question of humans forgiving sins: Jesus was clear about final reckonings based upon righteousness involving responsibility toward those around us. Could the disciples forgive a real jerk...and then have this precedent get this jerk, and a whole lot of other jerks, off the hook in the final reckoning? I don't think so.

There is a bumper-sticker which reads(edited version): 'Jesus Loves You! But Everyone Else Thinks You're a Jerk!'

So what is Jesus talking about? Perhaps Des Ford's faith offers a clue. He has indicated that SDA's are insecure about their salvation...and that the IJ is responsible for a lot of that. The goal, I think, is to get rid of chronic, debilitating guilt and insecurity...and replace it with a healthy striving for excellence which is not perfectionistic or retentive in nature. Jesus was giving his disciples the tools to help people be better people. But fools can abuse these tools. Sorry. The absolution near the beginning of a traditional liturgy may be an application of this reference. Also, the 'Lord's Prayer' may be helpful: 'Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.' Maybe Jesus was speaking of Micro-Forgiveness as contrasted with Macro-Forgiveness. Inaugurated Forgiveness contrasted with Consumated Forgiveness? If all else fails...use the Apotelesmatic Principle!

Elaine
I think you should give Mike a break. It's encouraging to hear that there are SDA pastors who understand that starving yourself to death in the presence of "unclean" food is the ultimate betrayal of a commitment to living a healthy life.

You're of course right when it comes to that which you imply, that the dietary taboos of the OT had nothing to do with health. They were tribal distinctions. Nowhere in the OT are they associated with a concern for health. That's why Deuteronomy condones that non-butchered animals, taboo for the Jews, could be sold to the non-Jews, who had no such taboo.

Elaine: Thank you for clarifying what the word "mal-ark-y" or "mal-ark-ey" might mean.

Aage: It is sad that the group I was with in Africa while we did share Loma Linda health education slides with SDA ministerial students at our "Better Living" seminars, at the same time my colleagues hit them over the head with EGW statements that she was shown that meat eating would not be part of the diet in those who would be translated at Christ's 2nd coming. It's funny now looking back on it, how the Zambians focussed more on the exception of the Eskimo than their own people of Western Zambia where nothing could grow because of the arid conditions.

I am astounded that Des Ford is still apparently being heeded as any sort of "authority" in Bible doctrine - particularly those upheld by true and faithful Adventists. This man apostatised from our (SDA) teachings many years ago, and we are sick and tired of hearing of him. Faithfu, true SDAs believe the sound, unquestionable Biblical teachings as taught by Jesus and commentated on through the gift of the Spirit of Prophecy (who likes it or who doesn't, this IS a gift of God's Spirit and it was without any doubt whatsoever (I challenge anyone to disprove it!) given to the SDA church in the mid-1800's to show further light on the Bible, especially for our times, because of the lack of understanding of truth that this world had experienced. Despite Des Ford having claimed to be an Adventist at one time, as far as absolutely unshakable and proven doctrine is concerned, he has not only apostatised, but deceived and led astray millions. PLEASE do not heed what he says - he is so EASILY shown to be wrong purely on Bible study alone, and his beliefs are very dangerous indeed. He admits himself he never really believed the foundational teachings of the SDA church, and it is very disturbing that he is even allowed speak on behalf of, or about, those doctrines. Men of sane judgment and sound minds in our church have again and again openly revealed his error - yet he persists in telling people Adventist doctrine is wrong. Why doesn't he just go on with his apostate teachings and forget about us altogether? He believes teachings of the Sunday-keeping churches by his own admission - they're welcome to him. Diane Styles, Australia

Tom,

You asked the following question on 12 September 2008 at 9:53:

"Why do you think God had a ram caught in the thicket just at the right moment?"

In order to correctly understand what I am going to say, you need to read the message contained in the 16th chapter of Leviticus.

God commanded Moses to have two goats ready for the celebration of the Day of Atonement. One was suppossed to be sacrificed, and the other was the scapegoat. Now notice how the scapegoat is described:

"And the goat shal bear upon him all the iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness."

Notice that both goats, the one killed and the one let go bore the iniquities of the children of Israel. If you believe that God would never demand the death of the innocent, then you would explain these symbols this way:

The first goat represented what would happen to the Messiah in the event the Jewish nation were to reject their rightful King, and the scapegoat what would take place if the chosen nation would decide to accept him as the Son of God.

In the case of the Isaac and the ram, you have the same symbols: the ram was the symbol for the suffering Messiah, and Isaac the symbol for the Messiah-King in the event the Jews were to accept Jesus as God's chosen vessel to save them from their sins and from their enemies.

The Lord predicted a glorious future for the nation of Israel if they remained faithful to him, and he also predicted the death of the Messiah in the event they decided to reject him as their King.

These two alternative scenarios were depicted by the recitation of the blessings and the curses spoken immediately following the crossing of the Jordan River into the promissed land.

The same alternative promises were given to both King David and King Solomon. The blessins were uttered on a contingency basis. Human response would always determine the outcome.

Christians have a strong preference for those biblical references which match the eventual historical outcome, and tend to neglect the other alternative which represent what could have been. We need to remember that after the fact explanations do not take into account what could have happened, but only what actually happened.

This is illustrated by the explanation Joseph gave his brothers who had sold him into slavery. Joseph saw what happened as the action of providence. Does this mean that the Lord had no other means of saving Jacob's family from famine, and that he was the one who moved Joseph brothers to treat him in such a cruel fashion?

God in his mercy, transformed an evil act into a blessing. The same took place with Jesus. God decided to save us in spite of the cross and in spite of the fact that we crucified him. Our evil act became the means by which heaven demonstrated the depth of his love for sinners.

Notice what God said about the sacrificial system which we understand pointed to a dying Messiah:

"I gave them statutes that were not good." [Ezeq. 20:25]

"For I spake not ... nor commanded ...concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices." [Jer. 7:22]

"Your appointed feasts my soul hateth." [Is. 1:14]

"I delight not in the blood of lambs." [Is. 1:11]

"Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams?" [Mic. 6:6-8]

"I