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 will have mercy and not sacrifice." [Matt. 1:13]

"To obey is better than sacrifice." [1 Sam. 15:22]

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Diana
Too bad you live in Australia. One of our presidential campaigns could have used your analytical talents.

Me thinks we all want to get on Des's bandwagon. There are two who know Des's faith: Des and His Lord.

I admire Des's courage and staying power. I find he to be well read and readable, It is nice to have him back in a U.S. pulpit in a main-line Adventist Church.

I wish him and Gill well. The problems he "causes" were institutional not salvational--so history repeats itself.

Did anyone doubt it? Tom

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.
Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 13 September 2008 at 8:17

Aage

I was just thinking that Paul, a Jew, cared just as much about orthopraxy. His letters nearly always included both expository and ethical instructions. Religion, in my mind, consists of beliefs and practices; thus it points to an entire way of life. I don't know how we can actually separate religious opinions from religious behavior.

I guess all atonement/salvation metaphors are all opinions only in that empirical verification is not possible for any of them. The Son of God came here "for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8)? [Chuck]

Joselito
Paul was indeed concerned about orthodoxy (a term that's somewhat anachronistic when you go back to the first century, before orthodoxy had materialized). He did not hesitate to to damn people whose take on Jesus differed from his own, even if these should happen to be Jesus' band of brothers, contemptously referred to as "super apostles"(Epistle to the Galations).

Paul anticipated the Medieval Church, which conceived of theology as incantation and heresy as the hawking of false ,and hence lethal, passwords to heaven. Paul's God was big enough to deal with moral failure but not lack of theological acuity.

I think you would concede that Jesus was not like that. When his disciples wanted permission to shut up competing preachers of the Kingdom of God, he told them not to bother, that God was big enough for them all.

Jesus focused on the ethical requirements of the Kingdom of God. Orthodoxy was not one of them, but orthopraxis, if you will, was.

Paul liberated the emerging Jesus faith from the ethnic confines of Judaism that the earliest "church" fought to preserve. He turned faith in the resurrected Jesus into a universal religion. In the process the ethics-based Kingdom message preached by Jesus receded from foreground to background theme. The Reformation only cemented this development.

Adolph von Harnack may have oversimplified when he reduced Christianity to the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man and the ethics of love but in many respects I think this arch liberal captured the essence of the gospels better than the pursuers of orthodoxy these last 2000 years.

Aage

I guess there's a reason the NT canon did not end with Paul so the gospels may subsequently be written as a corrective measure in the Early Church by the same Spirit that inspired the apostle to the Gentiles.

Nic

It has taken awhile to get back to you. I know you know the story well but it bears repeating in the context of our
discussion. The Lord told Abraham: "take now thy son, thy only son Isaac, whom thou,and get thee into the land of Moriah and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of"

The story has a happy ending. There is a ram caught in the bushes. Abraham takes that ram and offers the ram rather than the son for a burnt offering. That is when Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad. Rejoice Oh Israel!

The rest of the story, God took His Son, His only Son--but for the Father there was no ram caught in the thicket!" "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son---"

As we read and reread the story of Abraham and Isaac, we catch a little of the depth of pain and the height of love that God entured that we might have eternal life.

The story of redemption is not a difficult one. It is man who keeps trying to second guess God or to deny Him that produces all of the tangle we call theology.

I am not a Pauline scholar, but--"I know in whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able!" Tom

“This man apostatised from our (SDA) teachings many years ago, and we are sick and tired of hearing of him....he is so EASILY shown to be wrong purely on Bible study alone”
Posted by: Diane Styles (not verified) | 13 September 2008 at 9:57

Dear Diane,

I would like to know who the “we” is? Are you part of a group like Hope International? Your style of writing reminds me so much of the Standish brothers.

Could you please give me ONE BIBLE TEXT, taking into account the CONTEXT of the text, which supports the traditional Adventist belief that Christ began an investigative judgment on October 22, 1844? (something that you suggested would be “so EASILY shown” “purely on Bible study alone.”)

Tom

I fully agree with the statement you posted on 14 September 2008 at 4:21.

I greatly admire Des Ford's courage as well, and his dedication and magnanimity towards the Adventist church in spite of the way he was treated. We have much to learn from him and his example. Personally, I doubt that I would have ever discovered what the Bible in fact says about the Investigative Judgment doctrine by myself.

I do not share his view of the cross, but I do understand why he believes the way he does about this issue. Paul made the forensic view of the death of Jesus biblical. My issue is rather with Saint Paul. I have a preference for Jesus' view of the cross.

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Tom,

Regarding the comments you posted on 14 September 2008 at 10:26:

The sacrifice of children to deities was a pagan practice. How could parents muster the courage to offer their own children as burnt offerings to God, is beyond me. The only thing which comes close to this is the practice of abortion. In Old Testament times, the ritual was to kill the children and burn their bodies in honor to the God Moloch. Today we are smarter, we burn them alive through the saline abortion method before they are born.

I believe that God wanted to do away with such cruel and satanic way of worship, and I think that he chose Abraham in order to accomplish this end. Unfortunately, Christians misinterpreted that happened then and portrayed God as the one who demanded the death of his own Son as a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of "justice" in order to allow him to offer forgiveness to repentant sinners. This is a pagan notion.

Jesus taught us to call God the Father "Abba," which interpreted is equivalent to "Daddy." When Jesus was about to be judged and executed, he did not say: "Daddy, how can you do this to me?" He knew quite well who would demand his death. It was not God, but rather the bedeviled crowd who shouted: "Crucify him!!" "Crucify him!"

He suibmitted himself to torture and death that we might see the contrast between God and Satan, who has been a murderer from the beginning. When we portray God as demanding the death of his Son, we distort the beautiful character of the one who loved the world so much that "he gave his Only Begotten Son" that we might live. God gave us his Son, but we, inspired by Satan, killed him!

Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com

Nic

You can build your own theology is you want. It just doesn't track with history of the Old or New Testament.

What Scriptural evidence do you submit that human sacrifices predate Abraham or that it was a concern of Scripture prior to Moses and the Judges.

Tom

I am a little late jumping into the discussion but I appreciate the many fine comments. So you know where I stand, I am a personal friend of Des and Gillian Ford, so that may bias me a bit. I became the pastor of the Adventist church in Damascus Maryland after Richard Fredericks took the church independent and later renounced the Sabbath. I wrote Dr. Ford and asked him if he still believed in the Sabbath which he wrote about in his book The Forgotten Day. He replied that he believed in it more strongly than he did when he wrote the book. He graciously gave me permission to make copies of the book since it was out of print.

We then invited him to Damascus for a weekend of presentations on the Sabbath and its importance. Diane from Australian is not impressed but I found that Des is probably more Adventist than 90% of Adventists. He practices the health message better than most Adventists. He is certainly far more gracious than many are when dealing with controversial people and I could go on.

However, I would like to make a comment on the theologies presented in these responses. I was reminded the other day that Raymond Cottrell once said that the only people who will be in heaven will be people who will be happy there. That is a very profound statement. Selfish people will not be happy there since they will not be able to get their own way. Only unselfish people will be there and since we are all born selfish the only way to become unselfish is through a trusting and submissive relationship with Jesus. The details of how we are saved will be our study through all eternity so we certainly will not settle it here.

The key question is: Am I in a daily relationship with Jesus where I am trusting Him to do for me what I cannot do for myself? And am I asking him to continually transform me to become more and more like Him.

Most heresies arise when we try and become dogmatic that there is only one viewpoint. Gravity and Speed oppose each other. Too much gravity and we stay earth bound. Too much speed and we disappear into space. Keep the right balance and we can fly. I believe the same applies in the how we are saved debate. We must keep in balance the various views and then we can fly safely.

So, those who disagree with forensic views of atonement have to discount the writngs of the largest contributor to the NT in order to make it stand...at least that's what i think I'm hearing from the last couple of posts.

That's not just cherry picking...it's chopping down a few cherry trees. George Washington would be in good company!:)

Thanks...

Frank

Tom,

Here is my response to your posting dated 14 September 2008 at 3:34:

In Deuteronomy 18:10 I read: "Let there not be found among you anyone who inmolates his son or daughter in the fire." The marginal biblical note connects this with the worship of Molech.

My question to you: Why would God forbid something that was not being practiced by the Canaanites? If you need additional references, check the following:

1 Kings 16:3;17:17;21:6; 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Cron. 28:3;and 33:6.

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

"that Raymond Cottrell once said that the only people who will be in heaven or those who will be happy there."

If that is how we will be judged, that is pretty close to Universalism and is about the only belief in the future that many find representative of God's love. The other alternatives drive thousands away from religion.
Do you know anyone who would be unhappy in heaven? Heaven will be much larger than we believe. Why should heaven be limited?

JDN

"Gravity and Speed oppose each other. Too much gravity and we stay earth bound. Too much speed and we disappear into space. Keep the right balance and we can fly. I believe the same applies in the how we are saved debate. We must keep in balance the various views and then we can fly safely."

Right!

ELAINE

"Heaven will be much larger [more inclusive] than we believe."

Exactly!

Thank you!

Dave

'In my father's house are many mansions.' Could these mansions have different price-tags? That is, different spiritual and moral levels required for entry? A single, all-inclusive heaven, would be one heck of a place!

Thought,

Most accidents happen in the middle of the road!

pat

Dear B.H.

OK, thanks for your definition of enacted law and natural law. It makes perfect sense. Perhaps my thinking was a bit dense when I posted my last response.

But may I ask why you find punishment so repugnant? It seems to me that punishment is sometimes the only course that true love can take. Failure to punish evil is actually evidence of a lack of love.

No, God did not execute Jesus on the cross. Only an Arian would argue that God punished an innocent third party. As our Judge, God took our punishment on Himself in Christ.
And in so doing, He demonstrated the full extent of His love.

So in your view, the cross was merely a demonstration of separation from God? I would assume this means that people should be repulsed by such a vision of separation and should come racing to God with love in their hearts and so avoid the natural consequences of a lack of love.

B.H., please understand, I have some serious concerns about this view of the atonement, and I submit them to you in the spirit of love. I believe you have a far too optimistic view of human nature. Furthermore, your Jesus is only an example, not a Savior. This leads to sheer legalism - basically, we save ourselves by loving God. But this leaves me with no hope, as I have often failed to love God as I should.

Dear Aage,

I strongly agree with you that we should not decide moral issues merely by appealing to what Ellen White did or did not say. Obviously, she could not address every moral issue that would ever arise. For example, it is unfair to expect her to address the issue of concentration camps, as they first appeared on a mass scale in the Soviet Union a few years after her death.

But in her defense, I have found her statements pertaining to modern Jews uniformly positive, so I doubt that she was anti-semitic. And I would also point out that she and her husband James did issue a joint statement condemning abortion. I believe she only addressed the issue once, but she was quite opposed to the practice. It seems that many Adventists are unaware of this statement.

I would submit to you that we should be concerned with both right thinking and right living. In fact, the latter usually flows from the former.

frank7,

I am responding to your comments dated 14 September 2008 at 5:34:

You have no need to discount the forensic view of the atonement advanced by the "largest contributor to the NT." If you think that Saint Paul has the best explanation for the death of Jesus Christ, you should do what Dr. Des Ford does. He defends it with all his amazing brain power, erudition, and intelligence.

In my case, I prefer the reason advanced by Jesus Christ in John 12:32 and seconded by Ellen White in Education, page 263. Jesus gave his followers the following explanation for his death: "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me."

Notice that he did not say: "If I be lifted up, God will be able to forgive your sins." I do not see how the forensic theory can fit here. Notice also that his death is stated on a contingency basis because it is preceded by the term "If'. It is interesting that the same contingency is found Isaiah 53:10: "If he gives his life as an offering for sin ...”

And consider the surprise of those who were listening to him: "We have heard that Christ abideth for ever; how sayest thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up?" Evidently, the crowd were thinking about the promise found in Micah 4:7: "And the Lord shall reign over them in Mount Zion from henceforth even for ever."

How can we explain the apparent contradiction between what Micah predicted and what Jesus was saying? The answer is hidden in the word "If." The term “If” means Jesus' immediate future was contingent on the Jewish nation's response to Jesus’ claim to be their promised messiah. They still had the chance to decide whether they wanted him to reign over them as their rightful King.

We see here an example of the fact that God’s promises and warnings are always contingent on human response. There was no need for them to kill an innocent man. God did not demand that they kill him. It was the bedeviled crowd who demanded “Crucify him; Crucify him!”

As you can see, I am not cherry picking, nor engaged in the cutting of cherry trees. Those cherry trees were not planted by Jesus, but by Paul. Do not forget that the President of the Jerusalem Christian “General Conference” had some important warnings for those who are enamored with Paul’s theology: “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand.” [2 Pet. 16]

Does this surprise you? Bear in mind that Paul was a lawyer and a theologian. Have you ever struggled in your effort to understand a lawyer’s writings? Quite often, you need a lawyer to explain what another lawyer has written. It has been said about a government official who said: I am not going to sign any document I cannot understand. This is the main reason I have been resisting the temptation to say “Amen” to everything Paul has written.

The forensic view of the cross tells me that God demanded the death of Jesus as a condition for offering forgiveness to repentant sinners. This is hard for me to understand! The father of the prodigal son placed no such condition for receiving his repentant son back! I cannot accept the notion that a human father is more merciful and accepting than the god of heaven.

The legal view of the cross tells me that forgiveness is contingent on the full payment of the debt of sin. This is hard for me to understand for me. My dictionary defines forgiveness as the refusal to demand payment for the debt. Telling someone: “I forgive you,” and turning around and saying: “Nevertheless, this debt must be paid in full by someone” makes no sense to me. If the debt must be paid in full, true forgiveness looses it meaning!

The legal view of the cross tells me that there would have been no forgiveness in the event the Jews had refused to kill Jesus. This is hard to understand for me. God’s plan was for his chosen nation to accept Jesus as their Messiah. Had they done so, I can’t imagine God saying: “Whoops! Something went wrong with our plan of salvation. The people refused to kill my Son. What do we do now?”

The sacred record shows that Jesus did forgive sins before his death, and he did not make such forgiveness contingent on his death. He did not say to the paralytic: “Your sins are forgiven provided someone kills me.” This applies to the adulterous woman as well.

The Bible tells me that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.” The forensic view tells me: “God so loved the world that he demanded full payment of the debt, and he wouldn’t forgive unless he got his pound of flesh.” This is also hard for me to understand! God gave us a King to reign over us. We killed him that he might not rule over us. God Gave him to us! We crucified him!

The legal view of the cross implies that the father of the prodigal man was merciful, forgiving, and kind; and it also implies that God is arbitrary, vengeful, and exacting. This is hard for me to understand. In other words, the forensic explanation for the death of Jesus distorts the true character of God as a loving and forgiving God who was willing to suffer the consequences of our rebellion even at the cost of his own suffering and death.

For all these reasons, and many more, I have a strong preference for the explanation given by Jesus himself for his death, and the reason given by Ellen White in her book Education, page 63, where she describes the cross as a window for our dull senses that we might comprehend that God’s suffering did not begin nor did it end with the cross.

It started the moment rebellion broke out in heaven and it will stop when sin is eradicated form the universe. Understood this, the cross ceases to be a historical event, and becomes a process whereby God suffers every time we sin.

I have no idea what portions of Saint Paul’s writings the Apostle Peter had a hard time understanding, but I do know some of the things I have a hard time understanding. If you have an easy time comprehending Paul’s theology, good for you!

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

Pastor Helm,

I am interested in the reference to James and Ellen White's joint statement condemning abortion you mentioned in your 14 September 2008 at 10:40 posting!

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

Dear Nic,

I read the 1870 document "A Solemn Appeal" about 20 years ago, and I thought that Ellen White's name appeared on the
document along with her husband's name. It is quite possible that I am mistaken, and if so, I apologize for my incorrect statement. However, is there any possibility that some copies of the document were issued with both names? I ask this because I recollect thinking to myself, "that's funny. Adventists sometimes claim that Ellen White doesn't address abortion." This may be a mis-taken memory, but somehow it is vivid in my mind. I am aware that you have extensively researched Adventist attitudes toward abortion.

I would add that while we disagree regarding the atonement and forensic justification, I applaud your pro-life stand!

Bob
I'd be surprised if the issue of abortion surfaces anywhere in EGW's writings because abortion, to my knowledge, was not an option back then, outside of criminalized back alleys, a world that she stayed far away from.

When I brought up abortion, it was only to illustrate that Adventists have always been so afraid of making wrong moral choices that they have preferred to have somebody else--EGW--make them.

It's reminiscent of divination. Throughout history divination has remained popular because it takes decisions out people's hand, so that if things go wrong as a consequence, they're not to blame.

To be a moral being means that you have to learn to apply your own moral values to the situations you face in life, even if it means the possibilty that could make a wrong move.

Aage, I agree with you completely, that unless we have developed (over time) the ability to make our own moral decisions, we are abandoning the greatest gift God gave us: free choice.

As to the atonement, there are multiple metaphors used in the Bible, so how can anyone claim that he has the right, or only correct view? These are dancing around the head of a pin when the rest of the world is starving for food or reasons to live, mired in debt and depression and we, in our nice, tidy enclave are consumed with matters of which we can never possibly know or understand. Love your neighbor and live accordingly, let the unessentials be left there. What possible difference can it make for one's eternal salvation if he believes differently on such obtuse issues with no correct answer: will there be a test at the entrance to the pearly gates on correct orthodoxy?

Dear Elaine,
Since a lot of these posts seem to prefer Jesus over Paul, I would point out that Jesus establishes Himself as the test at the entrance to the pearly gates. See John 14:6.
People who depend on their works for salvation are often fearful that they won't make it through those gates, and rightly so. Righteousness by works (including loving your neighbor) cannot get you through the gates. Only Jesus can.
Note that I didn't set up this test. Jesus did! Righteousness by faith is the greatest essential.

By the way, I'm all for loving our neighbor. The only problem is that none of us love like we should.

Why all this talk about metaphors and metanarratives?
Since Calvary, the facts are in! History is predictive only if its antecents track. So the sure word of prophecy has been fulfilled in the historical Christ Event. We live in an era that follows the benediction of Jesus Christ on the Cross: "It is Finished"! Salvation is freely available to every son and daughter of God, of which He knew everyone from the womb to their death. This denominational "My way or the Highway" is a slogan from Hell. To defend a set of beliefs beyond the Pauline Gospel is defy God's final messanger to the gentile world. For a church without a creedal statement: The SDA church certainly has a narrow and proprietary view of history and end-time Scriptures. I don't know the end from the beginning but my Lord does. So I rest in Him. I think that what Des does also but in the process he does as I do--wishes the SDA Church no harm but no help to promote its agenda either. Tom

Why all this talk about metaphors and metanarratives?
Since Calvary, the facts are in! History is predictive only if its antecents track. So the sure word of prophecy has been fulfilled in the historical Christ Event. We live in an era that follows the benediction of Jesus Christ on the Cross: "It is Finished"! Salvation is freely available to every son and daughter of God, of which He knew everyone from the womb to their death. This denominational "My way or the Highway" is a slogan from Hell. To defend a set of beliefs beyond the Pauline Gospel is defy God's final messanger to the gentile world. For a church without a creedal statement: The SDA church certainly has a narrow and proprietary view of history and end-time Scriptures. I don't know the end from the beginning but my Lord does. So I rest in Him. I think that what Des does also but in the process he does as I do--wishes the SDA Church no harm but no help to promote its agenda either. Tom

Dear Aage,

I agree with you completely about the importance of making moral choices for ourselves. We should never let Ellen White or anyone else make those choices for us.

Are you familiar with the document, "A solemn Appeal?" It was issued in 1870 and is strongly anti-abortion. It certainly has James White's name on it. Nic Samojluk establishes this in his research. Perhaps I am in error, but I distinctly recollect Ellen's name being on it as well, which is why I raised the question of whether some copies could have had both names. But the document is real. I believe you can find a copy in the James White library at Andrews University.

Furthermore, abortion has historically been condemned by the Christian church. It is first condemned in "The Didache," which is an early second century document that claims to catalog the teaching of the apostles.

Now I'm not urging you to let any of these sources do your moral thinking for you, but abortion has been around for millenia, even if it was not always performed under the best conditions. And it was addressed by Christians in the 19th century and long before.

Get em, Tom! LOL! Seriously though, your last post is an awesome defense of the gospel. Thank you and God bless!

" Righteousness by works (including loving your neighbor) cannot get you through the gates."

This seems to be in direct contradiction to Jesus' own statement as recorded in Matt. 25:31-46.

Millions have lived and died, never hearing Jesus' name. However, if Jesus' words are true, they will be saved by their lives and actions. Even Paul, in Romans 2:6 says that God "will repay each one as his works deserve....Those....who [were]always doing good THERE WILL BE ETERNAL LIFE."

Dear Elaine,

Have you read Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector lately? See Luke 18:9-14. This is Jesus' own statement on how to be justified.

I agree with you that there will be people who will be saved without hearing Jesus name. But they won't be saved by their own works. They will still be saved by Jesus and His atoning work. See Acts 4:12.

Certainly God repays us according to our works. Whenever you or I sin, we earn a wage - death. See Romans 6:23. But the problem is that none of our works are good enough to please God. So Jesus tells us that when it comes to receiving eternal life, God is only asking for one work from us - to believe in the One He has sent. See John 6:28-29. And this is not really our work. Jesus tells us that the Father produces this faith in us by drawing us. See John 6:44.

God loves us so much that He has made salvation very simple for us! So why do we want to make it difficult?

Pastor Bob Helm, Here is a link where the book "A Solemn Appeal" is on-line.

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default

Bob
Even if it's off topic, I'd like for you to go beyond your vague recollections and get some firm references to abortion even being a topic of conversation among people back then, EGW or otherwise. I don't know if abortion was a controversial topic among any Christians much before the 1980s, when Evangelicals took this issue to the population at large.

And you're right, in the Gospel of John, written in the period of time that saw the triumph of Paul's gospel, the person of Jesus has become a litmus test for salvation in a way that goes beyond the broad storyline of the Synoptics. Just look at John 3:17. Apocalyptic judgment is a reality in the Synoptics as well (Matt 24-25), but here the judgment is still ethical in it's nature (separating out those unfit for the Kingdom) whereas in John its much more Grecian and epistemological (i.e. acquiring knowledge about who can save you).

Thanks you Mike for your web site.

Dear Aage,

The existence and content of "A Solemn Appeal" are not vague recollections. This document is real, and it does speak against abortion with force. My only question was whether the booklet was issued solely under James White's name or whether Ellen's name also appeared on it. However, as Mike MacLennan has pointed out above, it does appear in the EGW data base.

Now about salvation. I never meant to question the ethical nature of the judgment. We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But we are judged by works (in that works are evidence of grace received). And the latter is a a major concern of the synoptics. But the synoptics also concur with the doctrine of grace that is found in Paul and John. See Matt 20:1-16 and Luke 18:9-14. Furthermore, Jesus is clearly the litmus test in Acts 4:12, and Acts is an extension of the third synoptic.

Bob, I just finished reading _SA_, and am not seeing the references you're pointing to. Which section did you have in mind?

Bonnie & Pat, re: Loneliness has long been the Adventist experience.

Thank you for putting this into perspective. We might well be disparate members of an on-line Adventist Lonely Hearts Club (Band). Let the Band play on.

I thought I was the only one, silly me. But seriously, as I read both of your responses I thought that it was better to be Adventist and lonely than worldly and lonely. It's better to be Adventist and lonely than non-Adventist and a member of some other religious body that caters effectively to those who, for whatever reason, find themselves lonely even as they sit in Sabbath School, in worship services, prayer meeting, etc. Well, sometimes just sitting in church gives me the illusion that I'm not that lonely at least until the service in question ends.

One reason for feeling this way is that in order to enjoy what inclusiveness I currently enjoy--and I'm thankful to the church members who reach out to me--is that I have to filter some of what I believe in so as not to raise too many eyebrows.

Let me end on an upbeat note and adapt another late 60s catch phrase.

I've got to believe Adventism's getting better, a little better all the time. Yes, I believe the Adventist Church is getting better. It's getting so much better all the time. [Courtesy of Emile Coue as filtered through Lennon & McCartney.]

Raul

Yes it is a lonely world when the primary question is when to worship, or where to worship and Not Whom to worship and why! Pick any time and any place to worship a risen Savior and you will no longer be lonely.

There are Adventist pastors like than--too few--too few
So it is lonely out there. Tom

Loneliness in Adventism can take a lot of forms. Sometimes I wonder if we have fostered too much of a religion of the head and not the heart. A religion where intellectual assent, doctrinal purity and debate, behavioral standards, and "finishing the work," have taken precedence over the simple warmth of friendship that is part and parcel of joyfully belonging to Jesus and each other, whatever differences we may have.

If we need to put up guards and filters around our differening viewpoints in order to not squelch our fellowship, what is that saying? Sometimes the idea of ecumenism doesn't sound so bad. Gather around Jesus, rejoice in our shared life in him...don't sweat the small stuff!

Thanks...

Frank

Dear KM,

Please understand that I dont have "A Solemn Appeal" in my personal library. I have not handled the document since I was a seminary student at Andrews. For the following quote from SA, I am relying on the research of Nic Samojluk, which is posted on the internet. But let's try this quote on page 100. There's no doubt that abortion is being described here.

"Few are aware of this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice that is carried out in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime."

Bob and KM, Sorry, but the link I shared was from EGW and not James White. Hartland Publications apparently sells "A Solemn Appeal" which was edited by James White. I had no idea that there were two "Solemn Appeals."

Here's the link to Hartland Publications.

http://www.hartlandpublications.org/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi

After entering their website, fill in the search blank with "solemn appeal."

Dear Mike,

Thank you for the Heartland Publications web site. I'm sure this is all getting very confusing to the readers of these posts. But let me be clear. The 1870 book, "A Solemn Appeal," is quite real, and it does speak out against the practice of abortion. The question was whether it was solely the work of James White or whether Ellen White also had a hand in it. Well, according to the Heartland Publications web site, it was authored by both James and Ellen White, and edited by James White. So it is clear that Ellen White addressed the practice of abortion and that she took what today would be called a pro-life position. In light of this,
the claim that she was silent on the abortion issue is incorrect and should be set aside.

Bob,

Thanks for your comments dated 15 September 2008 at 12:15!

The only statement by Ellen White connected with abortion I am familiar with goes like this: "Men who neglect the health of their wives while they are pregnant are almost guilty of murdeing their unborn child." [A paraphrase of what she stated. I can dig out the actual quotation, if needed.]

My reasoning goes like this: If neglecting the health of a pregnant woman is almost murder, then it follows that abortion would be considered a factual murder by Ellen White. Now, regarding James White opinion, we have clear statements equating abortion with a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

Aage,

Regarding your comments dated 15 September 2008 at 7:38:

Please read my response to Bob above! Ellen Whites' position on abortion can be deduced from her statement and it is as clear as daylight!

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

Bob
If your quote is from EGW, then you've proven your point--or at least that she once upon a time addressed the issue.

Bob,

On 15 September 2008 at 8:47 you included the following statement: "Righteousness by faith is the greatest essential."

Were you aware that Paul's main pillar of his doctrine, "righteousness by faith" is a quotation from the Old Testament, and that there is a better translation for the term "faith"? [See Habakkuk 2:4]

*********
"The word translated 'faith' here is 'emunah.' Its better rendering is faithfulness, steadfastness or fidelity." [ http://www.drbilllong.com/LectionaryIII/Hab.html ]

*********

This better rendering of the original Hebrew is more in agreement with what we find in Matthew 25, where Jeus describes the criteria that the Lord will use in determining our eternal destiny: The way we have treated him in the persons identified as "the least."

Taking this into account, I conclude that James inclusion of behavior as a basic element of true faith is more in agreement with the teaching of Jesus than Paul's doctrine of "righteousness by faith."

When I was a college student at what is now known as the “Universidad Adventista del Plata,” Argentina, I remember that teachers used the following illustration for salvation: Using one oar, faith, would get you nowhere. You need both oars—faith and works—to reach the desired destination.

This was fine, but when the New Sabbath School Quarterly arrived at the local Adventist printing press, the translator didn’t know what to do, because the lessons emphasized the Pauline doctrine of “faith alone” plus nothing else.

When the interpreter’s turn came to translate the following statement: “We are saved by faith alone,” he altered this to “We are not saved by faith alone,” and the problem was solved. And bear in mind that at the time our local printing press "Casa Editora Sudamericana" provided SS Quartelies for all the Spanish speaking world.

Tom,

Regarding your comments dated 15 September 2008 at 8:48:

It seems to me that you are overlooking the real purpose of predictive prophecy. It is not that we might read tomorrow's newspaper today, but rather to allow for human freedom and a chance for human response to God's promises and warnings. The classic example is Jonah. The Lord was more concerned with the corrent human response than the accuracy of his predictions.

The role of the promissed Messiah was predicted on a contingency basis. Do not forget the "If" terms included in Isaiah 53:10 and John 12;32. This is why, Jesus lamented the fate of the God's chosen city on his triunphal entry into Jerusalem by saying: "If you had only known what pertains to your peace." Jesus came to bring "shallom" to Jerusalem.

The Jewish leaders chose to kill God's messenger of peace, and the future of the Holy City was altered. The rejection of Jesus by the Jews was not God's original plan. The fact that it happened that way was not God's Plan A. Had it been Plan A, Jesus would have rejoiced instead of crying at the sight of the city.

After the fact explanations are often lame, but most people prefer to interpret predictive prophecy on the basis of what actually took place in history, imagining that that was what God wanted to happen.

Elaine,

Regarding your comments dated 15 September 2008 at 9:26:

I am amazed that we fully agree on the correct interpretation of Matthew 25. This biblical passage makes me wonder whether we have been teaching the correct version of biblical eschatology. We have been emphasizing the role of Sabbath observance as the main factor which will determine our destiny, while, according to Jesus, it will be the way we treat "the least."

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

Dear Aage,

Again, the quote on abortion comes from "A Solemn Appeal," which apparently contains some material written by James and some written by Ellen. However,according to Heartland Publications, this obscure book was issued jointly by James and Ellen White, so it represents both their thinking. I'm sorry, but I don't have the book in my possession. However, it is available from Heartland.

I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting we allow Ellen White to do our thinking for us on this or any other issue. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to try to determine where she stood. I apologize for the confusion my posts on this issue may have produced. This is about as far as I can take it.

Dear Nic,

Yes, I am aware of Habakkuk 2:4, and you are quite correct.
"Emunah" does denote faithfulness, steadfastness or fidelity.
This is Habakkuk's meaning. However, it is not Paul's meaning. For Paul, those who are "righteous by faith" will live.

Please be aware that the Bible is not verbally inspired. Biblical inspiration is thought inspiration, which allows
room for reinterpretation. The New Testament contains a number of inspired reinterpretations of Old Testament passages. For example, Matthew reinterprets Isaiah 7:14,
and Paul reinterprets Habakkuk 2:4.

Having said this, I want you to know that I appreciate your thoughts on James and Matthew 25. I believe with all my heart in "grace alone" and "forensic justification." But I also believe that this good news bears fruit, and we will be judged by that fruit, inasmuch as fruit is outward evidence that we know Jesus. I especially like your last comment to Elaine. I believe that both the Sabbath and our treatment of others will be eschatological tests. This is why I stand with you on abortion. I care about the oppressed. But eschatological tests merely look for the fruit of loving obedience as evidence that we know Jesus. Our eternal destiny is still determined by Jesus Christ and Him crucified!

Nic,

It's obvious that Paul saw the necessity of good works in the Christian life. However, where you and your teachers in Argentina place it as instumental for salvation, Paul, and I would also say Jesus himself, places it as evidential. Huge difference!

Works as the means of salvation makes ones acceptance with God based on performance. Grace alone through faith alone places works in the position of rising from the assurance of his acceptance and salvation. It makes salvation a total gift that we did absolutely nothing to merit. Any work put in the position of achievivg salvation, even Holy Spirit aided and inspired, still involves our doing...thus grace is no longer grace.

To see that Jesus taught the same, just look at the parable of the workers and the landowner...all recieved the same wage, regardless of how much work (and how good, I would add) they did. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector also speaks against the self righteousness that arises from a lack of appreciation for the sheer grace of God that offers justification/salvation to those who see their desperate need as their only qualification for his acceptance.

In addition, Jesus freely gave a dying theif who had no single work to offer a place in paradise with him. It all came out of the man's desperate plee for Jesus to remember him...nothing else. He is not an eleventh hour exception. He is representative of human beings who seeing their lostness, do nothing but call out to Jesus for salvation.

So many of the healing stories speak of the same truth. Jesus saves, and then people respond with praise, service, adoration and worship. They are evidence of salvation recieved.

This is also in keeping with the OT exodus story. Israel was freed through faith and appropriation of the blood of the lamb. They were promised the land while still in Egypt. A promise based on God's faithfulness/tsedeqah, not their own. And once delivered through the sea, out of their dire straits, God then gave them Law/Torah. This was to be their responce to the God who did deliver them, and who promised to deliver them solely by his grace. It was to be the evidence that they were truly his people....not to earn anything.

I see this as consistent meta-narrative.

Thanks...

Frank

Do 'works' primarily refer to ritual observances? A form of godliness, but without the character and power of Christ? Does strict Sabbath-keeping and church attendance apply here? Is trying to be good...bad? Do we simply let go...and let God?

Dear oxy,

No, trying to be good is good. If we love God, we will want to be good. Being good only becomes bad when we try to parade it before God as a reason for Him to admit us to heaven. Don't you see, God doesn't want us to be good in order to obtain a reward. That's selfish, and anything selfish is bad. God wants us to be good for goodness' sake.
And justification by grace through faith frees us to be good for goodness' sake.

No, we don't just let go and let God. In the matter of sanctification, we must cooperate with God. And there are many times we must say no to temptation even though it crucifies our carnal nature.

Church attendance and strict Sabbath oberservance are great, as long as my motive for them is correct. The motive is fellowship with God, not merit.

Aage,

Regarding your comments dated 15 September 2008 at 10:30:

Here is a quote dealing with the abortion issue authored by James White.

*********
Quote:
Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subject herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose.

And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the the destruction of the babes he has begotten.

The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. [James White, Solemn Appeal, 1870]

*********

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

If I am saved, and I know that I am saved...can I cheat on my wife and on my taxes and still be saved...saved by faith alone in the finished work of the crucified Christ? And saved from whom or what? Saved from the vengeful wrath of God? Saved from the legalistic, perfectionistic Satan? Who or what is going to torture and kill me if I don't believe? Dictators torture and kill people if they don't go along with the program. If you can't convince 'em...kill 'em.

Parading anything before God is the epitome of stupidity. But didn't Jesus say that unless we were better than corrupt religious leaders...that we would be on the outside, looking in? Isn't a system of rewards and punishments a good thing, and necessary for any successful society? Students receive excellent grades for excellent work. Is this model problematic? Shouldn't we feel good about ourselves when we are, in fact, good?

Bob,

I am responding to your comments posted 15 September 2008 at 10:06:

There is a copy of "Solemn Appeal" at the Loma Linda University Library. My understanding is that the book contains material written by James White, and also by Ellen White. Nevertheless, the chapter dealing with abortion was authored by James.

Here is what I copied from the Hartland Publication version of the book. Notice that some sections of the book were written by Ellen and others by James.

*********
A Solemn Appeal

Originally edited by James White and published in 1870 by Steam Press at Battle Creek, Michigan, this is a facsimile reprint of the original book. Read what Spirit of Prophecy tells us regarding a marital relationship. Five sections were written by Mrs. White. There are also articles written by James White and several other authors.

Author: James & Ellen White
Pages:67

*********
Ellen's opinion about abortion can be deduced from the fact that she stated that when a husband neglects the health of his pregnant wife, he is "almost murdering" the unborn baby. If you need the reference, let me know!

Bob,

Thanks for your comments dated 16 September 2008 at 9:43:

I say "Amen" to what you stated about abortion. Isn't it ironic that we, who have preached so much about the coming "Time of Trouble" and the "Death Decree" are blind to the fact that the time of trouble is already here for the unborn, and that the death decree has been already issued when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that killing the unborn was legal.

frank7,

Thanks for your comments dated 16 September 2008 at 9:57!

Yes, Paul emphasized the fact that salvation is a free gift of God, and that we are saved by grace alone, without any works. Nevertheless, do not forget that the same Apostle to the Gentiles also stated the following:

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." [Phil. 2:13] This statement seems to be in harmony with what the Apostle James, the brother of Jesus said about this issue:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" [Jemes 2:14]

I conclude that true faith is never alone. It always produces the fruit of the Holy Spirit. I our works are the product of the Holy Spirit, then God gets the credit, but let's not give the impression that it takes no effort to live a Chrisitan life.

Even Jesus, who was the sinless Son of God, had to struggle to resist the temptation of doing his own will, and he conquered through the power of God, but the effort almost killed him the night before his execution.

Some yeas ago, I read the four Gospels in order to discover what Jesus had stated about the role of behavior in our salvation, and I was surprised with the result. It did not sound like the emphasis Saint Paul placed on faith alone.

The parable of the "workers and the landowner" teaches me a slightly different spiritual lesson. It is true that at the end of the day all the workers received the same pay, but this a far cry from saying that no work was required from them. Even those who were invited to the man's vineyard one hour before quitting time, did contribute with one hour's work. They were entitled to one hour pay. The landowner showed extreme generosity, but we cannot argue that they were paid for doing nothing!

Regarding the dying thief, we know very little of his experience prior to his crucifixion. We have had modern cases of murderers who by the time they were executed were already converted Christians. Besides, even if said thief was converted at the last minute, the influence of his testimony represents a valuable contribution to the advance of the Gospel. This means that his reward was not the result of doing nothing!

Many years ago, when my youngest daughter was a little girl, she noticed that my clients would make an appointment with me, and that I would spend as much time as needed to help them locate the right home for them.

My daughter suprised me with the following question: "Dad, how much do you charge per hour?" I told her what it was, and she looked rather sad, because she did not have that much money. I asked her: "Why are you asking?" And she answered: "Because I would like to buy one hour of your time for myself."

She offered her entire fortune, which was a few pennies, and she got her wish. This is what God asks from us. God wants that we contribute with what we have. That is the price of our salvation.

It doesn't pay for even a small portion of the gift, but he gladly accepts what we have. This is the reason I think that the Apostle James, who knew his brother Jesus quite well, had a clearer understanding of salvation than Saint Paul.

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

Dear Nic,

You must understand that I don't own a copy of SA, so I have been trying to fit the pieces of this puzzle together.
OK, so James actually wrote the material on abortion. But
the cover of the book says "by James and Ellen White." To
me, that implies that they wrote different sections, but
issued the book jointly. If this is the case, it really represents both their thinking. To me, this suggests that
the statement on abortion also represents Ellen's viewpoint, even if it was her husband who held the pen in his hand and wrote the words. Am I off base in this?

Dear oxy,

You cannot compare what is beneficial in a sinful society with the kingdom of heaven. Society keeps order by appealing to humanity's selfish motives. But selfish motives are anathema to God.

If we have accepted the free grace of Jesus Christ, we won't be like those corrupt religious leaders. Although we won't be sinless, we will be transformed. The biggest problem with the Pharisees and Sadducees was not their actions. It was their motives. But when we accept God's grace, we gain new motives. Had the religious leaders been open to God's grace, their motives would also have changed.

A Christian can fall into serious sin and remain be saved. But when the person cherishes the sin and refuses to repent, the faith relationship with Christ is eventually severed, and at that point, the person is lost.

Saved from what? Saved from guilty feelings, death, Satan, and yes, from the holy anger of God against sin. God loves you immensely, but He recoils from sin and must destroy it to prevent it from ruining His creation. No, God is not a torturer, but if you don't believe, you are placing yourself in a position where you would never be happy in His presence.
God has no recourse but to finally eliminate those who reject the saving provision He has offered them in Christ. God's holy anger is simply His love that has been spurned, and even annihilation is the best that love can do, given the circumstances.

Dear Nic,

Thanks for caring about the unborn. Let's stick up for them and for all the oppressed of this world! And while we are caring for the unborn, let's also care for the teenage girls and other females who are frightened because they find themselves pregnant. They need our compassion, along with viable alternatives to abortion.

Nic

The Hebrew word (if) can also be translated (of a truth, verily, when) The Greek word (if) can also be translated (when) It is not wise to built a theology on such a narrow
string. Tom

"Many years ago, when my youngest daughter was a little girl, she noticed ... She offered her entire fortune, which was a few pennies, and she got her wish."

Nic, it is quite a coincidence that this story would happen to you and end up in a conutry song.

Nic

A man was held hostage in a third world country. The ransom was 1 million dollars. The U.S. Embassy paid in cash. When the cash was counted by the hostage takers it was two pennies short. The hostage looked down and saw two pennies in his penny loafers. He cried out" "Here, Here" Here are the remaining two cents don't shoot me!. The leader of the hostage taker band grabbed the two cents, shoes and all.

When the hostage got home, the only story he could tell was how two pennies in his shoes saved his life!

No Jesus gave it all! Salvation is of God not man. In gratitude we return our lives to His use--not to gain salvation but to honor the gift of Grace. Tom

Nic

A man was held hostage in a third world country. The ransom was 1 million dollars. The U.S. Embassy paid in cash. When the cash was counted by the hostage takers it was two pennies short. The hostage looked down and saw two pennies in his penny loafers. He cried out" "Here, Here" Here are the remaining two cents don't shoot me!. The leader of the hostage taker band grabbed the two cents, shoes and all.

When the hostage got home, the only story he could tell was how two pennies in his shoes saved his life!

No Jesus gave it all! Salvation is of God not man. In gratitude we return our lives to His use--not to gain salvation but to honor the gift of Grace. Tom

Tom & Frank, thank you both for your kind words of encouragement and insight. They have helped me and I have been blessed by them and by you both. May God bless you both, as well. Raul

Excellent illustration with the two pennies, Tom! If we contribute anything to salvation, it gives us bragging rights. Salvation becomes selfish. No, we contribute nothing. Salvation is God's work from beginning to end.
Even the faith that grasps salvation is God's work, not ours!

Excellent illustration with the two pennies, Tom! If we contribute anything to salvation, it gives us bragging rights. Salvation becomes selfish. No, we contribute nothing. Salvation is God's work from beginning to end.
Even the faith that grasps salvation is God's work, not ours!

Excellent illustration with the two pennies, Tom! If we contribute anything to salvation, it gives us bragging rights. Salvation becomes selfish. No, we contribute nothing. Salvation is God's work from beginning to end.
Even the faith that grasps salvation is God's work, not ours!

Did he, in fact, say that the Glacier View Consensus Statement had not been made public, or is that a bit of memory loss or mis-hearing on the part of our esteemed reporter? The Consensus Statement was published in the October 1980 issue of Ministry. You can see it on the GC Archives & Statistics web site where there is a complete collection of Ministry.

Dear Monte,

Scroll up, and you will see that I already raised your question, and Gill Ford responded that it was a glitch. There is now a consensus that the Consensus Statement did indeed appear in Ministry!

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. The fact that he has truly been blinded - both to truth and his own error - is a tragedy, but if he will not listen to those trying to help him, why doesn't he just go on with his apostate teachings and forget about us altogether? He prefers to believe teachings of the Sunday-keeping churches by his own admission - and they're welcome to him. Diane Styles, Australia

Diane, Do you believe that "by the works of the law, shall no flesh (including good SDA flesh) be justified before God"? Do you believe "that by grace are you saved through faith. It is a gift of God lest any man should boast."

Finally, hymn No. 300 in the Seventh-day Adventist hymnal:

"Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood, From Thy riven side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure, Cleanse me from its guilt and power.

Not the labors of my hands Can fulfill Thy law's demands;
Could my zeal no respite know, Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone; Thou must save, and Thou alone.

When my pilgrimage I close, Victor o'er the last of foes,
When I soar to worlds unknown, And behold Thee on Thy throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee."

Then an extract from the GC theme song:

Jesus Christ, humbly we ask You
Counselor, Judge, Defender and Friend
Give us Your mercy, transform us fully
and Lord, cover us 'till the end

Bob,

Regarding your comments dated 16 September 2008 at 11:04.

That is a good point. I am glad that you noticed that. I did too, after reading your previous comments. I believe that your reasoning is flawless in this respect. One of these days I am going to stop at the Heritage Room of the Loma Linda Library in order to verify this. They have the original book instead of a fascimile copy.

Tom,

I read your comments dated 17 September 2008 at 4:35.

If you consider everything I have posted on this and the other threads dealing with this issue, you will discover that my theology is built not on a "narrow string" but rather on a wide and strong one.

When you are debating about which interpretation of Scripture to give pre-eminence, it is important to consider what will be its effect on the character of God. If an alternative explanation does violence to God's character, it is time to search for another theory of atonement.

Dick

Your comment dated 17 September 2008 at 6:06 took me by surprise. Had I known that something similar had happened to somebody else, I would have hesitaded including this anecdote with my youngest daughter. Had she been alive, I would have asked her to verify the accuracy of what I related, but she died in a car accident back in 1995, when she was almost twenty years old.

I am not into country music. Actually, I am not into music at all at the present time. I used to when I was young, but I mainly got involved with sacred music, and I did contribute to the current Spanish Adventist Church Hymnal with two of the lyrics. Both of them have been well accepted by the Spanish Adventist community.

If you have the lyrics of the country song you made reference to, would you kindly include it here. I am curious about this now!

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

Mike, may I add a few more friendly thoughts for Diane?

"Some of our brethren have expressed fears that we shall dwell too much upon the subject of justification by faith, but I hope and pray that none will be needlessly alarmed; for there is no danger in presenting this doctrine as it is set forth in the scriptures . . . Several have written to me, inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel's message, and I have answered, 'it is the third angel's message in verity.'"
Ellen Whie, 1SM 372

"We are not to be anxious about what Christ and God think of us, but about what God thinks of Christ, our Substitute."
Ellen White, 2SM 32-33

Diane, I have shared these beautiful statements with you as food for thought. My intent is not to focus on Des Ford and whether he is right or wrong. But I am wondering if you really believe the message these statements convey.
I am a loyal Adventist, but a loyal Adventist who believes (as Ellen White did) that justification by faith should be the center of our message. Please don't sell this great truth short. It is the only hope for all of us!

Tom,

Thanks for this new anecdote dated 17 September 2008 at 6:48.

As I said before, you are an excellent story teller. I would not dare to compete with you. I am glad the you did not say that the terrorists refused the two pennies from the hostage. God accepts whatever we can contribute, even though it might two pennies, and then the Lord says: "We did it!"

Bob,

Regarding your 17 September 2008 at 8:01 postings:

Did you post the same comments three times for emphasis? Just kidding!

Diane,

I read your comments dated 17 September 2008 at 7:52.

I am suprised that you make strong assertions about Dr. Ford alleged apostasy, but do not provide any biblical basis for your rejection of his interpretation of Scripture. I would never buy a home that lacks its proper foundation. This applies to doctrine as well.

If you want the readers of this forum to adopt your conclusions, you need to take the time to show us from the Bible why you have rejected Dr. Ford's theological thinking.

Des Ford spent six months of full time study of the Bible, paid by the church, before submitting his view about the Investigative Judment. Do you think that by claiming that he is a heretic that those who read your comments will be convinced that your allegation has a proper biblical foundation?

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

Thanks Nic, and God bless you. As I related earlier, it has been about 20 years since I read "A Solemn Appeal," and I couldn't quite remember who wrote what. But I did recollect that the copy at Andrews had both James' and Ellen's names on it. Whether it was a fascimile copy or an original, I do not know. So be sure to check out the original at Loma Linda, and see if it has both their names on it. If it does, I think it's safe to say that its message comes from both of them.

Did you post the same comments three times for emphasis? Just kidding!

I know, Nic, it really looks like I'm trying to drive my point home, doesn't it? But no, just an error on my part.
I can be very accident prone! LOL

Mike,

Thank you for posting the lyrics of that hymn on 17 September 2008 at 8:44.

They express in a powerful manner the cleansing power of Jesus blood. Nevertheless, every time we sing that hymn, we should not forget what Jesus blood stands for. Jesus himself explained this to the crowd of people which followed him hoping to receive another miraculous free lunch. Jesus told them:

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

They were offended at this saying. Of course, like Nicodemus, they were interpreting his statement in a strictly literal manner, for which reason Jesus took the opportunity to explain the meaning of the metaphor he had used:

"The flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life." [John 6:53 and 63]

And on another occasion, Jesus said to his disciples: "Now you are clean by the words that I have spoken to you."

What cleanses our soul from sin is not the physical drops of blood he shed on Calvary, but rather his words of life. Said words brought the universe into existence, and they bring spiritual life to the soul dead in sin.

Why did Jesus use blood as a symbol of spiritual life? Because the same way as blood circulates through our arteries and veins bringing nourishment to every cell of the body, the words of Jesus perform the same function for our spiritual life.

His words performed this function before his death, and they continued to do the same after we killed him. The only difference was that the love he demonstrated through his life and death, made a special impact on repentant sinners whose influence will last through eternity.

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

The only difference was that the love he demonstrated through his life and death, made a special impact on repentant sinners whose influence will last through eternity.

If we go with the moral influence view of the atonement, I can see how the death of Jesus might demonstrate something of what separation from God entails. But I fail to see how it demonstrates love. If I announce to my family and friends that I'm going to prove how much I love them and then jump from a tall building to my death, they won't make the connection. Instead, they will wonder about my sanity. If we dispense with the substitutionary atonement, Jesus was merely a great example and teacher, as in Islam, and His death was nothing more than another bloody execution.

Bob,

Regarding your comments dated 18 September 2008 at 6:38:

The substitutionary explanation for the atonement does the opposite of what the Lord wanted to convey through the life and death of Jesus Christ. It paints God as arbitrary--demanding the death of the innocent; vengeful--venting his wrath against his own Son; and unforgiving--refusing to forgive unles full payment was made in blood.

Given the fact that the Jewish leaders were bent on getting rid of Jesus and determined to kill him, God decided that the best course of action was to let the Devil have his way for our sakes. It would give us a vivid emonstration of the contrast between the character of God and the character of Satan.

Satan had maligned God's character and described him as arbitrary, vengeful and unforgiving. The cross demonstrated exactly the opposite, and revealed to the entire universe who was in fact arbitrary--Satan demanded the death of the innocent; vengeful--It was Satan's way of gettin back at Jesus for having been kicked our of heaven; and unforgiving--Satan was determined to get his pound of flesh.

By his submission to torture and a most cruel death, Jesus revealed to his followers and the entire universe the true nature of God, as patient, loving, and forgiving. He even prayed for those who were torturing him. That was what humanity and the universe needed to break the power of the Devil.

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

Dear Nic,

You write as if the cross wasn't really God's plan and as if God reluctantly chose this course because the religious leaders were determined to kill Jesus. But the Bible pictures things differently. It says that Jesus was predestined to die. He was the Lamb Who was slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8)

Now I agree with you that Jesus showed great love and forebearance when He was being tortured and killed. In this, He gave us a noble example. But it wasn't a totally unique example. There have been a few other martyrs (some not even Christians) who were just as brave and gracious when they were being killed. I know Christians may not enjoy hearing this, but an unbiased study of history demonstrates that it is true. There had to be more to Jesus' death than this!

I do not believe that the substitutionary atonement maligns God's character at all, unless one holds to an Arian view of Christ. If Jesus wasn't fully God - if He was merely one of God's innocent creatures - then you are correct. God did vent His wrath against His Son. Indeed, it would have been very unjust for God to punish an innocent third party for humanity's sin. But this is not what God did!

No, Jesus Christ is fully God! So God took His wrath against human sin on Himself in Christ, and this was completely just. You see, God is the Judge of the human race, and He had every right to do this. It's like a story I heard about Fiorello La Guardia, who eventually became the mayor of New York City. During the Great Depression, he was a judge, and a woman was brought before him who had been stealing food to feed her family. Well La Guardia found her guilty. He had to, because she had broken the law. But then he paid her fine himself and set her free. The citizens of New York City loved La Guardia and even named an airport after him because he was an unusually kind man.

Now I realize this type of action on the part of a judge is extremely rare, but it's exactly what God has done because He loves us! For God to uphold His character, He must be just as well as merciful. Sin is terrible - it threatens the very stability of the universe. Even seemingly small sins like eating fruit from a forbidden tree are terrible. You see, if little acts of selfishness go unchecked, they quickly mushroom into big acts of selfishness. Read the Genesis story. Adam and Eve ate the fruit (little sin),
but the very next generation committed murder (big sin).
It maligns God's character to suggest that He should
simply wipe the slate clean without recognizing the serious nature of these offenses. God would not be just if He merely overlooked evil and did not punish it. In fact, if (hypothetically) sin were to spread beyond the earth, God's innocent creatures (angels and whoever else is out there) would not be able to trust Him to protect them from it. But in the cross, God found a way to do what La Guardia did. He showed total justice by upholding His law. But at the same time, He showed total mercy to us poor, miserable sinners. And in this great act of righteousness, God has revealed His character of justice and mercy to us and to all creation!

Nic,

This is exactly what I have thought...that your view of the divinity or lack of divinity of Christ is what helps drive your position. If Christ was merely human, you would have a case. If he is fully god, as the NT teaches, then this all falls to the ground. The Father is not punishing some innocent victim, Christ, as the God-man offered his life of his own free-will.

If Christ is God, then the plan was his. He wasn't roped in as a merely human, innocent punching bag. God himself took our place and determined this from the foundation of the world.

An Arian view of Christ and God is what has driven all types of theological distortions in the history of Adventism, as well as Christianity at large.

Please clarify my understanding if i misunderstand your view of the divinity of Jesus, and the trinity.

Thanks...

Frank

A debate that has raged for centuries is between those who say Jesus was just like us, and those who say He had an advantage over us. Both views state that Jesus perfectly obeyed the law of God from birth to death, and thus secured our salvation, by doing that which we could not do, and that by believing in Christ and His sacrifice, we are accepted by God as though we had not sinned, and saved for all eternity.

If Jesus was just like us, some believe that the substitutionary atonement is just the beginning, and that we can overcome sin just as Christ overcame sin…and indeed we must do this at the end of time, just before the return of Christ, in order to be saved. That we must stand before God without a mediator. They believe that if Jesus had an advantage over us, that the substitutionary atonement would not be valid. That it would be a hollow victory! They also believe that there is no excuse for sin, and that if there is, then the Devil is right and God is wrong.

Those who believe that Christ had an advantage over us state that Christ is the second Adam, and that He succeeded where Adam failed, and thus secured our salvation. And that there was no taint of sin whatsoever in Christ, both physically and spiritually. Further, that we, with our fallen sinful natures, can never, ever, live sinless lives until Christ returns and gives us new bodies and minds. That it is only by laying hold of the merits of the crucified Christ that we are accepted by God as though we had never sinned, and saved for all eternity.

The first option tends to lead toward legalistic perfectionism. The second option tends to lead toward irresponsibility. Decisions, decisions!

I'm going to go way, way out on a limb, and say that these two views are delusion v delusion. They both turn the old, old story of Jesus and His love into a fairy tale. They imply that God is a legalistic-perfectionistic, blood-thirsty monster who doesn't think we're good enough for Him. They are both sort of logical, when isolated from the realities of every day life, but they are utterly illogical when reality is clearly faced without distortion or rationalization.

I believe that Jesus was just like us, but that He was very, very spiritually refined and developed, and that He demonstrated to the human race, the true character of God, and what we humans are capable of achieving, and indeed must achieve, to usher in a great awakening…a true renaissance…which will bring peace to the world. By His sacrifice on the cross, Jesus made the bloody Old Testament sacrificial system obsolete, and made a new and living way to be right with God available to all, by following His Teachings and example of loving neighbor as self in a non-legalistic and non-pefectionistic way.

To be right with God, we need to be right with God. Not just declared right with God. Regarding the substitutionary atonement...this symbolic and representational demonstration did not require perfection. God does not require perfection from us…and God did not require perfection from Jesus. This may be heresy…but at least it makes sense. Nothing changed between God and us. When we see Jesus, we see the Father. Christ-like Divinity is found from Genesis to Revelation. You just have to look a little harder in the Old Testament! Human perceptions of God changed from Old to New Testaments. That's all!

We must be in harmony with the character of Christ...and we must be decidedly part of the solution. We must not be in rebellion with the character of Christ...and we must not be decidedly part of the problem. We need to be very good, but not perfect! This is an ongoing process of cooperation between humanity and Divinity. We need God…and God needs us!

This is a hard saying. Who can hear it? But please don't gnash your teeth. Crowns or implants are very expensive! Weeping and wailing is probably ok, I guess. And please...put down those stones!

By the way...who is Desmond Ford, SJ?

Dear oxy,

Trying to find God's favor by following Jesus' teachings is sheer legalism! It may sound beautiful at first, but it is a dead end street that can only lead to despair.

Why? Well as a matter of fact, God does demand moral perfection. But this does not mean that He is a blood-thirsty monster. As I pointed out above, small acts of selfishness quickly lead to large acts of selfishness.
So moral perfection is the only road to go if the stability of the universe is to be maintained. I would submit to you that for the intelligent beings whom God has created, moral perfection is very normal. It's sin that is strange. Our thinking about this tends to be reversed because we have only experienced an imperfect world. But sin actually makes us less than human. We are warped! We are the odd balls!

The principles in the ten commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are the moral basis for stability in the created order.
But as a sinful human, try living by them. Unless you are completely delusional, it won't be long before you realize that you have blown it!

By the way, being declared righteous (justified) in the sight of God does not lead to irresponsibility. On the contrary,
it's the greatest incentive for loving, non-judgmental obedience!

Bob
You wrote:"Trying to find God's favor by following Jesus' teachings is sheer legalism! It may sound beautiful at first, but it is a dead end street that can only lead to despair."

No wonder they crucified him! The man was driving people to despair! Seriously, Bob, I can't believe you actually wrote what you did.

PS. I think we should do what's right, whether it pleases God or not. That way even non-believers, such as myself, can profit from the Gospels. Doing what's right simply to save your bacon is a perverted ethics, in my opinion.

Bob,

Thanks for your comments date on September 2008 at 8:23.

My theory is that God did not choose, and he did not require that the innocent be killed to satisfy the demands of justice. God rather gave us two alternatives, and we chose the wrong one. In his mercy, he did not destroy us, and turned a curse into a blessing. This is what the Lord knows how to do so well. It is what he did with Joseph in the Old Testament when he was sold into slavery. Assuming that God instigated the cruel treatment he received from his eleven brothers would be a mistake. God could have saved Jacob’s family from the coming famine in many ways. God did not choose evil, but rather transformed an evil deed into a blessing.

Yes, the Bible portrays a picture as if God did plan the killing of his own Son. The problem is that after the fact explanations do not provide an accurate description of what really took place. Joseph told his brothers that divine providence led him to Egypt, as if to minimize the evil act perpetrated by his brothers. His brothers knew better than that. Their conscience clearly pointed to their guilt.

Yes, God’s Lamb was slain “from the foundation of the world.” The problem is how you interpret said passage. One alternative is to say that God planned and demanded that Jesus die on a cross. Another option is to suggest that the Lamb lf God died figuratively the moment sin and rebellion destroyed the peace and harmony of the universe.

Humans have the tendency to interpret biblical statements in a literal manner. When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again, he refused to understand this as a metaphor. When Jesus told his followers that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, they were offended. Jesus had to explain to them that his blood was a symbol of his words. [John 6:63] His words act in like manner to physical blood. It circulates through our spiritual arteries and veins, bring spiritual life to our dying spirit.

I believe that we have the privilege and duty to understand the correct meaning of biblical metaphors. This Ellen White did in Education page 263. She told us there that God’s suffering did not begin nor did it end with the cross. It started when sin opened the floodgates of evil. “In all their afflictions, he was afflicted.”

If you accept this, then you will conclude that God’s suffering is not an arbitrary way of balancing the books of heaven, but rather the natural result of sin and rebellion. You will also realize that in terms of suffering, God suffered more than enough by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. He was born to be a king. We had the choice of crowning him as a king. We rather chose to kill him.

This is why the death of the Messiah is described on a contingency basis in at least two instances in Scripture: John 12:32 and Isaiah 53:10. “If I am lifted up” and “If he gives his life as an offering.” For the same reason God promised a glorious future for Jerusalem and to God’s chosen nation. Read the fourth chapter of Micah. It describes an earthly kingdom with the Messiah reigning over them “for evermore.”

Thus we see, that biblical prophecy predicted both the reigning and the death of the Messiah over and earthly Jewish kingdom. Both alternative options were open to God’s chosen race. The outcome hinged on human response to God's promises and warnings.

This is why Jesus, on the occasion of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem lamented his rejection by his own people with the following words: “If thou hast known … the things that belong to thy peace.” This implies that the Jews could have known what could have secured the peace of the Holy Nation. Jesus came down from heaven to bring peace to the Holy City. Had they accepted their promised Messiah and king, Jesus would have reigned over them, and Jerusalem would have become the capital of the world.

This scenario was included in the writings of Ellen White. As you can see, we have another “If” statement implying the contingency basis of God’s predictions. The Lord always grants humans both promises and warning. We make the final choice. This is the way it was with Israel of old, with David the king, and with the promises given to his son Solomon. God’s promises were contingent on human response.

The substitutionary theory of atonemes makes no moral sense. Killing the innocent violates God’s principle of justice, and compounds the moral problem. It also destroys the true meaning of forgiveness as defined by my dictionary. If a friend of mine pays for my speeding ticket, it would make no sense for the judge to say “I forgive you.”

Besides, substitution is never accepted under criminal law. If I did commit a crime, the judge will not allow my friend to take my place. Substitution is only acceptable under civil penalties. The ‘Fiorello La Guardia” example you cite was a civil case, not a criminal one!

You argue that sin is a terrible thing. I agree. Once you understand God’s suffering from the time sin and rebellion broke out in heaven, you will realize that God did suffer enough throughout the history of mankind, and you will agree with Ellen White that the cross was merely a window which allowed us to see the suffering God was subjected to since the inception of sin. [Education, page 63]

You argue that God needed to suffer. Ellen White responds that God did suffer, and that his suffering did not begin with the events surrounding his crucifixion and death, but rather when sin and rebellion brought with it suffering and death to God’s children, and to God himself. God did not plan, nor did he require the death of his Son. The Lord simply permitted Satan to have his pound of flesh that we might have a chance to see what sin does to even God himself.

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

Bob
Disregard my comment above. It comes across as much more flip and abrasive that I like it to be.

Dear Aage,

I was not at all offended by your comment, nor did I find it abrasive. Peace! I admit that when it comes to defending the gospel, I do make bold statements. I guess I'm just intoxicated by grace!

I should have qualified my statement by inserting the word "ethical" before the word "teachings." But with
that qualification, I must humbly stand by my statement.

However, I'm wondering if you might have misunderstood me. I'm all for doing right, whether it pleases God or not (although I strongly believe it does). This is actually what I am arguing for. But doing right "to save your bacon" is indeed a perverted ethic. There's a term that Christians have for it - legalism! Following Jesus' ethical teachings to save your bacon, or more precisely, your skin, can only result in legalism! Instead of doing good to "save" something, let's do good for goodness' sake! This is what Jesus advocated.

Dear Nic,

There are a number of points where we agree. First, God is a master at bringing good out of evil. God did not instigate the cruel treatment Joseph received from his brothers, but God worked through it. And it may surprise you to hear this coming from me, but I actually do not believe that God instigated the cruel treatment Jesus received. Instead, God knew it was coming, and God worked through it. I also agree with both you and Ellen White that from sin's inception, God has been suffering pain. Furthermore, I agree that the Jewish nation could have accepted Jesus, and He could have reigned over them as King. But I believe that Jesus would still have been killed, though by another group of people.

However -

You persist in describing my position as God killing His Son. And I respond again, you are misunderstanding me. This is an Arian position; it is not my position. I am a Trinitarian, and I believe God worked through events to take the death penalty on Himself. He did not kill His Son!

It is true that God commands us humans to forgive unconditionally, and as a result, we tend to view forgiveness as unconditional. But our situation is very different from God's. As sinners, we are guilty, and we offend other people. So it is the height of arrogance for us not to forgive others unconditionally. But when our first parents sinned, could God just wipe the slate clean, no questions asked? I submit to you that this would be totally unloving on the part of God. (Yes, God's love and justice are really the same thing!) If God did this, it would imperil the entire universe, and it would cause innocent creatures out there (angels and anyone else) to fear for their lives at the hand of Satan. It short, it would be a sell out to Satan! Is that love?

No, like Fiorello La Guardia, God must uphold the law. But again, I am afraid you are misunderstanding me when you state that if you committed a crime, the judge would not allow your friend to take your place. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the judge takes your place. There is a huge difference between the judge punishing your innocent friend for what you did (Arian position) and the judge taking your punishment on himself (Trinitarian position). Furthermore, I see no basis in scripture for assuming that God's court is bound by the distinction between criminal and civil law. In God's court, any selfishness, even the selfish condition we are born with (original sin), is a capital offence. It must be so, or the entire universe is in peril and about to be conquered by Satan.

You desribe the substitutionary model as a metaphor and do not take it literally. But yet you accept the moral influence metaphor as the real thing. What basis do you have for that? Where does scripture say that one is real and the other isn't?

I suggest that we need both models, plus several others, if we are to understand the atonement correctly. The cross is a moral influence, but it is much more than that. We cannot run with this one model and dismiss all the others. In doing so, you are turning Jesus' death into nothing more than a heroic act of martyrdom.

Bob,

I read your comments posted on 21 September 2008 at 10:29 more than once, and I am pleasantly surprised that we seem to agree on some fundamental details of the theory of atonement. As far as God’s foreknowledge, there are two possibilities.

One: God does know the future, including the choices people who have not been born yet will make. Example: Before creating this earth, God knew what color of necktie I would be wearing next Sabbath for church. Two: God can see the alternative outcomes, and he is prepared to deal with them but he doesn’t know exactly what men will choose to do, since he has provided human beings with free will.

If God can read the future as an open book, including the human responses to divine guidance, then we have to admit that God did know that Jesus would be rejected and killed, and that he decided to let evil run its course knowing that he could and would transform the most tragic event in the history of mankind into the greatest blessing.

Sometime ago I read a statement written by Ellen White where she suggested that God spreads his spiritual talents among many because people are often quite unpredictable. If this is true, then perhaps Dr. Richard Rice is right in his theory that our God-given freedom is real, and that even God cannot predict how humans will respond to the opportunities they will be faced with. [See “The Openness of God, by Richard Rice]

The point at which we seem to part company is your notion that, even if God’s chosen nation had opted to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King, that Jesus would still be killed somehow. My question is: Why? If it is true that God’s suffering began with the entrance of sin into the universe, then why would there be any need for the Messiah to suffer even more?

One potential explanation would be because we needed to see what sin does to even God. If this is the reason you believe that Jesus would still need to give his life, I have no problem with that, as long as we do not fall into the trap of arguing that God required that he be killed.

I can’t visualize God being on the side of those who cried: “Crucify him! Crucify him!” And saying to himself, “Yes! He must be killed.” I do not believe that God’s plan of salvation was contingent on the cruel action of Satan and evil men.

God can transform evil into a blessing, but he is not dependent on the actions of evildoers for the accomplishment of his beneficent purposes for men. He can redeem us from Satan’s power in spite of the opposition of the forces of evil, and not thanks to their action.

You seem to have a hard time letting go of the substitutionary explanation for the death of Jesus. This is understandable. This metaphor is in the Bible. I have been trying to imagine if I could accommodate the substitutionary explanation under the moral theory of atonement. There seems to be one way this would be possible.

Ellen White states that Lucifer at one point asked to be reinstated into his former position in heaven, and he was told that this was impossible, since he had sinned having full knowledge of God’s character and glory. There was no way any additional revelation of God’s character would alter the evil character he had developed. There was no hope for him. Then he probably argued that this was not fair for God to refuse giving him a second chance, but grant Adam and Eve this.

I presume that Lucifer must have kept insisting that this was unfair, and that for fairness sake, if he was going to perish, then man must share in his fate. If this is in fact what took place, then God might have said. If you insist that man must suffer the death penalty, then my Only Son will take human form and become man’s substitute. This would be a concession, instead of a requirement demanded by God.

Nevertheless, even this scenario presents for me serious problems. It would grant too much power to Satan and diminish God’s authority over the administration of justice and mercy. My thoughts immediately moved to the story of the Prodigal Son.

The moment the father saw his repentant son coming back home, he ran to meet him and immediately arranged for a great celebration. He did not say, wait a minute, you sinned, someone must die before I can forgive and accept you. My question to you: Can humans be more gracious, more merciful, and more ready to forgive than God?

There are many biblical passages where the Lord declared that what he requires is not sacrifice, but rather “To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before the Lord.” [Micah 6:8] The moment the prodigal son turned his back to his former life and came back home, his father accepted him without any pre-conditions.

You stated that you are a Trinitarian. The Adventist pioneers were not, and I am not one either. The doctrine of the Trinity was a Catholic introduction into the Christian faith, and it has a pagan origin. There is not a separate entity identified as the Holy Spirit. God is Holy, and God is Spirit. God’s angels are also Holy, and they are Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is simply the invisible manifestation of God's presence among men. The first instance we find a reference to the Holy Spirit is in Genesis 1, and some translators render the term “Holy Spirit” as “God’s presence,” or even “God’s wind.” The same is true about the reference to the Holy Spirit in Psalm 139:7: “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?” The context indicates that the reference is to God’s presence.

In contrast, whenever God’s presence was visible, it was often manifested through one of God’s angels or even God himself. [See the story of Gideon in Judges 11] I have been unable to locate a biblical reference to anybody worshipping the Holy Spirit, or any injunction for such an act.

Saint Peter told us that God’s prophets spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, the examples we have in the Bible indicates that the instruments of revelation were rather God’s angels. The angel Gabriel was Gods messenger to Daniel, John the Revelator, and to Mary the mother of Jesus.

For more on this topic, see the following: http://sdaforum.com/page58.html

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

Nic,

There is the rub. The question beyond your view of the Holy Spirit is do you believe that Jesus himself is God, or is he merely a created being? Your view of Jesus is what drives your argument, for if he is God, then he was the architect, not simply a human victim of substitutionary atonement.

If you do not believe that Jesus is God, then what do you do with Jn. 1? If you do, then one of the central premises of your argument seems to fall to the ground.

Thanks...

Frank

frank7,

Your comments dated 23 September 2008 at 4:26 suggest that I might be an Arrian who does not believe that Jesus is God. My answer is that I am not that kind of an Arrian. The Bible is very clear regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ and he is credited with being God's intrument in the creation of the universe.

When Jesus stated: "I am" he was referring to the Great "I am" of the Old Testament, and his enemies understood this quite well, and sought to kill him arguing that he was guilty of blasphemy.

The notion that Jesus masterminded his own execution and death is anathema to me. I do not believe in a masochistic God. Ellen White describes God as being subjected to suffering right from the beggining, when sin and rebellion marred the harmony of heaven. She also says that the suffering of Jesus did not begin nor did it end with his death on the cross [Education page 63]. The Lamb of God was "slain from the foundation of the world."

The suffering of Jesus was not an arbitrary imposition by God, but rather the natural reaction to sin and rebellion. It started when Lucifer rebelled against his Maker, and it will stop when sin is eradicated from the universe. The cross was not a clever maneuver to balance the books of heaven, but rather the natural result of sin.

Jesus submitted to torture and death that we might see the contrast between the character of Satan and God. We needed to see this, but it is a mistake to conclude that the Lord demanded that the innocent die. It was Satan who demanded the pound of flesh, and not God. If God demanded that the penalty of sin be paid in full, then forgivenes looses its real meaning. True forgiveness is the decision not to insist on the payment of the debt.

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

"Ellen White states that Lucifer at one point asked to be reinstated into his former position in heaven, and he was told that this was impossible, since he had sinned having full knowledge of God’s character and glory."

Please, please, do not interject nonbiblical presumptions unless you can fully support this statement directly from the Bible. Is Ellen infallible and inerrant? Her conjecture, unless fully substantiated from the Bible, has caused much harm in elevating the Devil (Lucifer is a name Jerome gave for "light-bearer" when describing the King of Tyre in Isaiah and Ezekiel and has nothing to do with Satan, or the devil) wishing to be reinstated, or, as some believe, to be co-creator of this earth. Where did this concept originate?

"The best-known fallen angel is Lucifer. Lucifer is a name frequently given to Satan in Christian belief. This usage stems from a particular interpretation, as a reference to a fallen angel, of a passage in the Bible (Isaiah 14:3-20) that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (in Latin, Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. The same Latin word is used of the morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere with no relation to Satan. But Satan is called Lucifer in many writings later than the Bible, notably in Milton's Paradise Lost."

Wikipedia on Satan/Lucifer

Dear Nic,

Thank you for carefully reading what I have said. I believe we are beginning to understand our respective theological positions a little better. And I think you are beginning to realize that I don't believe that God killed His Son! No, I believe that in Christ, God gave His own life in our place.
He took the penalty for sin on Himself. This is very different from God killing His Son! But let me add that I don't believe in a masochistic God either. A masochist is someone who derives pleasure (often sexual pleasure) from self-inflicted, physical pain. Clearly, a person who gives his/her life on behalf of others is not a masochist. Would you consider a soldier who falls on a grenade and dies to save his buddies a masochist? I hope not! God did not die on the cross because He enjoyed it. He died on the cross because He loves us! It is not masochism to give one's life on behalf of others.

You stated that you are not a Trinitarian, but yet you seem to believe that Jesus is God. Are you at least a Binitarian? Do you believe that Jesus is almighty God in the fullest sense, along with the Father? I ask this because you cannot possibly understand my view of the atonement without believing in the full Deity of Jesus Christ.

Yes, many of the Adventist pioneers (but not Ellen White) were Arians. And yes, the Roman Catholic Church is Trinitarian. The modern Seventh-day Adventist Church is also Trinitarian. But none of this has any bearing on whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true or false. That must be determined by scripture. Scripture portrays the Holy Spirit as a Person, not as a presence. For example, in Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit speaks and uses first person pronouns. I have the Greek text here in front of me, and the first person pronouns are in the original text. They are not a translator's gloss or paraphrase. A presence doesn't speak; only a person speaks. And one only uses "I" and "me" (or their equivalents in other languages) when dealing with a person. Arians identify the Holy Spirit with a presence or force, and I have heard that Muslims identify the Holy Spirit with the angel Gabriel. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.) But the New Testament portrays the Holy Spirit as a Person and as God. (See Acts 5:3-4; 13:2; 2 Cor 3:18) Furthermore, scripture also affirms that the Father is God (Eph 1:3) and Jesus is God (John 1:1; 20:28). In fact, Jesus is the very imprint of the Father's Substance. (This is how the Greek reads in Heb 1:3.) They are one in Substance.
And yet there is only one God. See Isa 43:10; 44:6, and James 2:19. Note that according to Jesus, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share the same name (Matt 28:19). In scripture, names represent character and essence. So the fact that they share the same name is equivalent to saying that they are one in character and essence. They are God almighty. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is not a pagan instrusion into Christianity. It is very Biblical, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church (along with other Christian churches) is correct in affirming it.

I read Richard Rice's "The Openness Of God" over 20 years ago when I was a college student. And I have since read more evangelically oriented process theology (Clark Pinnock). I have given it serious thought, but I cannot affirm it. My reasons are two-fold. First, scripture tells us that God knows all things (John 21:17). So He really does know the future. Secondly, from my reading, it seems that the open view of God assumes that God engages in a developmental process with the universe. In other words, God is part of the universe and evolves (in a non-Darwinian sense) with it.
But scripture pictures God as totally other. He created the universe, and He transcends the universe. He is above and beyond the universe. Furthermore, this view of God is affirmed by the findings of modern science. (Yes, science and scripture are often on the same side!) According to astro-physics, matter-energy and space-time were created in the big bang. They had an absolute beginning. So if God is the Creator, then He created the space-time manifold. Therefore, He must reside outside the space-time manifold. He is the eternal "I AM" Who is beyond space and time as we understand them. And if this is the case, then He can view all of space and all of time in one glance. He really is all-knowing, and He can see everything that will occur in the future. But all this is quite contrary to process theology.

Bob: while my comments here to your posting runs the risk of veering off the main topic, I can't resist asking you some questions concerning your take on Open Theism. You write: "scripture tells us that God knows all things (John 21:17). So He really does know the future" But certainly 'all things' means all possible things. Just as God cannot make a square circle (I would presume you'd agree) there are some 'things' that are really non-existent. Open Theism doesn't disagree with your text at all. It says that when humans make a free choice then that event is as inherently unknowable as a square circle is uncreatable. So your objection here does not really speak to the point Open Theists affirm.

Second, you state "He must reside outside the space-time manifold. He is the eternal "I AM" Who is beyond space and time as we understand them. And if this is the case, then He can view all of space and all of time in one glance".

Tell me just how God 'views' time? To view something implies that whatever is being viewed is spatial. You are using here a spatial metahor for a temporal concept. And, I would note, you are far from alone. This is typically done in defense of Classical Theism. Fine. If you (or anyone) wishes to do so then please explain what it really means to 'see' time. I don't think you can do this without conceptually conflating space & time. And I don't know why anyone should think that a spatial metaphor is applicable to time. Now, I'm really not trying to be argumenative here, just owning up to what I think is a problem.

Dear Rick,

I agree with you that God cannot make a circle square. He cannot achieve things that are absolutely non-existent. But in Einstein's concept of the universe, time becomes the 4th dimension, and space and time are blended into four dimensional space-time. Now as three-dimensinal creatures, we obviously cannot see time. But if God created all dimensions, then He transcends them. So God may well be able to view space-time in a way that we cannot.

I may be wrong about this, (and I welcome further dialog with you about it), but it seems to me that General Relativity and Big Bang Cosmology fit much better with classical theism than with the open view.

And yes, I am aware that I have diverged a long way from the original discussion, which concerned the meaning of the atonement!

P.S. Sorry Rich, I mistakenly called you Rick.

Bob: thanks for the response. However (you knew there would be a 'however' didn't you :-) ) I find the conflating of the concepts of space & time - which seem heterogeneous to me - under the homogeneous heading of 'dimensions' to be inappropriate. Just putting them together under a common label may be fine as a convenience, but not so fine IMO if in so doing there is also an implied similarity. I don't think there is any more resolution of my 'problem' by introducing the (I would say arbitrary) umbrella term of dimensions.

I realize you personally have not freshly introduced this, but are just using a familiar paradigm. But familiarity doesn't necessarily mean is it coherent. And I don't (yet) see its coherence. I also readily concede my general cluelessness as a human. God could well do as you say and the problem is human inadequacy to express this due to our limitations. But if this is the bottom line then what I hear you saying is what I call 'punting to transcendence'. That is, we realize that God is transcendent and we are very limited. So - for all we know - some 'X' could be the case. But if we instead think that we have answers here that are coherent to humans (i.e. *not* appealing to transcendence) then I want to understand how you or anyone can coherently use spatial metaphors for time.

Dear Rich,

Please understand that I am willing to listen to proponents of open theism. My mind is not totally closed. But I don't see the evidence pointing in that direction.

The reality of Relativity Theory is beyond dispute. And the reality of the four dimensional space-time that it requires is beyond dispute. These concepts can be demonstrated both by math and by observational science. (Some examples are black holes, gravitational lensing, and the actual observation of time dilation involving short half-life radioactive isotopes.) I realize that space and time seem quite different; even Einstein admitted as much. But this is what his equations and the experimental data indicate. The paradigm is both real and coherent, and physicists use it on a regular basis.

However, aside from this esoteric matter of space-time, my understanding of open theism (please correct my if I'm wrong) requires a God Who is actually part of the universe and evolving with it. This is why it is often termed "Process Theology." But when modern cosmology (which is based on Relativity) states that even space and time (or space-time) had an absolute beginning, this seems to require an extremely transcendant Creator, Who is totally "other" from the universe. If I am understanding open theism correctly, it just doesn't mesh with such a transcendant concept of God.

"The best-known fallen angel is Lucifer. Lucifer is a name frequently given to Satan in Christian belief. This usage stems from a particular interpretation, as a reference to a fallen angel, of a passage in the Bible (Isaiah 14:3-20) that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (in Latin, Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. The same Latin word is used of the morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere with no relation to Satan. But Satan is called Lucifer in many writings later than the Bible, notably in Milton's Paradise Lost."
_______________________________________________________
Elaine, it seems to me that while Isaiah 14 is addressed to the king of Babylon and Ezekiel 28 is addressed to the king of Tyre, the prophets' language in describing these kings transcends anything we could reasonably expect from mere earthly monarchs. For example, was the king of Babylon really in heaven? Was the king of Tyre really a cherub who was in Eden? This type of language forces me to conclude that Isaiah and Ezekiel are describing an evil spirit king who was the hidden power behind these pagan monarchies.

Elaine,

Thanks for your comments dated 23 September 2008 at 10:10.

You did object to my reference to Ellen White, and you asked: "Is Ellen infallible and inerrant?" My answer is "No." She herself denied being infallible, and she even stated that only God is infallible; which, by implication, means that even the Bible is not infallible. She also affirmed that, when the copies of the Bible were few, some copyists attempted to clarify wome biblical statements and thus introduced a few errors into the sacred text.

My philosophy is that we should be free to use any source which tends to agree with the Bible and Common sense. Her version of what transpired between Lucifer and God makes sense to me; and, if my memory serves me right, Milton stated something similar in his "Paradise Lost." I don't care whether it was Milton or Ellen White who was inspired to write such a comment, but it makes sense to me. If it makes no sense to you, I have no problem with that.

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

Bob,
I read the comments you posted on 23 September 2008 at 10:53.

I agree with your statement affirming that Jesus “took the penalty for sin on Himself.” The question is: When did he do this? I believe that this started the moment rebellion marred the harmony of heaven. The suffering of God was not concentrated on the cross, but rather spread out over time, and it will be over with the eradication of evil from the universe. Second, it was not an arbitrary imposition or demand from heaven, but rather the natural result of Lucifer’s rebellion. Christians quite often describe the penalty for sin as an eternal separation from God. If this is in fact the punishment for sin, then Jesus did not pay such a penalty, since his separation from God lasted a very short time—surely not for eternity.

Regarding my view of Jesus: The answer is “Yes.” I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, existing from eternity, fully God, yet subject to the authority of God the Father. [Read 1 Corinthians 15:28] You do believe in the Trinity, and argue that the Holy Spirit can’t be simply God’s presence, since “A presence doesn't speak; only a person speaks.” This is true, and animals do not speak either, yet the donkey Prophet Balaam was riding on did speak. So did dead Lazarus when he was in Abraham’s bosom, and so did the souls of the dead from under the altar as recorded in Revelation. Personification is a prominent feature of Hebrew literature. Animals, trees, and nature in general are described with human characteristics.

You mentioned the Angel Gabriel. This angel was God’s instrument in the revelation of God’s purposes to Daniel the prophet, John the Revelator, and Mary the mother of Jesus. Did you notice what the Angel Gabriel stated to Daniel following his explanation for his long delay in coming to his help? He had been busy lobbying the Kings of Persia, and clarified that there was nobody to help him except Michael: “No one supports me against them, except Michael your Prince.” [Daniel 10:12,13, and 21]

This is very significant, since Saint Peter states that the Holy Spirit was God’s instrument in the revelatory experience of prophets. [2 Peter 1:21] Why would Gabriel, a mere angel, state that there was no one to help him, except Michael? Was the Holy Spirit on vacation? Read also the revelatory chain we find in the last book of the Bible. We have God, Jesus, God’s angel, and John. Notice again the absence of the Holy Spirit from this revelatory chain. [Rev. 1:1] If the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical, then why did it take Christianity almost four centuries to discover it?

Regarding foreknowledge, I agree that God knows everything: everything that exists, and everything that he intends to create or cause to exist. The classical proof for God’s foreknowledge is found in Isaiah chapter 46:10-11. Nevertheless, a careful examination of these texts reveal that God is referring to what he intends to do in the future, and not what brand of ice cream a person will choose a thousand years from now: “I make known the end from the beginning … What I have planned, that I will do.”

Regarding the Big Bang, I do not believe in this science fiction. This theory is built on faulty logic. Its basic assumption is purely materialistic. It posits that, since the universe seems to expand, then by calculating the rate of expansion, we can detect the timing of the Big Bang. This is like saying that if a car is accelerating, we can predict what time the car started. This is true, provided we can be sure that there is no one behind the wheel. The moment you grant that there is a driver, then no mathematic computation will be able to tell you when the car started, because the driver does accelerate and he also slows down the vehicle’s speed at will. If God is in charge of the universe, there is no way to calculate when the universe came into existence.

The idea that God is outside of time and space is also pure science fiction. No entity can be outside of space and time. Even for God, before the existence of the universe, there must have been a sequence of what he was thinking or planning. The moment anything exists, it must exist within time and space.

As far as black holes are concerned, I do not believe in them either. Nothing is suppossed to escape from a black hole. Well, the latest I have read is that this is not strictly true. Even Stephen Hawkins admitted, I believe, that he was wrong about black holes. If you are interested, I believe I can dig this out.

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

Dear Nic,

Well we have strayed from our original topic, which was the atonement. What you believe about the scientific issues you mentioned will certainly not affect your relationship with God. But let me elaborate a bit more. I am aware that this is an Adventist Forum site, and many different viewpoints are expressed. However, just for the record, I am a convinced creationist. In fact, my views on creation parallel those presented by the Geoscience Research Institute there on the Loma Linda campus. I believe that our ordered world with its living organisms was created in six literal days, and I also believe that the Genesis Flood accounts for the majority of the fossil record. However, I believe in an ancient universe and solar system. Furthermore, it seems to me that Big Bang Cosmology fits nicely with the Biblical concept of an ex nihilo creation of the universe. I find nothing in Big Bang Cosmology that conflicts with scripture, and it is part of the General Relativity paradigm, which I find very convincing.

As far as black holes are concerned, they are not speculation. They have actually been observed. Or rather, matter has been observed falling into them. I have read Stephen Hawking's thinking on black holes, but he certainly does not deny their existence. And while I believe that God exists outside our space-time manifold, I'm sure He does reside in some type of realm. I look on heaven as a real place, but I tend to believe it is located outside the universe. Note that Paul speaks of the third heaven in 2 Cor 12:2. If the first heaven is the earth's atmosphere, and the second heaven is the realm of the stars, then the third heaven (God's abode) must be beyond the starry realm, i.e. outside the confines of the universe. And are you aware that scripture itself affirms the beginning of time (or ages)? Please see Titus 1:2. This is not to deny that God deals with sequences and events. I am only saying that, as His name "I AM" implies, He resides outside our dimension of time. If Paul's statement in Titus 1:2 is true, it must be so! But I have a hard time reconciling all this with Process Theology. It seems to fit much better with classical theism.

In summary: I think the Biblical model of origins fits nicely with known scientific data, and I do not subscribe to uniformitarian geology or Darwinian evolution. But as a Christian, I see no reason to reject well-established scientific facts. It is my conviction that when they are rightly understood, God's written word and His book of nature are in concord.

I am glad you affirm Jesus' Deity, because without affirming His Deity, one cannot understand the plan of salvation. And while Jesus is fully God, I believe that He voluntarily submits to the authority of the Father. So I think we are in agreement on this point!

Now about the Holy Spirit. The fact that He isn't mentioned in Dan 10:12,13,21 and Rev 1:1 is an argument from silence - always a very weak argument! As a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I am a premillenialist, but there is no mention of an eschatological millenium anywhere in the Gospels or epistles. So should I base my faith on an argument from silence and become an amillenialist? No, I don't think so, as the millenium is mentioned in Rev 20, and the amill position has a very hard time dealing with that chapter.

You mentioned the fact that Baalam's donkey, Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, and the souls under the altar in Rev 6 all spoke. True enough! But while Lazarus and the souls appear in figurative scenarios, they are still representations of human beings - real persons. And while Balaam's donkey was not a human being, she was a donkey - a creature that approaches personhood in some respects. She was certainly not an inanimate object or entity. Furthermore, this was an extraordinary situation. It was an amazing miracle.

But it is commonplace for the Holy Spirit to speak in the New Testament. See Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2, and Heb 3:7. Again, barring exceptional miracles, inanimate objects, forces, or presences do not speak. Speaking and the use of first person pronouns is a sure sign of personhood! Note that the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30). But inanimate objects or entities cannot be grieved. Only persons can be grieved. So since the Holy Spirit exhibits all the attributes of personhood, I must conclude that He is indeed a Person! And since scripture describes Him as divine (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 3:17-18), I must conclude that He is God.

Now back to Jesus' taking the penalty for sin on Himself: I agree with you that God has been suffering ever since sin's inception and that He will suffer until sin is completely eliminated from the universe. But while God's grief (and our grief) result from sin, they are not the penalty for sin. "Sin pays a wage, and the wage is death." (Rom 6:23 NEB) Death is destruction (not eternal torment), and Jesus bore that penalty on the cross!

One last thing - you never explained why you feel justified in accepting the moral influence model as the real description of Jesus' work on the cross, while you dismiss all the other models as purely figurative. I gladly admit that the moral model is both Biblical and legitimate. Jesus' death was certainly a tremendous moral example and influence, and scripture affirms this. But scripture gives us many models of the atonement. So why do you run with just one of them?

Nic,

I've been pondering some of your linguistic arguments...you have caused me to think!:)

John 12:32 in more contemporary translations like the NIV, translate: "And WHEN I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself."

Apparently, translators view the Greek "if" not as a conditional, but as an indicative. Such a view needs to be grappled with, because it seriously hamstrings your use of this text.

Secondly, in Mt. 16, Jesus says to Peter that "...the Son of Man MUST go to Jerusalem to suffer at the hands of the elders, and be killed and rise again the third day."

Jesus is saying that this MUST happen. Not simply predicting that theywould reject him, but also that he MUST die. This is in keeping with what he says later in MT., that he came to serve and to GIVE His life as a RANSOM for many/all."

Thirdly, John quotes Jesus as saying "as Moses lifted up the serpent...so MUST the Son of Man be lifted up." Again speaking of the necessity of his death.

Nic, I feel that you explain your way around much, to make your view work.

Thanks...

Frank

Dear Frank,

Your thoughts on John 12:32 are correct. According to the BAGD Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek "ean" can mean "if" or "when." Since John 12 is dealing with events that occurred during Passion Week, the crucifixion was looming at this point. In light of this, the translation "when" would certainly be the correct one.

Nic,

In addition...

When Jesus announces to the disciples what MUST happen to him in Mt. 16, Peter immediately objects, "This shall never happen to you!" Of course, this was totally outside Peter's world-view. In his view, the Messiah was never meant to die.

This is when Jesus addresses him as Satan: "You have in mind the things of men, but not of God." IOW, it was in God's mind and purpose that the Messiah should die. It is only in the mind of men that the Messiah should not, for whatever reason we may devise.

In fact, it was in the mind of God from before creation. Jesus is the "Lamb slain from the creation of the world." Consudering the substitutionary implications of the lamb throughout the biblical record, the implications are quite clear concerning the meaning and necessity of Jesus' death.

I don't discount the validity of many of your observations. I just feel that you are doing a double time dance around much explicit and implicit textual evidence to hold your view as one that excludes substitutionary atonement.

Thanks...

Frank

Posted by Bob Helm on 23 September 2008: "But scripture pictures God as totally other. He created the universe, and He transcends the universe. He is above and beyond the universe. Furthermore, this view of God is affirmed by the findings of modern science. (Yes, science and scripture are often on the same side!) According to astro-physics, matter-energy and space-time were created in the big bang. They had an absolute beginning. So if God is the Creator, then He created the space-time manifold. Therefore, He must reside outside the space-time manifold. He is the eternal "I AM" Who is beyond space and time as we understand them. And if this is the case, then He can view all of space and all of time in one glance. He really is all-knowing, and He can see everything that will occur in the future. But all this is quite contrary to process theology."

I write: Do we really have God this figured out? Do we really know that God created the universe rather than God being a product of the universe? If God created the universe...who created God? Did God create exploding stars, uninhabitable planets, and scorpions? If God has absolute fore-knowledge, how can there be freedom? Can we choose to do something different than what God has divinely and absolutely fore-seen? If we can't...are we free? When Jesus cried, "It is finished"... was this a foregone conclusion? If God has seen everything that will ever happen...wouldn't God be really bored? Perhaps this is why God was so cranky in the Old Testament. A sinister view of prophecy is that it is a script to be followed rather than a history of the future. If one believes that prophecy is absolute...wouldn't this lead to a fatalistic acceptance of the evil in the world? What's going to happen is going to happen...so why try to make the world a better place...when we know that it's going to burn...and most of the people are going to burn with it?

Dear orthodoxymoron,

I can hear your frustration coming through. Perhaps I sound too cocky and sure of myself. If so, I apologize. Let me assure you that I do not have God figured out, and I could certainly be wrong about some of the things I said above. In fact, I already stated that that I could be wrong about Process Theology. But I also stated that as I consider the available data, it seems to me that the evidence is pointing strongly away from it. I know I have many things to learn and unlearn, and I invite further dialogue about this.

But I have to affirm that we should believe the things God has revealed about Himself, particularly His supreme revelation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yes, I believe that God created the universe because He said He did, and because all the available evidence indicates that the universe had an absolute beginning. Furthermore, as to the question "Who created God?" - if God really is beyond time as we understand it, then He needs no beginning. Only things within the flow of time need a beginning. And the scientists (not the Bible or Bob Helm) are telling us that those exploding stars and uninhabitable planets actually have a purpose. I encourage you to read up on what scientists are saying about star formation and the anthropic principle, and then make up your own mind.

About prophecy, I don't believe it is absolute. I believe it is conditional up to a point. However, the supreme purpose of prophecy is to reveal Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and this purpose of prophecy will be fulfilled! The spotlight of prophecy is on Christ, and He will never fail us!

Dear oxy,

I realize many people have debated about God's foreknowledge and human freedom. I honestly don't see how God's foreknowledge prevents us from making free decisions. Let's suppose we have two choices X or Y. God knows in advance how we will choose, but He doesn't influence our choice. If we choose X, God knew that in advance. But if we choose Y, then God knew that in advance. We are still free to choose X or Y as long as God doesn't intervene to influence our choice. He simply knows in advance how we will choose. Is this limiting freedom? I don't think so. But again, I have much to learn and unlearn, so I invite further input on this question.

Bob,

I have carefully read and considered your comments dated on 24 September 2008 at 8:19, and here is my response to your posting:

It is true that the Big Bang may not conflict with Scripture. Personally, I prefer to reject it because it does not seem to have much explanatory power for someone who believes in a God who has existed from eternity.

He is the Creator, and he did not cease to be a Creator when the first Bang took place. I believe in a God who has been creating since eternity, and who will continue to create for evermore.

I do not believe that the Lord created all the galaxies at one big swoop, and I do not think that the universe simply evolved by itself after one act of creation. Jesus stated: My father works, and I also work. Take the case of a musician: he does not stop creating music after his first musical composition. His creating activity ceases when he is dead, but God is alive for evermore.

I would rather believe in an infinite number of Bangs, instead of a single Big Bang. Scientists prefer a single Bang, because they ignore the Creator. A single Bang fits better with agnostics and atheists. Modern science prefers to ignore God, because it cannot put God in a test tube.

They try to explain everything on the basis of evolution, the survival of the fittest, and natural selection. Modern science has a natural aversion towards miracles, and a single miraculous event is easier to deal with than with many singularities.

By definition, black holes cannot be observed; and by definition, nothing can escape from black holes. Since Stephen Hawking did admit that matter can escape from black holes, then I conclude that black holes do not exist as per the original definition of such entities, or else said definition has to be altered.

Regarding the reference to the beginning of time in Titus 1:2, the context explains that eternal life was promised “Before time began.” My question is: How can a promise exist in a vacuum? A promise always involves more than one individual, and once made, it must have preceded another action. If said other action is the creation of time, then the promise must have existed in some kind of time frame. There can be no action outside of time. Every action involves a sequence, and given a sequence, you have time.

I agree with you that an argument from silence is normally weak, unless strengthened by special features. In the case of the Prophet Daniel and the Angel Gabriel, the special circumstance is the fact that Saint Peter told us that prophecy was the result of the action of the Holy Spirit, but in the book of Daniel we discover that the instrument of revelation is an angel; and said angel tells Daniel that there is no one to help him except Michael, the Prince. Plus, Daniel was forced to wait for 21 days Because Gabriel was busy lobbying the Kings of Persia. [Read Daniel 10]

If I were a Trinitarian, I would be greatly concerned about the fact that the Holy Spirit seems to be absent from Daniel 10 and from the chain of revelation alluded to in Rev. 1:1. Remember that both books, Daniel and Revelation are the most prominent prophetic books in the Bible. To me this is an indication that Saint Peter was not a Trinitarian, otherwise this fact would have bothered him when he wrote that prophets received their revelation through the Holy Spirit.

You argue that the Holy Spirit is described in the bible as speaking, and that “presences do not speak. ”You must have forgotten the experience of Samuel the prophet. He heard the voice of someone speaking to him, and he thought that it was Eli. In fact it was God who was speaking to him. God’s invisible presence was being manifested to him and he heard God’s voice speaking.

Yes, the Holy Spirit can be grieved, and Jesus told us that there is no forgiveness for sins against Holy Spirit. What most people do not know is that Jesus was in fact citing the Old Testament when he made said declaration. Mark 3: 28, which talks about the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit seems to be a quotation from the Old Testament where the unpardonable sin is not against the Holy Spirit, but against the Angel of the Lord. [Exodus 23:20, 21]

Quote:
"See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared for you. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my name is in him."

Shall we conclude after reading this text in Exodus that the Angel of the Lord is co-equal with God the Father and God the Son and a Fourth member of the Trinity, or rather Cuadrinity?

Regarding Acts 5: 3, and 4, the argument is rather weak. All this text says to me is that God is a Spirit, and that Ananias had lied to God whose power and presence was manifested through the action of Peter. Can we conclude from this text that the Holy Spirit is a separate entity and co-equal with God the Father? I doubt that we can.

All this text is saying, I believe, is that whenever we lye to anyone of God's messengers--whether human , angelic, or divine--we are in fact lying to God, for the simple reason that God's messenger is acting in the name of God. This reminds me of what God told Moses when he sent him to Pharaoh:

Quote:
“You shall be as God to him.” [Exodus 4: 14-17]

Does this passage imply that Moses was co-equal with God the Father? I don't think so. He was merely God's messenger, and when King Pharaoh rejected him, he was rejecting the one who sent him. A similar incident took place when the Israelites asked for a king, and Prophet Samuel was offended. God told him: They have not rejected you, but they have rather rejected me

The best biblical descriptions of the Holy Spirit I have found are the following. One of them is connected with the birth of Jesus, and the other one with the promise of the Holy Spirit found in Acts:

Quote:
The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. [Luke 1:35]

Quote:
But you will receive Power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, and to the ends of the earth.[Acts1:8]

Conclusion. Taking into consideration all of the above, I believe that it would be safer as we study this topic if we limit our understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit to what has been revealed in the Bible, instead of drawing conclusions that are not necessarily warranted by all information that was granted us by inspiration.

The Holy Spirit seems to be the Power of God manifested sometimes through the angel Gabriel, other times identified as the angel of the Lord, and sometimes as God himself. It can't be equated with the angel Gabriel in every instance; otherwise, we would have to conclude that Jesus was the Son of the Angel Gabriel.

Let us not forget that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was developed by systematic theologians--St. Augustine and Aquinas, and that systematic theology is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy sets no limit on speculation, while true religion does.

If there is no clear biblical statement asserting that the Holy Spirit is co-equal with God the Father and God the Son, we are wiser if we remain silent on this issue as well. Could it be that the Holy Spirit is the antithesis of the "Unholy Spirit" represented by the Devil and his angels?

You said: "Sin pays a wage, and the wage is death." (Rom 6:23 NEB) This is true for those who are lost, but not for those who are forgiven. True forgiveness is defined by my dictionary as forfeiting the right to collect what is owed.

In answer to your question, I have chosen the moral influence explanation for the death of Jesus because it does not do any violence to the character of God and it does not destroy the true meaning of forgiveness. The legal model transforms the beautiful character of God into an arbitrary potentate who is unwilling to forgive unless the last penny is paid for the debt owed him.

Remember the story of the servant who owed his master a huge sum of money? All his master expected from his servant was to manifest the same willingness to forgive towards the one who owed him a small amount of money. That is a true description of God’s character. The God you believe in looks more like the servant who was unwilling to forgive unless the last dime was collected by him.

The same lesson can be learned from the story of the Prodigal Son. The reception granted the Prodigal Son is an example of God’s readiness and willingness to grant forgiveness to those who come to him with repentance and asking for mercy instead of full payment of the debt.

The story of the owner of the vineyard illustrates the same truth about God's character. He showed extreme generosity towards those workers at the end of the day. He paid them according to their needs and his generosity and not according to what they deserved.

Jesus himself depicted God's character much better than Saint Paul. The forensic view of the atonement does not do justice to the true character of God. You can't improve on the theology of Jesus Christ who provided us with the clearest revelation of the character of God.

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

Dear Nic,

Over the next few days, I have to be preaching and doing Bible studies with people, so an in-depth study of your post and full reply will have to wait. Sorry about that. You do make me think, and I will get back to you. I appreciate your continued dialogue!

Just briefly, here's some food for thought. The Old Testament "Angel of the Lord" often appears to be divine.
For example, see the account in Gen 16, especially verse 13.
On this basis, many expositors, including Ellen White, have identified the "Angel of the Lord" with the pre-incarnate Christ. See also Gen 22:15-18 amd Judges 13:19-22.

About the Big Bang, it is really a misnomer to suggest that it is an atheistic theory. Many astro-physicists have been led to a belief in God and Christianity because of it. A good example would be Dr. Allan Sandage. Furthermore, I never suggested that the Lord refrained from creating anything or working miracles after the Big Bang. On the contrary, I already stated my conviction that living organisms, including humans, were created on earth recently, in the space of six literal days. (I am a creationist, not an evolutionist!) However, plants and animals were created from the ground, using existing matter. It seems to me that the ex nihilo creation came much earlier.

frank7,

Thanks for your comments dated on 24 September 2008 at 8:54.

You are quite correct that the "If" term in John 12:32 can properly be replaced with "When," which means that translators have to make a decision. My preference is the first option because it harmonizes much better with God's character, who always respects human freedom.

When I combine this with Isaiah 53:10, which some translators have also opted for the contingent reading of the Messianic prediction; and with Micah chapter four, where the Mesiah is described as ruling from the city of Jerusalem "forever;" I realize that the Lord did predict both scenarios for his chozen nation: One with a suffering Messiah, and another with a glorious reign of God on earth with Jerusalem as the capital of the world.

Some interpreters suggest that Micah is talking about the second coming of Jesus. The context negates such an interpretation. There is a clear reference about settling disputes among the nations, about turning their swords into plowshares, and about every man sitting under his vine and under his fig tree. This is not a reference to a life in heaven, but on earth, with all the world coming to worship at the Jerusalem Temple.

As far as Jesus' several references to his own death, we need to consider that the closer we get to the final events in the life of Jesus on earth, the more evident it was for Jesus that his chosen people would reject him as their Messiah. Besides, he could read the minds of people, and he did read the mind of Peter, when he predicted that he would deny him.

As you read the 16th chapter of Matthew, notice the statement we find in verse 20 and 21: "Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."

Jesus' disciples believed that the chances that their Master would be crowned as the Jewish Messiah and King were still good. Jesus knew better, and when he realized this, he decided to explain to his disciples that the Jewish nation had gone over the point of no return. Their decision to get rid of Jesus had been sealed.

This view of the atonement works better for me, but if the rest of the world thinks that I am all wet, that is fine. I am at peace, knowing that I have a God who is ready and willing to forgive anybody who comes to him with a penitent heart, and that he has never demanded a pound of flesh from repentant sinners.

Those who insist that the Lord demands full restitution for sin, fail to see that there is no way to accomplish this. Let me illustrat this as follows: Killing a rapist does not undo the rape and the abortion that results quite often as a result ot the crime committed against an unwary woman.

Likewise, most sins against heaven do a permanent damage to others which no amout of reparation can undo.Taking the life of an innocent victim for the sins of the guilty only compounds the moral inequity. If eternal separation from God is the required penalty for sin, there is no way God can pay said penalty for the guilty. By nature, God cannot die, and Jesus' separation from God lasted only a short time, which means that the eternal death penalty was never paid.

frank7,

I also read your comments dated on 24 September 2008 at 10:10.

It all depends on How you intrepret the allusion to the Lamb of God in the book of Revelation. If you believe in the forensic view of the cross, you see this reference as God's plan to save sinners by either masterminding or else by allowing the Messiah to be killed and thus paying the penalty for sin.

If you reject the legalistic view of the atonement, then you see God figuratively on the cross following Lucifer's rebellion in heaven. God's suffering becomes not an arbitrary imposition by God, but rather the natural result of rebellion against a loving heavenly parent.

The cross ceases to be an event in the great controversy between God and Satan, end becomes a process which started with lucifer's rebellion and which will end with the final eradication of evil from the universe. [See Education 263] As a free moral agent, you are free to take your pick.

Bob,

I read your comments dated on 24 September 2008 at 7:24.

For some reason, I cannot figure how anyone can be outside of time. Only a static being could exist outside of time. If God was at least thinking, or planning before he created the universe, then there was time for him, since time is the way of recording or relating a sequence of events.

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

Bob,

Regarding your comments dated on 24 September 2008 at 7:47.

There are two extreme position regarding God's foreknowledge.

The first one claims that God knows everything that exists, everything that will ever exist, and everything that God himself will cause to exist. The classical proof text for this position is faulty. [See Isaiah 46:10 & 11.]

The second position claims that God knows everthing which exists and everything that he is planning to cause to exist, but not what will be caused as a result of the exercise of the free choices of moral agents. Dr. Richard Rice seems to prefer this second view of God's foreknowledge. [See his book, "The Openness of God.]

Bob,

I read your comments posted on 25 September 2008 at 8:21 and I fully agree with everything you stated there! Isn't this amazing?

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

Back to the "Big Bang" In trying to prove and understand the Big Bang hundreds of scientists and thousands of workers have built a French/Swiss race track to smash a piece of matter into as many particles as possible and observe the results.

The first bang broke the machine. It will take at least two months to fix.

We don't know how God created the universe, He make well have used a "Big Banger machine" or He could have just spoke and it was done!

The point is when ever we hear a "big bang" we immediately say: "What was that?" Followed by either: "What caused that?" or "Who did that?" Sometimes we even search for the cause and the causer. Generally it is just a shutter or a door banging in the wind, a kid with a fire cracker, or a car back fire. Once it was an idiot cutting off the top of a gasoline
barrel (containing a "little" fuel in the bottom) with a torch.

The point is there always is a causer and a process not just a process. Tom

Nic,

The problem I have with your interpretive framework is that you either diminish or entirely discount the Pauline and even the Johannine letters to arrive at your conclusions that forensic justification/substitution is invalid. To discount major portions of the NT as part of one's interpretive grid simply leads to eisegesis, a reading of one's own theories into the biblical text.

I just cannot buy the hierarchy that you have established, that somehow Paul's writings are an inferior revelation to the red letter quotes concerning the crux of salvation. In fact, this is the only way that you can really make what you are postulating stand on two legs.

As far as I'm concerned, the same Spirit inspired the gospel writers as well as Paul. The same Spirit led in the recognition/compilation of the NT canon. All bear witness of salvation in Christ. While certainly not a uniform voice, they are, to me, a united voice. I find your dismissing of Paul's view as being less credible because he was a "lawyer" (something that I find Peter never implies in his statement)as something that does violence to the spirit and intent of this united NT witness.

To cherry pick from the biblical record (as well as EGW), and to create what is effectively a canon within a canon in order to support one's view of God's character and salvation, to me, is not responsible exegesis. If you were offering this as one view among several complementary explanations of atonement, Nic, I would have no problem. But, to hold your theory up as an exlusive view at the expense of one that is clearly seen in major portions of the NT is something I can't swallow.

To me, it limits God, and it limits our view of sin and salvation as well. At this juncture, we can agree to disagree.

Thanks...

Frank

frank7,

I read your latest comments dated on 26 September 2008 at 7:33.

You claim that I am diminishing the importance of Paul’s forensic view of the cross. I plead guilty to said allegation, with an explanation. My view is a reaction to Dr. Des Ford’s elevation of Paul’s substitutionary theory above all other explanation found in the New Testament.

He did publicly admit that all theories of atonements are merely metaphors, and we know quite well that symbols do not stand on all four. They quite often come short when attempting to illustrate reality.

Ford did explain why he has a special preference for the forensic view of the cross: A mathematical count he performed showed him that it appears many more times in Holly Writ. My response to this argument is: There is a plausible reason for this.

Paul is the most prolific N.T. writer, which means that his explanation for the death of Jesus per force must be listed more times than any other theory of atonement. It is unfair to give more votes for his pet theory. Paul should be granted no more than one vote on this, and more weight should be given to Jesus himself.

I did not claim that Paul’s writings are inferior to the rest of Scripture. I simply demand that we should not enthrone him as the final and infallible authority of the reason for the death of Jesus.

I also suggest that we should be wary some of his theology because Saint Peter, the president of the Jerusalem General Conference of the Christian Church at the time, warned us that some of his writings were difficult to understand. If this is true, then we need to carefully examine the symbols he used to illustrate his theology to make sure they square with what Jesus stated about his own death.

The apostle Peter did not tell us what it was that was difficult for him to understand about what Paul wrote. Nevertheless, I do know what is difficult for me to understand about his substitutionary view of the atonement. I have a hard time understanding how God can willingly forgive, and at the same time demand full payment for a debt.

It represents a contradictory assertion. Forgiveness is defined by my dictionary as the forfeiture of the right to demand payment for a debt. If I decide to burn a promissory note, I have no legal right to demand payment for the debt.

I have a hard time understanding how the father of the Prodigal Son could throw a party when his son came back home, while God was described by Saint Paul as demanding full payment for the debt owed him. In comparison, God looks rather more like the eldest brother who felt that this kind of magnanimity by his father towards the prodigal son was out of place.

The eldest brother would have demanded full restitution of the wasted inheritance. Jesus said that there is more happiness in heaven when a sinner repents than the knowledge of those who are safe in the fold. Paul seems to say that God rejoices in the fact that full payment was collected for the debt.

I have a hard time understanding how God could base his justice on the most unjust act of history. Demanding that the innocent suffer the penalty for the crime of the guilty violates the most elemental understanding of legal equity. It is not allowed under the human legal system.

No human court of law will allow an innocent man to take the place of the guilty. Substitution is allowed only under civil law, but not under the criminal code. Can God ignore this basic legal premise?

Romans had a saying which went like this: "Dura lex, sed lex." [The law is hard, but it is the law.] Forgiveness was a foreign element in their vocabulary and justice. The Apostle Paul was steeped in the Roman philosophy. He probably could not envision forgiveness without full payment of the debt, for which reason he had a strong preference for the substitionary view of the cross.

We use the sacrificial system to support the forensic view of the cross, while setting aside many other passages of Scripture which tell another story. For example, here are two statements from the O.T. which are never quoted by those defending the legal view of the cross:

"I will have mercy and not sacrifice." [Matt. 1:13]

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

I believe that there is a lesson for us from the parable of the owner of the vineyard. The man tried to collect what was owed him from those who he left in charge of his property. They mistreated the owner’s messengers, and finally killed the owner’s son. Would it make sense to suggest that the owner actually had planned and arranged for such an unfortunate outcome so he could offer forgiveness to those who owed him a large sum of money?

Did Jesus commend those evil men for the crime perpetrated against the owner of the vineyard? Notice that this parable symbolized what was about to take place. There is no suggestion in the story that the landlord had any complicity in the crime that was committed. It was an evil act which had nothing to do with whatever forgiveness the landlord might offer to anybody.

Let me remind you that when Jesus revealed to his followers that the “The Son of Man must be lifted up,” they were greatly surprised and responded: "We have heard that Christ abideth for ever; how sayest thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up?"

Evidently, the crowd were thinking about the promise found in Micah 4:7: "And the Lord shall reign over them in Mount Zion from henceforth even for ever." This is why Jesus’ disciples were so sure that Jesus would be somehow eventually crowned as a King of the Jews.

You may find all this rather hard to “swallow,” but I have put my best foot forward to make this a little bit more palatable for you. Of course, you have the prerogative of rejecting everything I have said, since you are a free moral agent.

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

Nic
You're so long-winded that I often pass over your postings. In case others do the same, I'd like to highlight an important point you made above:

"I have a hard time understanding how the father of the Prodigal Son could throw a party when his son came back home, while God id depicted by Saint Paul as demanding full payment for the debt owed him. In comparison, God looks rather more like the eldest brother who felt that this kind of magnanimity by his father towards the prodigal son was out of place."

I think you're absolutely right.

"I have a hard time understanding how the father of the Prodigal Son could throw a party when his son came back home, while God id depicted by Saint Paul as demanding full payment for the debt owed him. In comparison, God looks rather more like the eldest brother who felt that this kind of magnanimity by his father towards the prodigal son was out of place."
Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 26 September 2008 at 10:28

Nic, I see the way in which the father treats his prodigal son as an excellent example of the amazing grace so well portrayed by the Apostle Paul. In Paul's writings there is generally that balance between the faith that justifies based only on Christ's works, and the works of the sanctified believer. On the faith or grace side we have excellent examples of the thief on the cross, the prodigal son, the parable of the debtors, and how Christ treated the woman caught in adultery.

Jesus said that he had not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

Nic, why don't we keep these in balance? Also since those believing in the forensic atonement also agree to other metaphors being used, including the moral influence theory's positive points, why can't we loosen up a bit to include the Apostle Paul as an inspired writer of the Bible?

Mike,

Thanks for the comments you posted on 27 September 2008 at 9:49.

The Apostle Paul was inspired, King David was inspired, Ellen White was inspired. All the Bible writers were inspired. What we need to bear in mind is that inspiration should not be equated with infallibility. Ellen White told us that God is not represented in the Bible as the author. God did not write the Bible. Men did, inspired by God.

The only thing that God wrote with his own finger were the Ten Commandments, and we have two versions of said document, and they differ in the reason given to keep the Sabbath. The only thing that Jesus wrote in person was written on the sand, and we have no record of what was written.

God delegated the responsibility of recording the words and the deeds of Jesus to four evangelists, and they did the best they could, but there are a few discrepacies between their stories. Saint Paul was a powerful instrument in God's hands for the proclamation of the Gospel to the gentiles. Nevertheless, Saint Peter told us that some of the thing he wrote are hard to understand.

I am not suggesting that we need to discard the many explanations we find in the New Testament for the death of Jesus. What I am saying is that we should not stick to a literal reading of the Bible in every instance. Jesus told us to pluck our eyes if they lead us to sin. We admit that Jesus used symbols to show us how serious is sin. Jesus also said that the dead should bury their dead. The Bible is full of symbols. What we need is to discover the truth hidden behind those symbols.

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

Dear Tom,

I have probably lingered too long on the Big Bang in these discussions, as it peripheral to the main issue of the atonement. However, I actually think it accords nicely with the idea that God spoke and it was done.

But here's my reason for addressing ther issue: Open Theism (Process Theology) posits a God Who is contained within the universe and Who evolves with the universe. But the theistic version of Big bang Cosmology posits a God Who created the universe from the outside and who is totally separate from the universe. This accords nicely with classical theism, but as far as I can see, it is completely at odds with Process Theology.

Bob

An excellent proposition. The problem is I am at odds with Process Theology also. Sorry. Process Theology is thinking God's thoughts before Him, thus making Him captive to man rather than man being subject to God. An over simplification but I like the bottom-line on esoteric propositions. Tom

Dear Tom,

Once again, we agree completely! I believe it should be clear from Isaiah 46:10 and John 21:17 that Process Theology is unscriptural. It represents another proud attempt by human reason to penetrate the mystery that surrounds God.
But people who enjoy science should be aware that modern
cosmology completely hamstrings the basic assupmtions of
Process Theology. They are not at all compatible!

Dear Nic,

Well I have returned, and as I promised, I'm getting back to you. I hope you had a good Sabbath and weekend. I'm also glad that we agree on many things. We agree that abortion is evil, and we even on some theology! We're making progress!

Be aware that I never described God as a static Being. Of course, He thinks and acts. He even promised eternal life to His people before the beginning of time. See Titus 1:2. This indicates that God exists in a realm which contains a time-like dimension. The astro-physicist, Dr. Hugh Ross, even suggests that God may operate in a two dimensional plane of time. All I stated was that God exists outside the space-time manifold that constitutes our universe. See Titus 1:2.
If this verse is true, God created time as we understand it.
So God transcends our universe. This points directly toward classical theism and away from Process Theology. A God outside of our space-time manifold could view all of our time in a single glance. Therefore, He would, by definition, know the future. I really think you are making God far too small!

I still think you are utililizing a weak argument from silence when you refer to Daniel 10. OK, so Gabriel said that only Michael could help him, and I assume that Michael is Christ. By your reasoning, this negates both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. And as far as Revelation 1:1 is concerned, I would take "God" to be the Trinity. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sent the angel to John.

About the experience of Samuel - a presence did not speak to this young boy. According to 1 Samuel 3:4, the Lord (Yahweh) called Samuel. Yahweh is the sacred name for the eternal God. He is not a presence. He is most certainly a Person! Again, my point is demonstrated. Presences and powers do not speak. Persons speak!

I hold that the Angel of the Lord is God. As I already indicated, there are a number of scriptures that strongly point in this direction. I believe that the Angel of the Lord, Michael the Archangel, and Jesus Christ are all the same Person. Be aware that both the Hebrew and Greek terms that are translated "angel" literally mean "messenger." And "arch" means "first" or "primary" in Greek. So we are dealing with the Messenger of the Lord or the Primary Messenger, and both of these expressions can rightly be applied to Christ. Thus there is no evidence at all that the Holy Spirit is to be equated with an angel. This is a Muslim heresy!

Luke 1:35 and Acts 1:8 do not equate the Holy Spirit with God's power. They merely indicate that the Holy Spirit accompanies or brings God's power. And while Moses was to be "as" God to the people, Acts 5:3-4 does not tell us that the Holy Spirit is to be taken "as" God. These verses tell us that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, and they equate this with lying to God. One cannot lie to a presence or power. One can only lie to a person. Furthemore, 2 Corinthians 3:17 equates the Lord with the Spirit and then speaks of the Spirit as the Spirit of the Lord (another term for the Holy Spirit). Thus the Holy Spirit is the Lord!

I greatly appreciate the Parable of the Prodigal Son, but we dare not base our entire theology on parables. Do you believe that God is an unjust judge? Do you believe that at death, everyone literally goes to Abraham's Bosom or to Hades? I hope you don't come to either of these conclusions, but if you press parables too far, you will arrive at such conclusions. Actually, the Parable of the Prodigal Son is a splendid depiction of salvation by grace alone, which I'm quite sorry you reject. It is the very essence of true Christianity! But remember that the same Jesus Who told this parable also stated that He came to give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). There's that dreaded idea of substitution again! And it comes, not from Paul, but from Jesus!

Nic, you complain that Dr. Des Ford elevates the forensic metaphor above all others, but that is exactly what you do with the moral influence metaphor, and without any scriptural justification for it. You say that the forensic metaphor does violence to God's character. But I believe that your view does violence to God's character. It negates God's justice and imperils the entire universe. I'm afraid I could not trust a God like that!

Bob,

Thanks for your comments posted on 28 September 2008 at 9:21.

I am glad that we can agree on many issues, and I believe that we might eventually agree on more. If we were to agree on everything, wouldn’t life be rather boring? As a result of blogging, I have discovered that I get the benefit of having to dig much deeper into what the Bible is really teaching, and sometimes I get some surprising discoveries.

Regarding the creation of time by God, I am of the opinion that time is rather a byproduct of creation. I don’t think that time can exist in a vacuum, and I do not think that the creation of time represents a separate event of creation. The moment anything came into existence, time became a byproduct of this event. We normally think of time as moving forward, when in fact events are related by cause followed by effect, which we call time. If time were to stop, we would be all dead.

Asserting that God is outside our space-time makes no sense to me for the simple reason that I do not think in the separate existence of time. The classic biblical passage used to support the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge fails to prove the point. When you read Isaiah 46: 10 & 11, you discover that the reference is to what God intends to do in the future: “I make known the end from the beginning … What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.” This is a far cry from predicting what car make will someone decide to buy a hundred years from now, unless God makes this to happen. I don’t think that I am making God too small, but rather real.

Regarding Daniel 10:21, I wonder whether you have carefully examined my argument. The apostle Peter told us that prophecy is the result of the revelatory action of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I discover that the revelation to Daniel, John, and Mary the mother of Jesus, the God chosen vessels was not the Holy Spirit, but rather the Angel Gabriel.

Plus, in the case of Daniel the prophet, the angel claimed that nobody supported him in this revelation to Daniel except Michael the Prince—which is Jesus. You claim that I am negating both God the Father and God the Son. I merely called your attention to some biblical facts. If I have misrepresented some biblical facts, please identify my misrepresentation.

Evidently your belief in the Trinity is quite strong, and you would like me to see this as something biblically based. If that is your intention, then let me make some suggestions of how you could make your task much easier:

1. Explain to me why the Angel Gabriel would apologize to Daniel the prophet that his 21 days delay in coming to his help was due to his task of lobbying the Kings of Assyria. If the existence of the Holy Spirit represents a separate entity besides God the Father, God the Son, and God’s angels, who are ministering Holy Spirits; then why did not Gabriel summon the help of the “Third Member of the Trinity” for such an emergency?

2. Show me a few examples of the Holy Spirit being worshipped, or any injunction of worship of the Holy Spirit being required by God.

3. Cite some biblical texts describing the Holy Spirit as equal to God the Father in power and authority.

4. Explain why the Holy Spirit is absent in the chain of revelation found in Revelation 1:1.

5. Read Luke 1:35 and tell me whether Jesus was the Son of God the Father or the Son of the Holy Spirit. Notice that if you accept my view of the Holy Spirit, this problem evaporates; because since “God is Spirit” and God is Holy, then Jesus becomes the Son of God the Father, and not the Son of the Holy Spirit.

6. Read Acts 8:36-39 and explain to me why the “Angel of the Lord” later is identified with the “Spirit of the Lord.” Notice that if you accept my interpretation of the true identity of the Holy Spirit as the invisible manifestation or presence of God through one of his angels or by his personal manifestation, then the problem disappears. My theory is that whenever God’s presence is visible, the phrase “Angel of the Lord” is used; while, when said manifestation is felt but unseen, the expression the “Spirit of the Lord” is utilized.

In the event you need a longer list, let me know!

Regarding Samuel, you are right! It was God himself who talked to him, but he manifested his divine presence to the boy in an invisible manner, because God is a Spirit, and he is Holy, which means that such invisible manifestation of his presence can easily be equated with the Holy Spirit.

You do believe that “the Angel of the Lord, Michael the Archangel, and Jesus Christ are all the same Person.” I do share this belief. The only thing you need to add is that the Angel of the Lord is Holy and a Spirit, which means that he can also be identified as the Holy Spirit. If you still believe that I am teaching a Moslem heresy, that poses no threat to me, since we no longer burn heretics at the stake.

Regarding Acts 5:3-4, you claim that “One can only lie to a person.” I agree! Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Now, since God is Holy and God is a Spirit, then we can conclude that Ananias lied to God, who manifested himself in invisible manner to those present at the tragic event.

You stated the following: “2 Corinthians 3:17 equates the Lord with the Spirit and then speaks of the Spirit as the Spirit of the Lord (another term for the Holy Spirit). Thus the Holy Spirit is the Lord!” I agree, the Holy Spirit is the Lord, but not a separate Trinitarian entity. It is simply the invisible manifestation of God’s presence. When his presence is visible, then the expression, “the Angel of the Lord” is used.

I agree with you that the Bible is full of symbols and parables, which we need to interpret correctly. Since this is the case, why do you pick and choose and opt for interpreting the text in Matthew 20:28 in a literal manner? The “Ransom” symbol is rooted on the O.T. practice of buying a person from slavery. If you take this metaphor in a literal manner, you end with some problems. Who does God pay a ransom to? Spiritually speaking, we are slaves to Satan. Did god pay a ransom to him? God has no need to pay ransom to anybody, because we belong to him by the fact that he created us. And paying a ransom to himself makes no sense. If you forgive a debt, do you write a check to yourself and then cash it?

Finally, in answer to your last argument, let me say the following: If I have to choose between Jesus explanation for his death, and the one repeatedly advanced by Saint Paul, I will always choose the one given us by Jesus. I do not reject Paul’s ransom, or forensic theory of atonement. I simply treat it as an interesting metaphor, but refuse to interpret it in a literal manner.

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

Dear Nic,

The nature of the universe is certainly not a salvation issue, and I only brought it up because it has a bearing on our theology. But like many people, you hold to an old, static, Newtonian universe. In such a universe, space is absolute nothingness, and time is merely a construct that differentiates events. But this version of the universe has been proven false. Einstein showed that space-time is an actual fabric or entity that can even be warped by gravity. And this can be proven. For example, take a look at the Hubble Space Telescope's photographs of the Einstein Cross. A nearby galaxy warps the fabric of space-time, producing four refracted images of a distant quasar. Furthermore, when an object that travels close to the speed of light, time slows down significantly in that object's reference frame, and at the speed of light, time freezes. It doesn't flow at all. This time dilation has repeatedly been verified by experimental evidence. So Relativity and the Einsteinian universe are beyond dispute. And this does have some bearing on whether open theism is true.

Now on to more important matters.

I am very curious. Are Seventh-day Adventists in your native country commonly non-Trinitarian? Of course, this has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Trinity doctrine, but non-Trinitarian Adventists are quite rare in North America. I have probably met thousands of Adventists in my lifetime, and perhaps five of them were non-Trinitarian.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I actually hear you saying that there are many Holy Spirits. You are claiming that the Holy Spirit can be a power, a presence, an angel, or God Himself. Nic, I fail to find anything in the Bible that would remotely suggest such a thing! You cannot apply the term "Holy Spirit" to anything you wish! There is clearly a specific entity that is called the Holy Spirit. See John 14:16-17. And this entity is identified as God.

Yes, Christ described His death as a ransom for our sins, but that ransom was not paid to Satan. The ransom is God paying the wages of sin in place of us. And the wages of sin equal death. See Rom 6:23. If the ransom is paid to anything, it is paid to the broken law, which represents God's character.

The real purpose of the Parable of the Prodigal Son is not to refute Jesus' teaching about a ransom. No, Jesus was trying to convey Paul's theology in Eph 2:8-9 to us in story form.
Notice that the prodigal wants to earn his way into his father's favor by becoming a hired worker. But the father won't hear of it. He loves his sinful son and accepts him unconditionally. The son doesn't offer anything to be reinstated. He is clothed in the garments the father provides and reinstated purely as a gift. What a marvelous depiction of salvation by grace alone! We are clothed in Christ's imputed righteousness and adopted into God's family, purely as a gift. This is the obvious meaning of the parable!
Nic, if nothing else comes of our dialogue, please open your heart and mind to the possibility that God loves us enough to save us by grace alone. I'm not saying this merely to argue theology. I'm saying this because I really care about you as a person. Salvation by grace alone is the most wonderful thing that has ever been revealed to the human race, and it distinguishes Christianity from all false religions. Truly, it is God's method of saving us.

Nic,

In addition, the prodigal son is a parable as you well know. Your point that Scriptural metaphor should not be pushed is well taken. How much more so for parables? To equate the father in the parable to God's doings in every detail of the way of salvation is pushing the boundary of the literary form.

Jesus' point was not to describe or discount the necessity of his sacrifice as necessary for our salvation. His point can be found in Lk. 15:2...

"But the the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were muttering, this man welcomes sinners and eats with them."

Jesus was showing them through the next three parables, that God was not like them. Not much more. To build a whole theology of salvation that refutes substitutionary atonement out of this parable goes way beyond the simple point of the story.

Thanks...

Frank

Bob,

I am responding to your comments posted on 01 October 2008 at 10:32.

I have a question for you: If “at the speed of light, time freezes,” then what happens when someone travels beyond the speed of light? Does time begin to flow in the opposite direction? I presume that you will agree with me that God’s angels are not subject to the speed of light.

If they were subject to the speed of light, their work would be impeded, and our prayers would be ineffectual. What would be the purpose of praying, since by the time my prayer reached heaven, I would be dead? Time is a theoretical mental construct, and non existent entities cannot be frozen.

Regarding Trinity, the answer is “No.” Adventists in my native country are Trinitarian like those in the U.S. and elsewhere. I owe my non-Trinitarian views to the late Dr. Dick Koobs of Loma Linda. He is the one who opened my eyes to what Scripture really teaches about this issue. The notion that there are many Holy Spirits is not mine, but it is rather based on clear evidence from Holy Writ:

“Are not all angels ministering Spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” [Heb. 1:14] All I am doing is asking: Are these ministering Spirits Holy or not? If they are, then why would it be wrong to label them as Holy Spirits? Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: “God is Spirit,” and the Bible repeatedly asserts that “God is Holy.”

All I am doing is putting those two words together and saying: God is a Holy Spirit. Then we have the biblical reference to the “seven Spirits of God” [3:1; Rev. 4:5; 5:6] I ask: Are these seven Spirits of God Holy? If they are then I conclude that I can refer to them as Holy Spirits!

Then you can add the angel described in Rev. 1:1; the “Spirit” referred to in chapter 2:7, and 22:17; plus the Angel Gabriel in the book of Daniel. When you put this altogether, it is easy to conclude that very likely all these references are probably applicable to the angels of God.

They are Holy, and they are Spirits, which means that they are quite often invisible to the naked eye, but their presence was felt by the prophets. My theory is that whenever God’s presence was manifested to God’s children in a visible manner, the expression “The Angel of the Lord” was used in the Bible.

Regarding the “other comforter” Jesus referred to in John 14:16, it is probably a reference to the Angel Gabriel, the leader of all the "Holy Spirits—"or angels-- in heaven, who very likely replaced Lucifer as the third in command in heaven. Notice that even Ellen White described Lucifer as the third being in authority in heaven before his fall. His place was likely taken up by the Angel Gabriel.

Regarding the ransom theory of atonement you are suggesting the price was paid to the “broken law.” Is the broken law a separate entity from God able to collect payments? Ellen White did say that God’s Law is the transcript of God’s character. Does this mean that God’s character demanded full payment of the debt? Is there a dichotomy between God and his character?

The Lord is described in the Bible as a forgiving God, and forgiveness is defined by dictionaries as the willingness to forfeit the right to collect payment for a debt. Can a merchant offer a free gift, and then claim full payment for said gift? Would it help to say that the merchant paid for the merchandize to himself?

If you offer a gift, or if you forgive a debt, does it help if you say, I wrote a check payable to my own account and then cashed the check? Could we agree that the ransom symbol is simply an imperfect metaphor for a much deeper reality?

Your last statement threw me off balance. Did I ever suggest that we can be saved by our own efforts instead of God’s grace? Saint Paul made reference to the fruits of the Spirit in our lives. If whatever good we can do as Christians is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit, then who gets the credit: we or God?

In this respect, Paul's theology matches that of Jesus Christ who said that separated from the vine, which is the Lord himself, we can do nothing. Nevertheless, if a tree does not bear fruit, it is cut off and discarded, which means that true grace is never alone: it produces fruit in the life of the saved.

frank7

Here is my answer to your posting dated on 02 October 2008 at 6:22:

Your comments seems to indicate that you have not been paying attention to everything I have been saying about the atonement. You picked only one of the items I have used in support for my understanding of the atonement and erroneously concluded that I have built my entire theology on the basis of one parable.

This is like arguing that a house cannot be supported by a single column when it is clearly evident that the building is being supported by many pillars. I hope you will not ask me to start all over!

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

Dear Nic,

I'll deal with your last thoughts first, because I believe they concern the most important issue. Perhaps I have not fully understood your position on salvation, but in earlier posts, you seemed to indicate that salvation comes by faith + works. As an advocate of forensic justification, I believe that we are saved by faith that works. I like the words of Martin Luther, "Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith, and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises, it has already done them, and is always at the doing of them. He who does not these works is a faithless man!" To summarize:
I believe that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But faith is never alone. As Ellen White puts it, "Faith buds and blossoms and bears a harvest of precious fruit."

Sure a merchant can purchase merchandize wholesale and then offer it to the public as a free gift. As a matter of fact, I give my wife and son presents for their birthdays. They are free gifts to my wife and son, but I must go to the store and buy them. They are not free for me. And in the same way, salvation is God's free gift to us. But it wasn't free for God. It cost God dearly!

I fully agree that the law is a transcript of God's character. But God's character is justice, and justice demands the payment of a debt. To put it another way, true justice demands an accounting for evil. Apart from this, forgiveness is cheap grace, and cheap grace imperils the stability of the universe!

I agree that there are many spirits who are holy. For example, there are many holy angels. But there is a specific entity in scripture Who is called "The Holy Spirit." To most readers of the New Testament, this seems obvious, but somehow, you are failing to make the connection. Would you also argue that because lambs were sacrificed in Old Testament times, that "The Lamb of God" is composite and that there are actually many "Lambs of God?" I hope not, because John the Baptist identified Jesus as "The Lamb of God." See John 1:29. There were many lambs, but there is only one Lamb of God. And there are many spirits who are holy, but there is only one Holy Spirit.

Defining the speed of light as the universal speed limit applies to objects that are composed of matter. Material objects can approach the speed of light, but they cannot reach it because at the speed of light, an object's mass becomes infinite, and therefore, an infinite force would be required to accelerate such an object to the speed of light.

However, angels are spirit beings. They are not composed of matter. This is speculation, but I think it quite possible that they are beings who reside in higher dimensions. If this is the case, they can probably bypass our four dimensional space-time manifold in their travels. Clearly, they are not bound by the speed of light! And your prayer does not need to literally reach heaven in the sense of the ultimate dwelling place of God. God is omnipresent, and He hears your prayers the moment you speak them!

But time and space are not theoretical mental constructs. In modern science, they are objective, physical realities. Nic,
you don't have to be afraid of General Relativity; it poses no threat to Biblical faith! On the contrary, it seems to confirm a number of things that the Bible teaches about God's created order.

Nic,

I have been paying attention. You misunderstand that I was merely saying that you have misused and misapplied the parable. You stretch it beyond its original intention to support what you are saying. I do not believe Jesus, or Luke in his placement of it, meant what you are using it to mean.
Forgive me if I wasn't clear enough.

No need to start over!

Thanks...

Frank

Frank
What if the Pauline epistles--like some other early Christian writings-- had not been preserved? Would the words of Jesus, such as we have them, fallen short of the theological mark?

If not, are you able to lay out--preferably from the synoptics--the Protestant doctrine of substitutionary atonement?

Aage,

“I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins. Jn.8:24.

28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”Mt.26:28,29.

What do these things mean?

regards,

pat

Aage,

Also...

"The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a RANSOM for many/all." Mt. 20:28

These are Jesus' own words. It is he himself who used the imagery of paying a ransom here...something that those who do not believe in the substitutionary nature of his death find so repulsive.

I'm not against other images of salvation...healing, adoption, reconciliation, redemption..etc. the Bible is replete with many pictures of the grace of God on our behalf. I just find that substitution is one of them.

To have to cut out the Pauline letters to make the case against it is also bogus in my eyes. It is cherry picking to make the case.

Also, several seem to have brought up the point in another thread that to start with English defintions and misinterpretations of atonement to deal with the problem, is to begin at the wrong starting point. What does the Hebrew and the Greek say and mean within the original context of what was written? Find that as best as possible, then interpret and apply it. That, to me, would be the best way to address translation and interpretive problems that have arisen over time. At least this is what I've always been taught responsible exegesis is about.

Thanks...

Frank

Pat
I said, preferably from the Synoptics. The author of John certainly had no problems with a sacrifical view of salvation.

Frank
Redemption is a metaphore derived from the slave market, purchasing somebody's freedom. It doesn't require blood. That said, I'll readily concede that it should be possible to cobble together a few synoptic statements to support the Pauline view that God's own blood is the fount of all blessings.

But it isn't easy. It doesn't jump out at you, and in my opinion, this idea is injected into the Synoptics by authors who belonged to the Catholic, as opposed to Jewish-Christian, branch of Christianity.

For Jesus, an observant Jew, who in Matt.5:17 couldn't even conceive of the Torah fading away before God's kingdom was literally reestablished on earth, it would indeed have been rather shocking to lift his cup of wine and ask his followers to pretend that they were drinking blood. I can't imagine that ever having happened. If it had, he would have been killed before Pilate even had had a shot at it.

My world view allows me to consider such possibilities. For others that's not an option. And I was not there. I'll grant you that.

Pat said:

28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”Mt.26:28,29.

What do these things mean?

regards,

pat

The word translated forgiveness above is the Greek word aphesis, which has meanings of deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission. Also see the word aphiemi, which has meanings of forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up.

The "blood" of Christ does not change God in any way, Christ is God. So what does this "forgiveness" mean in this context? It talks about what happens in us, not in God. The "blood", the life of Christ, changes us, removes from us the guilt, we remit back to a healthy state, we yield up our misconceptions of God.

1 John 1:9 says, if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to "forgive" our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Again, the "forgive" in Greek is Aphiemi. Our confession of sins does not make God forgive us, that is, stop holding our sin against us, it means that God will purge from our psyche the guilt and shame that comes from sin, and he will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

In high school, I memorized this verse (1 John 1:9), I can even remember where I was when I memorized it. I thought that I needed to confess my sins, or God would not forgive me. That is not what the verse is saying. I think the same applies to Matt 26:28.

(NKJV) Matt 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

BH,

BH, you say, “the "forgive" in Greek is Aphiemi. Our confession of sins does not make God forgive us, that is, stop holding our sin against us, it means that God will purge from our psyche the guilt and shame that comes from sin, and he will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

BH, I too have had Greek. Please point out to me from the Greek Englsh lexicon where Apheimi is used in that sense primarily of what God does "in us" rather than "for us."

Now it is true that as a result of the “sprinkling of blood” our guilty conscience can be cleansed by accepting by faith the cancellation and pardoning of sin by the death of Christ on the cross “for us.” The best therapy I personally know of!! Praise Jesus!

11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness .” Heb.9:11-22.

regards,

pat

Pat,

People here use NT greek very creatively. Thanks for the solidity.

Frank

Yes Aage,

A ransom was a redemption payment that did not require blood. But acknowledging the metaphorical limits, the point I see Jesus making with such a term is that he came to make some kind of sacrificial payment to set us free. It was his ultimate gift of service freely given to us. But it cost him everything.

I see that as sheer grace.

Thanks...

frank

Frank,

Thanks. I have noticed that "some here" feel the only valid "metaphor" or verse in scripture may be Jn.3:16a. ;)

regards,

pat

(Hebrews 13:8 NIV) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. His death did not change God. His death did show that he God, is righteous, the primary reason for Christ's mission. I do reject the pagan idea of a God that needs to be appeased in order to forgive.

You are creating a "strawman BH." God the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit made the plan of salvation and what it would take to accomplish it and then fulfilled it themselves "without an ounce of humanities appeasement!"

pat

Yes pat - and what was accomplished was that God was shown to be righteous. But, let everyone be persuaded in their own mind.

If I may interject, it seems to me that in paganism, human beings appease the gods. But according to the New Testament,
God appeased Himself, and He did it out of sheer love for us.

Bob,

Thanks for your comments dated 05 October 2008 at 8:06.

My position is: Salvation comes from neither faith nor works. It comes from Jesus. Salvation is a gift, and the gift giver is Jesus Christ. Our faith is a gift, and our works is a gift as well, the result of the Holy Spirit influence on our lives. Whenever our faith or works originates from our own efforts, it will not lead us anywhere. We can’t lift ourselves by our own bootstraps.

Yes, a merchant normally buys the merchandize from another source, but Jesus is the source of every good gift, and he has no need to buy anything from anybody, and he has no need to pay a price to anybody. He is the Creator of everything that exists, and he owns everything. Since he owns everything, he can give it to whoever he pleases. This is where the ransom and the substitutionary metaphors fail.

Since God is the rightful owner of everything, he can offer forgiveness and eternal life to sinners as a free gift, without payment of any kind. Actually, demanding payment would negate the true nature of the gift. Demanding payment from himself does not make any logical sense either. The idea that justice demands payment for the debt is a human concept we inherited from Roman law.

Romans had a saying which went like this: “Dura lex, sed lex.” The law is hard, but it is the law. Since humans can’t read the mind and differentiate between a true repentant and rehabilitated criminal, forgiveness is not an integral element of human justice. God can read the heart, and can distinguish between a sinner and a former sinner and grant forgiveness for past sins.

This is strong evidence that such explanations are simply symbols pointing to a reality beyond those metaphors. When you see a sign which reads “Hospital Emergency” with an arrow pointing in a specific direction, you do not assume that the sign is the spot where you will get help. The help is beyond the sign.

There is nothing cheap about true grace, since it affected even God. This is why Ellen White told us in Education 263 that the cross was a revelation of the suffering sin imposed on God since the beginning. This means to me that God’s suffering began, not with Jesus incarnation, but rather with Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven.

The legal view ignores this reality, and focuses on what happened on a single day two thousand years ago, and implicates God in the planning and the death of the most innocent being in the universe, when in fact God’s suffering was the natural result of sin and rebellion instead of being a requirement for the forgiveness of sins.

As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, I agree that the biblical reference is to a single being, but it also talks about the seven Spirits in the book of Revelation. Peter tells us that prophets spoke guided by the Holy Spirit, but when we check the two most remarkable prophetic books—Daniel and Revelation—we discover that the Angel Gabriel performed said function; and when Daniel, after mourning and fasting for three weeks, got his prayers answered, Gabriel apologized for his delay in coming to his help by stating that he was busy lobbying the Kings of Persia, and stating that there was nobody available to assist him except Michael the Prince. [Daniel 10:2,12-14, and 21]

We teach that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, and that he is God’s instrument for the revelatory experience of biblical prophets. My question is, how come your version of the Holy Spirit seems to be absent from these two classical prophetic books of the bible. On top of this, do not forget that Ellen White did describe Lucifer as the angel occupying the third position in heaven before his fall, next to Christ in power and authority. If that is the case, then where does the Holy Spirit fit in? The fourth position?

I believe that the suggestion dealing with the existence of higher dimensions is pure science fiction, with no way of verifying it. It is akin to the theory about black holes, big bangs, and singularities. Given the idea of the existence of a Creator, we have no need for such hypothesis which science can neither confirm nor falsify. Everything that exists is made up of either matter or energy. What is the essence of angels, this has not been revealed, and no amount of speculation will offer a solution to such dilemma.

I have no problem accepting that space represents a physical entity, but I cannot see how time can have a separate existence apart from matter and energy. There is no way to conceptualize the idea of time apart from time clocks. Time simply helps us to discern the relationship between cause, effect, and the sequence of events.

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

Nic,

The symbolic nature of apocalyptic and poetry need to come into play in interpreting a book like Revelation. The term seven spirits in Revelation is a symbolic idiom for complete or perfect spirit, not that their are seven separate spirits before God's throne. It is why modern translations have seven-fold spirit in the margin.

It also indicates the nature of the omni-presense and work of God's Spirit. It is in line with the lamblike figure having seven horns and seven eyes, none of which is to be taken literally as a description of his physical being. The seven eyes are said to be "the seven-fold spirit sent into all the earth." This is also consistent with John's descriptions of the Holy Spirit being sent to mankind at the behest of Jesus himself. Jesus said that the Spirit would "testify of him (Jesus), not of himself."

One testifies from personal knowledege. This, among much other scriptural evidence, indicates the actual "personhood" of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks...

Frank

The entire dogma of the Trinity was contrived late in Christianity (4th century) to explain activities they presumed were directed by God.
Believing in a literal Trinity is something only those living in the world at that time could find possible; as they also believed in many unseen forces, often identifying them by names.

Monotheism survived for hundreds of years with no acknowledgement or recognition of any person other than God who was responsible for all that befell mankind. The idea of an anthropomorphic god was not assumed initially, but was a gradual development even in the Hebrew culture, attribuing their own human feelings and experiences to their God. The pagan nations around also humanized their gods--how else could he be understood?

There is no way, other than symbolically, to explain the Trinity. It cannot be definitively, which is why it should never be seen as a literal fact but as a paradigm that corresponds
to the inability to explain the ineffable; just as frail human attempts to describe a poem or music will always be impossible. Failure to accept the mysticism inherent in all religions by the western branch of Christianity has depended on words rather than accepting the Trinity as a mystical or spiritual experience for each individual. Dogmatism on doctrines that are inexplicable are the marks of an institution that is fearful of human freedom to worship and must rely on a church to tell him what to believe and how and when he should worship.

frank7,

Thanks for your response dated 08 October 2008 at 8:21.

Please, explain why it took Christianity several centuries to come up with the Trinity doctrine. The simplest explanation is that this was a clever maneuver by the promoters of Christianity to achieve a compromise with pagan worshippers who believed in the existence of three gods. It made the sale of Christianity to pagans much easier. The same is true about the adoption of Sunday as a day of worship. The pagan origin of the Trinitarian doctrine is undeniable.

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

Dear Nic,

There is no evidence that it took three centuries for Christianity to develop the Trinity doctrine. Furthermore,
your assertion of the pagan origin of this doctrine is without support.

The concept of the Trinity is strongly affirmed by scripture. And Tertullian, who wrote in the late second and early third centuries, discusses the Trinity at length.
Furthermore, as Frank has pointed out, the "seven spirits" in Revelation are symbolic and are equated with the seven eyes of the Lamb. See Rev 5:6. This is obvious apocalyptic symbolism and should not be literalized.

My position is: Salvation comes from neither faith nor works. It comes from Jesus.

Dear Nic,

I want to strongly affirm your statement that I have copied above. That is also my position. However, I do not believe that works are a gift. It would be more Biblical to say tyhat the Holy Spirit in our lives is a Gift and that He produces good works. However, this requires our cooperation. When faced with temptation, we must say no to sin and yes to the way of Christ. But the Gift of the Spirit in our lives provides both the incentive and the power for this.

Bob,

While the concept of the Trinity may have been discussed earlier in Christian history, It did not become explicit formal doctrine until the fourth century. And during much of the previous centuries, there were many, even violent arguments over this unprovable position. It becaame a doctrinal obsession, confusing the human symbol and the divine reality. It can be compared to a man who is simultaneously a husband, father, and teacher--functioning in three separate spheres contained in one human.

Tertullian may have believed in the Trinity, but he also had some rather diabolical ideas about women that hardly bear repeating. Just as many of the early church fathers also spoke of worshiping and meeting on the first day of the week, the early church was formulating doctrine and it wasn't until the Nicean Council that the Trinitarian concept became dogma. At the same time, it should be remembered that in any controversy or conflict, it is the victor who writes the history and produces the text and defines "orthodoxy" and "heresy." As the variety of scribes copied and recopied, there is much evidence that there were often changes made
to "correct" theological disputes. We have no original documents and should not presume that what we read now is exactly what may have been written or intended nearly 2,000 years ago. Christianity and all institutions change during the centuries and it is impossible to speak of a "pure and primitive" original faith as it is to speak of anything thousands of years ago when we are solely dependent on what has been recorded.

Dear Elaine,

You are building a straw man when you mention Tertullian's hateful attitude toward women. I never claimed to be an apologist for Tertullian. Notice that no one ever prefaced his name with "Saint." To many of his contemporaries, he became something of a heretic when he joined the Montanist Movement. I was simply observing that the concept of the Trinity was prominent in Christianity well before Nicaea.

However, I must take serious exception to your claim that copyists introduced extensive changes into the New Testament text. I don't believe that you could find any text critic who would agreee with you. Please consider this statement from F.F. Bruce in his book, "The Books and the Parchments," p.168: "In view of the inevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."

Elaine, I realize that early church history has been the focus of your studies. But it is important to consider
what other fields of study are telling us. You ought to read text critics like Westcott & Hort, Kurt and Barbara Aland, and Bruce Metzger. It is true that in the 19th century, Westcott and Hort adopted an extreme position. They held that whenever the two great fourth century uncials, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, agree, you essentially have the text of the original autographs. They called this the neutral text. No recent textual scholar would make such a claim. But recent textual scholars do claim that it is possible to reconstruct a text that is very close to that of the original autographs.

Bob,

In addition to Bart Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" I have read Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy & Heresy in Early Christianity," Jaroslav Pelikan's "Ther Emerency of the Catholic Tradition (100-600," Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church" and many others.

It is an admission by all scholars that there have been additions to the NT: The last twelve verses at the end of Mark's Gospel; the story of the woman accused of adultery in John which the oldest manuscripts did not include; plus there are so many totally contradictory passages in the Gospels, indicating that they cannot all be right. There were also warnings contained in the letter to the Thessalonians about letters that were falsely penned in Paul's name, evidence that forgeries were not uncommon then.

With copying by hand by scribes, repeatedly through the years, it would be unrealistic believe that two copies would be exact replicas. Some were altered for minor reasons, while others were altered to bring them in line with the current orthodoxy. That this was not a remote possibility is expressed by the writer of Revelation who used a standard curse formula to protect his text. Some of the early Christian writers, Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth showed concern about this; and falsification of Origen's own writings by opponents. So, why should it not be conceivable that the NT canon, which still was only part of the many gospels and writings used by Christians then, should not also be subjected to alterations or changes, Eusebius asks.

Many writings, not now included in the canon, were used by the early church for several centuries.

To name just a few of the variants indicating changes:

According to Luke's infancy narrative, Jesus was born the Christ (2:11), but in at least one of the speeches of Acts he is understood to have become the Christ at his baptism. In another place (2:38) Luke explicitly states that he became the Christ at his resurrection.

Similarly "inconsistent" are Luke's predications of the titles Lord and Savior to Jesus. Thus, Jesus is born the Lord in Luke 2:11, and in Luke 10:1 he is desigated Lord while living; but in Acts 2:38 he is said to have been BECOME Lord at his resurrection. According to Luke, Jesus is born the Son of God, descended Son of God, according to the genealogy, and declared to be Son of God while living; contrary to Acts 13:33 that states the he BECAME the Son of God at his resurrection. Such ambiguity does not inspire confidence in claims of Luke's christological titles elsewhere.

Either the same writer, Luke in this instance, was totally confused about when and where Christ became God, or a number of scribes, separately working on portions of a scroll, tried to conform his writings to a particular view of christology concurrent with their time.

Why should anyone need to defend possible changes in texts when there are no originals, and with the knowledge of how such material was formed? Much more surprising, even miraculous it would be if all of the writings agreed in every minute detail. A reason to be much less dogmatic on any doctrinal position which is based on the NT canon. One should always ask:
Which one is the current doctrine and what text(s) are being used to affirm it?

Dear Elaine,

Yes, the last verses in Mark's Gospel and the pericope dealing with the woman caught in adultery are not found in early manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They were not part of the original text. And there have been some other additions. The Western Text that is represented in Codex Bezae in especially known for this sort of thing.
But modern textual critics have such a wealth of manuscript evidence available to them that it is easy to weed out most of these additions.

Please note that two excellent papyri (P66 and P75) date back to about AD 200, and there other papyri (some mere scraps) that date to even earlier times. But these very early papyri agree essentially with what came later. There is simply no evidence for the wholesale tampering with the text that you allege. And this is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of all text critical scholars.

I am very puzzled by your references to alleged inconsistencies in Luke's writings. Luke 2:11 does identify Baby Jesus as "Christ the Lord." But neither Luke 2:38 nor Acts 2:38 say anything about Him becoming Christ or Lord at His resurrection. And yes, Luke 10:1 speaks of the adult Jesus as Lord. But this does not conflict with Luke 2:11. After all, if Jesus was Lord as a baby, why would He cease to be Lord as an adult? And why couldn't Jesus be born the Son of God, descend as Son of God in the genealogy, and still be Son of God while living? I am at a loss to follow your reasoning here.

Perhaps you had Acts 2:36 in mind. But this verse says nothing about Jesus becoming Lord and Christ at His resurrection. It only says that God made Him "both Lord and Christ." And lastly, Acts 13:33 says nothing about Him becoming the Son of God at His resurrection. Paul merely quotes the second Psalm to indicate that Jesus was begotten or brought forth from the dead.

Bob,

Thanks for your comments dated 08 October 2008 at 7:19. I read them and I also read with great interest your lively exchange of arguments with Elaine. Both of you seem to be quite knowledgeable about the Bible, and I am glad you are generously sharing this knowledge with others. Regarding the history of the late development of the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no need for me to add anything, since Elaine has come to my rescue.

As far as errors introduced into the sacred text is concerned, even Ellen White did explain that, when copies of the Bible were rather few, some copyists took the liberty of introducing some changes in the original hoping to clarify the meaning of the text, when in fact they were making what was clear rather cloudy. If you need the source for this, I think I can locate it. In spite of this, I believe that we have enough reliable information to guide us in the right path so that we might not loose our hope of securing forgiveness for our sins and thus become partakers of God’s gift of eternal life with him.

If you have any doubts about the pagan origin of the Trinitarian doctrine, read the following:

"The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine"
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%2...

Regarding our works, if they are genuine, they are the product of the Holy Spirit; therefore, I include them as God’s gift to us as well. A truly converted Christian has very little to be proud of, except of the fact that Jesus lives in him through the power of his Holy Spirit. I consider this to be a gift. Of course, the Lord will not abide with his holy presence unless we welcome him into our life.

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

Dear Nic,

I have dealt extensively with the New Testament text, and I am aware of the textual variants. Furthermore, as Ellen White points out, it is clear that copyists introduced certain errors into the text, although the very early Alexandrian text seems to be free of many errors that crept into the later Byzantine text. For example, John 5:4 teaches both superstition and rotten theology, and lo and behold, it is spurious! Note that this verse is omitted by Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and by papyri 66 and 75, both of which date to approximately AD 200.

But I do object to the totally unfounded argument that the New Testament text has been so corrupted by copyists that we cannot discern its original message. This argument is demonstrably false and is rejected by all text critical scholars. When we read the New Testament, we can be sure we are getting the essential message that the original writers and the Holy Spirit intended us to get.

I agree that we should give God credit for any good in us. But even the good in us that God produces is not salvific. Only Christ saves! Salvation is objective, not subjective.
If I depend on my sanctification for salvation, how sanctified must I be to be saved? Well I must be sinless, and in that case, I freely confess that I'm a goner!

While you and Elaine are not coming from the same perspective, you both take a different view of early church history than I do. Both of you argue that what was recognized as the orthodox or catholic (with a little c)position has no real claim to legitimacy. I argue that it does, because it is supported by the New Testament. Elaine responds that the New Testament cannot be trusted because the orthodox tradition tampered so extensively with the text. I respond that we have manuscripts that date all the way back into the second century, and there is no evidence for such extensive tampering. If you read any work on New Testament textual criticism, you will see that this is so.

My belief in the Trinity is not based on resolutions emanating from the Council of Nicaea, although I do believe the council got it right. My belief in the Trinity is based on the New Testament.

Where did I use the term "wholesale corruption" or such a suggestion in my discussions? That there have been changes throughout the centuries is well documented. That the Gospels differed on Christology is also easily determined: Mark begins his story of Jesus at his baptism which became the "adoptionist" premise that Jesus became a unique individual at that time. Matthew and Luke gave a different approach and John is so far out that he is excluded from the synoptics because he is writing a theological treatise and not even pretending to write a biographical narrative (not that any of them fit that category). They even differ on the length of time of Jesus' ministry: one year or three years?

None of this is intended to remove any of the principles necessary for living, which is why the Bible should hold importance for us. It is the misuse of the Bible in "proof-texting" often to the nth degree on minor points that demean the intent of the writers. Whether one believes that Jesus was a prophet (Jewish and Islamic) or the savior of mankind should not affect how we live as Christianity has adopted all the good principles in loving one's neighbor and the Golden Rule that are sufficient for us today.

It is not belief that has meaning: a solitary hermit or monk can live in a cave or top of a spike and "believe" all his life, but if he never contacts other humans, of what affect will his belief ever serve? It is in our lives, by doing, that we can only be judged, and the Bible is one of many good books that can help show the way. There is, however, a caveat: be careful of what you read, as no one should ever attempt to replicate many of the deeds recorded there, some even said to be directly determined by God. There is nothing sacred about any book, only God is sacred and he did not write that book, it was man and many of his concepts are "off the wall" when compared with out perspectives today. No one should advocate Paul's preference for celibacy, nor his admonition for women to keep silence, etc. Care must always be used when reading, interpreting, or proclaiming specifics from the Bible.

Well said Bob
I always have to laugh when someone asserts that there is not enough evidence to know for sure but what they ARE sure of is that your interpitation is wrong!

"We can be sure we are getting the essential message that the original writers and the Holy Spirit intended us to get."

Hmmm. An interesting statement sounding quite oxymoronic: "We may not get it all, but what we get can be certain," is how it appears to the reader. Is that a correct assessment?

Is there certainty or uncertainty about the origin of the Trinitarian doctrine? Is there certainty about Jesus being proclaimed God while he lived by his contemporaries? Or, was it long after his crucifixion and resurrection that the concept was given birth? Did Paul ever express belief that Jesus had been God incarnate? Peter did not claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God but was a "man, commended to you BY GOD....that God worked THROUGH him when he was among you." How could Paul, the earliest NT writer and the most important figure during the first century that established the initial doctrines of the Christian church, who knew nothing of either the Trinity or how Christians could believe that Jesus was divine and yet, at the same time, insist that there was only ONE God? Neither Clement nor Origen believed that man has ben "saved" by the death of Christ because at that time there WAS no official doctrine. Nobody knew for certain if God had created the world or how a human being had been divine.

When Paul and John spoke about Jesus as though he had some kind of preexistent life, they were not suggesting that he was a second divine "person" in the later Trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus had transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the "power" and "wisdom" that he represented were activities that DERIVED from God, he had in some way expressed "what was there from the beginning."

We should never forget that it was Augustine, the Latin theologian who defined the Trinity for the Latin, or western church. No other theologian, apart from Paul, has been more influential in the West. It was he who introduced the doctrine of Original Sin, central to the way Western people would view the world. He believed that God had condemned humanity to an eternal damnation, simply because of Adam's one sin.

Neither Jews or Greek Orthodox Christians regarded the fall of Adam (something not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible). It was a harsh doctrine that painted a terrible picture of an implacable God. A religion which teaches men and women to regard their humanity as chronically flawed can alienate them from themselves. Such a religion regards every involuntary motion of mind, heart and body as a symptom of fatal concupiscence can only become neurotic--a belief that before an infant is born he is a sinner, and damned simply by being a human.

Unless we understand the evolution of Christianity and how it has introduced man's ideas throughout the centuries; ideas that have been incorporated in modern belief, even those of Adventism, we wil become ingnorant followers of "we know not what" the blind leading the blind.

Good post Bob H.

pat

Dear Elaine,

I strongly affirm your concern for ethics. Without high ethics, especially self-sacrificing love for others, one's profession of faith means nothing. And as Martin Luther rightly pointed out, Christians are not called to be hermits or monks. Christians are called to get out in the world, rub shoulders with other people, and genuinely love them. I very serious about this! I really want to exercise agape love toward other people, including you.

But one can be ethical without being a Christian. Please note that this site is dealing with Desmond Ford's theology. And for Dr. Ford and me ( and many others), the center of Christian faith is not ethics. It is something very unique, namely the gospel of free grace. No other religion is the world teaches this concept of justification by grace alone. This is what sets Christianity utterly apart. And genuine acceptance of God's free gift of salvation inevitably leads to self-sacrificial love for God and for others.

I also agree with you about the dangers of proof texting. When dealing with scripture, I believe in using grammatical historical methodology, along with a very careful use of higher criticism. I believe that source, form, and redaction criticism have some validity for the study of the Biblical text. However, I reject the naturalistic presuppositions behind historical critical methodology.

I believe you are reading a great deal into the gospels that is not explicit in the text. There is nothing in Mark that remotely suggests an adoptionist christology. Yes, Mark starts out with the John the Baptist and his batism of Jesus.
But Mark never says that Jesus became the Christ at this point. That conclusion is based on eisegesis, not exegesis.

By the way, I once accepted the common assumption that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources. However, after carefully reading the synoptic Greek text and translating it into English, I have been forced to adopt the Griesbach/Farmer hypothesis that Matthew was the first gospel to be written.
The Greek seems to indicate that Luke sometimes copied from Matthew and that Mark sometimes conflated statements from both Matthew and Luke. Thus Mark would have been aware of the infancy narratives.

However, I have no desire to debate the synoptic problem. If other people give Mark priority, so be it!

"I have been forced to adopt the Griesbach/Farmer hypothesis that Matthew was the first gospel to be written."

That is certanly an option. However, the most dominant theory by far is the Two-Source Hypothesis, which has been accepted and used for other fields such as Text Criticism (e.g.,Metzger), to Form Criticism (e.g., Bultmann) and early Church history.

Regarding the dates of the Gospels, F.F. Bruce writes:

"So we find Mark, the companion and interpreter of Peter, committing to writing in Rome the Gospel as Peter habitually proclaimed it; shortly afterwards we have Matthew's Gospel appearing in the East."

The majority of biblical scholars favor the Two-Source Hypothesis rather than Griesbach's views. Current support for the Griesbach or Augustinian hypotheses comes primarily from scholars concerned to validate patristic testimony as reliable historical reminiscence and not--as Griesbach himself held--pious speculations: which are today rejected by most scholars.

F.F.Bruce in "The Books and the Parchments" has written:

"Sometimes, after all the processes have been completed, even the ultimate archetpe provisionally reconstructed is seen to contain here and there a reading which is manifestly corrupt. No objective textual evidence is available to correct it; the textual critic must perforce employ the art of conjectural emendation--an art which demands the severest self-discipline."

Dear Elaine,

Thanks for quoting F.F. Bruce to me. He could be right. As you have probably realized, I have a good bit of respect for Bruce, and after reading some of his material, I assumed that he was correct. But that was before I really wrestled with the synoptic text. I have no desire to defend the patristic testimony, but the nature of the text has pointed toward position of Griesbach and Farmer. This was also Dr. Jon Paulien's position when I took his classes at the SDA seminary back in the 1980s.

Bob,

As we both should recognize, there is no definite proof for most anything we know about Scripture. We are dependent on what has already long been canonzed. However, we are able to learn more, as we have in the past century with the discoveries at Qumran and Nag Hamadi, together with newer textual and historical analyses. We should never limit our concepts to the past but always be open to newer interpretations and discoveries, allowing us new information that we should filter through our own minds. We all must rely on those who have spent their entire lifetimes in analyzing and dissecting things that we have neither the time nor freedom to consider. I am so thankful for the revelations of historians and critics and the ability to read their thoughts.

"And for Dr. Ford and me ( and many others), the center of Christian faith is not ethics." (Bob Helm)

Well, to Jesus it was. Jesus was not interested in metaphysics and the algorithms of salvation. His concern was ethics and eschatology, or perhaps more specifically, the ethics of the Kingdom of God that he proclaimed.

Jesus did not warn against heresy, of people proclaiming another gospel, the way Paul did in Galatians. He warned about people who thought that words were more important than deeds, people who thought that a veneer of godliness and regard for orthodoxy would excuse them from attending to the outcast Samaritan in the ditch.

In other words, Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

Aage,

You point out well that Christ was a Jew and not "a Christian."

However Christianity is not Judaism and "righteousness commeth not by the law (ethics) or Christ is dead in vain."

Christianity IS Christ!

He is the Way, Truth and life eternal.

regards,

pat

Aage,

I would suggest that a closer reading of Paul's letters would reveal the same. His concern was not to set out algorithms of salvation, as you put it, but was often intensely practical and pastoral.

Even a letter like Romans, which is treated like an abstract theological treatise by many, seems to have as its focus not simply how people get saved, but how should the people of God from different backgrounds (Jews and Gentiles who have been embraced by the grace of Christ) practically live and love one another in community. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ is Paul's constant touchstone and framework for the call to live lives of compassion, mercy and ethical integrity...the ethics of the Kingdom of God that he, in this case Paul, had proclaimed.

A beautiful summation of this can be found in Romans 15:7, Paul's call to the strong and the weak/Jewish and Gentile believers in the Roman church..."Accept one another,then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." Jesus modeled such total acceptance in his treatment of people like the Samaritan woman, and his full inclusion and acceptance of societal outcasts among his disciples. Paul is calling for this same type of dismantling of discriminatory and prejudicial barriers...attitudes that still rear their ugly heads among former enemies who now belong by one, unifying faith to the family of God.

Also, the motivational aspect of Paul's ethical call sounds quite similar to what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount: "...let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
Thus, the difference that I see in Paul's writings (in concert with Jesus' own teachings) from a totally human centered ethic, is one of motivation and power. Paul proclaims Christ and his grace as both the motivation and power to live out the ethical call of God. Something that he views as an impossibility apart from Jesus, even under the highest ethical systems of that day known to man...be it the wisdom and philosophy of his time, or the life of Judaism under Torah. (Romans 7 brings both of these thoughts together.) Jesus also said as much when he spoke of bearing fruit in the context of love, "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

To me, the great gulf between the messages of Jesus and Paul is more apparent than real.

Thanks...

Frank

Bob,

Thanks for your comments dated 10 October 2008 at 7:04. I read them, and I also read your exchange of arguments with Elaine and others. I will try to limit my response to what concerns my understanding of the Gospel and Scripture.

Regarding John 5:4, you probably noticed that the NIV omitted this verse from the text and moved it to the footnotes. My view is that the text we have is quite clear about what is needed for repentance, behavior, and salvation. I also believe that the power for salvation resides in Jesus and his words. His words brought the universe into existence; it restored the life of Lazarus.

This is why Jesus said to those who were offended when he told them that they must drink his blood: “The words which I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life.” [John 6:63] Blood is a symbol of life, because as the blood circulates through our arteries and veins, it provides the nutrients for life and it removes the impurities from our cells. The words of Jesus perform the same function for our spiritual lives. In this sense, what God produces in us is in fact “salvific.” In this I depart from your views.

I am not surprised by the fact that you do believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Most Christians do, because it was instilled in them by centuries of indoctrination. You will probably continue to believe this in spite of anything we might say to the contrary. Nevertheless, if your objective is to convince me that this represents what is revealed in Scripture, then you will need to show me from the Bible that this is the case, and so far, you have not done so.

There is no need for you to repeat the arguments you have used in the past, and I will refrain from repeating the reasons I have used so far for rejecting such a doctrine, unless you want me to do this. I will limit myself this time to the following: Show me two or three clear biblical references where it states that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, that it is equal in power and authority as God the Father, and that it is entitled to our worship. You can also explain why the Holy Spirit is not specifically included as instruments of God’s revelation to Daniel [Daniel 10] and Revelation [Rev.1:1].

Bob,

I also read your comments dated 07 October 2008 at 8:37, and I have a question for you: How could a moral being appease himself by demanding the death of his innocent Son? Did the Father of the Prodigal Son appease himself in like manner? Explain to me how the term forgiveness can have any real meaning if full payment is demanded as a condition of forgiveness? Explain to me how another crime can balance the legal inequity created by the first crime [human sin]. Explain to me why God needed to be appeased, if Paul says that the death of Christ reconciled us to God, and not the reverse?

Tell me why Jesus stated that if he were to be lifted up, he would draw all men to himself [John 12:32]. Should he not have stated that his death would allow God to forgive our sins? Explain to me how could Jesus say to the paralytic, “your sins are forgiven” before his death? Should he not have included a contingency there? Explain how Jesus could have stated to his disciples, “now you are clean by the words that I have spoken to you” before his crucifixion! Should he not have included his death as a condition?

Bob,

I read your 10 October 2008 at 9:24 posting as well, and I agree with you that Matthew’s Gospel was the first ever written. There are many reasons I have no time to mention which led me to accept this as the most logical conclusion.

Aage,

Regarding your comments dated 10 October 2008 at 2:10, I would like to mention that I fully agree with your suggestion that Jesus was more interested in ethics than the “algorithms of salvation.” Some years ago I read the Gospels with a single purpose objective in mind: To compare Jesus emphasis on behavior as opposed to simply faith. I was tremendously impressed with how much emphasis Jesus placed on action rather than rhetoric.

frank7,

I fully agree with the suggestion you made on 10 October 2008 at 5:36 that apart from Jesus, we can do nothing. This means for me that whatever good we can accomplish, God gets the credit. Of course, we can try lifting ourselves by our bootstraps, but we won’t get very far, or high enough.

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

Frank
"To me, the great gulf between the messages of Jesus and Paul is more apparent than real." (Frank)

I would argue that that "gulf" is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Ethics represents an overlapping concern for these two religions. In Judaism its primary, in Christianity it's secondary.

Bob, you wrote:

"My belief in the Trinity is not based on resolutions emanating from the Council of Nicaea, although I do believe the council got it right. My belief in the Trinity is based on the New Testament."

Perhaps that could be compared to one of the pictures, of which I have several, consisting of small blobs on a poster, seemingly nothing, until someone steps back and takes another look and then traces the outline of a hidden airplane, or object. After that has been revealed comes the Aha! moment when now, you can finally see what was hidden before. IOW, had you never known of the Trinitarian doctrine, would you have accepted it without question?

As Nic has questioned, had the doctrine of the Trinity not become a long-held position by the church, would it be seen or recognized in the NT if it had not already been determined long ago? On what texts in the Bible can one find the Trinity so clearly and definitively stated?
And while in all of the Hebrew scriptures it is very explicit that God is one. The 2nd Fundamental only says that there is an "allusion" to the Godhead in the OT.

There is abundant evidence supporting that Christianity was greatly influenced by the Greek philosophy, as well as other pagan cultures, such as Egypt which had a divine trinity and are thoroughly documented in the link given by Nic.
It is difficult not to agree with Durant when he said "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it....Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world."

It has always seemed a paradox in the Christian world that although Adventists accept most of the doctrines that were finally adopted in the early centuries of its origin, they totally refused to adopt the Lord's Day in honor of Christ's resurrection--without which there would be no Christian church.

Another Story: Primarily for Ellen’s Interest.

About 30 years ago, a prominent Jewish orthodontist in Atlanta, proposed that he sponsor, in his name, an annual two day continuing education course in some contemporary phase of restorative dentistry at the Medical College of Georgia, School of Dentistry in Augusta, Ga. He would cover all costs not recovered by the registration fee.

Included in the two day gala event was a banquet in honor of the guest lecturer. The guest was given a sculpture, designed by an Atlanta Artist, symbolizing the “Burning Bush”. Each year the Jewish orthodontist would make the presentation, and every year he would get the scenario mixed up.
One year it was Abraham and the Burning Bush, Another year it was Joseph and the Burning Bush and so on.

The host, was always sure that all the prominent Jewish scientists in Augusta where invited to the banquet and presentation ceremony. One of these honored guests, was a world renowned internist, known for his work in development of the “pill” and the intra-uterine device. This physician had written a book entitled: “Search The Scriptures”. It was a “must” read for any and all who joined the faculty at the Medical College of Georgia. The book’s premise was that all of the miracles and unusually incidents in the Old Testament could be explained due to natural causes. Because of his interest in reproductive biology, a central story was Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. It was all the result of a delayed puberty on the part of Joseph—no moral influence theory here!

As Vice President for Academic Affairs and as a dentist, it was my annual duty to first offer the Invocation; then following the dinner to introduce the head table and recognize all of the distinguished guests.

The author/physician and entourage always had the center front table, directly facing the podium from which the presentations were to be made. It was also from this point that I would make my introductions.

One year in the early 1980’s the trend was to have very delicate portions, well placed on large dinner plates. The Pinnacle Club of Augusta was very trendy.

This particular evening, the menu was as follows:

Appetizer: One leaf of Belgian Endive with a dab of Crab Meat with a drop of lemon sauce.

Palate Cleanser: A tablespoon of shaved grapefruit ice.

Entree: A medallion of rare tenderloin the size of a well worn silver dollar.

Side Dishes: Three buttered baby carrots and two walnut sized boiled new potatoes.

Desert: A chocolate Bon Bon and coffee.

Following the dinner it was my turn to make the proper introductions.

I began with recognizing the center front table:

I addressed the good Doctor and his lovely wife and then added: “Doctor, I have read your book “Search The Scriptures” although you didn’t address any of the miracles in the New Testament, I always wondered how Jesus fed 5000 people with only two fish and three loaves: until tonight when I saw what the Pinnacle Club could do with one small steak, a bunch of carrots and a handful of potatoes. I am anxious to see if the twelve apostles standing in the back of the room can gather up even one basket of scraps.

Great applause! The Doctor’s wife in a stage voice said to her husband—“Who is that man?” The son of the Doctor and his wife was married to Bob Hope’s daughter and was now head of drama at the University of North Carolina. (I did get a big hug and kiss on the cheek from the Doctor’s wife at the end of the evening—my main claim to fame!)

Ellen one just can’t take the written word too seriously or literally can one?

Cheers, Tom

"I would argue that that "gulf" is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Ethics represents an overlapping concern for these two religions. In Judaism its primary, in Christianity it's secondary."

Aage...

First of all I believe that you are painting with an extremely broad brush. What forms of Christianity and Judaism are you targeting, there is so much variation? And what Christians or Jews do you have in mind, the variety becomes even more infintesiaml?

Secondly, my point was not about Christianity's vs. Judaism's emphasis on ethics. If you want to say that Christianity has de-emphasized ethics because of an over-emphasis of aspects of Paul's letters by many interpreters and denominations that's one thing. But my argument was that taking a closer look at what Paul himself was emphasizing in his letters in its totality, and in its context, reveals a far greater correspondence with what Jesus himself taught than you and many others on this site are allowing. In that sense, I believe the gulf is more apparent than real. I thought that I gave illustration above from Romans, of all letters a favorite target of many.

To travel the opposite direction, one must also consider Jesus' parables of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the eleventh hour workers, and the prodigal son to see that he also taught that salvation was a gift of grace at its core. He vividly modeled this in his dying hour when he promised the thief a place in Paradise with him. The man's qualification was nothing more than his desperate need... and an appeal for mercy from what looked like a dying imposter.

I guess that would qualify as salvation by naked, preposterous faith.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank

Oops!!

Frank...only once.=)

Frank
I'm not dismissing what you're saying. Paul certainly does more than construct soteriological equations. Much of what he writes is focusing on the practical implications of his theoretical constructs.

Jesus does the same. He starts with the reality of divine intervention ("The Kingdom of God is at hand") and elaborates on the ethical implications for those who want to be part of it.

I suspect that this could be said about most, if not all religions, that they are grounded in a faith-view of reality, and that this transcendent reality demands behavior modification on the part of the believers or participants.

But the fact that both Jesus and Paul speak about ethical implications of their faith does not mean that their religious outlook was the same. Even though the Synoptics insert the occasional contradictory Pauline point of view into their gospels, Jesus still comes across as a Jew, Paul as a Christian.

Aage,

You stated the following on 12 October 2008 at 5:21:

"Jesus still comes across as a Jew, Paul as a Christian."

Perhaps we need to convert Jesus to Christianity! Any volunteers for the task?

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

The idea that Paul founded an anti-semitic, gentile Christianity contra Jesus an ordinary Jew seems to have originated early, not within Christianity itself but in Judaism. The most current expression of this in the literature comes from Hyam MacCoby, a Talmudic scholar.

The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, 1987
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0062505858/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_2?%5Fe...

Paul and Hellenism, 1991
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0334024854/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt...

Jesus the Pharisee, 2003
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0334029147/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt...

However, a contrasting perspective comes from another Jewish scholar:

"The conventional Jewish view is that Jesus was a fairly good Jew but Paul was an anti-Semite who created Christianity. The problem is that Paul was at least as Jewish as Jesus. He calls himself a Pharisee. Sanders and Stendahl, among others, have proved that the letters of Paul are typical Jewish documents of a few later centuries. Paul certainly was not less Jewish than Jesus. One cannot any longer say that he was the founder of Christianity, unless one realizes that somehow Jesus gave him a lead, an entering wedge for a new religion. Religions are not invented out of nowhere. Paul did not create the Jesus of the New Testament."

- Jesus as an historical Jew - religious figure by Arnold Jacob Wolf in JUDAISM, Summer, 1997

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n3_v46/ai_20119171?tag=co...

Joselito
It really goes back to German theologian F.C. Bauer in the mid 19th century. He was the first prominent theologian to point out that Christianity started out, not as one, but as two movements: On the one hand the Jewish Christian movement led by James, the brother of Jesus and the Catholic branch, led by Paul.

I've read Macoby's books and they are very interesting, albeit open to criticism. His most interesting book, Revolution in Judea, you did not mention.

Macoby elaborates on Bauer's observations, and I agree with his main conclusions that Jesus and his followers IN Galilee and Judea saw him as an ethnic redeemer, sent by God to restore the fallen house of David. The other branch of early Christianity, whose champion was Paul, cast Jesus as a universal savior, fightning against sin and not against the Romans.

Judaism and Christianity can largely be reduced to ethnicity vs universality. Jews do not proselytize because Yahweh did not have any plans for Swedes and Chinese. They are free to join the Chosen but according to Judaism, God had other plans for them. There is a strong element of henotheism in Biblical Judaism, the idea that Yahweh is the only God for Jews but that other nations have to seek their fortunes with their own deities. The 'Nations' are essentially written out of Yahweh's plan.

It was this lack that Paul addressed. He assured the Gentiles who felt attracted to Judaism that they didn't have to become Jews to be the beneficiaries of God's blessings. God was a God for all people. He had a plan for everyone.

It's easy to see why the historically correct Jesus-movement would lose out to this message.

For historical purposes, Jewish Christianity died after 70 A.D. From that period, Christianity was Gentile. While the Pauline letters and the Acts of the Apostles tell us something of the development of the Gentile communities, we know relatively little of the mother-church in Judea. Most of the twelve disiples disappear from history. S.G.F. Brandon
has written ("The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church") that "Christian literature contains no record of the fate of its Mother Church following the calamity of 70 A.D."

Among the Pauline churches there was little interest in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as it was lived out in Palestine, although it was the primary raison d'etre of the later Gospels. Within some twenty-odd years of the Crucifixion there were current in the Church two distinct, and apparently mutually hostile "gospels," or, presumably, interpretations of the nature and work of Jesus. Even Paul's letters acknowledges this in his warnings of "other gospels" being taught.

Even the Gospel writers were Jewish (who wrote in Greek?) and much of antisemitism derives from their writings. As the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple, was it to deflect the Romans from further perscution?

Elaine,

I want to address a comment you made at the end of your 14 October 2008 at 8:53 posting suggesting that “the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple.”

For me the evidence points to an early composition of those documents. Notice the abrupt manner in which the book of Acts ends in which the last reference is to the imprisonment of Paul in Rome, which experts date at around 62 A.D. Notice also the introduction to the book of Acts where we find the reference to Theophilus; to whom the document is dedicated, the same as the Gospel of Luke.

From this we can safely conclude that the Gospel of Luke was written before 62 A.D., and more likely around 58 A.D. Besides, in the introduction to Luke, the author makes an allusion to other individuals who have attempted to set the record straight about what had transpired in relation to the life and death of Jesus.

All this, plus the fact that in the Gospel of Matthew, the destruction of Jerusalem is depicted as a prediction instead of as an historical fact, leads me to believe that the higher critics are all wet regarding the alleged late composition of the Synoptics.

On top of this, we have the testimony of Iranaeus and Origen, who did state that Matthew was written for the Jews, which forces us to assign an early date for its composition. Tradition refers to Saint Thomas as a missionary to India, where he took a copy of the Matthew Gospel with him, which copy later on was taken to the library at Alexandria.

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