Dr. Ford,

Although I've disagreed with your view on the atonement since I started studying it for myself I'm a great respecter for what I believe is your intellectual honesty and for how you've handled oppression.

Even those of us who many believe subscribe to "MIT" (I don't believe we do) you have our respect and love.

Warmly,

Marco Belmonte
HeavenlySanctuary.com

I think it's easy to understand all the respect and love that Dr. Ford receives from the teachers of m.i.th. He shows great respect for them and they in turn reciprocate with praise and love. Have you ever wondered why Hymenaeus and Alexander became so popular in the Early Church? I'm sure that they were greatly appreciated and warmly received by many prominent leaders like Desmond Ford. I'm sure that many had referred to them as "fine Christian gentlemen!" Unfortunately, the Church had troublemakers like Paul who expressed many angry and unkind words against them all (1 Timothy 1:1:19-20, cf. 2 Timothy 2:17-18). Wouldn't it be better if we could all emulate Dr. Ford's example of warm affection and peace with those with whom we disagree? Then there would be no divisions and fighting between different factions in the Church and the gospel would then advance smoothly and peacefully.

Marco Belmonte wrote warmly of Desmond Ford: I'm a great respecter for what I believe is your intellectual honesty and for how you've handled oppression.

"He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward." Matthew 10:41. This Scripture is full of assurance for those who have warmly received the prophets of peace. Desmond Ford, Graham Maxwell and Helen Schucman have obviously inspired thousands with their peaceful character of God message. Certainly Des Ford will be rewarded for his many years of opposition to the Investigative Judgment. I expect that they will all be standing near each other in the final judgment when they all receive their rewards together.

Dr. Ford wrote:
--
Appropriately, the writer of this lesson in the Bible Study Guide has focused on what happened at Gethsemane. Anyone who reads what he has written will have the essence of the biblical teaching on the atonement. Calvary apart from Gethsemane is incomprehensible. The weight of the sin of the world began in the garden of the olive press to deprive our Lord of life. Thus, it is impossible to believe that Gethsemane and Calvary were merely gestures of the love of God for sinners. They were that but they were also incalculably more, and the writer of this lesson has made that very clear and should be richly commended. He has correctly invoked “the second death” as the penalty for sin, and Christ experienced that penalty. The cross magnified the law and satisfied justice as well as providing atonement and expiation.
--

Jesus clearly was troubled in Gethsemane, but to say that it was because of the weight of sin was began in the garden is without merit. It depends on what they are trying to say. Most likely they mean that somehow Sin was being transferred to Jesus rather then the weight being the sadness over sin such as occurred when Jesus wept over Jerusalem.

Of course since it makes no sense for sin to be transferred anywhere, what is sin that it can be moved from here to there or from now to then. It makes no sense so they word in vague ways like He carried the weight of our sin. Or God's wrath at sin. But what is sin apart from the individual whose actions or thoughts make up the sin. Well best not go there as we all know they don't have an answer for that question.

Although if it began to deprive the Lord of life and that was the purpose why send an angel to strengthen Him. Wasn't that the point they want to make that the sin, our sin was separating Jesus from the Father, God separated from God?

I could agree that the second death is the penalty for sin, but did Jesus die the Second death. If we look at how Revelation defines it is the death for which there is no resurrection. Jesus was resurrected...so how is that the second death? Well of course the answer is that the second death has to be redefined just as Jesus paying our penalty is taken from somewhere else so is the new definition of second death taken from somewhere else. But the problem comes when we take all this material from somewhere else and insert it into the story of Jesus and then have to redefine atonement in ways that don't make a lot of sense but seem to fit our traditions.

Des Ford wrote: “Theological error does not cancel us from the heart of God or none of us could be the recipient of the divine love.”

Teaching error may not remove us from God’s love, but it can sure throw major obstacles in the way of God’s work and result in the eternal destruction of self-absorbed apostates. I witnessed the disastrous results when Des Ford began to challenge certain fundamental beliefs of the church (even though Ford claims he has always been “in the fullest harmony with the main doctrinal positions of our church…” Ministry Magazine, Oct 1980, p. 11). I saw the argument and debate that split many Adventist churches; the ministers (mostly young) who sided with Ford and lost their credentials—some of whom have since renounced their belief in God; Ford’s stubborn insistence on establishing his own criteria on how to interpret doctrine (which excluded Ellen White’s interpretive authority); and the great expense of Glacier View. I saw a former elder of my church wander off after Ford’s “new light” and on his deathbed curse Ellen White and denounce any significance to 1844…and all because one man was deceived enough to believe he is right and the rest of the church is wrong. I am sure that his sleep has been undisturbed, even though he led out in a movement that ruined lives and that caused God’s work to suffer a major setback.

The younger generation of Seventh-day Adventists (those in their early 30s and younger) have never heard of Desmond Ford; but he is still out there doing his work of division. Occasionally I hear of still another minister who is charmed by Des Ford and lost his ministry. Several years ago Ford was making his way across America with a speaking tour, and I was delighted that when he arrived in Jacksonville, Florida there were only around a dozen Adventists who showed up to hear him.

Satan has raised up a never-ending stream of individuals claiming to be loyal Seventh-day Adventists (even those with gentlemanly demeanors) to divert the attention of God’s people from the message we were commissioned to give to the world. The last message to the world will not be whether Antiochus Epiphanes could have been the only fulfillment of the little horn or Daniel 8, or whether the hell that destroys the wicked in the second death will be God’s unveiled glory or literal fire. Mrs. White predicted that “One interest will prevail, one subject will swallow up every other—Christ our righteousness.” SD 259. How many professed Adventists could give a one-hour study on that topic?

That day will come, but not before false teachers are shaken out and the eleventh-hour workers come in to join the remaining few loyal Adventists who will give the Loud Cry.

Dwight,

Hope your health is improving.

As a personal friend and acquaintance of Dr. Ford, I would like to reiterate my appreciation of his efforts throughout his teaching and ministry.

He was attempting to uphold at minimum several things as I see it. That while EGW can be appreciated in areas, she is not to be our final authority. Scripture is.

That the investigative judgment as traditionally taught is not biblical...nor the associated implication that Christ did not enter the Most Holy until 1844.

That "RBF" means JBF alone. RBF and JBF "alone" does not mean to "make righteous" but to be "reckoned righteous."

On occasion EGW was quite clear about this though many among the “make perfect final generation” might be disappointed.

“But we shall not boast of our holiness. As we have clearer views of Christ's spotlessness and infinite purity, we shall feel as did Daniel, when he beheld the glory of the Lord, and said, "My comeliness was turned in me into corruption."
We cannot say, "I am sinless," till this vile body is changed and fashioned like unto His glorious body. But if we constantly seek to follow Jesus, the blessed hope is ours of standing before the throne of God without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; complete in Christ, robed in His righteousness and perfection.--Signs of the Times, March 23, 1888.”

Shubee…
You might consider this council from Romans 10:5-11.
“For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

Perhaps both of you might consider that Des loves the gospel as multitudes of others because he recognizes his imperfections because he is no longer deluded and recognizes we are never in this life “made perfect” but “reckoned perfect” alone in Christ “our righteousness” made available to us by his perfect substitutionary atoning sacrifice.

Growth in holiness...yes. "Made sinless and perfect"...no.

Regards,
pat

Thanks Pat,

Another sound and clear voice of and for the Gospel.

I enjoy. Tom

Best wishes and a merry Christmas to you and yours Tom.

pat

I saw the argument and debate that split many Adventist churches ... Ford’s stubborn insistence on establishing his own criteria on how to interpret doctrine (which excluded Ellen White’s interpretive authority

Dwight,

I think that we should show mercy to Desmond Ford for imagining that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfills Daniel 8:14. As you very well know, Dr. Ford has problems seeing beyond the standard moral influence theory in Maxwell's pan-Gnostic spiritualism. What Ellen White saw before Desmond was born, Dr. Ford apparently can't recognize while being in its very midst.

Pat Travis wrote:

the investigative judgment as traditionally taught is not biblical...nor the associated implication that Christ did not enter the Most Holy until 1844.

It's true that God gave Ellen White visions that add remarkable detail to what is present in Scripture. The fact that the Adventist Church adopted some of these extra-Biblical details for its list of fundamental beliefs is not the worst mistake that the Church has made.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/eschatology

What Dr. Rodriguez wrote in lesson 10 of the Sabbath School Bible Study Guide and what Dr. Ford has stated in his commentary on that lesson deserves to be carefully pondered. This is the essence of real Christianity, and it should be the essence of Adventism. I salute both of these scholars for their bold defense of the gospel. May it capture our hearts and set them aflame for Christ, and may it quickly be taken to a world that is dying for a lack of good news!

Excellent commentary for insiders. Too cryptic for the average SS member. I guess, Des has a high regard for the
level of his "informed reader". Or maybe, he needed wiggle room. Who, when, where would have been nice. If so near the throne why not give them names? Who can touch them?

I don't like playing games with what I believe to be Truth.

Obviously, the fight was not between the Father and the Son, they were in agreement before the foundation of the earth.
Jesus lay down His life for Adam and all his sons and daughters. "He went in and made the old thing right!" as H.M.S. Richards would write. Hanging between heaven and earth, nothing but the words of Ps. 22 could come close to the price Jesus paid for our redemption. Abraham, Job, and Isaish came as close as humans can or could come in understanding the cost paid for our salvation.

It was your hands and mine that put Him there, not the hand of God. The Mind of Father agreed with the Son, the price was right, just, and full of mercy. In the process, all the powers of hell were conquored. We can go forth proclaiming: "It is Finished!" Not even a surprise finish yet to come! Tom

Tom Zwemer,

Why is it that on the thread discussing the “Character of God Controversy” you write as if you are an official spokesperson for pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism? In this thread, you sound as if you believe in imputed righteousness and vicarious substitutionary atonement.

Shubee My Dear Agnostic Friend

You have your own definition of everything. So I have no idea what you are talking about or asking.

In good old fashioned English. I believe The Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Second Person of a Triune God. He became man, He lived a perfect life, He surrendered His life, arose again on the third day, He now sits on the right hand of the throne of God, the Father, Believe in the above is salvation for me and any and all who so believe. He is coming again and His reward is with Him. Even So Come, Lord Jesus.

A primary reference would be Phil 2: 5-11 and or a careful reading of the New Testament. Tom

You have your own definition of everything. So I have no idea what you are talking about or asking.

Tom Zwemer,

I can't imagine what suggests to you that I disagree with all mainstream Adventist scholars, in fact, all Bible scholars of every denomination, on the meaning of each of the simple words I've used. Do you not understanding the meaning "imputed righteousness"? Or is this a case where Desmond Ford might have said of you, "The blueprint speaks with those words of which you do not approve."

Shubee

Do you recall your statement of a few weeks ago, in which you stated that you were the only one that you knew of who could prove the Investigative Judgment?

To such a one, I refrain from vain argumentation. I have already been cast among the losers by one who doubts everyone but himself.

I gave my witness. I shall add no more.

Peace, Tom

Dr. Ford wrote:

"This lesson teaches clearly that Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice, and that he suffered from the infliction of the wrath of God against sin. So says Ephesians 5:2; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13 and many verses in Hebrews chapters nine and ten."

I don't see where the verses quoted say anything about Christ suffering the infliction of the wrath of God. I believe that the view of Christ offering a blood sacrifice to appease the wrath of God originated with pagan Rome if not before and crept into the church through papal Rome. If a blood sacrifice were all that was required then Christ might well have been sacrificed as a baby to satisfy the wrath of God.

Keep Faith, Have Hope, Always Love,

Kelly

Do you recall your statement of a few weeks ago, in which you stated that you were the only one that you knew of who could prove the Investigative Judgment?

You can't possibly believe that God would reveal awesome new light to anyone that denounces pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism. That's fair enough. However, since the purpose of this thread is to discuss lesson 10 of the Bible Study Guide, i.e., the difference between m.i.th and the true gospel, let's not get away from the fact that your teacher, Graham Maxwell, has a list of phrases that he calls "dark speech" that he ridicules and never explains and that "imputed righteousness" is on that list.

Shubee, My Dear Deluded Friend.

Do you recall classifying me as one of Satan's devil's in human form? Why do you think I would offer you anything but my testimony of my faith, confidence, and total trust, in the Christ Event? As a free moral agent, you have the ability to put any label you wish upon that testimony. Since you like the sound of your own keyboard--use as big of words as you are familiar with.

It is apparent that you know as little about Graham Maxwell as you do about me.

Finally, I would suggest that you reread your submission to this web-site and consider if it gives a clear and compelling picture of Jesus Christ of either the New Testament or the writings of E.G. White.

I am not ashamed of Jesus Christ, The Apostle Paul or of Graham Maxwell. Never-the-less, I have a mind and a spirit of my own. I do not intend to be either bought or sold on the basis of your assessment. Nor do I seek your endorsement or critical analysis.

I suggest you go pick on someone your own size. God Himself, if I understand your self assessment. Tom

Thanks Kelly. Tom

Should it even be questioned why Shubee has been banned from previous SDA blogs?

Tom Zwemer wrote: Do you recall classifying me as one of Satan's devil's in human form?

I am certain that I did not. I am equally certain that you perceive it that way.

Should it even be questioned why Shubee has been banned from previous SDA blogs?

No. But I'd be happy to answer. Jesus was flogged and I was banned from a blog. I was banned from RevivalSermons.org for Reply #7 on a thread titled Read This and Weep. I was also banned from VOAF for posting a thread titled Pharisees, Sadducees, Seventh-day Adventists. And I was banned from the aToday Discussion Forums for My reminiscences of the official, church-sponsored Seventh-day Adventist forum.

Shubee

I feel very sorry for you and I really do pray for your peace of mind and your salvation. In a final thought.

Yes one of my teachers was and is Dr. Graham Maxwell. I must not omit my parents, the Apostle John and Paul, Edward Heppenstall, Paul Heubach, Raymond F. Cottrell, Otto Christensen, George McCready Price, Edwin Thiele, Charles Weniger, Lynn H. Wood, Frank H. Yost, and C. B. Haynes.

Not to include those whom I have read from Hans Kung to Fred Craddock; yes even, Ellen White would be a serious oversight.

No where in all that learning, did I meet anyone with the negativity and passion you express in the name of God. Tom

No where in all that learning, did I meet anyone with the negativity and passion you express in the name of God.

I would be absolutely amazed if most Pharisees and Sadducees didn't say that about Jesus.

http://everythingimportant.org/righteousness/

Tom Zwemer wrote: Do you recall classifying me as one of Satan's devil's in human form?

I am certain that I did not. I am equally certain that you perceive it that way.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shubee,

Uh, I'm certain that you did. Tom isn't the only one who remembers your smear of him. There are witnesses, and I'm one of them.

When one resorts to demonizing, (in this case literally) the rest of their arguments lose all credibility, because they themselves have lost the same.

Frank

If a blood sacrifice were all that was required then Christ might well have been sacrificed as a baby to satisfy the wrath of God.

Keep Faith, Have Hope, Always Love,

Kelly
________________________________________________________
Dear Kelly,

I actually believe that if Christ had been sacrificed as a baby, the anger of God angainst sin would have been satisfied and atonement would have been made. But in the plan of salvation, more is needed than Christ's sacrificial death. A perfect life, a perfect specimen of humanity is also needed. Christ's perfect life and substitutionary death are both credited to us poor, miserable sinners. Furthermore, Christ's perfect life is also needed as an example - to teach us how to begin living the sanctified life in loving response to the gift of God's grace. For these reasons, it was necessary for Christ to wait until He was a young man of 33 to make atonement for human sin.

Millions will be saved who not only knew nothing of Jesus, but also did not have a "correct" understanding of the atonement--or whatever one wishes to call it.

Millions also believe that our lives will be the only thing which can be demonstrated: "live in peace with all your neighbors, and do good wherever and whenever you can."

Too simple, but it removes all the jumble surrounding different theologies.

Thank You: Frank and Elaine.

Shubee, Sir:

Have you ever read Christ the Controversalist by John R.W. Stott? If not, I suggest it as a very good read. It was the
clerics os Jesus's day that said: "He casts out the devils because He is the Chief of Devils." Familiar? Tom

"Jesus was flogged and I was banned from a blog. I was banned from RevivalSermons.org for Reply #7 on a thread titled Read This and Weep. I was also banned from VOAF for posting a thread titled Pharisees, Sadducees, Seventh-day Adventists. And I was banned from the aToday Discussion Forums for My reminiscences of the official, church-sponsored Seventh-day Adventist forum."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shubee...

And I guess according to your perception that it's everybody else who has the problem. However, after a while, and several bannings, one must start to consider, "If it walks like a duck...?"

But that is difficult for one to do who is comparing their own difficulties with others with the experience of Jesus. When the same interpersonal problems keep rearing their head, it's easier to believe that one is being mistreated for righteousness' sake than to honestly take stock and revaluate one's own spiritual experience.

Frank

Dwight Turner.
The attitude expressed in your comment has turned more people away from our church than any misguided theologian could ever do.

I think it is time to think about the Atonement. The fateful days began with the Triumphal Entry Into Jerusalem.

That is the story we should be telling as we approach the celebration of the Advent.

The Rocks Cry Out

In the Gospel according to Luke, we find the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The carpenter from Nazareth is hailed as the Messiah. The “rulers” ask Jesus to still the crowd.
Jesus replies: “I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

Dr. Luke didn’t know about piezoelectricity. Now rocks cry out all the time. Junior scientists can still buy crystal set radios. It seems if certain crystals are distorted by pressure they will produce an electrical potential and if an electrical potential is applied to certain crystals they will distort. These properties are the basis for creating sound waves, which amplified can be heard and understood by the listener. If the voice of God could still the wind and the waves; if the voice of God could call the dead from the grave; then the voice of God could make the rocks cry out—even sing!

Recall at the beginning of Christ’s ministry a voice from heaven declared: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased!” Now after 3.5 years, the people echo that benediction.

Did anyone ever wonder or speculate what the rocks would say, if energized by the voice of God? One would have to assume that they would say, what “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Charles Jennens gives us a strong hint in the textual base he prepared for Handel’s Messiah.

The rock could have sung more but they could not have sung less—

“The Lord whom ye seek, ‘has’ suddenly come to His temple,, even the messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in: behold He ‘has come’, saith the Lord of Hosts.” Malachi 3:1 kjv (adapted)

But we have a problem here. If the messenger of the Covenant came to the temple in A.D. 33 did He not bring judgment with Him? To the people singing His praise and the rulers trying to still the adulation: the Hour of His Judgment had come!

The rocks continue—

“But who may abide the day of His coming, and who shall stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner’s fire.”Malachi 3: 2kjv

The rocks answer their own question—

“He shall purify the sons of Levi, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness”. Malachi 3: 4. kjv

The Hour of His Judgment comes when each person is confronted with a choice: As James Russell Lowell tells us: “Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth with false-hood, For the good or evil side.”

That time had arrived for the rulers in Jerusalem. The events following that entry carried the ruling class inevitably to an irreversible conclusion. When Pilate said: “Behold the Man!”
They cried: “Away with Him.” Their irreversible decision sealed their fate.

Never-the-less, the rocks sense in the moments of the triumphal entry that the evil one will soon be vanquished. So they continue their Gospel refrain—

“O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up into the high mountain. O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, behold your God! O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, Arise, shine, for they Light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.” Isa. 40: 9; Isa. 60:1 kjv

The rocks continue—

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, thy King cometh unto thee. He is the righteous Savior, and He shall speak peace unto the heathen”. Zech. 9:9-10 kjv

The song keeps building—

“He shall feed His flock like a shepherd; and He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.” Isa. 40: 11 kjv

To the open invitation—

“Come unto Him, all ye that labour, come unto Him that are heavy laden, as He will give you rest. Take His yoke upon you, and learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. Matt. 11: 28-30 kjv (adapted)

The rocks in great joy and anticipation gather in full voice saying—

“Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. Who is this King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. Who is this King of Glory? The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory. Ps. 24 7-10 kjv

Finally the rocks carry forth to the songs of heaven—

“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain and hath redeemed us to God by His blood, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and honour, glory and power unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. Amen. Rev. 5: 12-13

Let every voice say so!

Thomas J. Zwemer

This is my first post. Interesting reading. Recently I've ran into some Adventists that believe that the Atonement was not finished by Christ at the cross. They belive that God is depending on a select group of Christians in the last generation before the second coming to wrap up the atonement that Christ began by dying. These last day Christians gain a level of righteousness that is inpenetrable by Satan's schemes in the last day and that during the final moements of time God will remove his Spirit from them as He did from Christ in Gethsemene--but that like Christ they will stand this test and completely vindicate God's atonement by proving Satans accuations that man can't keep the law as unfounded. This is referred to as last day generation theology I think.

I've also been reading about Jones' and Waggoner's talks in 1888 that stirred things up so much. They wrote that God makes a man righteous by faith. The were careful to define this as not a matter of God just covering up a sinful man with his righteousness like putting a clean grament over a dirty one to that he appears righteous. From what I've read Ellen White affirms this as the beginning of the later rain, but that Satan succeeded in dividing the church over it and much of this light was shut out. Though Ellen White found true what these men taught in 1888, I remember her writing that they were too confrontational and could have helped reduce the schism that developed as a result.

I find it interesting that Desmond Ford seems to boo hoo against both of these viewpoints above. He has stirred up controversy too, and he seems to be continuing to do so, (very couriously now it seems).

I haven't told you what I believe on the above. I find few people are ever convinced on message boards by anything but their own arguments. There boards attract that type of person I believe. Gorrilla evangelists. So I'll save you the trouble of reading. But I will say, be attracted to the Word of God to check these ideas out. You can waste all your time going back and forth figuring out where something is coming from and where it's going. Let's all check out the source code in the Bible. Yippy! Happy Sabbath! Glad I stopped by.

Perhaps it is advisable to remember that theological doctrines are simply what we believe about God at one point in time, which is subject to change. Two people who are equally sincere can read the same Bible and come to radically different conclusions. Therefore, we must approach all doctrinal matters with a dose of humility, recognizing that the best way to learn about God is through a relationship, not through a set of beliefs about him.

All types of fundamentalism, whether it is Shubee Adventism or jihadist Islam, share certain characteristics:

1. An inability to deal with ambiguity. Fundamentalism recognizes no doubt, no gray. It's all black or white.

2. Fundamentalist convictions are seen as God's revealed truth, and anybody who opposes them, is damned.

3. Any opposition encountered comes from the devil. No valid arguments exist against a cause that has been determined to be God's own.

4. The need for an enemy is greater than the need for God. The worst thing that can happen to a fundamentalist, is to be considered irrelevant. Fundamentalism feeds off hatred, and moral duty (for instance, to behave in a way that's consistent with the Sermon on the Mount) only applies to people who share its view of the world.

It's impossible to have a rational conversation with a true fundamentalist, because you're automatically pegged as an agent of satan, if you disagree; and there is no need to consider arguments that try to advance another viewpoint, which by definition must be the devil's point of view.

A humble contribution to the topic with my column published in the Ministry Magazine, May 2001 -
The Gospel without Strings Attached

As Hans K. LaRondelle, Raoul Dederen, Hans Heinz, Roger S. Evans and Will Eva questioned the assumptions of the Catholic – Lutheran Joint Declaration On the Doctrine of Justification in the November 2000 Ministry issue, they spoke with clarity, unseen for a considerable time in our official publications, about the forensic, objective, synthetic and legal nature of justification, distinguished from sanctification, as thought by Paul and the Reformers.

Those articles rasied several questions: Has the Adventist Church, twenty years after Glacier View, finally matured enough to face the challenges of the gospel without a preconceived prejudice? After providing an objective assessment of the current Catholic-Lutheran crisis over justification by faith, dare we now proceed by sweeping our own backyard, to provide a breath of fresh air so that the gospel, too often disfigured beyond recognition, may finally begin to shine in its intended beauty?

Consequently, we should ask again, how could the Church still maintain that our denominational views about the phased or stretched atonement, character-dependant investigative judgment, and the final justification of God’s character through the sufficiently perfect obedience of God’s people – all of which make salvation dependant on the believers’ performance – complement the truth of the objective gospel? And finally, how far will the gospel go among the Adventists as long as we continue to allow the Church to move forward in its interpretation only as far as the Ellen G. White’s often conflicting statements would allow?

Just as much as the “gospel had been lost in an increasingly complicated system of merits, good works, sacraments and penances” in the teachings of the Catholic Church, so it is compromised by the increasingly confusing systems of Adventist theology of salvation where individual sanctification frequently merges with the divine act of justification and where our eternal destiny was not decided on the cross as much as in the characters of believers, so that at the end of the day our honoring of the Christ’s finished work of salvation appears more like a lip service than a genuine belief.

Whether the gospel is infused into indulgences, sacraments, merits of the saints, or into the character shaping doctrines of investigative judgment, vindication of God’s character through the lives of the believers and almost immaculate law keeping, it makes no difference. Both approaches are responsible for confusing the believer as to the method and place where salvation takes place, and as such they are an offense to the gospel - a serious deviation that undermines the fullness of salvation in the person of Jesus Christ.

The integrity of the Church and its mission in the days to come does not depend on how skilled it becomes in maneuvering through the challenges our distinctive beliefs will continue to face. Ultimately, the Church will be tested by its honesty towards the integrity of the gospel, for no church or a movement has ever been given commission other than to preach the gospel without strings attached. And how far will the gospel go in the Adventist Church this time depends on those ministers, evangelists, teachers, scholars, writers, editors and lay members who treasure the gospel above the loyalty to any ideological concept. For all of us the first step should be to stop hinting at the gospel and start preaching it deliberately and without apology.

It was the clerics os Jesus's day that said: "He casts out the devils because He is the Chief of Devils." Familiar?

Yes. The emptiness of the accusation against Jesus produces the same great sucking sound that my accusers make out of nothingness.

Tihomir Kukolja wrote:

Ultimately, the Church will be tested by its honesty towards the integrity of the gospel.

I agree. So are you actively opposed to the increasing influence of pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism in the Adventist Church or are you indifferent and neutral? What have you been personally doing to raise the barrier of a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ against this evil?

Tihomir Kukolja,
Amen!

and Shubee by preaching the gospel you oppose all other "gospels" which are not really the gospel at all.
Did you consider Rom. 10:5-11? It is one thing to promote the gospel...it is another to be the final judge of the "thoughts and intents of the heart."

regards,
pat

Des has done it again! Look at the seemingly unending comments on these central issues of the everlasting gospel. Des and I can remember several times in the swimming pool when we lived at the same motel while serving on the same committees. We surely had mutual fun and lasting good memories. We remember a ride west from Chicago as seatmates, and we never stopped talking. To this day, I believe we share a mutual admiration and I hope to walk into the City arm in arm.

As Des knows, my main concern with the forensic atonement, etc., is that what he says the world over is not what Luther, or even Calvin said, about "justification." When we observe theological concepts, the first responsibility is to check the sources, who is quoting who, and it may go back hundreds of years. This goes for great words like grace, faith, righteousness, etc--each one dividing the Christian church for at least the last 500 years. The current Adventist Church is no exception.

Luther can not be blamed for what his followers have done to his theology! For instance: Luther consistently opposed the idea that forgiveness is possible by having righteousness imputed without faith. He says: "righteousness will not be given except through faith in Christ." Again, "Among the distinguished teachers there are some who say that forgiveness of sins and justification by grace consists entirely on divine imputation. . . . Again this horrible, terrible understanding and error the holy apostle has the custom of always referring to faith in Christ."

Our problem today is too many forget that Paul was a converted Jew and thought like an Old Testament scholar and thus had no concept of a legal forgiveness/atonement without the change of attitude toward God and sin that we call the faith experience.

Lastly, most of our problems are rooted in the Calvinist interpretation of the New Testament. For instance, note how the KJV translates dikaiosune as justification when it fits forensic justification and as righteousness when it talks about the life of faith They used "justification" because they were using a legal model, a presupposition that seemed to come naturally to those who followed Augustine too well.
Cheers, Herb

Dear Herb,

Let's make it simple. Does JBF and RBF by the Protestant reformers mean to "make righteous" or "reckoned righteous?"

EGW praises the reformers. If it is genuine as she state "JBF (was)so clearly taught by Luther (GCp.253)" If she does not understand Luther then she has falsely used him for her own reframing. I suggest she was learning and she did comprehend that JBF alone means "reckoned righteous" not "make righteous." Mind you we are not speaking of growth in holiness but how we are "reckoned perfect in Christ alone by faith."

Herb...both Calvin and Luther understand JBF to be "reckoned righteous" by faith alone.I have studied it at RTS and can provide the sources. You "seem" to demand that we be "made perfect" in order that God be justified/vindicated by our deeds rather than by his completed work at the cross.

regards,
pat

Dear Herb,

I have before me, one of my favorite books on Martin Luther, A Selection for his writings edited and with an introduction by John Dillenberger. Beginning on page 86, Dillenberger translates Luther's sermon: "Two Kinds of Righteousness"

Paragraph Two begins: There are two kinds of Christian righteousness just as man's sin is of two kinds.

The first is alien righteousness, that is the righteousness of another, instilled from without. This is the righteousness of Christ by which he justifies through faith---"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in in me...shall never die." page 86

"This righteousness is primary; it is the basis, the cause, the source of all our own actual righteousness. For this is the righteousness given in place of the original righteousness lost in Adam. It accomplishes the same as that original rghteousness would have acomplished, rather,it accomplishes more": page 58

"The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that manner of life spent profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with respect to the self, of which we read in Gal 5:24.

In the second place, this righteousness consist in love to one's neighbor, and in the third place, in meekness and fear to God." pages 58,59.

I personally like the words Alien, and Proper rather than Imputed and Imparted.

Sometimes even old Martin was a good instructor for this Dutchman at least.

Glad you joined the discussion--it raised the I.Q. a lot.

Tom

Bob Helm wrote: "I actually believe that if Christ had been sacrificed as a baby, the anger of God angainst sin would have been satisfied and atonement would have been made".

Hi Bob,

I have a difficult time thinking of God as a being that is blood thirsty. I know Christ had to die. I am still not fully sure of why. I wonder if we are thinking correctly about the meaning of the word atonement? It tends to be thought of as a legal payment - or blood sacrifice in this case - for a penalty. I think is means an act to reconcile two parties. I know the Word says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin" but I am not sure that we understand the meaning of this verse. I need more help with it.

A blood sacrifce to appease the wrath of an angry god sounds a lot like a scene from the Old Testament where the pagan nations sacrificed their sons and daughters to appease their gods or get help from them. God condemned this practice. What is the difference? He didn't "sacrifice" His Son against His will. Jesus laid down His life willingly. That is why His death as a baby would not have been sufficient.

Pat Travis wrote:

It is one thing to promote the gospel...it is another to be the final judge of the "thoughts and intents of the heart."

I'm not a mind-reader but the emptiness of your comment tells me that you are accusing me of judging the "thoughts and intents of the heart" of pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists.

Pat

Thanks for your contributions. Also thanks to diverting the "heat.

Aage Thanks for a very thoughtful piece on fundamentalism.

It is great to have a return to some civility.

Tom

Shubee,

If you will look at your many comments you have gone beyond an argument many times to insinuate who will be lost and saved. Wasn't that the basis of your outrage against Des'comment of those that had taught on the "West Coast"?

I believe it is proper and "required"(Jude 3) to discuss theological/biblical error but not be the final judge of a man/woman's soul. Rom.10:6,7.

regards,
pat

7 Testing

Herb, Sounds to me like you are suggesting the the justification message of Des is different from that of Luther. I've read Luther and listened to Des. There is definitely a kinship there, moreso than most other Adventist exponents of the gospel with whom I am familiar. To refresh your memory on Luther's point of view, I offer the following quote from his Genesis Commentary on chapter 15:7:

"As for the verb חָשַׁב, I do not object very much whether you take it to mean either “to impute” or as "“to think”; for the result remains the same. When the Divine Majesty thinks about me that I am righteous, that my sins have been forgiven, that I am free from eternal death, and when I gratefully grasp this thought of God about me in faith, then I am truly righteous, not through my works but through faith, with which I grasp the divine thought.
For God’s thought is infallible truth. Therefore when I grasp it with a firm thought—not with an uncertain and wavering opinion—I am righteous.
For faith is the firm and sure thought or trust that through Christ God is propitious and that through Christ His thoughts concerning us are thoughts of peace, not of affliction or wrath.
God’s thought or promise, and faith, by which I take hold of God’s promise—these belong together.
Therefore Paul correctly translates the word חָשַׁב with λογίζεσθαι, which also refers to thinking, as does the word “to account”; for if you believe God when He gives a promise, God accounts you righteous."

Luther, M. (1999, c1961). Vol. 3: Luther's works, vol. 3 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 15-20 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (Ge 15:7). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Herb

I was a member of Elder Burman's last baptismal class. He was dying of cancer. By the time of the Spring baptism, he was took weak to do the baptizing. Dr. Edwin Thiele stood in for Elder Burman. Elder Burman stood beside Dr. Thiele, shook hands with each candidate. Then, we were each baptized by Dr. Thiele in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It was a late Sabbath Afternoon.

We still lived on the farm. Jack and I had the "chores" milk four cows each, feed three horses, several dozen hens, and assorted other farm animals. We also had to clean out the barn. It was late Spring. The Sun didn't set until well after the chores were to be completed.

Following baptism, I went home with the folks, resolved never to sin again. Well one cow had the nasty habit of either kicking or stepping on toes. That was my cow to milk. Obviusly, the devil knew my weak spot. That cow was very uncooperative that afternoon. So before the sun went down, the Sabbath of my baptism, I had "sinned" again.

Immagine my joy, years later in reading. Luther and the availability of an Alien Righteousness. I had read and re-read Steps To Christ and found no relief. Six pages of Luther
and I found peace. Now I could read Paul and John with greater understanding and much greater joy.

I knew Elder Burman understood, Alien Righteousness and I plan to thank him for his baptismal class one day. I was just not ready in May of 1939 I guess.

The Atonement means exactly what is says: At One with Jesus Christ--not because of our grace in milking cows, but in His Grace in paying in full my debt and the debt of all who acknowledge His doing, dying, and resurrection.

When I found and understood the Redemptive Love of Jesus Christ: I had to go tell it on the mountain.

While I found assurance in Paul, John, and Martin Luther, I also know that both Luther and Calvin had a lot of Shubee in them. They continued to "kill" their critics.

Now it seems, we just send them into "outer darkness" or "Down Under", or paint them with horns and hooves.

Just one question, Herb. If you plan to hold hands with Des in Heaven, why did the editors of the Review hold Neal Wilson's coat while he "stoned" Des? Why not hold his hand now and bring him back not just to the LLU. Hill Church but to
Takoma Park?

Why is it that theology seems to bring out the worst in us?

Aage, gave us some of the answers--except the "Why"

Tom

Kelly,
Your wrote: "A blood sacrifce to appease the wrath of an angry god sounds a lot like a scene from the Old Testament where the pagan nations sacrificed their sons and daughters to appease their gods or get help from them. God condemned this practice. What is the difference?"

I just thought I'd direct your attention to the fact that the above article nowhere states that God is angry with us and is appeased by blood. Please note what the article does say:

"This lesson teaches clearly that Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice, and that he suffered from the infliction of the wrath of God AGAINST SIN." (The last emphasis is mine.)

Justice had to be respected and payment for sin had to be made or why else have a system of ethics (or a definition of sin).

Just a thought.
Sirje

To Shubee :

Please, what in the world is "pan-Gnostic Adventist Spiritualism" ????

I believe it is proper and "required"(Jude 3) to discuss theological/biblical error but not be the final judge of a man/woman's soul.

First you falsely accused me of judging the "thoughts and intents of the heart." Now you repeat your lame accusation and accuse me of judging the soul.

You ... insinuate who will be lost and saved.

I don't insinuate anything of the kind. I teach the Spirit of Prophecy and oppose spiritualism. And my arguments are irrefutable. That's why my critics resort to baseless accusations and not quotations.

What exactly do I teach? I teach what the Spirit of God says. "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1). I have compared the most prominent New Age revelation on the meaning of the atonement that Helen Schucman received from a channeled Jesus to what A. Graham Maxwell teaches about the purpose of Christ's death. The conclusion is inescapable. Maxwell has spent his whole career communicating essentially the same gospel that a fallen angel has channeled to Helen Schucman. See The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell.

If you are saying that departing from the faith and giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons isn't going to affect anyone's salvation, then we can debate that. It would certainly be wrong to say that Maxwell and his loyal following can't repent of their heresies.

On the basis of the Spirit of Prophecy (Selected Messages, Book 1, pages 193-208), I assert that all those who are loyal and true to God need to firmly resist and oppose the teachers of pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism that are already seducing, biting and hissing at faithful Seventh-day Adventists.

The Atonement was "finished"...

After reading Des Ford's comments about Christ’s death as sacrificial atonement at the cross, and after reading all of the comments up to this point, some about the subject of atonement and some subjective and about personal issues, I am not enlightened... by the comments.

I was looking for depth, substance and clarity about Jesus only, but instead I find a lot of words about

>> imputed or imparted righteousness, and

>> Luther and Calvin, and

>> "the forensic, objective, synthetic and legal nature of justification, distinguished from sanctification," and

>> fundamentalism, and

>> "that Paul was a converted Jew and thought like an Old Testament scholar and thus had no concept of a legal forgiveness/atonement without the change of attitude toward God and sin that we call the faith experience", and ...

... well, you get the idea.

Des Ford hit the nail on the head with this statement,

>> "A basic reason for joyously acknowledging the theological accuracy of this lesson is that the acknowledgement of Christ’s death as sacrificial atonement endorses the Reformation understanding of the forensic nature of justification.

>> "I quote the lesson:

>> "The plan of salvation, kept secret for ages, was now fully revealed [my emphasis] to the universe in the obedient death of the Son of God on the cross.

>> "God had provided the sacrifice, and now its atoning power was available to every human being who will look to the Cross as the exclusive way of salvation. (85)

>> "This statement is based on the most important lines ever written: Romans 3:21–26.

>> "There the atonement is described and explained as part of Paul’s elucidation of the forensic nature of justification."

The audible comment I made to my computer screen immediately after reading these comments by Des was, "there you go... right on Des."

Meaning, that is the most holy place mercy seat sprinkling of the atonement blood moment fulfilled by Jesus only once for all on the cross, not in the mass repeatedly and not in heaven once.

Just as the word trinity is not found in the bible and yet the 3 are still 1, so also I believe that Paul elucidates the forensic nature of justification by the content of the words he uses in context.

For example...

In addition to Romans 3:21-26, with a laser focus on v.25 where it says about Jesus, "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith" (NASB), I would like to add Romans 4:24,25 and Romans 5:9.

These verses say clearly that Jesus was delivered for our transgressions (offenses) ( "for" = because they were already there, not so they would be there some day), and Jesus was raised for our justification ( "for" = because we had already been justified by the blood, not so we would be justified by the blood some day as a result of sanctified living).

If "justified by the blood" is not clearly forensic in context and content, nothing in the bible is clear.

If the sanctuary most holy place sprinkling of the atoning blood on the mercy seat between the 2 cherubim was not fulfilled on the cross only when Jesus said "it is finished," it will never be finished.

If the atonement (the at-one-ment and indissoluble union of creator and creation) is forever sealed by blood, death and resurrection, then what else is needed to "finish" the Emmanuel "God with us" union in the person of Jesus, his ONLY son.

Ps. I was a student of his at PUC and was in the audience when Des gave his speech about the investigative judgment, and although I don't recall Des ever explaining Romans 4: 24 & 25 the same way I explained it above, I think he would agree with the content and context.

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Hi Everybody!

Some in this conversation might find it fun to Google "The New Pespective on Paul." I just did and came up with 34,600 hits!

As this indicates, many leading New Testament scholars have been very busy the last 40 or so years re-reading Paul on his own terms rather than Luther's.

This development began in the 1960s with the work of Krister Stendahl, a sometime Harvard Divinity School professor and bishop of the Lutheran [state] Church in Sweden.

Of course, Luther can teach us many good things even if, as many scholars increasingly say, he conflated his own religious experience with Paul's. This sort of thing happens all the time!

In any case, I find these developments in New Testament scholarship interesting and others may as well.

Thank you!

Dave

We are leaving the country early Sunday morning for two weeks and thus can not continue this refreshing conversation. Let's thank each other for the privilege of talking about our Lord's plan for our salvation. I wish I had more time to unfold Luther although it is much more profitable to unfold Paul in Romans 3. I surely am not saying that everybody else is wrong and I alone am right. I can only say that my reading of both P and L and many others as Cranfield in ICC find substantial support in the writings of Ellen. The issue is not dikaiosune, whether we should translate it "justification" or "righteousness." That depends on one's theological presupposition. The really key word is how we define "faith" that one word that has divided Christianity for 2000 years. That's why I wrote FAITH, SAYING YES TO GOD. Look at Luther's quotes in above comments. He is absolutely correct in his use of faith, but not the way that most forensic theologians use the word. I appeal to myself and others that we rethink what pistis meant in the NT, and not translate it by "believe" which is what later Lutherans did with "glaube." Cheers to all. Herb

Dave

2008 is an entirely different world that 1500 or AD 60.

We still see through a glass darkly. This thread has done very little to clear it up. It is 99.44% fog. Thanks for your attempt to direct the reading and thinking into productive areas.

The atonement isn't an argument, it is a gift! Recall, the jailer asked only one question and then went to healing.

This thread has been a wound opening enterprise--not Spectrum's doing, but the passion to one up each other--for shame. Christ cried out: "It is Finished" (Completed). I take Him at His word.

One can say more, but one cannot say less that Christ is Lord. No labels, No libels, just fellowship of a world in need of exactly what Jesus has offered.

Let us leave dissection to the pathologist. Let us leave Salvation to the Savior.

If scholarship clears the glass, let us have more of it. If
spilling ones guts-clouds the issue, enough already. Tom

Tom

You write: "The atonement isn't an argument, it is a gift....One can say more, but one cannot say less that Christ is Lord."

How true! How very true!!

Also, thank you for your much longer "post of praise!"

Dave

Thanks Herb and Dave also to Pat, and Aage

I shall take courage and declare my faith in the Finished Work of Jesus Christ and fellowship with all such believers. Tom

Pat: Key question: Do RXF and JXF mean the same. Only if we allow the Calvinist translators in KJV to mess us up. Justification and righteousness is translated from the same Greek word. Forensic-minded translator chose justification when they want to follow their theological presuppositions. The key word is rather "faith." When we permit our minds into thinking that the NT faith is simply "believing" in a historical fact (as German glaube does), then you fall into the forensic trap. Faith as Luther said with boldness, involves a spiritual change, a budding transformation and that willing change is what God reckons to be a righteous act. That God-man exchange, reckoning righteous upon a sincere, grateful, life-changing act, happens every day for all of us. Cheers, Herb

Shubee

You state: "And my arguments are irrefutable. That's why my critics resort to baseless accusations and not quotations."

Such an assertion calls for diagnosis, not refutation.

P.S.:

In my last second to the last post I wish I said:

"Of course, Luther can teach us many good things even if, as many scholars increasingly say, he PARTLY conflated his own religious experience with Paul's. WE DO THIS SORT OF THING ALL THE TIME.

Thanks for this chance to correct myself!

Dave

Herb,

I prefer taking Luther’s meaning from his 1535 Commentary on Galatians. These references are explicit to the way one is reckoned/accounted righteous/just by faith “alone” in Christ who was crucified for our sins.(Gal.3:6; 4:4)

Luther. Commentary to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker,1979. Preface Pp. xxiv, xxvii,225, 228, 364.

I am aware that dikaiosune is translated both as righteous and just. I am also aware that it is “reckoned” to us (logizomai) through faith. I am aware that faith is trusting in the promises of God/Christ. Will you judge who is only mentally assenting vs. true trust in this matter. At what point is your experiential “faith” good enough Herb to be justified?

Dave---
The new perspective on Paul is challenged by this verse-

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. . Acts 13:38,39.

That is, Justification is not just used by Paul merely to describe a national Jewish identity. To “everyone who believes is justified.”

Regards,
pat

I see evidence in this thread of an Adventist distaste for mystery--a compulsion to have everything figured out, explained, dissected and nailed down.

So, I shall invite those who fervently hold and expound theories of atonement and salvation to come down on me like a ton of bricks, and with one accord, by saying that I don't think any of them really know what they are talking about.

Not that theology is not an honorable pursuit--I honor those who pursue it as an academic discipline. But I do not find the disputes in this thread particularly enlightening to my soul.

For me, it all boils down to this: there is something terribly disordered with the human psyche, which leads it to all sorts of evil and violent deeds against other human beings and against nature. This disorder is evidence of an unnatural gulf between humanity and its Creator.

A man named Jesus of Nazareth was born two thousand years ago, lived an exemplary life, taught a profound and compelling teaching, and was regarded as the "Son of God" by his followers. This Jesus was killed at an early age by authorities who found him threatening, and he mysteriously came back to life and appeared to his friends. By his life and death and resurrection he brought about a reconciliation between God and humanity.

We celebrate that reconciliation when we enter into the holy communion of the bread and wine, and when we do good deeds--by which I mean the serving of the needs of other people, or of the planet, or becoming absorbed in useful enterprises that take us beyond ourselves, such as increasing knowledge.

May I suggest that soteriological theories may not be true or false so much as useful or un-useful, as mataphors.

We should be kind to one another, and pray for one another, even in the absence of "true" theories about prayer.

And let us allow, and celebrate, mystery.

Aage

Great response! If I am not mistakened the man, refers to himself as an evangelist on other posts. Good News?

For me, I am finished on this thread and this person.
Tom

I just wonder what would have happened if Dr Desmond Ford and his emphasis on the centrality of justification by faith were treated differently at Glacier View in 1980, instead of being discredited and humiliated? What a different, reborn and revitalized church we might have had by now. Instead we've got a bitter compromise with some gentle and often diluted advancements towards the gospel, but only as far as they are not shaking the boat. And meanwhile a new generation of Adventists have emerged, mostly illiterate about the Gospel, ignorant about what actually happened in 1980, and nominally Adventist-Christian.

It was a good step forward that Dr. Ford was invited to speak the Campus Hill Church at Loma Linda not long ago. But this was only a single step forward, long time overdue. When is the top Church leadership at the General Conference level going to extend the hand of reconciliation to Dr. Ford? For political reasons most likely this will have to wait until such time when Dr. Ford is no longer among us; in which case the most appropriate Scripture addressing the church administration will be Matthew 23:27-32.

I belong to the generation of Adventists who in the late seventies and at beginning of eighties were dreaming to be a part of the church reborn, and I am saddened with ongoing political games that have been pursued by the senior church leadership in regard to Dr. Ford over the past almost three decades. While at the same time various Dougs Batchelors are being upheld and advocated as the mainstream proclamators of the Adventist message.

Pat and Dave: "Everyone who believes [has faith] is justified [is reckoned righteous]. What could be said any clearer, as long as we don't let the KJV Calvinists confuse us? The meaning of faith is the deeper problem. Alistair McGrath, possibly the greatest interpreter of Luther today and a highly respected biblical scholar says: "The doctrine of justification declares that God makes available as a gift a new mode of existence, a new lifestyle, and enables believers to act in such a way that their actions correspond to those of Jesus." "In What Way Can Jesus Be a Moral Example for Christians?"--Journal of the Evangelical Society, Vol. 34, p. 296. Catholics understand justification as ontological renewwal that equips the penitent to perfom meritorious acts. McGrath identifies justification as an existential transformation, from unbelief to faith, which is different from the Catholic model, from the incomplete forensic model, and exactly what Luther taught. EGW's comment on Luther was precisely right when one understands NT faith. Let's keep the thoughts going. Cheers, Herb

Dave: Sorry, I did not answer your question about how much experiential faith does one need to have in order to be justiified, reckoned righteous. The NT answer is in the meaning of pistis, not "believe" as many Bible translations have written. Faith is simply the act of the whole person saying Yes to God's offer of forgiveness, recognizing why he needs to be forgiven, and accepting God's promise that He will empower the faithful one with whatever it takes to be an overcomer. That is the metanarrative of the Plan of Salvation. Anything less is diluting what God's promise to sinners really is. Not believers, but overcomers by God's promised help through the Holy Spirit is the purpose of the gospel, it seems to me. Your Galatians quote is exactly Luther in Romans. Luther got it right and Luther's followers tried to improve on it and they became a frozen waterfall. Cheers, Herb

Hi Herb!

I don't recall asking "how much experiential faith does one need to have in order to be justified, reckoned righteous?"

Totally confident that God will treat me and everyone else far more than fairly, this is not the sort of thing I worry about.

I hope all is well with you and that you enjoy your trip!

Dave [David Ralph Larson!]

Tihomir...

I just wanted to thank you for what you wrote and shared. It is so cogent and to the point that I feel it deserves many readings. These paragraphs jumped out at me in particular:

"Just as much as the “gospel had been lost in an increasingly complicated system of merits, good works, sacraments and penances” in the teachings of the Catholic Church, so it is compromised by the increasingly confusing systems of Adventist theology of salvation where individual sanctification frequently merges with the divine act of justification and where our eternal destiny was not decided on the cross as much as in the characters of believers, so that at the end of the day our honoring of the Christ’s finished work of salvation appears more like a lip service than a genuine belief..."

"Whether the gospel is infused into indulgences, sacraments, merits of the saints, or into the character shaping doctrines of investigative judgment, vindication of God’s character through the lives of the believers and almost immaculate law keeping, it makes no difference. Both approaches are responsible for confusing the believer as to the method and place where salvation takes place, and as such they are an offense to the gospel - a serious deviation that undermines the fullness of salvation in the person of Jesus Christ."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I remember reading a short volume a while back called, "Who has the Gospel?" It was a comparison of five different versions of the gospel that were prevalent, and floating around Adventism at the time. Regardless of who was right, what struck me was that as a church, we couldn't even agree on the good news. That we sounded confused about the good news. In many ways, we still do.

Your comparison of our confusing the ground and fruit of salvation within Adventism, with the blurring of the gospel message through the rituals of Catholicism is also particularly striking and poignant. Its ironic that we have created our own parallel world of spiritual confusion to the institution that Adventism has so often targeted as majoring in such..."Babylon."

I have seen and heard such confusion in so many Sabbath Schools and sermons throughout the years. I have also seen and personally experienced the discouragement, lack of assurance, and spiritual lethargy that a "gospel that is no gospel" brings. What is even sadder is that we will easily accept such cloudiness on the center of Christianity within Adventism, but we won't allow any deviation on prophetic dating and other more ancillary issues.

Don't touch the "third rail" of our distinctives, but enfolding our performance into the righteousness of God is ok! The emPHAsis is on the wrong sylLABle!

Thanks...

Frank

Thanks Tihomir and Frank for your comments. It is always a delight to hear the "good news."

pat

To allow McGrath, Stendahl, or any other third party stand between you and Luther is unnecessary. If you want to understand the theology of Luther, read Luther. "Christian Liberty" is a good place to start. Next, secure a set of his sermons. They used to be available at quite a discount from CBD. You can also go here:

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlserms.html

EGW endorsed not only Luther's teaching on justification, she called the day of the Augsburg Confession "One of the greatest days in the history of Christianity and mankind."

"The Apology to the Augsburg Confession," written by Melanchthon and preserved in the "Book of Concord" explains quite clearly the theologial issues of the Reformation. More concise is the "Commonplaces of Theology," also by Melanchthon. Regarding this work, Luther said, "If you want to understand theology, read [it].

I wouldn't let Herb or any other person stand between me and Luther. Nor would I interpret the gospel entirely through the eyes of Luther or Melanchthon; however, if one is interested in the theological issues of the Reformation, the works mentioned above are a good place to start.

Compare "Steps to Christ" with "Christian Liberty." Both are about the same size. Then decide if EGW and Luther are close companions.

Thanks Hansen for your above references and thoughts about how we can read Luther’s words for ourself.

It also doesn't take long to observe Luther’s thought when reading his 1535 Commentary on Galatians.

While one could argue against whether Luther had it correct... the "perfectionist final generation view" that claim to "embrace all of EGW" should also note her claiming to embrace Luther on Justification. To depart from her view in this area would seem inconsistent for them to me by somehow making justification mean "make righteous" rather than reckon righteous as Luther did.

An expression of Luther was Simul Justus Et Pecator meaning “Simultaneously saint and sinner." Luther’s quote means that humans are both imperfect/mortal and redeemed/forgiven by God, both "already and not yet" "by grace through faith alone.”

How does that work Herb with your understanding of faith?

regards,

pat

Pat: Everytime we quote Luther or Paul when they use faith in any context, they mean what I wrote earlier on this blog. By "grace alone" Where is that phrase in the Bible? Eph 2:8--"by grace through faith." Faith is man's answer to God's grace. To use Grace Alone and Faith Alone is surely not NT language but it morphs into much Protestant language since the Reformation. All I am suggested that my opinion means nothing but the Bible text means everything. It is more than interesting that many more Protestant scholars are reaching beyond the Reformers (who among them agree on basics) to the biblical text these days. REgarding EGW, what she said about Luther was based on Luther's definition of faith. Always nice to chat with you, Pat. I remember the earlier days. Cheers, Herb

gerhard svrcek-seiler wrote:

Please, what in the world is "pan-Gnostic Adventist Spiritualism"?

Consider the word pantheist. It's constructed from the Greek πάν (pán) "all" and θεός (Theós) "god". A "pantheist" then — of which "pantheism" is a variation — is someone who believes that everything is God.

Pantheism, according to dictionary.com, means

1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

I add a third definition as a qualification to the first point:
3. You're a pantheist if you exalt Nature above God.

Quite literally then, pan-Gnostic would mean, all-Gnostic. Consider this illustration. John Harvey Kellogg and his associates were called pan-theists because it was their most distinguishing characteristic. They confused God and nature. They were absolutely thrilled by God being in their bath water, in the air they breathed and in the bread they ate:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/alpha.htm

Similarly, a pan-Gnostic would be someone who believes that everything is Gnosticism. Have you ever met someone that is genuinely fixated or hypnotized by a single idea? There are Seventh-day Adventists that think that the greatest doctrine ever taught to mortals is Gnosticism. They are consumed by it. They are marked by their obsession.

Here is the primary concept behind Gnosticism:

“A rejection of all legal categories pertaining to God, leaving sin as ignorance and salvation as a healing of the mind through accurate information about God and His purposes, was the core teaching of the Gnostic movement in the second to third centuries, and is the basis for most Eastern religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.” —Richard Fredericks, Ministry, March 1992, pp. 6-10: The Moral Influence Theory—Its Attraction and Inadequacy: The distorted attraction of one popular theory of the atonement.

“The name ‘Gnosticism’ is given to all those different theories of the universe which professed to be Christian, but amalgamated elements of Christian belief with Hellenistic ideas regarding an intermediate world of superhuman beings between the Supreme One and men, and regarding the human soul as a part of the Divine which had fallen into the dark and evil world of Matter. Each Gnostic sect claimed to have a special ‘knowledge’ (gnosis) to communicate, by which the Soul could get deliverance from matter and win its way back to the Upper World. Most of the Gnostics represented the God of the Old Testament as an inferior Being, often a Being hostile to the Supreme God, ruling in the lower world, from which ‘knowledge’ enabled the Soul to escape.” — The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, article 785: ‘Gnosticism.’

“The basic premise common to the many varieties of Gnostic belief was that since God is good and the material world is evil, he cannot have created it” (David Christie-Murray, A History Of Heresy, p. 21). The basic premise of Neo-Gnostic Adventism (and Maxwell) is that since God is good and retribution is evil, then God has nothing to do with meting out punishment in a final judgment.

“These systems were philosophical in that the problem which concerned all Gnostics was the reconciliation of the existence of evil with God who is good; religious because they offered salvation”, salvation by gnosis. (Does that sound familiar)?

To understand Adventist spiritualism, see The Spiritualism of Adventism.

Hi Shubee,

I read your materiel about "The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell" on your web site that you linked to above.

Years ago I also checked out the channeled materiel that Helen Schucman received from "Jesus" called "A Course In Miracles."

The quotes that you have on your web site that you use to associate her spiritistic material to what A. Graham Maxwell teaches about the purpose of Christ's death seems to be a non-sequitur.

The debate about the "moral influence theory" is as old as forever. You should study it if you want to engage Maxwell, because the moral influence theory is not a spiritistic theory, and it certainly is not channeled.

It simply is not biblical... but, then again, that's the debate, pro and con.

Quote #1 from Maxwell,

>> “And so I hear God saying, Oh, My children throughout the universe, I want you to understand that the obedience that springs from fear can produce the character of a rebel.

>> "Even as you fearfully obey Me, you will be turning against> "Now, please go out to Calvary and see that demonstrated.

>> "And this is the one thing that is almost always left out of the explanation of why Jesus has had to die.

>> "And why it is a terrible mistake, as you may hear sometimes, to call this explanation the moral influence theory.

>> "This is an awesome explanation.”

Quote #2 from Maxwell,

>> “And last night we discussed one of the freedoms that comes with friendship,

>> the freedom from being afraid of an unfriendly God.

>> And hence, as Hebrews 2 says, losing one of the fears of dying.

>> Because we know that if we should die, we would awaken the very next moment of consciousness, face to face with a very friendly God.

>> Even if we are going to be lost.”

It seems to me that his 1st point about why Jesus had to die, although it sounds credible to say it is to influence our decision for or against Jesus, puts the burden on the observer of the cross event.

My understanding of the cross event puts the burden on God who was in Christ reconciling the world to himself... while we were still sinners... before we responded yea or nay.

From the foundation of the world, before faith, before saying YES to God, the blood of Jesus justified the whole world from Adam to the last to die... while we were still sinners... before we responded yea or nay.

His 2nd point is outstanding and brings great comfort to the soul of the friend of Jesus.

His point about "one of the freedoms that comes with friendship" and "losing one of the fears of dying" and "awaken the very next moment of consciousness" is very biblical.

"From Adam, Eve, Abel and Seth
To the last Saint to sleep in death

"We will inhale our first resurrection after death breath together

"And we will sing the resurrection song of the redeemed where Jesus is forever"

This quote from Des Ford's comments about lesson #10 of the Bible Study Guide hit the nail on the head...

>> "On page 84, the issue is raised about the connection between Christ’s atoning death and the natural immortality of the Godhead.

>> "Again, our writer sets forth the issue deftly.

>> "Deity cannot sink and die.

>> "God the Son died derivatively through his human nature.

>> "He is one person with two natures and whatever is done in either nature has the worth of the person.

>> "As in the womb, so in the tomb deity was quiescent, not dead."

When Jesus died, he died to who he was before he "emptied" himself of deity as the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world," as the "son of man" and the "son of God."

Although he lives again, he does not live again as he was before he "emptied" himself of deity.

Jesus truly is one with us, as we are, forever.

In him we are a new creation in an indissoluble union, sealed by blood, death and resurrection.

He is Emmanuel, God with us, as we are... forever.

The visible and physical resurrection of Jesus is God's visible assurance to us that He is one with us... forever.

The burden of the cross event to reconcile us to himself was all on God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The cross event was not a moral influence event.

It was a once for all atonement (at-one-ment / union) in which one person with two natures united the creation with the creator in an original, unique and indissoluble union... forever.

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

"Have you ever met someone that is genuinely fixated or hypnotized by a single idea?"

A perfect self description.

Some of you have introduced Ellen G. White into the thread, so it is appropriate to ask - Are the Ellen G. White's visions and view's compatible with the once and for-all finished atonement at the cross in Jesus Christ, and therefore with the Pauline teaching about the atonement?

The EGW implications of the atonement were determined and shaped by her visions of Christ's ministry in the Most Holy Place within the framework of the 1844 disappointment and its consequent Shoot Door theory, according to which the doors of mercy were closed for good to all unbelievers in the 1844 message.

This soon evolved into a major historical Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgement. Its original, historic version proclaimed that in 1844 Jesus shut the door of the Holy Place in Heaven and opened the door of the Most Holy Place. Since then, according to her teachings and that of the church pioneers, He has been working in the most Holy Place, "behind the veil" judging the case of all professed believers, deciding who will and who will not be saved. Thus the-once-for-all completed atonement at the cross received a perverted twist by having introduced 1844-Shoo-Door-Investigative-Judgment doctrine as its integral, even the most crucial part.

In short, instead of understanding Leviticus 16 and the amazing chapters of the Book of Hebrews in the light of the Cross, EGW endorsed, believed and proclaimed "under inspiration" that the "Investigative Judgement in the Most Holy Place which commenced in 1844" stood for the "great antitypical Day of Atonement". Thus, the Atonement of which the Bible teaches that it was completed at the Cross, became unfinished, fragmented and phased in the teachings of EGW and the Adventist Church.

Ellen G. White's understanding of the Atonement, which in view of the traditional-historic Adventism could never be separated from the Investigative Judgement and the Shut Door theories, has produce in the Adventist Church a legacy of unique form of legalism and theological confusion. Moreover it has kept many Adventists under the law, veiled and under a special version of the old covenant. Likewise, this profoundly confusing concept of an incomplete atonement gave birth to equally confusing understanding of the saving righteousness of Christ. Even for the millions of Adventists today it does not stand for the objective righteousness of Christ completely imputed to a believer, but for the imparted/injected subjective righteousness, which creates an ongoing uncertainty if one is ever going to make it into Heaven...

Tihomir Kukolja wrote:

Some of you have introduced Ellen G. White into the thread, so it is appropriate to ask - Are the Ellen G. White's visions and view's compatible with the once and for-all finished atonement at the cross in Jesus Christ?

Yes. See this review of the controversial theology in the book, Questions on Doctrine: The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism: Part II.

Thus, the Atonement of which the Bible teaches that it was completed at the Cross, became unfinished, fragmented and phased in the teachings of EGW and the Adventist Church.

So you repudiate Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine while many non-Adventist scholars regard it as being respectable and Christian.

Hansen wrote:

If one is interested in the theological issues of the Reformation, the works mentioned above are a good place to start.

Thanks for that great post!

Luther was criticized by his opponents for using the term "faith alone" in his German translation of the NT because the word "alone" is not in the Greek text.

In response, he wrote a treatise known as "On Translating" in which he set forth his views on justification by faith alone. The treatise is found in volume 35 of the American edition of Luther's Works. It can be found online, along with "Christian Liberty," the "Book of Concord," and other Reformation works here:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.ht...

Following is a brief excerpt from the "On Translating":

"Now I was not relying on and following the nature of the languages alone, however, when, in Roman 3[:28] I inserted the word solum (alone). Actually the text itself and the meaning of St. Paul urgently require and demand it. For in that very passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine,61 namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the law. And Paul cuts away all works so completely, as even to say that the works of the law—though it is God’s law and word—do not help us for justification [Rom. 3:20]. He cites Abraham as an example and says that he was justified so entirely without works that even the highest work—which, moreover, had been newly commanded by God, over and above all other works and ordinances, namely circumcision—did not help him for justification; rather he was justified without circumcision and without any works, by faith, as he says in chapter 4[:2], “If Abraham was justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” But when all works are so completely cut away—and that must mean that faith alone justifies—whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this cutting away of works will have to say, “Faith alone justifies us, and not works.” The matter itself, as well as the nature of the language, demands it."

Luther, M. (1999, c1960). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35 : Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (Vol. 35, Page 195). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

For those interested in the Augsburg Confession, a brief synopsis of this key Reformation event.

The Lutherans made their confession. It was responded to by the Roman party in a document known as the Confutation. Melanchthon then responded to the Confutation in the Apology to (or Defense of) the Augsburg Confession. Articles IV and VI are of special interest. They deal with justification and the new obedience. By reading the Augsburg Confession, the Confutation and then the Apology (Defense), one can get a quite precise understanding of the conflict between Rome and the Reformers.

All of these documents are available online here:

http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

The Apology/Defense is perhaps not on the Projest Wittenberg site as I previously stated.

Art Telles wrote:

I read your materiel about "The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell" on your web site that you linked to above.

Years ago I also checked out the channeled materiel that Helen Schucman received from "Jesus" called "A Course In Miracles."

The quotes that you have on your web site that you use to associate her spiritistic material to what A. Graham Maxwell teaches about the purpose of Christ's death seems to be a non-sequitur.

I gather then that you also deny any similarity between Mike Clute's God-Does Not Kill theory and what Maxwell teaches. I think it's interesting that Mike Clute, a rival to Graham Maxwell, also received his very Maxwellian theory from a voice in his mind.

Mike Clute wrote:

Beginning in the summer and fall of 1976 the Lord impressed me to begin a search to understand Him better. I had read my Bible through several times along with many other religious books by many authors. I even began memorizing in the Psalms, which was hard work. Finally, I came to Psalm 5:10 which says, "Destroy thou them O God; let them fall by their counsels." As I repeated that verse over and over so it would stick in my mind a light finally went on. This is how God destroys...He allows the sinner to go his own way and destroy himself by "doing his own thing...going his own way and falling in the ditch." Then the Lord began speaking to me in my mind regarding the fact that He had never hurt or killed anyone in the history of the universe. I was so shocked and surprised. But I wept for joy at first. Then I began to weep in sorrow at the thought that my lovely Savoir's Name had been slandered for so long. He had been blamed for the flood along with all the other disasters and calamities of the Old Testament. I was filled with righteous indignation for my Lord's reputation. Then the Lord began to speak to me about learning more of His true character of love and writing a book. So, on May 11, 1977 I completed my first manuscript entitled, "A CHARACTER LIKE HIS TO SURVIVE THE TIME OF TROUBLE." This was basic level one on God's true character, which is simply the idea that "God Destroys No Man." In later manuscripts I enlarged and expanded this basic idea to encompass the animal sacrifice system as well as "The Two Lords." http://www.godslastcall.org/sparrow.html

Shubee,

I vowed not to allow you to intice me again into a defense of Dr. A. Graham Maxewell. But this time you have gone way over the top. "At last, at long last, have you no sense of decency"?

I have read the Bible Through with Dr. Maxwell at least four times, I and sat in His SS Leason for six years. I have read every thing He wrote that I could get my hands on. I have listened to hours of his tapes. Nowhere has he stated, suggested, or intimated anything like your quotes or comparisons.

Just for arguments sake, Let us assume that God is a God of Wrath and Retribution as you depict. How does that give you the license to be an agent of Wrath, Retribution, and vindictive character assassination?

Do you honestly think you are "picking brands from the burning?"

I strongly suggest that you read nothing but the Gospel of John for the next ninty days. Then go back to you keyboard.

Tom

A couple of more thoughts on the EGW compatibility with the Reformer's understanding of Justification.... In other words I've been trying to say that there is a strong, non-coincidental link connecting the 1844 Disappointment, the Shut Door theory and Investigative Judgment doctrine with our ongoing confusion of the roles of justification and sanctification in the lives of believers. It cannot be otherwise since the Investigative Judgment doctrine teaches by default the infused or injected justification: one that is dependent on the perfect obedience of the believers. So, there at least exists a cognitive dissonance in our teaching: while on the one hand the Questions on Doctrine or our current Bible Study Guides seem to affirm the objective nature of justification, on the other we keep on denying it by continuing to adhere to the Investigative Judgment doctrine that cannot possibly rest upon the objective nature of justification. True, the semantics has changed somewhat overt the time in order to soften the obvious tension, but the current diluted version of the Investigative Judgment nevertheless remains in essence a doctrine that has its roots in the incomplete, unfinished and stretched atonement.

Tom
Thank you for your most recent response to Shubee. You have spoken truthfully and I appreciate it. That your remarks come from someone who has also been blessed by the ministry of Doctor Ford means much. Good on you!
Dave

Hansen

I accept your earlier point about the superiority of primary sources. Also, your guidance through the writings of Luther is helpful.

Yet in his own right I think that Alister McGrath is an interesting person. For those who might be interested, here is a YouTube link to a "debate" he had with Christopher Hitchens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_LM7WZc9A

Dave

Hi again Shubee,

Whether Mike Clute has a point of view that may (or may not) be similar to Dr. Maxwell's, it is valid to point to the similarities or differences as you do here and your web site.

And, if the material is "channeled" also, well, that is a different matter, and definitely needs to be addressed.

However, how it is done is sometimes not appreciated.

The quote from the Des Ford comment above is an excellent example of what I mean.

He makes every attempt to disagree without being disagreeable.

After sitting in his classes for 2 years at PUC, I can assure you that Des Ford (to me at the time he was Dr. Ford) truly means to speak well of those who disagree with him... and the comment by Herb Douglass above where Mr. Douglass, who was one of four authors of the book "Perfection" a few years ago says "...I hope to walk into the City arm in arm" with Des is a wonderful testament by a true gentleman about a true gentleman.

[Ps. A side bar about hope and certainty -

I think that the only difference between the "hope" of Herb Douglass and Des Ford is that the "hope" of Des Ford is a sure thing because of Jesus ONLY, not because Des can add anything to Jesus ONLY.

I am no longer an Adventist because of the investigative judgment and Glacier View and the shaking of Adventism, the actual shaking, not the book by Paxton, but I do know the issues that still divide Adventist from Adventist, and the Adventist denomination from other Christian denominations a la Questions On Doctrine, the old QOD and the new upgraded QOD version.

Thanks for allowing me the side bar about hope and certainty]

Now, the Dex Ford quote from above -

>> "Those church leaders responsible for this calamitous deviation I do not expect to see in the Kingdom of God.

>> "They will be too near the throne.

>> "Theological error does not cancel us from the heart of God or none of us could be the recipient of the divine love.

>> "What God looks for is a wholehearted love toward himself and our fellow men and

>> "I know that the teachers to whom I refer ever and always manifested this love."

Yes! and Amen! That is so true, Des!

"Theological error" (as well as sin) is common to us all... isn't it, Shubee?

However, even though I personally may be wrong about what I believe and in the way I express my belief, I am 100% certain that Jesus is not wrong about the truth and what I should believe about the truth.

This view point I am imputing to you too. I definitely do like the word "impute." Do you?

Not only is Jesus my peace with God, Jesus is also my perfect understanding about everything God wants me to believe about Him, his Son, his Holy Spirit, the atonement, the cross, death, rest and resurrection, the Luther / Calvin shaking of Christendom (ie. the reformation) and the Roman Catholic view of justification by faith, whether simply imputed, imparted or both. Etc., etc., etc.

So, even though I don't know you Shubee, keep on believing and looking up and trusting Jesus for clarification and understanding... that's about all we personally can do in this life with 100% certainty. Isn't it?

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up]
See You At The Resurrection

Shubee,

I read your comments posted on 07 December 2008 at 2:24 dealing with the alleged Gnostic teachings of Dr. Graham Maxwell and I have several questions for you:

1. Is “Shubee” a pseudonym for Eugene Shubert? If it is, then please answer the questions which follow; otherwise ignore the rest!

2. Have you had any close association with Dr. Maxwell? Have you personally listened to his teachings about the Gospel, about the atonement, and the character of God?

3. Can you personally testify about the character of Dr. Maxwell? Can you point to any flaws in his character?

4. Do you have any evidence showing that he ever was unfair to anybody or that he ever mistreated anybody, or that he ever consigned anybody to hell or the bottomless pit simply because people disagreed with his teachings?

6. How do you measure up when compared with Dr. Maxwell? You have a special place in your website for a virtual “courtroom,” a virtual “jail,” and a virtual “bottomless pit” for those who disagree with you and you keep those individuals for years imprisoned without any hope of ever recovering their freedom. Do you have any evidence that Dr. Maxwell has ever treated others this way? I copied the following from your websiste: [ See http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/index.php ]

*********

Courtroom
For moral issues that can be resolved by Scripture, inspired counsel or forum rules. This is the place for serious dispute resolution in a courtroom setting. 14 101 Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:08 am
hobie

Jail
If you are dangerous, appear intoxicated or are a public nuisance, you can only post here. 83 603 Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:27 pm
Charlie

HELL

The Bottomless Pit
The specialty of this place is pure dissolution, chaos, without love or light and no restraints, within limits.

*********

7. Can your personal character measure up with the impeccable character of Dr. Maxwell? Isn’t character what will determine the eternal destiny of each individual?

8. Tell me: Do you think that knowledge of doctrine will be the basis of the final judgment. Is doctrinal knowledge more important in God’s eyes than purity of character? Would you agree that Satan knows more about the Bible than the most erudite theologian? Does the Devil's encyclopedic knowledge entitle him to be considered fit for heaven?

9. If you are in fact Eugene Shubert, then tell me: In your website you have stated that Maxwell is inspired by the Devil. Tell me: How many of those who have listened to Maxwell’s teachings for years would agree with your harsh assessment of this man of God?

10. Isn’t Maxwell entitled to the judgment of his peers instead of his detractors?

11. Does the definition for pantheism you posted on your website fit the Maxwell’s teachings about God?

12. How many of those who had the privilege to hear Dr. Maxwell teach year after year do agree with your assessment that he did believe in pantheism instead of a personal God?

I have other questions for you, but I will refrain myself from going overboard!

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

Thanks Dave for your kind observations. I am well acquainted with Des and his writings. However, I was more of a student at the feet of A. Graham Maxwell and also considered Edward Heppenstall a dear mentor and friend. Tom

A blood sacrifce to appease the wrath of an angry god sounds a lot like a scene from the Old Testament where the pagan nations sacrificed their sons and daughters to appease their gods or get help from them. God condemned this practice. What is the difference? He didn't "sacrifice" His Son against His will. Jesus laid down His life willingly. That is why His death as a baby would not have been sufficient.
_____________________________________________________________
Dear Kelly,

There's a big difference between capricious pagan gods who had to be appeased by human sacrifices, lest they vent their wrath on human beings, and the God of scripture. Pagan gods are not loving gods. The true God is love (1 John 4:8)).
God loves human beings! But if God were not angry with sin, he wouldn't be loving! Sin is ugly and is the opposite of love. A loving being must hate it. We have a hard time loving a person and hating what that person does. But God does not have this problem. He can love human beings and simultaneously be angry with the things they do.

You are correct that Jesus laid down His life willingly. But remember - He came into this world as a baby willingly. So I think He could have willingly laid down His life as a baby.
However, this is not a big issue with me because it is hypothetical. It didn't happen that way.

But God is not bloodthirsty, nor did He sacrifice His Son - as if the Son is some other entity than God. As the rightful Judge of our world, God took the death penalty on Himself, so we could go free. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent third party for human sin. But it is just for the Judge to pay the penalty Himself.

Nor would not be just for God to forgive sin without inflicting the penalty that His law demands. If God did not inflict the penalty, He would be ignoring the vile nature of sin and merely ignoring it. That would not be just. But in the substitutionary atonement, God found a way to be just and yet justify (or declare righteous) guilty sinners.

Bob said:

Nor would not be just for God to forgive sin without inflicting the penalty that His law demands. If God did not inflict the penalty, He would be ignoring the vile nature of sin and merely ignoring it.

What would happen if God did not inflict the penalty for sin? Would the sinner then live forever?

I think the Bible says it best:

(Romans 6:23 KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What God gives is life. If you refuse life, will God then have to take it from you?

THE Law, is the law of Love.

(1 Corinthians 13:5 NIV) It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
(1 Corinthians 13:5 GW) It isn't rude. It doesn't think about itself. It isn't irritable. It doesn't keep track of wrongs.
(1 Corinthians 13:5 GNB) love is not ill-mannered or selfish or irritable; love does not keep a record of wrongs;

The vile nature of sin might be simply summed up as self-centeredness.

Read Desire of Ages, Chapter 1.
Or GC p36

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner...

All "law", the 10C and the ceremonial law, was added because of transgression of The Law of Love, to act as a schoolmaster so that we can see what violation of the Law of Love is!

The real vile nature of sin is that it does indeed, destroy the sinner.

Or so it seems to me...

Dr. Ford,

I do agree with your doctrinal position on the investigative judgment, and I appreciate your willingness to stand for the biblical truth at great cost to you and your family; nevertheless, I have trouble accepting your view of the cross. You seem to be fixated on what happened on that fateful Friday when Jesus offered his life for our redemption, forgetting that the cross, according to Ellen White, is merely a symbol for the suffering God was subjected to since the inception of sin [See Ed. P. 263].

This means to me that God’s suffering as a result of sin and rebellion did not start in the Garden of Gethsemane, but rather in heaven when Lucifer rebelled against the rule of Almighty God. The Bible states that “in all their afflictions, he was afflicted.” God felt the pain of all the human beings he had created.

The Apostle John describes Jesus as the “Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.” The cross is more than an event. It is rather a process which started when sin raised its ugly head in heaven, and it will end when sin and rebellion will be finally be eradicated from the universe. Ellen White states that the cross was a window provided for us that we might understand God’s suffering from the beginning [Ibid.].

Jesus likened God to the father of the prodigal son. When the repentant son came back home asking for forgiveness, the father did not obsess with payment nor sacrifice of an innocent victim, but rather rejoiced at seeing his son who was lost but was now back home.

Ellen White describes how God, when Lucifer rebelled against his Maker, attempted many times to reinstate him in his position in heaven on condition of repentance and submission. Suppose Lucifer had acknowledged his error and repented, do you think that God would have said to him: “You are welcome back to your original position, but we now need to kill an innocent victim, and I hope my Son will volunteer!”

Likewise, suppose God’s chosen nation had accepted Jesus as their rightful Messiah and King, which is what God wanted, would you say that then God would have said: “Whoops! Our plan of salvation is in trouble now, because the Israel Nation has refused to take the life of Jesus. What do we do now?”

Can you see the problem? The ritual of sacrificing an innocent victim to appease the gods was a common pagan ritual. God did not demand that the innocent pay the penalty for the guilty. Such an action does not solve the sin problem, but rather compounds it. There is no fairness in punishing the innocent.

My view is that by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God had suffered enough as a result of sin and rebellion. What was needed was a demonstration of love, which was provided when God showed his willingness to forgive sins, not thanks to the death of an innocent victim, but rather in spite of human cruelty towards God’s Son. God forgives, not thanks to the cross, but in spite of it.

I believe that it is high time that we stop implicating God in the death of Jesus. God did not demand the death of the innocent. Satan did, because he has been a “murderer from the beginning.”

This is my humble view.

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

Nic
I agree with you; however, my hunch is that someone is going to jump on the statement the cross was "merely a symbol." Paul Tillich used to say that he would shoot at sunrise the next person who described symbols as "merely!" Yet I understand what you are saying and concur. Hope the day that is just dawning in Loma Linda will be great for you. What a time to be selling real estate?! Blessings!!
Dave

First of all, I would like to express my love for everyone who posts on these boards - even those who disagree with me. Over the ages and even within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, there has been far too much hatred in the name of theology. We need to love even our "erring" neighbor as ourselves!
______________________________________________________
Dear B.H.

You seem to be affirming the concept of the Law Pyramid that Alden Thompson advocates in his book "Inspiration." I fully agree with you on this. Love is the highest form of law. Everything else is definition and commentary! And at its core, sin is a violation of this law of love.

However -

To support your view that God does not punish sin, you share one quote from Paul and one quote from Ellen White. But you ignore the multitude of statements from both authors that contradict what you are asserting. Why? You are free to disagree with Ellen White or even with Paul. But I have to express a friendly objection when you make it appear that Paul and Ellen agree with you. They most certainly do not!

Bob wrote:

But I have to express a friendly objection when you make it appear that Paul and Ellen agree with you. They most certainly do not!

To you, they do not. I'm not convinced they do disagree with me. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind.

BH

Hi Nic Samojluk,

The "merely a symbol" phrase is not as significant as "fixated on what happened on that fateful Friday" phrase.

You say to Dr. Ford,

>> "I do agree with your doctrinal position on the investigative judgment, ...

>> "... nevertheless, I have trouble accepting your view of the cross.

>> "You seem to be fixated on what happened on that fateful Friday

>> "when Jesus offered his life ...

>> "... forgetting that the cross ...

>> "... is merely a symbol

>> "for the suffering God was subjected to

>> "since the inception of sin..."

Of course, I am not presuming to respond for Des Ford, but I am doing what I remember hearing from him in class only once.

He said that if two people agree completely about something, it is because one of them has stopped thinking for himself.

I am still thinking for myself.

I am 100% certain that Des Ford has definitely not stopped thinking for himself, so, this is my response, but I also think that Des would agree with the essence.

I agree with you that Dr. Ford is "fixated" on the cross.

Jesus was also "fixated" on the cross when he said,

>> "Now my soul has become troubled; and

>> "what shall I say, 'Father, save me from this hour?'

>> "But for this purpose I came to this hour."

>> " 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.'

>> But he was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which he was to die."

When Lucifer rebelled while in a sinless environment, our Heavenly Father has been "suffering as a result of sin and rebellion" as you said.

And from the foundation of the world, in the heavenly counsels, God the Father, the Son (soon to be the "son of man") and the Holy Spirit were looking forward to the cross because, as Jesus said, that is where the atonement, the at-one-ment, the indissoluble "union" of creator and creation would be "finished" in fulfillment of the sanctuary service yearly day of atonement when the blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat only once each year only by the high priest.

In other words, the question is, where was God's focus once every year for 40 years while the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness?

The focus of God was on the mercy seat activity of the high priest in the most holy place where God would "commune" with the high priest, the representative of the people who were waiting for the high priest to return to them outside in the camp surrounding the tabernacle.

The cross event only and exclusively fulfilled once for all time that once each year wilderness sanctuary event.

The mercy seat had God's attention once each year, and it should have our attention also as a guiding light to the ultimate fulfillment by Jesus as our High Priest whose blood was "sprinkled" at the atonement, the at-one-ment, the indissoluble "union" at the cross.

Jesus communes now in heaven in fulfillment of the time of communion on the day of atonement "after" the blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat.

Just as the people waited for the high priest Aaron to exit the most holy place and return to the people, so also we on earth wait for our High Priest Jesus to exit the most holy place presence at the right hand of our Heavenly Father and return to us.

The cross was meaningful to God because that was the only place on earth where our Father God gave 100% of himself... forever... in his only Son, never to have his only Son only to himself as Jesus was before he "emptied" himself of his deity, his "oneness" before the indissoluble "union" of creator and creation.

The cross was the only place on earth where the atonement, the at-one-ment, the indissoluble "union" of Emmanuel, "God with Us", was forever "finished" in a visible way.

The visible blood was shed, the not visible breath stopped, the visible body died, the not visible non-deity "being" rested on the sabbath, the visible body resurrected, the breathing started.

The death and resurrection of Jesus is God's visible assurance to us through the ages that the atonement, the at-one-ment, the indissolubale "union" is sealed by the blood, death and resurrection only at the cross event... not in heaven.

We have never met Nic, and if we never meet this side of the resurrection, this is my greeting to you and to and all fellow Christians,

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Bob wrote:

But I have to express a friendly objection when you make it appear that Paul and Ellen agree with you. They most certainly do not!

To you, they do not. I'm not convinced the do disagree with me. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind.

BH
______________________________________________________
Dear BH,

I'm not going to deal with Ellen White's writings, as she urges us to base our beliefs on scripture alone. But have you considered how often Paul speaks of God's wrath against sin? I urge you to check out these verses:

Romans 1:18;2:5,8;4:15;5:9;9:22; Ephesians 2:3;5:6 Colossians 3:6 1Thesalonians 1:10;2:16

These verses clearly indicate that God does punish sin.

Sure Bob - consider the verses you suggest. Take the first one you suggest. Romans 1:18. "God's wrath is being revealed...". OK - so it is being revealed - how? Vs 24,26 and 28 - God gives them up, hands them over. Vs 1:18 is Rhetoric - vs 24, 26, 28 is evidence. Romans 2:5 - you are making your own punishment. Do not neglect vs 2:4 - it is the kindness of God that leads to repentance. But I hear you saying, if you reject God's kindness - then he will really punish you. Am I interpreting you correctly? v2:8 God pouring out his anger, just like v1:24,26, 28? 5:8 - Jesus Good, Father bad? Or are they the same? When the Bible talks about God's anger, there is rhetoric. We need to know what that is and how it is manifested, as in Romans 1:24,26 and 28.

But to stay on topic of atonement at the cross, how was God involved in the death of Jesus? Isa. 53:3 says, "...All the while we thought that his suffering was punishment sent by God." Romans 4:25 says Jesus was given over to die. The same Greek word that is used in Romans 1:24, 26 and 28. Sin is an awful thing. It destroys you. God came to earth, and died as sinner would and proved that. We have nothing to fear from God, as the Bible repeatedly says, do not be afraid. But if we refuse to trust him (unpardonable sin), he will let us go, and the results will be awful.

BH

David

Thanks for your comments dated on 08 December 2008 at 2:27. Ellen White described the cross as a “window” to help us see the suffering God was subjected to as a result of sin and rebellion [See Ed. P. 263]. This means to me that the reality is not the window, but rather is out there beyond the window.

Perhaps the term “merely” I used is not the best qualifier, because the cross is an integral part of what sin did to God, which means that the word “window” is inappropriate as well. Perhaps the term “sample” would be a better choice. Therefore, I will rephrase my statement as follows: “The cross was a small sample of the suffering God was subjected to since sin and rebellion opened the floodgates of sin and death.”

The problem I see is that Christianity has been fixated on what took place two thousand years on the cross of Calvary, thus forgetting to look beyond the cross to a God who suffers with humanity on a daily basis. Jesus stated that every time a tiny bird falls to the ground, such an insignificant event does not escape God’s notice. The Bible says that “in all their afflictions, he was afflicted.” He feels the pain of every one of his children.

As parents, we feel the pain when our children suffer. In fact, I would suggest that a parent feels the pain of his children more intensely than the children themselves. The physician who examined my daughter minutes after she died as a result of a car accident back in 1995 told us that she died instantly, and that probably she felt no pain. It’s been thirteen years since that fatal Friday, yet we still feel the pain of that tragic loss, and there not a single day in which we do not relieve what happened then. Our daughter perhaps felt no pain, but we do.

If we, whose human love is a poor reflection of God’s infinite love, feel the pain of our children, imagine how God must feel the accumulated suffering of the children he created over thousands of years. I conclude, therefore, that by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God had suffered more than enough as a result of Adam’s sin. Can you imagine God saying: “It is not enough? It will require much more suffering in order to balance the books of heaven. The Son of God must be killed”?

This is why I like Ellen White’s description of the cross as a means of directing our thoughts to God’s suffering imposed on the Creator as a result of the presence of an intruder: sin and rebellion. I conclude that God is willing to forgive our sins not because we killed his Son, but in spite or our cruel treatment of the one sent to save us.

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

BH wrote:

"God's wrath is being revealed...". OK - so it is being revealed - how? Vs 24,26 and 28 - God gives them up, hands them over.

The pseudo-Adventist pantheists have yet to prove that the Greek word for "gives them up, hands them over" was ever used to mean "surrenders them to the great pantheistic power of natural consequences."

I hear you saying, if you reject God's kindness - then he will really punish you.

Ellen White pegged the emptiness of Kellogg's pantheistic arguments with remarkable precision. "Darkness is their element, sensuality their sphere." Testimonies for the Church Volume Eight (1904), p. 291. It's truly amazing how similar the omega deception is to the alpha.

Sin is an awful thing. It destroys you. God came to earth, and died as sinner would and proved that.

You are in perfect agreement with the channeled Jesus of Dr. Helen Schucman: "I have also told you that the crucifixion was the last useless journey the Sonship need take, and that it represents release from fear to anyone who understands it." — A Course In Miracles, Vol. 1, pp. 84-85.

I can't imagine anything more useless and demonic than the belief that Jesus had to demonstrate the ultimate penalty for sin so that we wouldn't be afraid of going to hell. Adam and Eve already proved that sin is awful and has terrible consequences. The belief that God had to abuse His perfectly good Son for no good reason is from Satan.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm

If we are all God’s Children, why is Jesus So Important?

A British stand-up comic, in a string of one liners asked: “If we are all God’s children, why is Jesus so important? He got an uproarious response. A query so flip and so profane must have significant antecedents. One must first consider proximal causes. The blockbuster, The Passion of the Christ is an obvious first choice. The producer, a blood and guts actor/producer, exploited the current religious enthusiasm that is fused with an insatiable appetite for gore in “entertainment”. The Passion of Christ was not the humiliation, beating, and cruel death He endured. The inhumanity of man to man had been known for millennia. The Passion of Christ was His willingness to suffer and die for His enemies while risking the eternal separation from His Father.

The second choice would be Christmas. The six weeks preceding Christmas is the greatest boon to retailers of the entire year. Commercializing the birth of Christ is as obscene as the money changers in the Temple courts. The third choice is the approach of Easter, which is second only to Christmas in its commercialization.

The fourth choice may be nothing more that the oft told story of the little boy sent to the bathroom to wash is hands before dinner. The boy was heard mumbling to himself, “Germs and Jesus, Germs, and Jesus, that’s all you hear around here!” Maybe the comic and those he was entertaining just had Jesus piled on up to their eyeballs.

A fifth and likely choice would be the Gnostic schemata. Gnostics believe that “spirits” emanate from a Godlike figure into any of a number of “choice” men and women of superior intellect and promise. Thus, Jesus was in reality only one of “them” and nothing “special”. They believe that the “Spirit” entered a carpenter at his baptism and left at his crucifixion, so that only a carpenter died, not God. They would see Jesus as a prominent Gnostic but not unique or particularly important, except to make their point.

A sixth and increasingly popular choice would be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a new world Gnosticism, in which Jesus Christ is at the head of a long list of “saints” approaching or in “Heaven”. This principal doctrine is painted as a mural on a wall in their Visitors Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. The mural depicts a long staircase with men and women ascending with Jesus Christ at the top. The scene is to represent Jacob’s ladder. While in truth, Jesus claimed to Nathanael that he, Jesus, was the ladder and the communication between Heaven and earth was through Him.

A seventh and limited choice would be the belief system within Seventh-Day Adventist end-time doctrine, who believe that a final generation of “saints” must equal the perfection of Jesus Christ in order to stand in judgment and vindicate God.

The eighth choice is making of Jesus the “Cash Cow” by dispensationalist Tele-evangelists. They have reduced “being born again” as a Gnostic experience resulting in a triumphfulistic arrogance.

The ninth choice is making the cross a trinket of pagan and Christian alike.

The enigma of creation, the fall, the persons of the Godhead, the centrality of the Cross, were not always treated as a “joke”. Miguel Servetus (1511-1553) a noted Spanish theologian and physician, was a strict monotheist, believing that Jesus Christ was the “son of the Eternal God.” Because of this belief Servetus fled from France to Geneva, Switzerland to escape the Inquisition.

Geneva, at that time, was a city state dominated by John Calvin who was a strict trinitarian, believing that the Godhead consisted of three separate but equal persons: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even though Calvin had to flee from Paris himself, he took no pity on Servetus. He had Servetus arrested, imprisoned, and sentenced to death. John Calvin recommended a “humane” beheading. The Council instead chose burning at the stake as appropriate “punishment for such a blatant heretic. While the flames were leaping around and consuming him, Servetus cried out, “O son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me!” If at that moment Servetus had cried instead: “O Jesus, eternal son of God”, he would have been pulled from the fire. Meanwhile, Calvin remained in his office drafting his “Institutes!” In 1553 the semantic difference between being children of God and the “Only Begotten of the Father” was no laughing matter.

Contemporary Unitarian Universalism claims Miguel Servetus as their spiritual guru and the enlightment as their rational beginnings. Obviously they believe that Jesus is still important as the first among many who are “enlightened”.

The tenth and final, orthodox reason, that Jesus is still important is the Biblical witness and early church councils that testify that Jesus Christ is God a Very God and man a very man.

Listen to the Biblical Word:

Hebrews 11In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. 19Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ.

Philippians 2: 5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very natureB of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Revelation 5: 9And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."

Romans 5: 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Upon these words and the whole of Scripture the early Christian Church adopted the Apostles Creed:

The Apostles' Creed
The basic creed of Reformed churches, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles' Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament.
________________________________________
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

In the 4th Century the Church adopted the Nicene Creed named after the church council that ratified it.

The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

* Why is Jesus So Important? Simply because as God, He became Man, lived a perfect life, died in our stead, rose on the third day and now sits on the right hand of God Almighty as our Substitute, our Advocate, and our Savior. Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords and King of Kings Amen!

No one will because no one can replicate the Christ Event or even the perfect life of obedience. The is only one Lord, One Redeemer: Jesus Christ, our Elder Brother. Praise be to God! Tom

Art,

Thank you for your comments dated 09 December 2008 at 2:48. I appreciate the time you took to respond to my posting. You made yourself quite clear about your view of the cross. I would like to take a close look at the passage you cited in support of your suggestion that Jesus was also fixated on the cross: “Now my soul has become troubled ... And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

My first question is: Why was Jesus soul troubled? Was he troubled because he had decided to give his life as an offering for our redemption, or was he troubled because he had come to “his own and his own received him not” and were determined to take his life? This experience reminds me of his reaction following his triumphal entry to Jerusalem. While the crowd was singing hosannas, instead of rejoicing, he lamented with the following words: “If you had only known what pertains to your peace.”

He was troubled, I believe, because his own people were rejecting him as their rightful Messiah and King. His thoughts were centered not so much on his own fate as the fate of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the fate of all those who would suffer a similar fate in the future. Even while he was hanging on the cross, his concern was fixated on the welfare of his earthly mother, and the destiny of those who were crucifying him for whom he prayed asking God to forgive them because they did not know what they were doing.

Read the 17th chapter of John. Do you find evidence there that Jesus thoughts were centered on the cross, or rather fixated on his disciples and those who would believe in him after his death? Can you say that he was fixated on the cross? If Jesus was not fixated on the cross, neither should we. Every time we think about the cross, we should remember what the cross represents. It reminds us what sin did to God since rebellion broke the harmony of heaven and opened the floodgates of suffering and death upon the children of men.

Bear in mind also that the passage of Scripture you cited is phrased on a contingency basis: “If I be lifted up ...” This means to me that God’s plan was not for Israel to reject their rightful King. Ellen White stated that, had Israel been faithful to their mission, they would have accepted their Messiah, and Jerusalem would have become the metropolis of the entire world. This idea is supported by several O.T. prophecies such as the one found in Jer. 7: 6 & 7.

And do not forget that the same Scriptural statement you cited includes the main reason for the cross: “If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” This is a far cry from the legal view of the cross! Jesus allowed his enemies to carry out their murderous designs in order to draw all men to himself. My question to you: How could the cross draw all men to himself? Evidently all those who were already dead were outside the drawing power of the cross. The purpose of the cross was meant for those who were alive and those who would come to life after he died.

I believe that Christianity has misinterpreted the central meaning of the sacrificial system found in the Old Testament. Those lambs were meant, I believe, to point to the larger view of the cross I alluded to above. Their deaths should have helped worshippers realize that sin and rebellion imposes untold suffering on the Creator. Had they done so, the history of God’s chosen nation would have been different, and the physical death of Jesus Christ would have been superfluous.

When the cross is understood in its larger view, then the passage describing the “Lamb of God” which was “slain from the foundation of the world” acquires a deeper meaning. God becomes the sin bearer from the moment sin marred the harmony of heaven, and the physical death of Jesus a small sample of the suffering the Creator was subjected to as a result of rebellion against the Life giver.

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

The Passion of the Christ movie is Maxwell's gospel of death on the silver screen. It's all about the cross from Satan's point of view.

Dear BH,

Again - I want to state my desire to discuss theology kindly.
Although from a Biblical standpoint, I consider moral influence theology to be dangerous error, I hope we can disagree without being disagreeable. I say this because there are a few posts above that sound rather harsh in denouncing Maxwellian theology. It is my opinion that harsh words in a theological debate will not convince anyone.

Why do you recoil so strongly from the idea that God punishes evil? One of the major errors of the modern age is to consider punishment unloving. It goes hand in hand with the rebellious spirit that is so common today. But a permissive attitude and an absence of punishment do not equal love. On the contrary, these can actually indicate a lack of love. Loving parents do not allow their kids to behave any way they like.

It seems to me that a loving God must by definition punish evil. I don't think we could trust a God Who would do any less. God had to find a way to justify sinners while remaining just, and He did this by taking our punishment on Himself.

By the way, please consider 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. I don't know how Paul could make the fact of God's active punishment any plainer than this. But remember - God's punishment is merely His spurned love!

Bob, you said:

God's punishment is merely His spurned love!

I think the Maxwellian comment to this is, love me, or I'll kill you. Is that what you are saying Bob, that you spurn God's love, he will kill you? Ever try that on a family member? Does it make your family love you all the more?
You also said:

It seems to me that a loving God must by definition punish evil.

If sin is breaking the rules, then the sin must be punished. But is sin has natural consequence, which is death, what roll would God have, except for allowing the natural consequences to take place? The end result is the same, the sinner is dead. If I were to kill my sinning church members, that would be called vengeance. If God kills sinners, that is called justice? Bob, should we be afraid of God? What would you say is the Good News?

Dear BH,

Have you considered 2 Thessalonians 1:8? Here Paul says that Jesus will inflict vengeance on His enemies. How much plainer can scripture be? There are rare occasions when vengeance equals justice. No, you must not murder others. But you are not the rightful judge of the human race. God is! And His justice is retributive.

Should we be afraid of God? If we approach God in the right way - through Jesus Christ - we have no reason whatsoever to fear God. But if we reject Jesus Christ and His good news, then we have every reason to fear God's righteous judgment.

You say that the natural consequence of sin is death. But Satan and his angels have been sinning for ages, and I don't see any evidence that they are about to die of their own accord.

Also your analogy of saying to a family member, "Love me, or I'll kill you" is misplaced. In the Biblical picture, all human beings are rebels and guilty of treason against God's government. They deserve nothing but destruction from God. But God has been gracious and loving enough to offer us a way out in Jesus Christ. This is far different from saying "Love Me, or I'll kill you." As a matter of fact, our love for God does not save us. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone!

Shubee,

Your comments dated on 09 December 2008 at 2:28 implying that the teachings of Graham Maxwell are identical in nature to the pantheistic teachings of John Harvey Kellogg are so inaccurate that I am amazed that you keep insisting on repeating the same false argument again and again. I sat at Maxwell’s feet for over a decade and I have never heard anybody make such an erroneous statement.

Maxwell deserves to be judged by his peers instead of Eugene Shubert, his detractor. This is a basic premise accepted by civilized society. Pantheism negates the notion of a personal God. Ask any of the thousands of those who had the privilege of listening Dr, Maxwell, and they will testify that he did believe in a personal God. Besides, he treated those who disagreed with him with the utmost civility and respect, which seems to be lacking in Eugene Shubert.

Bob,

I have a question related to your 10 December 2008 at 3:33 posting: Who punished Jesus? Was it God or humans? Who submitted Jesus to ridicule and torture? Was it God or humans? Who drove the nails on his hands and feet? Was it God or humans? And who inspired the crowd to shout: “Crucify him!” “Crucify him”? Was it God or Satan?

Why do we Christians implicate God in the death of his Son? We teach that God required the death of Jesus, when we should rather say that he permitted his death on the cross. Since when has the term “permit” become a synonym with “required.”

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

Luke recounts an incident during Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem that last Passover week.
In Luke 13: 34 Jesus crys out in great anguish : O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doeth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!”
Jesus continues in Verse 35: “Behold your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you. You shall not see me, until the time comes when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
This is one of the texts that demonstrates the Love of God for His people and the sorrow, pain, sadness and reluctance with which He allows them to have their way and its consequences.

Consider also the analogy Christ used in saying: “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” He goes on to imply that the branches have been cut away from the vine by the evil one. Jesus has come to restore the connection between vine and branches.

Paul refers back to that analogy in Eph. 2. 13-22
“But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity , even the law of commandments contained in ordinances: for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace: ---Paul sums up: Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together growth unto an holy temple in the Lord.:

That is the Character of God that Graham teaches. That is the Graham view of the wrath of God: A great sorrow, a reluctant turning away from those branches that would not allow reattachment to the vine.
The natural consequence for a branch not connected to the vine is a brand for the burning. None but those connected to Jesus, through the “Finished Work” of Jesus Christ can stand in the presence of God.”
The simple Gospel story is “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
In one is looking for key texts for the Maxwellian theology, one looks to an English translation of the Bible.
For one who has worked with parents with children who have been entrapped in substance abuse, one can know just a little of the pain that God feels in seeing His children waste themselves in rebellious denial.
The wrath of God, is a sorrow so deep—it is beyond human understanding.
It is only when one can see, feel, and understand the grief of God, can one understand the depth of the Love of God. It is when we turn to God for comfort, and healing that God’s joy is complete.
Evangelism is a call to make God happy! One again, Oh yes, One again!
It took the death of Jesus on the Cross to make John one of the sons of thunder into the great Apostle of Grace and Love.
If we could only accept such a love into our hearts. We would be like, John, Paul, and Graham Maxwell.
To read the vile attacks upon a man that carries a heavy burden for each of God’s children cuts deep into my heart. Tom

Thank you Tom! Thank you!

Bob, you said:

You say that the natural consequence of sin is death. But Satan and his angels have been sinning for ages, and I don't see any evidence that they are about to die of their own accord.

How many humans are currently living forever? Do you base you belief in eternal life on our current situation? Romans 3:25 says God waited to deal with sins in the past. The ultimate outcome is now known. The question is how is God involved with the ultimate death of the wicked. One way has a scary God, one to be afraid of, and the other is truly Good News!

BH

Tom,

I read your latest posting dated 10 December 2008 at 12:56 and I am deeply moved by your defense of a man who has been maligned by someone who seems to have never met nor heard Graham Maxwell present his views about the atonement. Eugene Shubert’s concocted theory about Maxwell’s pantheism is so far fetched it deserves an outright rejection by those who have known this man of God for many years. I am surprised that more people have not come forward to the defense of someone whose teachings are firmly anchored on the unmistakable belief in a personal God. Accusing Dr. Maxwell of pantheism is the “Omega” of deception.

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

I want to thank both BH and Nic for their friendly challenges. Both of you make me think about what I believe, and I appreciate that!

But before I offer any more replies, I would like to pose a question for everyone to ponder. Seventh-day Adventists have achieved a remarkable unity on important, but secondary theological issues. For example, the Christian Church has been repeatedly torn by conflict over the sacraments, but I know of no serious conflict among SDAs over baptism and the Lord's Supper. And almost all of us agree about the nature of death and hell, as well as about the fact that the seventh day should be kept by Christians as the Sabbath - concepts that find a minimal amount of support in the wider Christian community.

But the SDA church has been stalemated by about four of five competing gospels within its ranks. There is something wrong with this picture. We can agree on important but secondary issues that have divided Christians for centuries, but when it comes to what is primary, we speak with a forked tongue.
It's no wonder other Christians misunderstand us! After several decades of debate, why are we still facing this issue, and is there any possible way to resolve it (short of officially picking one gospel and disfellowshiping those who adhere to rival gospels)?

Bob wrote:
--
Also your analogy of saying to a family member, "Love me, or I'll kill you" is misplaced. In the Biblical picture, all human beings are rebels and guilty of treason against God's government. They deserve nothing but destruction from God...
--
I would agree that that is what tradition says, not really what the Bible says though. Then there is the logical argument that says why should mankind deserve destruction because they choose to go against God. Is that what you would do to your children should they disobey you? When we picture God as less loving then human parents we really fail to understand much of the metaphors of God that the Bible gives us. And why do they continually tell us that we are justly deserving of death? Because they have an atonement theory which says that Jesus had to pay our death penalty. A sad bit of circular reasoning.

Ron

After several decades of debate, why are we still facing this issue, and is there any possible way to resolve it (short of officially picking one gospel and disfellowshiping those who adhere to rival gospels)?

I vote against giving any legitimacy to doctrines of deception.

Kellogg's gospel connected God's presence with life. Maxwell's gospel connects God's forsaking and turning away in the final judgment with death. Am I the only person here that recognizes the similarity between those two constructs? They are exact reflections of each other. They are perfect opposites.

Suppose you only have a picture of half a face (say the left side). That's the alpha. Take the mirror image of that half face. That's the omega. Bring the two pictures together and you have a perfect whole—a complete object—a naturally symmetric face. The omega is an astoundingly perfect completion of Kellogg's heresy.

Dear Nic,

As far as torturing Jesus and driving the nails through his hands and feet, it was Roman soldiers who did it - humans! But there were other human players lurking in the shadows. Governor Pilate did not approve of these actions, but he allowed them. And certainly Caiaphas and company were giving their approval.

However, Jesus spoke of this as the hour of darkness, so it is certain that unseen evil powers were also on the move. Satan and His demons clearly wanted Jesus dead. But they did not want a resurrection.

But beyond all this, I would point you to a thought that Paul expresses in Romans 8:28. God is a master at bringing good out of evil, and He was also at work in this picture. Behind the scenes, God was acting decisively for the good of the human race. As our rightful Judge, God in human flesh was taking our punishment on Himself. No Nic, I'm not gonna let you get away with it when you characterize the substitutionary atonement as God punishing His Son. Nor will Desmond Ford. Please consider his words:

"The lesson happily does not make the common mistake of separating the Father from the Son but repeatedly and accurately sets forth the Father as also enduring the agony of Calvary."

By the way, I will come to your defense on one issue. I do not agree with everything Shubee has said about Dr. Maxwell. I know something about Dr. Maxwell's teaching and I also know something about Dr. Kellogg's teaching in his book "Living Temple." Dr. Kellogg stated that God is not "behind" or "above" nature, but "in" nature. That's an expression of what might be termed "weak" pantheism, and I don't think Graham Maxwell ever said anything like that. I am convinced that Dr. Maxwell taught Peter Abelard's old moral influence theory, but not pantheism.

rc

As I posted on another site, the comparison with the great agony of heart of parents with children consumed by substance abuse. They spend their life savings to 'cure' the child to no avail. Finally, the child abandons home and becomes a homeless person, living on the bare edge of nothing. They search for their beloved child like the hound of Heaven to no avail.

Finally, death from abuse, starvation, and harsh weather, takes their child's life.

The parents did everything they could be were constantly and repeated rejected.

The same fate awaits the unreprentant sinner, and the Father's grief is no less apparent.

The wages of sin is death. There are only two paths. Each person makes their own choice. God will not interfer--He will and has emptied Heaven to persuade but not compel.

That is the meaning of "free moral agents". Open choice but far far different consequences. God has made the choice plain and the road open. He even stands and looks for His wayward son a long long way off and even runs to meet him and places his robe of Righteousness around him and orders a table before him until his cup runeth over. Surely mercy shall follow him. That, my dear friend is Christianity. A far far cry from humanology (Social antropology) which has a Cain like quality. So evident among these threads. Tom

Such doctrinal positions, continued and sustained is the womb of agnosticism.

Confusion abounds. As rc says, such doctrines are, or should be optional. As long as they continue to bolster and prop up Adventism (which is self-evident in the prominent TV ministries), they will succeed in winnowing out those who are unpersuaded of the importance of such peripheral
doctrines to the exclusion of the most important
Christian belief: Jesus has saved us. All the rest is "blowin' in the wind" and is chaff that will mean nothing in eternity.

To believe that something of utmost importance occurred in 1844, and in heaven, is so preposterous that it is amazing that anyone with good mental faculties would accept it today. Ripley said it well: "A fool is born every minute."

I would agree that that is what tradition says, not really what the Bible says though. Then there is the logical argument that says why should mankind deserve destruction because they choose to go against God. Is that what you would do to your children should they disobey you? When we picture God as less loving then human parents we really fail to understand much of the metaphors of God that the Bible gives us. And why do they continually tell us that we are justly deserving of death? Because they have an atonement theory which says that Jesus had to pay our death penalty. A sad bit of circular reasoning.
_______________________________________________________
Dear Ron,

It's not a matter of God being less loving than human parents. It's a matter of what sinful humans should do, versus what God should do about a problem that is focused on one world, but that has really engulfed the entire universe.
I think part of our problem here is that we fail to see the scope of God's problem (Yes, even God has problems!). Should a loving God just overlook evil and watch his beautiful creation be destroyed and collapse in ruin? Personally, I believe there are probably many innocent alien beings out there on other planets. Should a loving God allow them to suffer the effects of Satan's raw aggression? NO! THAT WOULD NOT BE JUST! SIN MUST BE DESTROYED, OR IT WILL DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT IS DEAR!

I vote against giving any legitimacy to doctrines of deception.
______________________________________________________
I hear you. But we have a denomination with a leadership that is very divided. Each faction thinks it has the truth and says the others are deceived. THIS IS A PROBLEM!

Kellogg's gospel connected God's presence with life. Maxwell's gospel connects God's forsaking and turning away in the final judgment with death. Am I the only person here that recognizes the similarity between those two constructs? They are exact reflections of each other. They are perfect opposites.
Posted by: Shubee (not verified) | 10 December 2008 at 4:26

Shubee,

You may be correct - but only if Maxwell, as well as Kellogg, believed God is an influence or power, not a Personal Being. Did you understand Maxwell as saying God's Spirit departs in the final judgment like a wind?

To believe that something of utmost importance occurred in 1844, and in heaven, is so preposterous that it is amazing that anyone with good mental faculties would accept it today. Ripley said it well: "A fool is born every minute."
___________________________________________________________
Dear Elaine,

The issue here is not what has been taught about 1844. The issue is the cross of Christ - something that is at the very heart of Christianity.

To believe that something of utmost importance occurred in 1844, and in heaven, is so preposterous that it is amazing that anyone with good mental faculties would accept it today.

Yet the first angel's message does say, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come" (Revelation 14:7). And the opening of the book of destiny does happen in the second scenario. So the real dullards are those that refuse to understand plain and simple exegesis.

Kellogg's gospel connected God's presence with life. Maxwell's gospel connects God's forsaking and turning away in the final judgment with death. Am I the only person here that recognizes the similarity between those two constructs? They are exact reflections of each other. They are perfect opposites.
Posted by: Shubee (not verified) | 10 December 2008 at 4:26

Shubee,

You may be correct - but only if Maxwell, as well as Kellogg, believed God is an influence or power, not a Personal Being. Did you understand Maxwell as saying God's Spirit departs in the final judgment like a wind?
__________________________________________________________
Kellogg's teaching in "Living Temple is very confused. He makes statements that sound pantheistic and then backs up and says, "Oh don't misunderstand. I really do believe in a personal God."

To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Maxwell never did this. He never equated God with a force in nature. Dr. Maxwell did teach Moral Influence theology, which I consider an inadequate and very legalistic view of the atonement. But I am unaware of any statements from Dr. Maxwell that question the personhood of God.

Joselito Coo wrote:

You may be correct

There is no maybe about it. My statements are confirmed by the quotations supplied.

Did you understand Maxwell as saying God's Spirit departs in the final judgment like a wind?

I understand the quotations supplied. They are enough to prove the thesis true.

How many humans are currently living forever? Do you base you belief in eternal life on our current situation? Romans 3:25 says God waited to deal with sins in the past. The ultimate outcome is now known. The question is how is God involved with the ultimate death of the wicked. One way has a scary God, one to be afraid of, and the other is truly Good News!
_______________________________________________________
Unlike angels, humans were given conditional immortality.

But I think the "scary God" is the one who ignores sin. Such a God cannot be trusted. He will let His creation go down in ruin and refuse to come to the aid of His innocent creatures when the enemy attacks them. An unjust God is indeed a scary God!

The true God is just, but He is also loving. And there's no reason any human being needs to be afraid of Him. God can be just and still justify human beings in Jesus Christ. Why be scared when we have this free gift in Jesus Christ?

Bob,

I'll give Kellogg the benefit of the doubt then. As far as Maxwell is concerned, I believe there's sufficient testimony around, by those personally acquainted with him, that he never questioned the personhood of God. In any case, it's best not to compare apples with oranges, trying to find similarities between Kellogg and Maxwell where none exists.

Dear Joselito,

I don't really want to let Kellogg off the hook. At the very least, his theology is confused, and he makes statements that really are pantheistic in nature. Whether he was a pantheist at heart, I don't know, and we can't ask him because he is dead. All we can do is consider what he wrote. "Living Temple" contains some very interesting scientific and nature facts, but its theology is a horrible mess.

I agree with you about Maxwell. To compare his theology to Kellogg's theology is like comparing apples and oranges. But I'm not letting Dr. Maxwell off the hook either. Pantheism is a serious mistake, but so is the Moral Influence Theory.

The problem with both constructs is that they are rooted in religious subjectivism - trying to find God's righteousness within. We must look outside of ourselves to the cross if we want to see God's righteousness in action!

Kellogg's teaching in "Living Temple is very confused. He makes statements that sound pantheistic and then backs up and says, "Oh don't misunderstand. I really do believe in a personal God."

It is plainly evident to me that you never read the book.

To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Maxwell never did this. He never equated God with a force in nature.

It is also plainly evident that you never read The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell.

Dr. Maxwell did teach Moral Influence theology, which I consider an inadequate and very legalistic view of the atonement.

Pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism only contains trace amounts of moral influence theory.

But I am unaware of any statements from Dr. Maxwell that question the personhood of God.

More than that, you are completely unaware of the specifics of Kellogg's pantheism and Maxwell's pantheism. The exaltation of the power and justice of natural consequences above God qualifies as pantheism.

Bob wrote:
--
NO! THAT WOULD NOT BE JUST! SIN MUST BE DESTROYED, OR IT WILL DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT IS DEAR!
--

Then you are saying that every human being must be destroyed. Because every human being sins. Was sin destroyed by Jesus death on the cross? Of course not! Justice is not about punishment it is about restoration and that is the fundamental difference between penal theory and moral influence theory.

Ron

It is plainly evident to me that you never read the book.
_________________________________________________________
Actually, I have read significant portions of the book. And I have huge problems with it. "Living Temple" is far more new age than Christian!

Elaine

Thank you!

To read some of the blogs above, one would think we were attempting to rebuild the Tower of Babel.

Talk about making up a story out of whole cloth! There is not a shred of logic in a basket full of yarn!

I like the response of the man healed of blindness on the Sabbath. He and his parents really confounded the prudes.

It plays out like the scene in "Cool Hand Luke" "What we have 'ere is a case of misunderstanding!" Shubee is really "Locked and Loaded" for what, I have no idea!

Unfortunately, he has me on tender hooks, I just can't let him and his buddies attack a true Christian friend. There is absolutely no semblence between Kellogg and Maxwell, in time, place, manner, thinking or expression. Maxwell is a Pauline Scholar with the demeaner of John the beloved. Without him and a bakers dozen of others, the SDA church would be as dry as the hills of Gilboa. Tom

P.S. If my little playlet offended you i am very sorry. I shouldn't have placed it. I meant no offense, just thought of a Southern slant on an old story might be a good laugh to one with a clean clear wit. Tom

Then you are saying that every human being must be destroyed. Because every human being sins. Was sin destroyed by Jesus death on the cross? Of course not! Justice is not about punishment it is about restoration and that is the fundamental difference between penal theory and moral influence theory.
_________________________________________________________
The modern defective view of justice that has lead to a huge crime wave only concerns itself with restoration. True justice is retributive. It recognizes the reality of evil and destroys it.

Yes, every human sins, and it would be just for God to eliminate the human race. Fortunately, we have a God Who blends justice with mercy. (Actually, I'm glad God is more merciful than I am. I don't know how God can stand all the horrible things human beings do. And yet some of us have the audacity to impugn his patience and mercy by blaming Him for evil in the world.)

Tom my brother,

I never met Graham. At lest some of "his followers in thought" INDICATE THEY do not see the need of Christ as a "substitute" for our sins.

You however do not proclaim that "gospel" as you repeatedly point out the need of Christ's "substitutionary death."

So I would ask those that claim to be Maxwell's followers if Graham taught the position (substitution) you follow. And, Tom IF he(Graham) did teach substitution was not required then your solid position on the issue is out of sync with Graham's. I have not slamed him and I have never met him but it is my understanding that he played down the need for "substitutionary atonement."

I am not in the Schubee "pantheistic" mode of accusing Maxwell of things I have heard never heard him say. Correlation concerning "certain issues and positions and outcomes" does not equal causation of thought.(i.e approval of direct pantheistic thought by Maxwell.)

Last thought. Why is "substitution" necesary if it is not for the purpose of reckoning one to be what one is not by faith alone?

regards tom,

pat

Dear Tom,

I will "second" what Pat has written. I have no desire to slam Dr. Maxwell. And I do not consider him a pantheist in any sense. Byt a kind character does not necessarily make for good theology. As you are aware, I have a serious problem with some of the things he has taught about the atonement. But that does not impugn the man's character in any sense. His gentle, kind approach is very much needed in the SDA church. However, I can affirm these good things about Dr. Maxwell without agreeing with his theology of the atonement.

There is absolutely no semblence between Kellogg and Maxwell, in time, place, manner, thinking or expression.

It's really amazing how much power spiritualism has over the minds of those that reject Scripture. Here is one undeniably spiritualistic idea held in common by John Harvey Kellogg, Graham Maxwell and Helen Schucman. Let's see if the obvious parallel is recognized easily or if it's declared invisible by some of the pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists on this thread.

What is the most obvious parallel idea in the following quotes:

"The idea that God inflicts pain, or that pain is in any sense an arbitrary or retributive punishment, is a notion altogether foreign to a proper conception of God." — The Living Temple, p. 441.

"The death that results from sin is not an imposed penalty." —A. Graham Maxwell. (The audio file can be played with RealPlayer).

“As you read the teachings of the Apostles, remember that I told them myself that there was much they would understand later, because they were not wholly ready to follow me at the time. I do not want you to allow any fear to enter into the thought system toward which I am guiding you. I do not call for martyrs but for teachers. No one is punished for sins, and the Sons of God are not sinners.” —A Course In Miracles, Vol. 1, pp. 87-88.

Am I the only person here that can see it?

One More Time:

As he has said many times, and as many of us have repeatedly indicated, A. Graham Maxwell does not believe in the Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement.

This can be confirmed by comparing his writings with those of Abelard. But neither does he believe in the substitutionary theory of the atonment as it is often articulated today.

Our difficulty is that some apparently presume that there are only two positions and that if someone does not fit in one it must because he or she fits in the other.

This is not so.

The wonder to me is that, even though this point has been made again and again over the last several decades, there still are those who insist that indeed AGM does believe in the Moral Theory of the Atonment. Then, they proceed to condemn him for it in public.

If this were repeatedly done by people who are intellectually unable to follow a theological line of thought I could understand. But this is not the case.

Some people who are otherwise very intelligent do this again and again, year after year and decade after decade, all the while professing how much they respect and appreciate him.

Hence my perplexity!

Many thanks!

Dave

Dear Pat and Bob

Christ died that I might live. Christ died to demonstrate that God is Just and the Justifier of him that believeth in Him. As the Palsmist sings: Justice and Mercy have kissed each other. Jesus fulfilled the Law that Adam broke. He assumed the results or consequences of Adam's failure. He completely falsified the accusations of Satan. That is what I believe, and that is what I understand that Graham believes, taught, and maintains.
The substitutionary or the penal substitutionary theory of the Cross carries too much baggage and is too often misunderstood, that I don't care to enter that discussion--nor does Graham speak, teach, or talk in those terms. He has made it a distinct point to stay away from the double speak of theologians and presents the Gospel in lay terms so that he that runs can understand. He always presents God in Christ as our Heavenly Parent--loving, kind, approachable in times of need and in moment of rejoicing. He is the one who left the 99 in search of the one lost sheep. He is the Father who stood in the road and spied his lost son afar off.

He is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.
His invitation is to each and to all without exception. The choice once again is ours alone. His invitation stands until the end of time.

He never in my presence or in the presence of any of my family spoke an unkind word about anyone elses thoughts about God or salvation. He always and very carefully presented his convictions based upon his study of Scripture. He was and is very careful to quote E.G.White when ever her statements support the Scripture he is addressing. Never, and I repeat never did he speak one word in doubt about the Spirit of Prophecy.

I do know a number of very legalistic minds at Loma Linda who were very outspoken against Graham because there was no wrath in him, nor any urging about "time is short" fear mongering.

He was always invitational, never compulsive and never judgmental.

He was and is the model of a true evangelist. May his tribe increase. Tom

Tom and Dave,

Leave out for the moment "Penal." Was ANY KIND of "substitutionary atonement" necessary? If so why? If not, it is obvioius that you can describe no way that you believe in substitution...legal ot not.

regards,

pat

Bob Helm wrote:

Dr. Maxwell did teach Moral Influence theology, which I consider an inadequate and very legalistic view of the atonement.

davidrlarson wrote:

One More Time:

As he has said many times, and as many of us have repeatedly indicated, A. Graham Maxwell does not believe in the Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement.

I agree with David. Maxwell teaches a composite theory, which is mostly pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism. There is very little of Abelard's moral influence theory in it. See The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell. To be fair to Bob Helm however, I have heard Graham Maxwell repeat Socinian arguments to mock vicarious substitutionary atonement. I have also read the same use of Socianianism in The Serpent Speaks, p. 12. See A. Graham Maxwell's Contribution to Theology.

Schubee,

I suggest your reasoning of "particulars" (not individuals who may hold to "corollary thoughts" are therefore spiritualist) is supported by EGW in Chapter 34 of GC(1888) "Can our Dead Speak to us." "Spiritualism", I suggest what is described here is in a different form than "apparitions" or "speaking to the dead." I do not see these thoughts as "mapped out as spiritualism" by scripture alone however.

The "wisdom that "spiritualism imparts" is full of portrayals of "love and charity."p.554. It is placing the Love of God in tension with His justice. P.558.

It perhaps might be food for thought to those who put forward EGW and "her GC theme" to consider...and read...in light of the fact that the GCT includes God's law and justice and was one reason for the "sacrifice of Christ(atonement) ...bearing the sins of the world." ST,Dec.9,1897.

Pat

The substitutionary theory is of Calvinistic derivation. I believe, that Christ died for me, and every rational person including Adam on. Enternal life is the consequence of the acceptance of that gift. The life of Christ and well as His willingness to die for sinful man has a sanctifying influence through the work of the Holy Spirit and the Testimony of Scripture. The Gospel story is a moral story of divine ethics, one which one should heed as a redeemed child of God.

"Go thou and sin no more!"

Tom

"The idea that God inflicts pain, or that pain is in any sense an arbitrary or retributive punishment, is a notion altogether foreign to a proper conception of God." — The Living Temple, p. 441.
_________________________________________________________
Dear Shubee,

Dr. Kellogg is expressing a Maxwellian idea - which is false. But this goes hand in hand with the moral influence theory. You still have not proved that Dr. Maxwell's ideas amount to pantheism or gnosticism. I have already made it clear that I do not agree with Maxwell. I consider him to be in serious error. But pantheism denies the personality of God, while gnosticism regards matter as evil, and therefore denies the humanity of Christ and the bodily resurrection. I see no evidence that Dr. Maxwell ever taught these gross heresies. If he did, please show me in plain and simple language. I'm not closing my mind to any real evidence,
but I have no desire to believe rumors about someone.

Can someone explain to me how Maxwell's theology differs from the MIT? I know he has denied teaching the MIT, but from what I know of Maxwell, that's what his teaching sounds like to me. Also please show me in what sense he has taught gnosticism and pantheism. I have not found these to be among his teachings, and the site that Shubee listed is not very clear to me.

Please understand that I want to be fair to everyone in this discussion. I'm an honest seeker after truth and am looking for enlightenment.

Tom,

You say,"I believe, that Christ died for me." Is that not "substitution" my brother? What else can that mean?

Also Tom, all I am looking for from the GCThemers who promote a "nonsubstitutionary position" is intellectual honesty with EGW's writings. On this issue Ron Corson is correct I believe in noting she "does" teach it.

I believe the scriptures teach "substitution" and don't have to have EGW to establish sound doctrine for any position.

Your brother in Christ
pat

Schubee,

I suggest your reasoning of "particulars" (...) is supported by EGW in Chapter 34 of GC (1888) "Can our Dead Speak to us."

There is no question about that.

"Spiritualism", I suggest what is described here is in a different form than "apparitions" or "speaking to the dead."

Ellen White said very clearly that spiritualism is adapting, changing, and is assuming a Christian guise.

I do not see these thoughts as "mapped out as spiritualism" by scripture alone however.

It's the first demon's message. And it's already going to the whole world. The Jewish philosopher Dennis Prager astutely observed about 15 years ago that, "Today, to condemn evil is considered a greater evil than doing evil." That's spiritualism. And it's a very deeply held Seventh-day Adventist, Babylonian and New Age deception.

The "wisdom that "spiritualism imparts" is full of portrayals of "love and charity." p.554. It is placing the Love of God in tension with His justice. P.558.

That's certainly Maxwell.

"He appeals to the reason by the presentation of elevating themes; he delights the fancy with enrapturing scenes; and he enlists the affections by his eloquent portrayals of love and charity. He excites the imagination to lofty flights, leading men to take so great pride in their own wisdom that in their hearts they despise the Eternal One." GC 554.

Shubee,

I wrote an article in 1975 entitled "Peace on Earth?" p.24,25 that includes the above quotes by EGW on p.554,558 GC. concerning "Love,charity,justice."
http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1975/MIN1975-12.pdf

regards,

pat

Bob Helm wrote:

Dear Shubee,

Dr. Kellogg is expressing a Maxwellian idea - which is false. But this goes hand in hand with the moral influence theory. You still have not proved that Dr. Maxwell's ideas amount to pantheism or gnosticism. ... I see no evidence that Dr. Maxwell ever taught these gross heresies. If he did, please show me in plain and simple language. I'm not closing my mind to any real evidence, but I have no desire to believe rumors about someone.

In reference to Maxwellian pantheism, I wrote: "The exaltation of the power and justice of natural consequences above God qualifies as pantheism." If you want to argue that, begin by reading Pseudo Adventism’s Pantheism and answer the questions.

In reference to Maxwell's Gnosticism, I contrast ancient Gnosticism with Neo-Gnostic Adventism in The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell. If you don't see the parallel, please tell me why the suggested parallel (in yellow highlight) is invalid?

Pat.

I don't know your theological acumen, The Substitutionary Theory carries a lot more baggage than merely stating the fact that because Christ Died and rose again the third day, I, in accepting His gift, will not die the second death. I am not versed in all of the calvinistic trappings so I refuse to be suckered into a discussion beyond my simple belief system in the Pauline Gospel so plain in Romans 5, repeated in Gal. and Eph. Not to mention John 3.

I am an old man trained in dentistry and management with a keen interest in the Gospel for myself, my family, and all within the hearing of my voice, as well as reading my pen.

Excepting the fact, that the misrepresentation of E.G.White as a latter day prophet, superceding all others, I would not
venture to point out the serious flaws in her propositional truths for the end-time that has totally turned off hundreds if not thousands of truth seeking young people from God Himself.

The folly of a Revelation Seminar is only exceeded by the eternal damage it has and continues to have. I can only pray that when God comes to those names, He will say, "Oh yes I see you have been brain washed by an iternant Elmer Gantry with an agenda of fear, law and Forehead marking beasts. Let me introduce you to my Son and see for yourself what kind of Man/God He is. He resembles Me very closely." Tom

Tom,

I'll try once more. If Christ died for you, What for? Wasn't it a "substitutionary" death? No tricks Tom, you have stated it well before.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Cor.5:17-21.

Pat

Tricks or no. I have made my confession of my faith, trust, and hope it the Christ event. It is for you not me to put a label on it. Once the label is placed the argument is focused on the label and not the confession. i have found you an honorable man. That cannot be said for all those who tread these halls. You must have noted that Paul does not use the subtitutionary--he sticks to reconciliation. If you want my belief system you will have to get used my terms.

May God Bless. Tom

Tom,

In 5:21 the Greek word huper is used that means "on behalf,for us,instead of, in place of."

Websters defines the meaning of "substitution" to have the same gloss.

Peace in Christ,

pat

Pat

Thanks.

You put the question to me in the form of a test or a challenge. I was not, and will not knowingly rise to any bait.

The word subtitutionary and its concept in theology has a wide range of implications that I am not willing to explore in a forum so rift with one upsmanship and petty implications. You have not been among that breed for which I am very thankful. But since I am cast as a devil in human form, I must watch my image--right? Tom

Tom,

Didn't mean it as a challenge...only exploring the concept of "substitution" as a word.

regards,

pat

Bob Helm wrote:

Can someone explain to me how Maxwell's theology differs from the MIT? I know he has denied teaching the MIT, but from what I know of Maxwell, that's what his teaching sounds like to me.

There are two principal differences between Abelard’s m.i.th. and Maxwell's version. In Maxwell's m.i.th, the size of the audience that is being morally influenced is larger. It includes heavenly beings. Also, in Maxwell's m.i.th, much more knowledge is being revealed about God than just His great sacrificial love to save frightened, ignorant humanity. The similarities in both theories are that sin is ignorance and both theories are "demonstration only theologies." See The Denial of Justice and The Man of Lawlessness.

Thanks Pat.

Just in passing:
The following English translations all use the word reconciled or reconciliation.

The King James Bible
The Revised Standard
The Amplified Bible
The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips)
The New American Bible
The Complete Bible: An American Translation.

They all seemed to have glossed over substitution. Strange!

Grace and Peace. Tom

Open Comments:

I don't know what the Moral Influence Theory is supposed to entail. Sound dangerous as well as formidable and heretical.

How does it differ from "By beholding we become changed?"

If anyone would be guilty of making a living on the Moral Influence Theory it would not be A. Graham Maxwell, it would be Dr. Herbert Douglass and his emphasis on a final perfect generation. He is almost as old as Graham--why not pick on him for a change?

This constant nit picking on labels has absolutely no redemptive value. We are all sinners by birth and by thought and action.
There is only one Redeemer. He invites and promises cleansing, healing, and eternal life on the basis of His performance, not ours.

Upon the firm but kindly suggestion by Betty, my dear wife of 59 years, I will close by wishing each and all the bounties of the season, and an Eternity with Jesus Christ our Lord, Savior and coming King. Praise Be to God. Tom

(She correctly observes, that following this site is too hard on the emotions of an old man. I separated from Adventism years ago. I should not and will not trouble "Israel" again.)
tjz

Tom,

Last thought...we are reconciled by the "means" of substitution.

All the best,

pat

"As presented through different individuals, the truth is brought out in its varied aspects. One writer is more strongly impressed with one phase of the subject; he grasps those points that harmonize with his experience or with his power of perception and appreciation; another seizes upon a different phase; and each, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, presents what is most forcibly impressed upon his own mind--a different aspect of the truth in each, but a perfect harmony through all. And the truths thus revealed unite to form a perfect whole, adapted to meet the wants of men in all the circumstances and experiences of life."

Bob Helm wrote:

Also please show me in what sense he has taught gnosticism and pantheism. I have not found these to be among his teachings, and the site that Shubee listed is not very clear to me.

I have already noted previously that Maxwell has embraced heretical elements of Socinianism and uses Socinian arguments to mock vicarious substitutionary atonement. Have you noticed that, in The Denial of Justice and The Man of Lawlessness, point 7 contains a startling quote from a book published in 1867 that mentions the extremes to which Socinian theology was advancing at that time? It was an astounding revelation to me that so many details in Maxwell's theory existed then. You have asked to see a connection between Maxwell and pantheism. That's easy. Read the one paragraph startling reference to pantheism, natural consequences and the healing model of salvation written in 1867.

I have already made it clear that I do not agree with Maxwell. I consider him to be in serious error. But pantheism denies the personality of God, while gnosticism regards matter as evil

Please be aware that the essential parts of several dead heresies have been stitched together and have come back to life, all animated by spiritualism in the Frankenstein theology of Dr. Graham Maxwell. Gnosticism is one of those theories. And please try to understand the logic I'm using.

Mathematicians study mathematical structures. In mathematical logic, for example, two arguments can be referring to two completely different ideas that have no outward similarity but the arguments themselves for those different ideas can have an identical structure. This recognition of similar kinds of reasoning exists in the popular culture. You wanted an explanation in very simple terms. OK. It is well known in Federation history archives that Gary 7 was greatly alarmed when he heard that planet Earth in the late 1960s was following a nuclear arms strategy called "mutually assured destruction." He said, "that's the same kind of nonsense that nearly destroyed Delta-Omicron 4." He didn't mean or necessarily imply that the weapons of planet Earth and Delta-Omicron 4 were identical (if I remember the Star Trek episode correctly). He only meant that there was a similarity of poor judgment on just a single, critical point.

Ellen White wrote:

"In the days of the apostles the most foolish heresies were presented as truth. History has been and will be repeated. There will always be those who, though apparently conscientious, will grasp at the shadow, preferring it to the substance. They take error in the place of truth, because error is clothed with a new garment, which they think covers something wonderful. But let the covering be removed, and nothingness appears." The Review and Herald, February 5, 1901.

In the words, "History has been and will be repeated," Sister White didn't necessarily mean that the exact same foolish heresies will reappear. It's much more likely that the meaning is that Neo-Gnostic Adventism would appear and like ancient Gnosticism, it would have this common property: "let the covering be removed, and nothingness appears."

Here is the parallel I asked you to consider:

"The basic premise common to the many varieties of Gnostic belief was that since God is good and the material world is evil, he cannot have created it" (David Christie-Murray, A History Of Heresy, p. 21). The basic premise of Neo-Gnostic Adventism (and Maxwell) is that since God is good and retribution is evil, then God has nothing to do with meting out punishment in a final judgment.

I regard those two fundamental arguments as equally empty but of the same logical structure and therefore identical and indistinguishable. If the first is the fundamental argument for Gnosticism, then how is the parallel Maxwellian argument not Gnostic in essential characteristics?

Bob said:

I am convinced that Dr. Maxwell taught Peter Abelard's old moral influence theory, but not pantheism.

to Bob, Dr. Maxwell compared his beliefs with Abelard in his Conversations About God series in 1984 at the LLU Church. (see talk 9) Abelard's beliefs were far different from Maxwell. Maxwell bases his beliefs on the Great Controversy view about the character and government of God. Abelard had no concept of that. One of Adventism's contributions is its view of the Great Controversy. (rc would disagree.) The narrower view is when one looks at salvation primarily in how it will save me. The larger view of the plan of salvation is ultimately how God looks. I think that Maxwell would say that you can not just make claims to prove your point, anyone can make claims. What it takes is evidence, demonstration, real proof. The Bible is full of stores that provide evidence. EGW even said, the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth, was to reveal the character of God. (ST Jan 20, 1890). Sounds like production of evidence to me. Romans 5:10 "We were God's enemies, but he made us his friends through the death of his Son."

Dear Tom,

If any of my posts have offended you, please accept my sincere apology. I am not discussing these issues to take cheap shots at anyone. My only desire is to stand up for Jesus and His good news - which is the only thing that can bring hope to a desperate human race.

God bless you, Tom!

Dear BH,

I realize that there are differences between Abelard's theology and Maxwell's theology. But at their core, both theologies reduce the cross to a mere demonstration and example. This is what I have in mind when I speak of the moral influence theory. Call it what you will, it still makes the cross legalistic. It merely becomes a lesson to teach us how to love.

Dear Shubee,

I read your article "The Denial of Justice And The Man Of Lawlessness," and I find myself in about 95% agreement with it. I differ in that I still cannot see the Gnosticism and Pantheism in this view of the atonement. But I think we are probably arguing about semantics here. The real issue is that Christ's atoning work on the cross is being compromised.
To me, it still sounds like a form of the Moral Influence Theory (as the article points out). But the article is also correct in observing that a Pelagian view of human nature (i.e. human nature is basically good) goes along with it.
Desmond Ford's observation above is correct. It is a "calamitous deviation" from the gospel of Christ.

Again - I want to affirm my love for those of you who hold this view of the cross. But I fear that your views are much more legalistic than you realize. A Christ Who is only an Example and a Demonstration is not a Savior!

On 10 December 2008 at 3:55 Bob wrote: “But the SDA church has been stalemated by about four of five competing gospels within its ranks. ... After several decades of debate, why are we still facing this issue, and is there any possible way to resolve it?”

The answer is “No.” The major explanations for the death of Jesus are in the Bible and the writings of Ellen White. There will always be individuals who will prefer a particular theory over the others. Des Ford has a strong predilection for the legal model. It is in the Bible, but it implicates God in the death of the most innocent being in the universe.

My personal preference is for Ellen White’s explanation found in her book Education, page 263, where she describes the cross as pointing to the suffering God was subjected to as a result of sin. If the central element of salvation is God’s suffering throughout the ages since rebellion broke out in heaven, then everything else is peripheral and circumstantial, because the “Lamb of God” was “slain from the foundation of the world.” God did not demand the death of an innocent being, he had no need to see Jesus die to forgive sins, and he was willing to save us not because we killed his Son, but in spite of the way we treated him.

God had no need for the death of Jesus, and he tried by all means to thwart Satan’s murderous designs by the miracles Jesus performed in order to provide his chosen nation overwhelming evidence that he was in fact the promised Messiah, and he even revealed to Pilate’s wife that he was about to kill an innocent man. God’s intent is evident by the way he attempted to avoid the death of God’s Son. The Bible tells us that “we are saved by his life.” His death revealed how much he loves us, but the same love was revealed through his life among us. All his miracles revealed his divine concern for our wellbeing.

On 10 December 2008 at 4:28 Bob wrote: “As our rightful Judge, God in human flesh was taking our punishment on Himself. ... I am convinced that Dr. Maxwell taught Peter Abelard's old moral influence theory, but not pantheism.”

My question to you is: When did God’s suffering begin, on the cross or when rebellion broke out in heaven? The Bible tells us that “in all their afflictions, he was afflicted.” Do you believe that God feels our pain today? If he does, why? Isn’t because he loves us? He feels my pain, your pain, and the pain of every human being who ever lived since the fall of Adam and Eve. Can you compute such suffering? Can you imagine God saying: “I have not suffered enough, I need to suffer more, and the way to do this is to plan my own death by crucifixion?”

Do you believe that we have a masochistic God? If not, then you are with me. God suffers when we suffer, and this pain is not something concocted in order to balance the books of heaven. Said suffering is rather the natural result of love. Had human being responded appropriately to God’s love manifested through Jesus life of service to suffering humanity, the cross would have never taken place. This is why he said, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to me.” The term “If” implies contingency, and the same contingency is found in some versions of Isaiah 53:10. This is why Jesus wept over Jerusalem when he lamented: “If you had only known what pertains to your peace!”

Jesus’ death was the natural result of Israel’s rejection of Jesus and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem was rooted in the same cause. God did not want the death of Jesus, and he neither wanted the destruction of Jerusalem.

Regarding Peter Abelard’s moral influence theory, I tend to agree with you that Maxwell did believe in it, although Dave Larson believes the opposite. He definitely had no sympathy towards the legal view of the cross. He did admit that God did punish sinners with the first death, but believed that the second death will be the natural result of the choices sinners have made. I don’t think this makes him a defender of pantheism. The main feature of pantheism is a disbelief in a personal God. Maxwell was a strong believer in a personal God who gave sinners up to their persistent rejection of the eternal life he offered them.

On 10 December 2008 at 5:04 Bob wrote: “Dr. Maxwell did teach Moral Influence theology, which I consider an inadequate and very legalistic view of the atonement.”

I can’t see the legalistic aspect of the MIT! Can you elaborate? My understanding is that the substitutionary view of the cross is a synonym of the legal view of the atonement. Am I wrong?

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

Ponder A New!

A parting Shot!

Why, Why, in all that is Holy do we spend time dissecting
a Christian Brother with over 50 years of teaching in the open?

Why Put a Negative Spin on the Moral Influence Theory.
The Seventh-day Adventist Hymanl 1985 edition page 163 carries this Hymn.

Alsas, and did my Savior bleed? And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for some-one such as I? (note the change for such a worm as I)

R:

At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
and the burden of my heart rolled away. It was there by faith
I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!

Was it for crimes that I have done, He suffered on the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown! And love beyond degree!

R:

But drops of grief can ne'er repay the debt of love I owe.
here Lord, I give myself away, T'is all that I can do!

R.

A Story:

I heard it at least three times, The last time at the LLU University Church. H.M.S. Richards Sr in his late 70's gave the homily.

Near the close he retold this story:

As a young teenagers he was incorrigable. One day his mother called him. She handed him a little saw and told him to go out back a cut a stout limb and bring it to her. he obedied, thinking he was going to get a good whipping.

She lead him into her bedroom. She lay on her stomach cross ways on the bed and handed him the limb he had just cut.

She said, Son, I have tried every thing to set you straight and I have utterly failed. I am a very poor mother. I need to be whipped. Here is the branch. You whip me as hard as you can. The Lord knows I need it for I have failed you." The last lines were sobbed out with a flood of tears. He said, he fell on his knees sobbing. Crying No, Mother, No, It is I that have failed you!

As he wiped away the tears, he continued: We hugged each other and quietly wept and then knelt in prayer. He closed with my dear friends. Christ took that whipping for us!

Now is that the Moral Influence Theory. Does that want you to disown H.M.S. Rhichards as a teacher/evangelist of Salvation.

That is way, my dear wife urges me to abandom this site:
It hurts, really hurts to deep in the soul of this old man.

Have your fun, but without me.

My Jesus Christ have mercy on us all. Tom

My brother Tom,

Don't be gone long as you will be missed. Your "Ortho" straightening of the misaligned will be missed.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

pat

Tom,

"Christ took that whipping for us!"...Yes! That's "substitution" my brother!

pat

Tom

Did you visit my website: www.ponderanew.typepad.com? Hope so! I'm partial to that hymn!!

Pat

If you were a student of mine [which I'm sure you're glad your aren't! (:!], I'd say something like this:

"Pat, Please write me a 1,000 word essay on your understanding of what took place at the cross without using the word 'substitution.'"

I am not asking you to change your beliefs, not in the least, only that you explain the very same thing using other term(s).

There's nothing wrong with the word "substitition," but it is not the only one in the English language. A little terminological variety--again, not theological compromise-- might be a good thing for both of us!"

Would you think this a fair and doable request?

Open Comment

I am startled when I hear myself say:

"I know that so and so doesn't believe this; however, it doesn't make any difference because what s/he does believe amounts to the same thing even though s/he repeatedly says it doesn't."

It is not immediately obvious to me that when I speak this way that way I am honoring the golden rule of ecumenical dialogue: treat the other person's beliefs you would that they treat yours.

Many thanks!

Dave

Shubee,

I wrote an article in 1975 entitled "Peace on Earth?" p.24,25 that includes the above quotes by EGW on p.554,558 GC. concerning "Love,charity,justice."
http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1975/MIN1975-12.pdf

Thanks. I've read the article. However, your recognition that spiritualism has a fundamental part to play in creating the mark of the beast does not justify your misrepresentations of me or your denial of spiritualism being present in Maxwell's theology.

Dave,

I could talk about how the Bible uses reconciliation,propitiation,purchase and redemption,sacrifice,forgiveness,court of law and battlefield metaphors. I could talk of the Love that sent Him there for you and all of us so that we could be reconciled.

But I can not deny that scripture speaks of all of these in the sense of "substitution"... that Christ did all these things in my behalf, because He loved us and gave Himself freely for us.(substitution)

He substitutes (reckons) His righteousness for my unrighteousness and He reckons Himself a sinner and me to be righteous.

Perhaps Dave you could right a 1000 word report for Dr.Roger Nicole stating why substitution is taught at the cross in scripture...done that lately? :~)

regards,
pat

Dear Nic,

God is not implicated in the death of the most innocent Being in the universe. Let's try this once again - it was God Himself Who died! He did not punish an innocent third party. I don't mean to keep gnawing at an old bone, but you continue to misrepresent the substitutionary position.

Nic, I agree with you about pantheism. I can't see the pantheism in your position either - at least as pantheism is commonly defined. But I do see the the moral influence theory looming large. And I see the MIT as legalistic because it turns Jesus into a pure example, like the Muslim Christ. The focus is on emulating Christ and the change in my life, not on what Christ has done for me.

Although not all believers in the moral influence theory take this step, it plays right into sinless perfectionism. Jesus demonstrated perfect love on the cross, and I better love just like He did - or else! And at that point, the so-called loving God of the MIT suddenly turns very threatening.

I realize that you may object to what I have just stated. Not all proponents of the MIT take their views to their logical conclusion. But the logical conclusion is that Jesus died to teach me perfect love, and I better learn to love just like that, or I'm going to die as a natural consequence of not being loving. like all forms of legalism, this produces utterly hopeless, despairing people or, on occasion, a very proud person who deludes himself into thinking he really is just as loving as Jesus.

As a believer in Christ's substitutionary atonement, I don't think that I have to measure up in any way. No, this is not an excuse to sin. On the contrary, it frees me to love God and my fellow human beings genuinely and from my heart. I don't have to wear masks and pretend to be someone I am not. It is so liberating to trust in Christ's free grace alone!

Nic, I do appreciate your dialogues with me. Thanks for listening! If you respond, it will probably be 2 or 3 days before I get back to you. Take care, and have a happy Sabbath!

Shubee,

I have not disagreed with quite a few of your particular positions. I only am reluctant to be someones FINAL JUDGE and place someone in the "lake of fire." I am not reluctant to contend for the faith as I understand it.

Is it possible that if any of us have any doctrinal error whatsoever that we might in some sense be a "spiritualist" in your paradigm?

regards,

pat

To a non-Christian observer, all this discussion would seem banal. Forgetting that all of the information obtained from the Bible or other writers has been solely their opinions and explanations. Jesus never said anything for certain for which we have a record. Ditto for God. It was entirely man's descriptions of both God and Jesus as they understood him and his mission.

One can find all sorts of analogies and explanations for Jesus' life here on earth. Who has the omniscience to say which is correct? Who dares to say all others are in error? For those of us watching and listening, it sounds no less than the widely discussed topic of the number of angels that could dance on a pinhead or could God create a rock too big for him to move, or could he create a square peg that would fit into a round hole?

This is all theory: no one can say with absolute surety that one view is correct. Could it possibly matter so much as to deprive us of Heaven if we are incorrect? It leaves all the rest wondering about choosing the important things and the others discussing what day will the world end; all the while the rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket lacking food, housing, medical care and NOT how they are saved from being eternally lost. Most are worrying about how the next month's rent will be paid, will they lose their job, will a family member get a dread disease without health insurance, or a host of very troubling probable conditions. Wake up and see the needs all around us!

Bob,

We might add the thought that with MIT how does one attain righteousness? As you stated, it must be to have love as Christ had.

Luther appropriately answered the sophist that "to love like Christ did was also to keep the law as Christ did"...oops, back to that same problem again:

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood." Rom.3:21-25.

My question to you is: When did God’s suffering begin, on the cross or when rebellion broke out in heaven? The Bible tells us that “in all their afflictions, he was afflicted.” Do you believe that God feels our pain today? If he does, why? Isn’t because he loves us? He feels my pain, your pain, and the pain of every human being who ever lived since the fall of Adam and Eve. Can you compute such suffering? Can you imagine God saying: “I have not suffered enough, I need to suffer more, and the way to do this is to plan my own death by crucifixion?”
_________________________________________________________
Actually, God did plan His own death by crucifixion. He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Of course, God feels our pain, and He has been suffering since the inception of sin. but this is not the same as being a sin bearer.

Pat, you just hit the nail squarely with the hammer. Very well put!

Bob said:

I realize that there are differences between Abelard's theology and Maxwell's theology. But at their core, both theologies reduce the cross to a mere demonstration and example. This is what I have in mind when I speak of the moral influence theory. Call it what you will, it still makes the cross legalistic. It merely becomes a lesson to teach us how to love.

Legalistic? Maxwell? ROTFLMHO Thanks Bob. You made my day!
:-)

This is all theory: no one can say with absolute surety that one view is correct. Could it possibly matter so much as to deprive us of Heaven if we are incorrect? It leaves all the rest wondering about choosing the important things and the others discussing what day will the world end; all the while the rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket lacking food, housing, medical care and NOT how they are saved from being eternally lost. Most are worrying about how the next month's rent will be paid, will they lose their job, will a family member get a dread disease without health insurance, or a host of very troubling probable conditions. Wake up and see the needs all around us!
_________________________________________________________
Dear Elaine,

I hear what you are saying. You don't know me except on cyber space. But if you knew me in person, you would realize that I try very hard to help people. Not to brag, but we have taken many people into our own home because they lost their own homes. We have given away many thousands of dollars to needy people. And right now, I'm trying to comfort a man with three kids, ages 5, 11, and 17 whose wife suddenly died of a heart attack before his very eyes last Friday. Believe me, I know people have problems. But it is Christ and His love that motivates me to help others. And I am truly convinced that Christ is the ultimate solution to this world's problems! In the mean time, let's do all we can to love other people - not just with words, but with actions!

Please write me a 1,000 word essay on your understanding of what took place at the cross without using the word 'substitution.'

Paul said: “One died for all, therefore all died” (2 Cor 5:14). Note that Paul is saying more than Jesus died to benefit humanity. In Paul's theology, all are reckoned to have died. Graham Maxwell and the New Age spiritualists never address this Scripture because they don't understand it. They insist on a nonsensical theology. "It would be nonsense to say that if one died for the benefit of all, then all died." Edward Heppenstall, The Sanctuary and the Atonement, p. 682.

Legalistic? Maxwell? ROTFLMHO Thanks Bob. You made my day!
_________________________________________________________
Dear BH,

I not sure if I should take that as a compliment. LOL!
But in theology, things are not always what they seem on the surface. on the surface, the MIT seems very loving. But taken to its logical conclusions is legalistic and threatening. Many people perceive the MIT as loving because they don't think it through to its logical conclusion.

Very well put, Shubee. Dr. Heppenstall's essay "Subjective And Objective Aspects Of The Atonement" in "The Sanctuary And The Atonement" is a very good read.

Everyone, thanks for the dialogue. However, I have a very busy schedule over the next few days and must sign off. If any of you respond to my posts, I will try to get back to you in 2 or 3 days.

Have a great weekend! Try to find someone to whom you can show some practical acts of kindness! And remember - Jesus loves you!

Bob wrote:

--
But in theology, things are not always what they seem on the surface. on the surface, the MIT seems very loving. But taken to its logical conclusions is legalistic and threatening. Many people perceive the MIT as loving because they don't think it through to its logical conclusion.
--

How is it legalistic and threatening? Let's see the moral influence theory states that God loves us and wants us to follow Him. The Penal theory theory says God loves us and poured out His punishment that we deserved onto Christ who substitutes His life for our life if we accept it.

Lets see, both require belief, the penal theory just requires a few more particulars (some hard to logically accept).

No the threatening part is based upon the assumption of what one has to do after they are reconciled. Which interestingly enough is not something that is a part of any atonement theory. No doubt Bob assumes that once you are influenced by God's love you then have to live up to God's standards on your own. That is threatening alright, sadly that is merely moving last generation perfection theology onto something that has no need or desire to have a connection with LGT. But it can make it scary because they claim it is scary...at least to people who don't know anything about it.

Though I will grant that there are some so called larger view atonement people who have inserted last generation theology into their mix. Which is another reason the atonement theories based upon Ellen White are suspect.

Ron

Pat Travis wrote:

I only am reluctant to be someones FINAL JUDGE and place someone in the "lake of fire."

There you go again. You hypocritically condemn yourself by becoming the FINAL JUDGE of me and the evidence you supply is against yourself.

Is it possible that if any of us have any doctrinal error whatsoever that we might in some sense be a "spiritualist" in your paradigm?

The profile that I copied from the Great Controversy for the essential doctrine of modern spiritualism is quite explicit. You would have to make your own determination to answer your own question. You haven't said enough to make your dubious spiritualism really transparent. As for myself, I can't imagine my recognition of the similarities between spiritualism and the doctrines that Helen Schucman received from a channeled Jesus is a sin. Nor can I see the error in comparing Mike Clute's God-does-not-kill theory with spiritualism, especially Clute's character of God emphasis that led him to conclude that the serpent of Genesis 3 is God and the God that condemned Adam and Eve is Satan. Consequently, I think it's plain silly to not acknowledge or notice the spiritualistic beliefs of John Harvey Kellogg, Helen Schucman and Mike Clute in Maxwell's theology.

Pat

Sure! I think I'd look up all the passages that say that Jesus Christ died "for" us and then show how thier various meanings can be covered by the one word "substitiution." No problem.

As I've said before, I don't doubt that Scripture uses forensic metaphors to describe the atonement. It obviously does. But I don't give them more weight or authority than I do all the others because Scripture itself doesn't do that.

I agree with Prof. Roennfeldt's earlier Sabbath School commentary on this. I judge it to be the standard view among New Testament specialists.

It would be helpful to explain the atonement without using any of the letters of Paul, for example. It can and has been done for thousands of years.

Besides, instead of mushing them altogether as though they all say the same thing, I think it more interesting to trace the slightly but importantly different ways the Bible writers in the NT talk about the atonment.

Endless debates, that have literally gone on for centuries, about the precise meaning of one word in "Romans" is a boring enterprise, in my view.

This is not to say that it is wrong for others not to find this boring. As EGW says, our temperments and powers of perception differ and that's OK

Dave

Dear Pat,

OK I said I was signing off, but let me reply to your post just before I go out the door. Since you mentioned Ellen White, she claimed neither perfection nor infallibility, so I do not claim these attributes for her or her writings. It is true that people use her writings to support both the MIT and LGT. However, I am convinced that she did not support either of these concepts. But debating Ellen White is not my main issue here.

Please understand - I am not saying that you believe in LGT.
Clearly, MIT people do not have to believe LGT. However, any time people start thinking of Christ purely as Example, there is a strong impetus toward LGT or similar perfectionistic schemes. Thinking of Christ purely as Example makes people feel they have to measure up. So I don't think it's an accident that many "larger atonement people" have inserted LGT into their mix. The MIT fits into LGT like a hand fits into a glove!

Sorry Pat. I meant the above post for Ron. Too much of a hurry here!

Bob wrote:

--
Clearly, MIT people do not have to believe LGT. However, any time people start thinking of Christ purely as Example, there is a strong impetus toward LGT or similar perfectionistic schemes.
--

Ah yes the old God incarnate is purely example argument. Now of course that is not based upon the MIT but that is the argument that Penal theorists place on the MIT. Thus it is of little value because it is not what MIT teaches it is simply a miss characterization. Though I must admit I have yet to see anyone try to live as they were God incarnate yet. Even the good old New Agers don't try to do that.

As for the passages that say that Jesus Christ died "for" us. That for could be substitution though that is not how early Christians viewed it or it could be for the benefit of. Which is indeed how they thought of it. Saying it could only mean substitution is merely looking at one possibility while ignoring all others.

Ron

Dave,

"It would be helpful to explain the atonement without using any of the letters of Paul, for example. It can and has been done for thousands of years."

Why exclude Paul?

pat

Pat

Just for the fun of it! This would be temporary, of course. Yet it would be worthwhile.

Over the centuries many thoughtful Christians have preferred "John," finding Paul too brassy and meandering. I don't see why we have to force Paul down their theological throats.

All the best!

Dave

Tom,

Thank you for your story dated 11 December 2008 at 2:17. I have invested many hours reading the comments posted on this blog, and I did learn quite a bit by this experience, but this latest story of yours would have been worth the effort even if the rest had been thrash--which it wasn’t. The story was not new to me, but I had completely forgotten it. Thank you for bringing it up!

Pat,

On 11 December 2008 at 2:42 you stated: "Christ took that whipping for us!"...Yes! That's "substitution" my brother!”

I say: Really? Notice that there was no legal requirement for Elder Richards’ mother to volunteer for the beating. The strategy worked on the basis of its moral appeal. Now, imagine if the young boy had agreed to flog his mom. Would the mother say: “Now the legal requirement has been met. You deserved to be punished, but I took the required punishment on myself, which allows me to forgive your misbehavior.” Does this make sense to you? Which view makes more sense, the moral or the legal one?

Now, consider the following real life story. A mother confronts her daughter about her defiant attitude towards the family rules of behavior. The teenager in anger slapped her mom. She later felt sorry for what she had done and her mom forgave her. My question: Should the mother have demanded that an innocent party, perhaps the teenager’ younger sister, be slapped as a condition for forgiveness? This would represent substitutionary justice. Is this the type of justice you defend?

Bob,

Regarding your comments dated 11 December 2008 at 4:02: Read my comments to Pat above and tell me whether you still think that I am misrepresenting the substitutionary theory of atonement. Tom’s story about Elder Richards’ mother who volunteered to take the punishment her son deserved upon herself makes sense from the moral explanation for the death of Jesus; not so from the legal view.

You claim that the MIT is legalistic. Not so! There was nothing legalistic about Elder Richards’ mother offer to be punished for her son’s misbehavior. Her strategy worked thanks to the moral appeal of her love for her unruly boy. Besides, she argued that she deserved to be punished for failing as a mother. This argument could never apply to God. God could say, “I have failed,” but it would not be true. God never makes a mistake!

The MIT is not legalistic. It merely turns a rebel into a contrite and repentant sinner, which is the only requirement for salvation. Sin comes with irreversible consequences. Killing an innocent third party, be it Jesus, God the Father, or anybody else does not undo the damage. If I am guilty of murder, killing someone else in my place does not bring the victim of my crime back to life. There is no way to undo the damage done by sin in most cases. What God requires is not that the damage resulting from murder be undone, but rather that repentance is followed by loyalty to God.

“Sinless perfectionism” is a caricature of the MIT. This is what the Lord requires: “What does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” [Mic. 6:8] Does this seem “threatening” to you? I hope not. You seem to be doing this already by your acts of mercy towards suffering humanity.

The Bible is full of metaphors, and all explanations for the death of Jesus are metaphors at best. Do not try to take them to their “logical conclusions.” If you do, they all fail at some point. I have already, more than once in the past, shown you how ridiculous the substitutionary view of the atonement becomes when taken to its logical conclusion. No metaphor can walk on all four. There is no adequate comparison in the universe for what God did for humanity. Christian theologians have wrecked their brains trying to find the perfect symbol for what Jesus did for humanity and have failed so far. Let us be content with what we have, imperfect though it might be.

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

Jesus knew what was coming... it definitely had his attention!

Hi again Nic,

It's taken me a couple of days to respond because I had to reformat my hard drive (it took me all day today) due to one of those "you have a virus... buy our anti-virus product to protect yourself" promos... as if I'm going to buy the product of a "break and enter" sales man in the form of a pop-up ad... how dumb is that, huh?

_______________________________

You wrote,

>> "Art, Thank you for your comments dated 09 December 2008 at 2:48 ...

>> "My first question is: Why was Jesus soul troubled? ..."

Answer...

Because as the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, Jesus knew that when he said "it is finished", bowed his head and died, he would finally arrive at the moment when "IT" finally (implying only 1 time, of course) would be forever "tetelestai"... finished.

"IT" being the fulfillment of the day of atonement sprinkling on the "mercy seat" of the atonement blood that would seal by death the "ONLY" at-one-ment, the "ONLY" indissoluble "union" of creator and creation in bodily form in Jesus, in whom would be Emmanuel... "God is with Us" himself... reconciling the world to himself... forever.

Forever meaning that Jesus, even "after" his resurrection from the "2nd death" punishment for sin, as the "son of man" he would never return to who he was as "equal" with his Father before he "emptied" himself of deity... even though he would be glorified with the glory he had with the Father before the world began.

Just as God's focus was on the "mercy seat" once each year on the "day of atonemet," so also Jesus was "very" focused ("soul troubled"), or "fixated" as you said, on the moment that he knew was coming....

... He was not focused ("soul troubled") on what happened in heaven from the nanosecond that Lucifer sinned in the sinless environment of the eternal throne of the Ancient of Days...

... He was not focused ("soul troubled") on what would be happening in heaven "after" his resurrection and ascension into heaven nearly 2000 years ago...

... and He definitely was not focused ("soul troubled") on what would be happening in heaven in 1844...

1844 was the "special atonement for Israel" that Herb Dogulass mentions in the Ellen White quote in his SS lesson comments following this SS lesson comments by Des Ford.

More later...

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

What in the world...?

Newsweek and Bush: Both are Bible morons
by Joe Kovacs
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=83296
__________________________________

Holy moly! What in the name of all that is good and godly is going on?

In a season supposed to be filled with glad tidings of God echoing throughout the land, we have the president of the United States questioning the Bible's literal content and a major newsmagazine suggesting the Good Book has no problem with same-sex marriage.

In case you missed it, President George W. Bush was asked this week if the Bible is literally true.

"You know. Probably not," Bush told ABC's Cynthia McFadden. "No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son."'

He also said he thinks God's creation of the Earth could have taken place along with human evolution.

"I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution," he said.

And then there are the morons at Newsweek.

Next week's cover story titled "Our Mutual Joy" actually suggests the Bible argues in favor of homosexual marriage.

Huh?

What Bible are these doofuses reading?

I don't know about you, but I am absolutely fed up with idiocy like this.

First, regarding Bush's statements, I don't know why he has such a problem with believing the literal truth of Scripture.

If he agrees a supernatural event took place when God the Father sent His Son to Earth by miraculously impregnating a young woman who never had sex, then why is it so hard to believe the rest?

If God can create the planet, then why can't He scoop up some dirt, shape it in the image of Himself and then breathe the breath of life into the first man?

Is it impossible? For us, yes. But obviously, not for the eternal Creator.

Why believe one miracle, and not any other? Are we supposed to just pick and choose which fantastic miracle to believe?

On Newsweek's ludicrous claim, here's the real truth. The Bible never mentions any case of same-sex marriage, but it soundly condemns homosexuality.

I know some people hear conflicting messages these days and rarely crack open their Bibles, so here's a quick lesson.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22, King James Version)

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." (Leviticus 18:22, New Living Translation)

In fact, God finds homosexual activity so abhorrent, He called for the death penalty for it.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13, KJV)

Newsweek's Lisa Miller calls such verses "throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world ... ."

What kind of psychobabble is that?

The very next Bible verse after Leviticus 18:22 tells us not to have sex with animals. Is Newsweek suggesting that's a "throwaway line" as well?

Even the ancient city of Sodom was known for its sexual perversion, and was firebombed by God shortly after the homosexuals there demanded to have sex with two of God's angels who were appearing in the form of men:

"They shouted to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out so we can have sex with them.'" (Genesis 19:5, NLT)

If you've ever been to or heard of a "gay"-pride parade in recent times, keep in mind that flaunting perversion is not necessarily new.

"They parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves." (Isaiah 3:9, New International Version)

The New Testament brings up Sodom quite often, with examples such as:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7, KJV)

And the Apostle Paul addressed the subject, calling homosexuality "shameful desires":

"Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." (Romans 1:26-27, NLT)

Ladies and gentlemen, I am fed up with people lying about the Bible.

I'm fed up with people twisting the words of Holy Scripture to fit some depraved, politically correct, anti-God agenda.

I'm fed up with fables and misconceptions about the Bible that have endured for centuries.

I'm fed up with people saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says.

It means exactly what it says and it says what it means.

And just in case you never heard the Good News, here it is:

God is coming back to put an end to this nonsense.

He will raise people out of their graves, granting eternal life to many to administer the kingdom of God – the actual government of God – here on Earth.

He'll finally oust the unseen reason behind this mess: the devil, the current "god of this world," "prince of the power of the air," "father of lies" and "spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience."

Mr. Bush, I pray you realize one day the message of the New Testament is a lot more than "God sent a son."

Yes, change is coming. A regime change the powers that be don't want.

The kingdom of God is on its way.

And God isn't bringing democracy and the American system with Him. The true Messiah doesn't need to be elected.

Now that's some real glad tidings.

________

Forget Newsweek and Bush. Be a champion for Bible truth and get "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" personally signed by author Joe Kovacs for the incredible price of just $4.95! Today only!

While we're talking about the atonement, what in the world is happening to society...?

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

If we followed the marital examples of all the major Bible characters, we would be polygamists.

So much for following the Bible.

David

On 11 December 2008 at 10:48 you stated the following: “Over the centuries many thoughtful Christians have preferred "John," finding Paul too brassy and meandering.”

No doubt. Even Saint Peter, had trouble with Paul’s writings and suggested that some of them were difficult to understand. Well, guess what: Paul was first a lawyer. When you read what a lawyer has written, quite often you need another lawyer to tell you the meaning of what you have been reading. Second, he was a theologian, and theology is a branch of philosophy. Of course, the basic tool of philosophy is not revelation, but rather reason.

Jesus made his mission quite simple when he stated: “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.” By using the term “If” he implied that his death was not mandatory, but rather contingent on human response. Had God’s chosen nation accepted him as their rightful Messiah and King, there would have been no need for him to die. In addition, if he did die, he would draw all men to himself. That sounds like the moral influence theory on atonement to me.

Those who believe that all prophetical predictions must meet precise fulfillment would do well to read the story of Jonah the prophet. God’s promises and warning are contingent on human response. This was true about the future of Nineveh, and it should have been true about Golgotha.

Shubee,

On 11 December 2008 at 5:47 you stated: “I have already noted previously that Maxwell has embraced heretical elements of Socinianism and uses Socinian arguments to mock vicarious substitutionary atonement.”

My answer is: The presence of common elements in two doctrinal positions is not proof that they are equivalent. Take the case of human and chimpanzees: Scientists tell us that we share 98 percent of our DNA with apes. Isn’t it amazing the difference a two percent of uncommon elements can make? I suggest that you take the time to analyze the contrast between Maxwell’s teaching and that of Gnosticism and Pantheism. The main feature of pantheism is the denial of a personal God, and the main feature of Gnosticism is a denial of Jesus’ human-divine nature.

David,

On 10 December 2008 at 7:51 you stated: “A. Graham Maxwell does not believe in the Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement. This can be confirmed by comparing his writings with those of Abelard. But neither does he believe in the substitutionary theory of the atonement as it is often articulated today.”

True! There are many variations both of the substitutionary and the moral influence theories of atonement. The same is true about ice cream. We can get at least 31 flavors of it. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between yogurt and ice cream, in spite of the fact that both products look very similar. They may look and taste very much alike, but some individuals have a strong preference for one of them, or for a specific flavor of one of them.

I believe that Maxwell’s teaching had a moral influence flavor to it, and he exhibited a strong distaste for the substitutionary explanation for the cross. Likewise, he had no sympathy for either Gnosticism or pantheism. Am I wrong?

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

David and Pat,

No problem explaining Atonement using the writings of John:

1Jo 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

The word translated as propitiate is used in 2 Maccabees 3:33 to describe a sacrifice offered by the high priest. The sacrifice was for the healing or restoration of General Heliodorus. He had gone to the temple to remove some of its wealth at the behest of his king. Heliodorus was met by supernatural beings and seriously injured.

The high priest offered a propitiation for his restoration. The RSV apocrypha calls it "an offering of atonement."

An appropriate illustration of the Divine Physician's offering.

Correction: "The word translated as propitiation in 1 John is also used in 2 Maccabees 2:33...."

Nic Samojluk wrote:

Shubee,

On 11 December 2008 at 5:47 you stated: “I have already noted previously that Maxwell has embraced heretical elements of Socinianism and uses Socinian arguments to mock vicarious substitutionary atonement.”

My answer is: The presence of common elements in two doctrinal positions is not proof that they are equivalent.

That's fine because I made no claim about exact equivalence. I said "the essential parts of several dead heresies have been stitched together and have come back to life, all animated by spiritualism in the Frankenstein theology of Dr. Graham Maxwell. Gnosticism is one of those theories."

It's an absolute certainty that the central pillars in the teachings of John Harvey Kellogg, Helen Schucman, Mike Clute and Graham Maxwell rest upon a spiritualistic foundation.

It amazes me that the followers of Maxwell refuse to examine his graveyard sources. They want to believe that A. Graham Maxwell is amazingly original. It's true that Dr. Frankenstein will be remembered for following up on an idea that no other human ever thought of before but he certainly didn't create anything new.

Dave,

Partially Responding to your request... even while I do not believe it is necessary to format a doctrinal position from every individual book or writer rather than multiple witnesses,yet I will offer a quick observation on the Gospel of John and a few of his other writings .

Why does John call Christ the "lamb that taketh away the sins of the world?" Jn1:29

Why was it needful that the Son of Man be lifted up in order/for the pupose that everyone who believing in him may have eternal life.? Jn.3:13-15.

Why are those that believing in Him have eternal life and are not not judged/condemned while those who do not are condemned already? Jn.3:16-18.

Why does the wrath of God remain on those who reject the Son? Jn.3:36.

Could the answer from the same author be:

“ In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
1 Jn.4:10

“To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood” Rev.1:5

“ And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 “And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” Rev.5:9,10

regards,

pat

Rc,

On 02 December 2008 at 5:58 you stated: “I could agree that the second death is the penalty for sin, but did Jesus die the Second death. If we look at how Revelation defines it is the death for which there is no resurrection. Jesus was resurrected...so how is that the second death?”

All theories of atonement tend to break down when taken to their logical conclusions. This is why there has been so much controversy about this fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church. The only reasonable solution is to compare the different explanations for the death of Jesus, and select the one which presents less serious problems and the one which distorts the character of God less. This is why I have a strong preference for the moral view of the cross.

The Lamb of God was “slain from the foundation of the world” [Ellen White, Education, 263]. This is fundamental—what happened to God as a result of sin and rebellion. This took place at the beginning. What took place thousands of years later was the result of human’s rejection of God’s original plan for humanity and was permitted that we might understand what sin does to the heart of God. God saved sinners not because we killed God’s Son, but rather in spite of the cruel treatment we subjected him to. God did not mastermind the death of Jesus. Satan did, because Murder is his second nature and he has been a “murderer from the beginning.”

Dwight,

I read your comments dated 02 December 2008 at 6:05 and I have a suggestion for you: Why don’t you describe where Des Ford was in error, instead of blaming him for what the church did to him and his followers.

Shubee,

On 12 December 2008 at 2:27 you stated: “It's an absolute certainty that the central pillars in the teachings of John Harvey Kellogg, Helen Schucman, Mike Clute and Graham Maxwell rest upon a spiritualistic foundation.”

The central pillar of pantheism is the belief that God has no personal existence and is rather diffused in nature. Spiritualism encourages their followers to look for God inside of us instead of seeking a God who exists outside of us.

My dictionary defines pantheism as follows: “A doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe.” This is the “central pillar” of pantheism. Spiritualism teaches that God is diffused in nature and is inside of us. Therefore, there is no need to seek God outside of us. Dr. Maxwell did not believe in such anti-Christian, spiritualistic doctrines. His teachings were firmly anchored in the belief of a personal God.

Bob,

On 05 December 2008 at 8:20 you stated: “I actually believe that if Christ had been sacrificed as a baby, the anger of God against sin would have been satisfied and atonement would have been made.”

This is paganism at its best. It represents what was practiced by pagan worshippers in Old Testament times. The experience of Abraham and his son Isaac shows that God hated such practice. We find ample condemnation of human sacrifice in the O.T.

Tihomir,

On 06 December 2008 at 2:25 you asked: “Has the Adventist Church, twenty years after Glacier View, finally matured enough to face the challenges of the gospel without a preconceived prejudice?”

Two decades ago we rejected and defrocked Ford, and now Ford says that he agrees with our SS Study Guide. Did Ford modify his views on the atonement, or was it the church who altered its position on this issue. I am confused!

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

To Whom It may Concern!

Obviously I am a conpulsive: But once again in the night season, it finally dawned on me. One dimensional minds, depict God as a one dimensional deity and His work has having only one aspect. What a downer if the angels sing Holy, Holy, Holy in a constant refrain if there is only one aspect of God's Love, Grace, Justice, Mercy, and Power. The Plan of Redemption has so many aspects that it will be our study for eternity.

This idea of cherry picking another Christian's mind and then verbally stoning him or her to death is Satanic in the extreme.

Certainly there are substitutionary aspects to the Cross as there are moral influence aspects to the entire Christ Event.

But theories are man make and subject to the frailties of man--please don't attach them to God or to any of his servants.

Now, I can sleep again. Don't bother to trouble me with your babble about the hereies of others. You got enough of your own. Tom

Nic Samojluk wrote:

Spiritualism encourages their followers to look for God inside of us instead of seeking a God who exists outside of us.

That's a perfect description of the Maxwellians. They reject what the Bible says about God and look to and trust their own corrupt imaginations to decide what the character of God must be.

My dictionary defines pantheism as follows: “A doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe.”

I'm not disputing the primary meaning of pantheism in your dictionary. I point to the broader definition of pantheism at dictionary.com. I argue that "The exaltation of the power and justice of natural consequences above God qualifies as pantheism."

Nick, you referred to one of my previous posts by observing:
"Two decades ago we rejected and defrocked Ford, and now Ford says that he agrees with our SS Study Guide. Did Ford modify his views on the atonement, or was it the church who altered its position on this issue. I am confused!"

Dr Ford did not modify his views on the Atonement. However, regardless of the outcome of the Glacier View almost thirty years ago, many church leaders did modify their views regarding the Atonement by allowing themselves to see its finished nature. However, the mainstream Adventist Church continued to develop a compromise by changing its semantics (not its core belief) about the Investigative Judgment Doctrine. The result is a cognitive dissonance: namely that what we give to the church body as the Gospel with one hand, we take it away by another in the form of continuing to asset the Investigative Judgment Doctrine.

No wonder the Church is confused.

Tom wrote "Just one question, Herb. If you plan to hold hands with Des in Heaven, why did the editors of the Review hold Neal Wilson's coat while he "stoned" Des? Why not hold his hand now and bring him back not just to the LLU. Hill Church but to Takoma Park?".
Very good question Tom. But you will agree that it is far more convenient to promise to hold hands across Jordan, perhaps because we dont believe the other party will be there.

Nic Samojluk wrote "Ellen White describes how God, when Lucifer rebelled against his Maker, attempted many times to reinstate him in his position in heaven on condition of repentance and submission. Suppose Lucifer had acknowledged his error and repented, do you think that God would have said to him: “You are welcome back to your original position, but we now need to kill an innocent victim, and I hope my Son will volunteer!”

Would you give me a reference for this Nic. This is not what I recall. what I find in the Great Controversy ( 1858 edition) is the following -
"After Satan was shut out of heaven, with those who fell with him, he realized that he had lost all the purity and glory of heaven forever. Then he repented and wished to be reinstated again in heaven. He was willing to take his proper place, or any place that might be assigned him. But no, heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven might be marred should he be taken back; for sin originated with him, and the seeds of rebellion were within him. Satan had obtained followers, those who sympathized with him in his rebellion. He and his followers repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin, their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment."

This does not seem to confirm your staement that his Maker "attempted many times to reinstate him in his position in heaven on condition of repentance and submission"

Ellen White's many statements elicit a different memory from those who have read her, because if there was one thing for sure, she was not consistent, and changes were made throughout her long career--and continues by those who so liberally "quote" her.

Hansen and Pat

Good work with the material from John. Thank you! You've shown that outlining an understanding of the atonement is possible from just them.

Tom

You write:

"Certainly there are substitutionary aspects to the Cross as there are moral influence aspects to the entire Christ Event.

But theories are man make and subject to the frailties of man--please don't attach them to God or to any of his servants."

I agree with you 100000000000000000000000000000%!

Dave

Thank you Dave, It means much. Tom

Garnett,

On December 2008 at 7:00 you asked me to document my statement citing Ellen White’s opinion that Lucifer could have been reinstated in his original position in heaven on condition of repentance. Here is the quotation in question:

*********
"Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. Such efforts as God alone could make, were made to convince him of his error, and restore him to the path of rectitude. God would preserve the order of the heavens, and had Lucifer been willing to return to his allegiance, humble and obedient, he would have been re-established in his office as covering cherub. But as he stubbornly justified his course, and maintained that he had no need of repentance, it became necessary for the Lord of Heaven to vindicate his justice and the honor of his throne; and Satan and all who sympathized with him were cast out." {4SP 319.3} http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default

*********

Pat,

On 12 December 2008 at 3:56 you posted some rhetorical questions for David such as, “Why does John call Christ the "lamb that taketh away the sins of the world?" My question to you is: Is sin an object which can be transferred from one person to another, or is it rather a metaphor for the act of forgiveness?

Your next question was, “Why was it needful that the Son of Man be lifted up in order/for the purpose that everyone who believing in him may have eternal life?” The answer is found in John 12:32: “If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me.” When Jesus was being tortured, and he prayed, “Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing,” he provided the greatest revelation of God’s love towards sinful human beings. Why did he do this? Jesus said it was to draw all men to himself. Fear is powerful, but love is more so. Had Jesus refused to be subjected to mistreatment and death, there would have been millions who would never have responded to the fear of the final judgment.

Then you asked, “Why are those that believing in Him have eternal life and are not not judged/condemned while those who do not are condemned already?” Read my answer to your previous question.

You also asked, “Why does the wrath of God remain on those who reject the Son?” Maxwell’s answer would be: God’s wrath was manifested towards Jesus when he hid his face from him and “gave him up.” I ask: Was God angry with Jesus? The answer is No. He merely refused to save him from a sure death. Will God be angry with those who are lost? Not really. He will more likely shed some tears at the sight of their final destruction. That is what Jesus did at the sight of Jerusalem following his triumphal entry to the Holy City.

Shubee,

On 12 December 2008 at 4:56 you stated: “That's a perfect description of the Maxwellians.” My answer is: The Maxwellians I know would forcefully disagree with you on this. The Maxwellians I trust are those who had the privilege of knowing Maxwell face to face and who listened to him not just once, but did so for many years. I have never heard Maxwell say or insinuate that God is diffused in nature and that to find him we must look for him inside of us the way spiritualists teach.

You also stated, “My dictionary defines pantheism as follows: “A doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe.” My answer is: I have never in the years I listened to Dr. Maxwell either say or insinuate that God is on par with the “forces and laws of the universe.” On the contrary, he always portrayed God as above the laws and forces of nature. Maxwell was always a strong believer in the God Almighty who created nature.

Your argument that "The exaltation of the power and justice of natural consequences above God qualifies as pantheism" is in error, because it does not apply to the Maxwell’s God. I have never heard Maxwell state or insinuate that the natural consequences of our actions are above the authority or glory of God. I have always known Maxwell as a worshipper of the Almighty God, the Creator of heaven and earth and the Author of the laws which govern our universe.

I am sorry to say this, but you have distorted Maxwell’s teaching beyond recognition. Your depiction of Maxwell’s beliefs is an unfair caricature of what he has been teaching for years. You need to read what Maxwell has written again without the pre-conceived antagonism towards him which has characterized your teachings for years. Remember that you will eventually be held to the same norm you have used in your judgment of this man of God. If you insist on misrepresenting what Maxwell has taught in the past, others will do the same to what you have written.

Tihomir,

On 12 December 2008 at 5:39 you stated: “Dr Ford did not modify his views.” I agree, it is the church that has altered its views about the atonement. I wish the church had altered its views about the Investigative Judgment instead of the atonement. I think that the legal view of the cross distorts the character of God.

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

How about a 3 word essay... + 977 words to explain the 3 words?

Hi Dave,

A few minutes ago I visited your ponderanew.com and ponderanew.typepad.com sites and now I understand why you asked Pat above, in a very friendly way, to

>> "...write me a 1,000 word essay on your understanding of what took place at the cross without using the word 'substitution.'"

I have a friendly challenge for the teacher...

Maybe you could ask your real life students to write a 3 word essay about their understanding of what took place at the cross without using the word substitution, or reconciliation, or in our stead, or objective, or forensic, or justification, or sanctification, or, well, you get the idea... add any biblical or theological word that pertains to the fulfillment of the most holy place act of sprinkling the atoning blood on the mercy seat on the day of atonement.

When they assert that it is impossible, just ask them to use another 997 words to explain what Jesus meant when he said "it is finished" just seconds before he breathed his last, bowed his head and died (Jn. 19:30), and to explain what "IT" means in relation to "finished", and now they are free to use any of the biblical and theological words listed in the above paragraph.

As you know, the single greek word tetelestai means literally "it has been finished" (4 english words), or simply in the translations, "it is finished" (3 english words).

Ask them, what is the "IT" that 'has been' finished... finally... from the nanosecond that sin was "found" in Lucifer in the "sinless environment" surrounding the throne of the Ancient of Days, before the foundation of the world when the lamb of God was "slain."

Ask them to start with the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world and then lead into the earthly sanctuary in the wilderness and the mercy seat and how the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat pointed forward to and was fulfilled... "it 'has been' finished"... or by extrapolation from the text, it has been "finally" finished... by Jesus on the cross when his blood was "sprinkled," and in a few seconds after saying his last word, he breathed his last, bowed his head and died... forever... in fulfillment of the "wages of sin is death" and fully revealed in the "2nd death" of John's Revelation.

In a court of law, the "2nd death" inclusion in your instructions to your real life students would be called "leading the witness" to a conclusion, wouldn't it?

As I have written elsewhere in this Des Ford SS lesson thread and also in the Herb Douglass SS lesson comments thread that follows this SS lesson, "it is finished" is a reference to the atonement of incarnation ending in eternal death and the eternal end of sin.

This incarnation atonement was planned before the foundation of the world, and when "IT" was finished, sin was "finally" dealt with in a way that can NEVER be undone... implying something "objective" to us and also "forensic" to our benefit.

Ask your students, if "IT" is not a reference to the incarnation atonement ending in the "eternal" or "2nd" death end of sin, then to what was "IT" a reference?

The penalty for all sin, angel and human, required the once for all time "full" and indissoluble "union" of creator and creation in the "son of man" who "emptied" himself of deity.

(Side bar question...

If the wages of sin is death, ask your students if this includes the "death" of angels also?

Who said that the sinful angels will live forever, just because they were created to live forever sinless?

As I understand it, the wages of "sin" is death, not life forever.

... End of side bar )

In other words, the blood, body, breath and being of Jesus was the eternal incarnation atonement, the at-one-ment, the indissoluble "union" of creator and creation that was 'sealed' forever by the sprinkling of his life blood, the death of his body and the death of his (human) being.

His resurrection "revealed" that the incarnation atonement, the at-one-ment, the indissoluble "union" was successfully accomplished, and so Jesus was raised because we "already" had been justified by his blood. (Jn. 4:25, and 5:9)

He was not raised so that in the heavenly sanctuary activity of Jesus we would be justified by faith in his blood someday after a lifetime of sanctified living by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I just don't see the incarnation atonement as needing a 2 part atonement process, first on the cross and then in 1844... not if "IT" has been 'finally' finished means that when Jesus breathed his last breath, bowed his head and died, "IT" was PAID... in full.

Having already been justified by his blood, in Emmanuel, who is still "God is with Us" in the heavenly sanctuary interceding for us, we have peace with God because Jesus ONLY is our peace, our atonement, our indissoluble "union" with our Creator, and in him we are a new creation... forever.

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Kelly,

On 06 December 2008 at 8:04 you stated: “I know the Word says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin" but I am not sure that we understand the meaning of this verse. I need more help with it.”

Let me try to help you with this passage: Read John 6. If you do this you will discover that the crowd following Jesus after the feeding of the multitude were offended when the Lord told them that they needed to drink his blood. Jesus' response was meant to explain the metaphorical meaning of this term. He told them that spiritual life is not nourished by physical blood, but rather the spiritual blood contained in his “words” [John 6: 63]. Now that we know what blood symbolizes, we can paraphrase the troublesome passage as follows:

"Without the shedding of Jesus’ Words there is no remission of sin." Spiritual life is restored and nourished by the Words of Life we find in the Bible. God created the universe by his words. He spoke the universe into existence. Likewise, he brought Lazarus to life by his words, and the same words can restore a sinner’s spiritual life. Does this help?

Art,

On 13 December 2008 at 4:22 you made the following statement: “I just don't see the incarnation atonement as needing a 2 part atonement process, first on the cross and then in 1844... not if "IT" has been 'finally' finished means that when Jesus breathed his last breath, bowed his head and died, "IT" was PAID... in full.”

I do not believe in the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. Nevertheless, I do no feel comfortable with your legal view of the cross. If the term “atonement” means reconciliation between God and sinners, then I ask: Who was the payment made to? There are three possibilities: To Satan, to God, or to those who were alienated from God. The first option is out, I believe, because God owes nothing to Satan. The second option is out because it was not God who needed to be reconciled to men, but rather the opposite. The third option is excluded as well, because God owed nothing to sinners.

From this I conclude that there was no payment involved. “God so loved the world that he gave.” Jesus was a gift to humanity, and a gift requires no payment. The Bible tells me that we were reconciled to God, and not the other way. We were reconciled, because God’s gift to humanity was the opposite of what we deserved. When Jesus said “It is finished,” he was thinking of the gift God had given to us. Said gift broke the spell the enemy had placed on the human race. God’s love shone with the brilliance of midday, and the repentant sinners accepted said gift of love.

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

Hi Art!

"It is Finished" is great! I was going to suggest "God is love;" however, I think your selection is more pertinent and provocative. I like how you unpack the whole of salvation history from these three words.

How about "Father forgive them?" Wouldnt they give us the same opportunity for salvific recital?

So many options!

The method of taking a simple sentence and "unpacking" its rich meaning can be a very helpful process, I think.

I wish that by now I had moved my stuff from the old ponderanew to the newer one. Sorry!

Dave

Shubee connected the Frankenstein monster with Maxwell's spiritualism:

"It amazes me that the followers of Maxwell refuse to examine his graveyard sources. They want to believe that A. Graham Maxwell is amazingly original. It's true that Dr. Frankenstein will be remembered for following up on an idea that no other human ever thought of before but he certainly didn't create anything new."

"Please be aware that the essential parts of several dead heresies have been stitched together and have come back to life, all animated by spiritualism in the Frankenstein theology of Dr. Graham Maxwell."

Ellen White wrote:

"Ministers inspired of Satan can eloquently dress up this hideous monster, hide its deformity, and make it appear beautiful to many. But it comes so direct from his satanic majesty, that all who have to do with it, he claims as his to control, for they have ventured upon forbidden ground, and have forfeited the protection of their Maker." -- Review and Herald, May 13, 1862.

Dave, I'm amazed that you actually go through these posts and then respond.

The word ilasmov (Strongs #2434) which is found in 1 John and 2 Maccabees 3:33 I hope I got it right this time)is an interesting one. Closely related to the LXX term translated Mercy Seat, which is also used in Romans 3:25 (Strong's #2435), the use in Maccabees illustrates the restorative and healing nature of the propitiation. I recall lexicons defining the word propitiate as to "satisfy legal justice." In Maccabees, we are reminded that Christ's blood not only satisfies legal justice, His stripes heal us!

Dave, I remember your Dad as a pastor at the Glendale church in Phoenix. He was a dear, sweet man, not too busy to have a Bible study with me in his office.

Shubee,

On 13 December 2008 at 2:26 you again stated your belief that "the essential parts of several dead heresies have been stitched together and have come back to life, all animated by spiritualism in the Frankenstein theology of Dr. Graham Maxwell."

Let us examine what is the basic premise of pantheism. Here are some of the definitions given to pantheism by world renowned sources:

*********
"Broadly defined it is the view that God is everything and everything is God." [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ ]

"A doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe." [Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary http://www.pantheism.net/definits.htm]

"The religious belief or philosophical theory that God and the Universe are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God); the doctrine that God is everything and everything is God." [Oxford English Dictionary http://www.pantheism.net/definits.htm]

"The doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe." [Encyclopaedia Britannica
http://www.pantheism.net/definits.htm ]

*********
Now my questions to you:

1. Do you accept these definitions of pantheism? If you don’t, please explain why!

2. Are you suggesting that Dr. Maxwell equated God with the forces of nature, that nature is God, and that God is everything and everything is God?

3. Would you at least once address the basic definition of pantheism? So far you have been avoiding this basic question of mine!

4. Do you think that some elements of similarity allegedly resembling what pantheism teaches justify you to jump to the conclusion that Maxwell was a pantheist? Don’t forget the illustration I used on another posting: Scientist tell us that chimpanzees share with humans 98 percent of their DNA. Does this mean that we can equate humans with apes? Can you see the difference a mere two percent can make?

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

Hansen

Thanks! I count it a rare opportunity to participate in these conversations with thoughtful people all over the world. I guess this is my global Sabbath School class and I'm glad to attend!

Thank you, too, for remembering my father. As Doctor Zwemmer knows, and has kindly not said too much about it in these threads, he had a rough time after he left Glendale, Arizona.

I was among those who urged him to move from there to the the Campus Hill Church in Loma Linda where I had already been teaching for a while, having been invited by A. Graham Maxwell in 1974 when I was 27 years old.

That was the last time I urged anybody to accept any "call!"

Events in Loma Linda "radicalized" my father, I believe. His views didn't change that much but it seemed to me that he became more intense about them.

All those debates were hard on everybody no matter which side people were on. I know this because I had good friends and close relatives in both camps [as if there were only two!]

I don't think the pints of theology were worth all the pounds of heartache everybody had to carry.

In any case, my father has been deceased now for a little more than a year. Although I'm glad all his "labors and trials are ore," I miss him very much.

Your linguistic investigations exceed mine by a long ways! What I find so helpful about them is that they integrate the two primary metaphors for the atonement in Christian history.

In the Latin Churches of the West, legal ones have been primary. In the Greek ones of the East, therapeutic or medical ones have been more prominent.

Your studies bring these together and this is exactly what we need. They show that we have sometimes "put assunder" what no "man" should.

Keep studying and sharing!

Many thanks!

Dave

Dave

The Hill Church "back in Those Days" was filled with retired Missionaries--all wearing hair shirts. They used to pin quotes form E.G.White on my brother's door--saying things like no one wearing a belt will be fit for heaven.

The Campus church voted to send a letter of transfer for my brother. A group of hill church people got up a purse to send a delegate to an Eastern Conference to appose the letter.

The Eastern Church in that Conference had already accepted by brother, so they had to "disfellowship" him on the basis of a demand of the Conference President.

When the issue of my brother's letter came up. Elder Paul Heubach called me into his office. He said: "Tom, you are a member of the Board. When your brother's name comes up. I expect you will want to support a letter, which is your right and duty. However, there may be tension, so I will introduce the item with a little humor to lighten the tension. I said. "I agree, and I will respond in kind. So when the name came up. After Elder Heubach's intro, I stood up and said: "I think this is a fair fight--one Zwemer against only one world". A few of my friends did a double take, I just smiled and gave a little wink. I went on to tell the story of my dad as a little boy. They lived next door to an italian family, The son "Frank" was dad's age. One day Frank kicked a goose in the belly. Dad heard the father say: "Frankie, why for you kickee that goose in the belly? Frank replied: "Papa, he quacked at me!" I went on to say that one does not have to kick a gosse if it quacks or beat a Burro if it brays. I went on to say that Jack has publically accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, He has never denied that faith, nor has he ever denied the Church that brought him to Christ. The vote was taken and was overwhelmingly appoved.

Yes, I did receive, as a member of the Board of Trustees communication from your dad that was ill advised. I knew the environment in which he ministered.

I also knew my own mind and kept my own counsel. Tom

Tom

Conservative, moderate or liberal: we can all count on the Loma Linda University Church!

This is why I've encouraged some others who live a long ways away and are having trouble fitting in where they are to transfer to it.

They can participate a great deal through the media. Not as good as the real thing. but it is better than paticipating in the life of a toxic congregation.

When my parents rightly or wrongly feared that they were about to be disfellowshipped, LLUC accepted them into membership and ministered to them till they both died. That's why their memorial services were both held there, which surprised some.

Elder Heubach was a good friend. He left his papers and sermons for one of his nephews and me to edit and select for publication. We're behind schedule!

Paul had earlier and independently come to a "picture of God' much like Graham's.

Paul did not have the opportunity to get a first-rate theological education outside SDAism; however,to my way of thinking, his theological intuitions or instincts were sound. Sort of like someone who didn't take many piano lessons but could play amazingly well "by ear."

Many great conversations! But as he aged he thought the vegeburger sandwiches he loved so much weren't as flavorful as they had been.

Neither of us mentioned the possibility that the fault was not the burgers but his taste sensors, though it certainly must have crossed his mind as it had mine! He was no numbskull!

Dave

Dave

Thank you for your kind response. About vegebrugers. Paul was right. I made vegeburgers for two years, working by way through college. They did change the formula in the late 1970's or early 80's. His taste buds where good to the end!!!!

You should taste Betty's Italian Meat Balls made with walnuts.
We served them to some LDS students. They said after a few bites, we though you guys didn't eat meat!

If you are editing Paul's papers. You must get a reprint of his sermon" "He Slipped and Fell". I think it was published but needs repeating. Tom

Hey Tom...

I'm Italian. And I ain't never kicked no geese! You know what I'm sayin'?

Fughedaboudit...

Frank

Frank Great Line! Thanks!!!!!

Dave:

I know how much you loved your Dad and I mine.

So, I just had to get out of bed to share this story.

Dad was a building contractor in South Bend, Ind. The Indiana Conference Office was in South Bend in those days. So the local pastor had to be strong in the condemnation of "sin", and equally strong on the soon return of Jesus.

Dad built middle class housing and was doing quite well in the early 1920's. So well that he bought a Nash Touring Car, Black, with a soft top. The next week the pastor gave a sermon on materialism and mentioned specifically dad and his expensive car with the Lord about to return!

Soon after, Mother and Dad stop attending church--the reason was Dad's mother was dying in Holland, Michigan and mother and dad would leave South Bend early Friday Afternoon and drive about 80 miles to Holland to be with his mother. Returning early Sunday afternoon. This went on for several months.

One week evening, mother and dad hear a knock on their apartment door. They answered the door and a delegation from the Church was at the door. They were invited in, They came right to the point. They stated that it was obvious that mother and dad had grown "cold" in the faith (truth) so they were in the process of removing their names from the church books, unless of course, mother and dad wished to renew their
commitment to God and they could have a word of prayer of confession right in the living room. Dad said, "that will not be necessary, you have given the issue serious consideration without any inquiry. Mother and I think it best that you proceed with your action." That was 1923. In 1934, Emmanuel Missionary College wanted to build a new library, the first James White Memorial Library. They asked dad if he would supervise the building. He of course agreed. So the Emmanuel Missionary College accepted Mother and Dad back into the church on profession of faith. Dad continuted to build for the church, except for several years during WWII when he was senior procurment officer of a major defense plant. His last project was to restore the science building that burned on the Loma Linda Campus.

Yet he remained under a cloud. He built the girl's dormatory at Atlantic Union College immediately before the Lend-Lease
Program to help England in the early part of WWII. He took a job as night super. at a major defense plant. He communted from South Lancaster to Worscester. After about a month, he got a call from the President of AUC asking if Dad would stop in his office as soon as possible. Of course, Dad agreed.
The President said, that he had confirmed word that in last that two months after the dorm was completed there were at least two hundred cracks in the building. The President wanted to know why? Dad merely asked: How many rooms are there in the Dorm? 100, he then asked how many students in a room? 2, he then asked how many were female? All! Dad said, seem that multiples out to 200. No Mr. President, I am not worried about cracks, I have a slight concern about you. That is the President who asked dad during construction to order 202 twin beds since the President had two teen age sons. Dad said sure: Just give me a check for two beds. The President just turned and walked away.

Dad returned to AUC to build their gym. At one Sabbath School Class the teacher told the story about a rich SDA who had pledged to give a million dollars to the Lord, if the Lord would help him sell some timber land in Oregon for 3 million. The teacher said isn't that stong faith. Dad spoke up, the guy is a piker! Agast the teacher said, Why sir!!!!

Dad said, I have a 1937 chevy in the parking lot, if the Lord helps me sell it for $2000.00 I'll give all but 300.00 to the Lord--the car retail value was $250.

Stand up guys are worth their salt and more, but they sure take their lumps!
The guys that put the mark on your dad, agreed with him about original sin--just ask Herb, but they had to "profect" their own from unilateral condemnation. Yes, Jesus does weep. Tom

Tom

This is AMAZING! Nobody could make this up! The sheer smallness of some people! Can you imagine commenting from the pulpit on what kind of a car a member drove? Charles Sandefur--now heading up ADRA--once said that the church had his Father's [Cree Sandefur] heart, but not his soul. That belonged to God. Sounds like the same could be said of your Father. He was a strong memeber of the community of faith but he didn't let it mash him. Yes!

Dave

Thanks Dave

I knew Cree Sandefur, he also was a stand up guy. It takes a test to demonstrate them doesn't it? Tom

The rest of the Story. While dad was building the James White Library at E.M. C. the Pastor from South Bend, now in California came back to Detroit to pick up a new car. Dad, now with four children and in the midst of the depression was still driving a 1929 Ford.

On the pastor's way back to Calif. He stopped at E.M.C. The primary activity on campus was the new construction. So he parked his car at the curb next to the site. Dad was on the wall supervising the brick layers. He spotted the pastor and yelled to him. Please come up, I'll be happy to show you around the building. The pastor accepted. They shook hands and dad did a walk through and then walked him back to the car. As they got to the car, dad gasped and said, Pastor, I am so sorry you "lost your way" so close to the Lord's return!
A new car, in this economic climate besides. The pastor said: John that was years ago! Dad said, seems like yesterday to me. Tom

Killing an innocent third party, be it Jesus, God the Father, or anybody else does not undo the damage.
________________________________________________________
Dear Nic,

I'm back again! I hope you had a good Sabbath and you're having a good weekend.

Here comes my friendly challenge again! Why do you persist in describing the penal substitution model as "killing an innocent third party?" You have repeated this idea over and over in your posts, and I have pointed out just as repeatedly that this is inaccurate. Jesus was not an innocent third party!

Be aware that I have tried to defend your position against inaccurate misrepresentations. I have gone on record as saying that I see nothing pantheistic or Gnostic about it. If you want to level criticisms against the penal substitution model, fine. Go for it! But please stop misrepresenting it. In no sense, do I believe that Jesus was an innocent third party.

Tom and Dave

These are fascinating vignettes. I share some of your pain.

How many church workers kids will have been tortured in this way?

There must be a research paper somewhere on theologically inspired family loyalty and conflict?

On 05 December 2008 at 8:20 you stated: “I actually believe that if Christ had been sacrificed as a baby, the anger of God against sin would have been satisfied and atonement would have been made.”

This is paganism at its best. It represents what was practiced by pagan worshippers in Old Testament times. The experience of Abraham and his son Isaac shows that God hated such practice. We find ample condemnation of human sacrifice in the O.T.
________________________________________________________
Dea Nic,

I'm sorry you think Christ's death for our sins in paganism.
As I see it, the essence of paganism is thinking that good works contribute in some way to salvation. Every religion on earth except Biblical Christianity teaches this false doctrine!

Christ's death for our sins was not a human sacrifice. Human sacrifices were innocent third parties that were offered to appease imaginary angry gods that had no love for human beings. These angry deities could only be appeased by the sight of blood. This is not at all what I believe. In fact, it is hateful to me!

Because of His great love for human beings, our rightful Judge (God) took the penalty for sin on Himself. He did not vent His anger on some third party! Yes, God became human to accomplish this, because the divine nature alone cannot die. But this is a far cry from a Canaanite sacrificing a baby to Baal, or an Aztec priest ripping the beating heart out of someone!

Dave, Nowadays, any poseur with some good software can pass for a linguist. Long way from the time your Dad and I sweated over a text in Galatians in his office. I can use the software but still can't make a typo free blog entry.

I didn't follow your Dad's career after he left Phoenix. I heard some things but the memory I have of him is that of a humble man seeking to understand the word of God. Why besmirch a memory like that? As far as I'm concerned, he was a prince.

Dear Nic,

I'm sorry you think Christ's death for our sins in paganism.

Nic Samojluk was long beforehand marked out for this condemnation. The inevitability of the judgment is merely just a logical consequence. No disciple is greater than his lord. Anyone that reveres the creator of pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism must believe that the Bible is a mere fiction.

Shubee

Your most recent comment about Nic, like so many before them, violates the standards of respectfulness that these discussions maintain.

You must never again post anything remotely near to this sort of thing on any thread.

If you do, I will request Bonnie Dwyer, Alex Carpenter, Leigh Johnsen, Johnny A. Ramirez, and Daneen Akers to block everything from you.

They will not automatically do what I request and this is how it should be; however, I will make the best case against your posts I can.

I might not prevail; however, I think it would be a mistake for you to underestimate my resolve and possible influence.

Thank you for taking me seriously. The very worst thing would be for you to respond to me in a defensive or hostile manner.

I will not remonstrate with you again.

Dave

P.S.: I just emailed to our colleagues that I mentioned above a copy of this post. I did this to start my case for excluding all of your
posts. I will continue if I have to.

Dave

Thanks. Tom

I agree with you, Dave. However, instead of prompting him to own his behavior, I fear that all this will do for Shubee, is to feed his self-righteous, persecution complex.

Unfortunately, when confronted previously, this has been the pattern.

Thanks...

Frank

Bob Helm wrote to Nic:
--
Here comes my friendly challenge again! Why do you persist in describing the penal substitution model as "killing an innocent third party?" You have repeated this idea over and over in your posts, and I have pointed out just as repeatedly that this is inaccurate. Jesus was not an innocent third party!
--

So to be clear here I would guess you agree with me that Jesus was innocent, so your argument is that Jesus was not a third party. I would agree He is not a third party, I would guess that Nic also does not think of Jesus as a third party. So what does that leave us with? The humans here who are not innocent and the innocent and pure God. So that is two parties. The first party we will call God, the second humans. So now that we have removed the idea of a third party please explain to us how God punished God so that God can forgive humans? How ever you want to phrase that punishment, either penalty of sin, wrath of God etc. Because that is what all this comes down to an irrational view of God where He inflicts a penalty upon Himself in order to forgive others.

Ron

Bob,

On 14 December 2008 at 7:41 you stated: “Jesus was not an innocent third party! ... In no sense, do I believe that Jesus was an innocent third party.”

I highly respect your opinion and your Christian attitude, and I do appreciate your coming out in defense of Dr. Maxwell’s teaching as essentially different from Gnosticism and pantheism. I need to ask you, though, to clarify your statement I quoted above. Are you objecting to my reference to Jesus as a “third party” or my description of him as innocent and undeserving of the punishment he was subjected to by the Romans?

Pilate declared Jesus to be innocent of any crime, and the Bible describes him as sinless. Besides, Jesus did refer to God as his Father. Therefore, we have God the Father, God the Son, and sinful man. Since Jesus was innocent—I hope you agree--then why do you object to my reference to Jesus as the innocent third party? For some reason I can’t see where I went wrong. If we have three beings: God the Father, God the Son, and guilty man; and the innocent one becomes the object of God’s wrath instead of the guilty one, then why is it wrong to describe him as the “innocent third party"?

Bob,

On 14 December 2008 at 8:06 you stated: “I'm sorry you think Christ's death for our sins in paganism.”

Let me first place my 12 December 2008 at 3:57 comments in context:

*********
On 05 December 2008 at 8:20 you stated: “I actually believe that if Christ had been sacrificed as a baby, the anger of God against sin would have been satisfied and atonement would have been made.”

This is paganism.

*********
As you can see, I did not describe Jesus death as paganism, but rather his hypothetical death as a baby as paganism. Jesus’ death as a baby would have been meaningless as far as our salvation is concerned. Jesus referred to his own death as a magnet which would “draw all men” to himself [John 12: 32]. The drawing power of the cross is firmly anchored on the life he lived. Had he died as a baby, it would have been interpreted as another baby sacrificed to the gods.

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

"please explain to us how God punished God "

This is the end result of the doctrine of the Godhead: There is God the Father; Jesus is also God; and the Holy Spirit is also God.

When you have all three gods, there is both the logical impossibility of such a claim to call it monotheism, and the impossibility of Jesus, who was also God, dying.

If one believes that God cannot die; how then, did Jesus die if he was also God? Or, was he the only son of God? If a son, then a son, not God, can die.

Who can answer this conundrum? Christianity has boxed itself in an impossible situation by the adoption of this doctrine formulated long after Jesus' time, and the apostles were gone. Even the Greeks, who greatly influenced much of the NT and the writers' thinking, found the Trinity an impossible dilemma. Which is why they merely accepted it as a way of experiencing God, and not a factual description--which of course is an impossiblity.

This has left western Christians the dilemma of trying to explain something they neither understand nor have any hope of being understood by a rational audience.

Elaine,
Isn't this a problem only if you visualize God as another person, head/body/arms/legs, all of which are just to house what really makes us who we are - our character. We really don't know what God is. Jesus calls Him Father, which makes Jesus the son, but, as you have pointed out many times, Jesus, himself, calls himself SON OF MAN, identifying himself with mankind.

J.B. Philips sees Jesus as "an aperture" through which we see God as He would be as human. (...which is the only way we can possibly understand anything about God). All these relationships of father - son - spirit are only descriptions of something/someone indescribable. Religion has made these descriptions into dogma.

If taken literally, Jesus is the son of the Holy Spirit, if we are to think of the three as separate, people-like, beings.

Nic Samojluk was long beforehand marked out for this condemnation. The inevitability of the judgment is merely just a logical consequence. No disciple is greater than his lord. Anyone that reveres the creator of pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism must believe that the Bible is a mere fiction.
_________________________________________________________
Dear Shubee,

It is one thing to point out that a particular doctrine is unbiblical or even un-Christian. But you and I are not the judge of persons. Only God is! As human beings, we have no right to condemn anyone or consign anyone to hell. As a sincere follower of Jesus Christ, I try to speak the truth in love. So I have no choice but to disassociate myself from what you have said above.

Are you objecting to my reference to Jesus as a “third party” or my description of him as innocent and undeserving of the punishment he was subjected to by the Romans?
__________________________________________________________
Dear Nic,

I most certainly believe that Christ was sinless and innocent. But I challenge your assertion about Jesus being a third party. The three members of the Trinity are one in substance. As Desmond Ford points out above, the entire Godhead suffered at Calvary. The fullness of the Deity was in Jesus Christ, so the fullness of the Deity took the punishment on Himself! God did not send an innocent third party. Away with this notion! God Himself came and suffered. And no, God did not commit suicide. But through the actions of wicked people and wicked demons, He allowed Himself to taste death for all of us. That's why the day He died is called Good Friday - good for us, not for Him!

The inevitability of the judgment is merely just a logical consequence. No disciple is greater than his lord. Anyone that reveres the creator of pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism must believe that the Bible is a mere fiction.
_________________________________________________________

Dear Shubee,

It is one thing to point out that a particular doctrine is unbiblical or even un-Christian. But you and I are not the judge of persons.

Your perception of my statement is entirely imaginary. I am merely agreeing with Ellen G. White who pointed out what the logical conclusion of the aforementioned system of belief must be.

"There is in it the beginning of theories which, carried to their logical conclusion, would destroy faith in the sanctuary question and in the atonement." 2MR 243.

"These theories, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy. They do away with the necessity for the atonement and make man his own savior. These theories regarding God make His word of no effect, and those who accept them are in great danger of being led finally to look upon the whole Bible as a fiction." 8T 291.

There are many persons in The Counterfeit Character of God Movement that are being logically drawn to what Ellen White said is the inevitable logical conclusion.

Do you care to consider specific examples?

Kevin Beauchamp wrote:

"I therefore must deprecate ALL of the Pauline epistles for the sake of the Truth of Yahweh God as taught by the Messiah and the Twelve.

"How this affects my life is amazing. For the first time in my life I can worship Yahweh, the God of Israel, without the guilt baggage of Paul's pagan version of Jesus. For the first time I can see that Yahweh God is truly a God of love who FREELY forgives without the necessity of a pagan human sacrifice!"

I think it's absurd to disagree with the Spirit of Prophecy on this point.

There is Shubee and there are Shubeeites. Both are an impediment to rational conversation. I hope one of two things.
Shwbee behaves as a Christian or Dave's suggestion is heeded.

As a Chritian without affilication with the Seventh-day Adventist church, it still hurts to the quick to read the wrath of Shubee and his ilk.

We are all sinners, seeking to see through a glass darkly, the vision of God and His will for His people. To me, John and Paul give me the clearest picture as well as Pauline scholars like Graham Maxwelll, Edward Heppenstall et all.

My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus Christ and His righteousness. To those who would discount that hope or faith, I find appalling. I promised my wife, i would quit this web site, but my name has been used both good and bad since, so I have the urge to reply.

If one cannot shake hands on earth, I read Scripture as saying you wouldn't get a change to do so in Heaven. I read Scripture as saying, judge not that ye be not judged. I read Scripture as saying: Come unto Me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest!.

I read Scripture as saying, If you have seen Me you have seen the Father.

I read Scripture as saying in Adam all died and in Christ all were made alive.

I read Scripture as saying that the last generation will be like the generation of Noah.

I read Scripture as saying that the Lord of the Sabbath is worthy of our worship--not the Sabbath as the Jews taught.

I believe that Jesus marks the place of my ending and will raise me incorruptible for everlasting to everlasting.

I read Scripture that there is no room in Heaven for hate or haters.

This web site was established under the edict of God: "Come Now Let Us Reason Together". No room for unreasonable diatribe or condemnation.

Because others have fallen short, gives us no cause to follow suit.

Shubee, et al. So we don't agree, let us not be disagreable.
My heart and mind cannot stand it, yet I must have a fellowship with those who love Jesus, regardless of their ancillary understandings. Praise Be To God who is Creator, Redeemer, Elder Brother, and Coming King. Tom

Shubee,

On 14 December 2008 at 12:58 you posted the following comments:

*********
I'm sorry you think Christ's death for our sins in paganism.

Nic Samojluk was long beforehand marked out for this condemnation. The inevitability of the judgment is merely just a logical consequence. No disciple is greater than his lord. Anyone that reveres the creator of pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism must believe that the Bible is a mere fiction.

*********
Regarding the first statement, please read my response to Bob dated 14 December 2008 at 5:55. I did not label Jesus death as paganism, but rather the hypothetical death of Jesus as a baby as paganism. Jesus described his own death as a magnet which would draw all men to himself [John 12: 32]. His death as a baby would not have had the same drawing power, and it would have been interpreted as another baby sacrificed to appease the anger of the pagan gods.

The statements you made afterwards are rather enigmatic to me. For example, you wrote: “Nic Samojluk was long beforehand marked out for this condemnation.” Are you referring to Bob’s disagreement with me on this, our disagreement on this issue on your website years ago, or to God’s condemnation of my doctrinal position on this issue? Can you clarify what you meant by your comments so that I can respond and clarify my understanding about this controversial topic?

And here is the most important question I have for you: Why are you ignoring the questions I posted for you on 13 December 2008 at 3:55? I included in said posting several authoritative definitions of patheism copied from sources like the “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,” the “Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,” the “Oxford English Dictionary,” and the “Encyclopaedia Britannica.”

Do you disagree with those definitions which describe the fundamental essence of pantheism as a denial of the belief in the existence of a personal God, independent from the laws of nature? Do you really believe that Dr. Maxwell’s teaching support the denial of a personal God?

Do you think that the alleged elements in Maxwell’s teaching which prompted you to connect his teachings to pantheism justify your conclusion? If we follow your logic, should we not also label Saint Paul’s doctrine as pantheistic? Notice what he said on Mars Hill:

*********
“For in him we live and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said.” [Acts17: 28]

*********
This statement by Paul seems to border on pantheism. Nevertheless, in context, we see a clear reference to God as the Creator. Please, apply this to Dr. Maxwell’s teachings, and you will likely be inclined to concur with me that he did not support pantheism.

Let me end with the same illustration I have used twice before: “Scientist tell us that chimpanzees share with humans 98 percent of their DNA. Does this mean that we can equate humans with apes? Can you see the difference a mere two percent can make?” The sharing of common elements does not justify confusing apes with humans. Likewise, detecting elements of Maxwell’s doctrine which might be found in pantheism should not justify describing them as twin brothers.

I appeal to you as a brother in Christ, and one who claims to believe in Jesus Christ our Savior. Please, respond to the basic questions I have been repeatedly asking you, but which for some reason you have been ignoring.

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

Regarding the first statement, please read my response to Bob dated 14 December 2008 at 5:55. I did not label Jesus death as paganism, but rather the hypothetical death of Jesus as a baby as paganism.
________________________________________________________
Dear Nic,

The death of Jesus as a baby as an atonement for sin is so hypothetical that I don't really consider it worthy of serious discussion. I was merely responding to Kelly's post that originally raised the issue.

I already stated that baby Jesus would have been an inadequate Savior. We need His perfect life to be credited to us as well as His sacrificial death. We also need His perfect life as an example - to be a guide to holy living. For these reasons and perhaps others, baby Jesus could not have been our Savior. Undoubtedly, this is why Herod was not permitted to kill Him.

Please understand that the hypothetical death of baby Jesus is not a big issue with me, and since it is generating more heat than light, I think it is best to drop it.

Thank you for clarifying your stand on the death of Jesus. I once heard a Jewish college student blast Christians for believing in the validity of human sacrifice - in the case of Jesus. At first, I thought you were going down that same road, and I'm glad I misunderstood you.

Dear Shubee,

It is one thing to point out that a particular doctrine is unbiblical or even un-Christian. But you and I are not the judge of persons.

Your perception of my statement is entirely imaginary. I am merely agreeing with Ellen G. White who pointed out what the logical conclusion of the aforementioned system of belief must be.

"There is in it the beginning of theories which, carried to their logical conclusion, would destroy faith in the sanctuary question and in the atonement." 2MR 243.

"These theories, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy. They do away with the necessity for the atonement and make man his own savior. These theories regarding God make His word of no effect, and those who accept them are in great danger of being led finally to look upon the whole Bible as a fiction." 8T 291.

I think it's absurd to disagree with the Spirit of Prophecy on this point.
_________________________________________________________
Dear Shubee,

I hear your concern coming through, and I'm not disagreeing with that concern. Nor am I disagreeing with the Spirit of Prophecy on this issue.

Let me go on record. I believe that God actively punishes sin, while simultaneously loving the sinner. However, His love will not prevent unrepentant sinners from ultimately suffering the second death. I also believe that Christ took our punishment on the cross. His death was both penal and substitutionary. He suffered the second death for us, so we don't have to suffer it. It is my perception that you hold these same views.

I was simply urging you to be kind to people who err doctrinally. The same Ellen White who penned the forceful words you have quoted above also counseled us never to tell someone that he/she is going to hell. I realize that you didn't use those exact words in reference to Nic, but I believe a number of readers understood what you said in that light. Yes, we can discern doctrines that are unbiblical, but we cannot read hearts or fully understand another person's life experience, and for these reasons, we need to be patient with people, even when they make mistakes.

Earlier you recommended Edward Heppenstall's article on the subjective and objective aspects of the atonement, and I agreed with you that this was an excellent article. Dr. Heppenstall is to be commended for teaching good, Biblical, Christ-centered theology. But be aware that Dr. Heppenstall was also known as a very gracious and loving person. We should follow his example!

David

Regarding your comments dated 14 December 2008 at 3:05: I would like to explain that my reaction to Shubee’s comments reflect my concern, not for my own reputation; but rather the impeccable reputation of a great teacher, an accomplished scholar, a talented communicator, and a remarkable Christian gentleman; whose teaching have been misinterpreted and maligned. I am referring, of course, to Graham Maxwell.

My hope is that Shubee may one day realize that the conclusions he has arrived at rest on a shaky foundation. I did listen to Dr. Maxwell for over a decade and I have never heard anybody suggest that he shared with pantheists the belief in an impersonal God who was indistinguishable from the laws of nature, which is the basic tenet of said heretical doctrine.

Bob

On 14 December 2008 at 6:49 you stated: “God did not send an innocent third party. Away with this notion! God Himself came and suffered.”

Thanks for clarifying your position. I am still trying to elucidate this enigmatic understanding of what took place. The Bible tells me that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” The English language and common sense logic does not allow me to fuse those two members of the Deity into a single entity. They are one in purpose, power, authority, and commitment to the salvation of sinners; but not one in the physical sense. God the Father is never described either in the Bible or the writings of Ellen White as having human form like Jesus.

Nevertheless, if you prefer to defy logic and believe that they are physically one inseparable entity, I see no purpose in asking you to alter your understanding of this issue. I do not believe that my understanding of the cross is threatened by your unique view.

I have no problem accepting your notion that the “Deity took the punishment on Himself” provided we agree that the “punishment” is the natural result of love, and that Jesus’ death was simply a revelation to us of the suffering God was subjected to as a consequence of our sin and rebellion.

This is the way Ellen White describes the cross, and it is the way I understand it [See Education p, 263. It represents the only explanation of the cross which does not distort the character of God. Instead of God demanding the death of Jesus as the penalty for sin, God allows it that we might have a glimpse of what sin does not only to suffering humanity, but even to God himself. Instead of God offering forgiveness thanks to the cross, God shows his deep love for those he created by offering forgiveness in spite of the cross.

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

Dear Nic,

Please note that I do distinguish between the Persons of the Godhead. I am not claiming that Jesus is the Father. No, Jesus is the Son! However, a very literal translation of Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is the "imprint of His (the Father's) substance." This has lead Christians to state that the members of the Godhead are one in substance or one in nature. This is not to deny the plurality of Persons. But Hebrews 1:3 recognizes that the God nature or God substance fills these Persons equally, so that they constitute the one God. And in Colossians 2:9, Paul tells us that all the fullness of the Deity lives in Christ in bodily form. So it was God Who died on Calvary! The fullness of the Deity suffered there! It was not the Father standing back and putting His Son through that ordeal. No! No! I don't fully understand this, but I do believe it! When speaking of God's nature, I need to be humble and admit that there is great mystery here. But this is not Bob Helm's unique view of the Deity. This is what Christians have confessed through the ages!

Nic, I must also speak with humility about Christ's atoning work on the cross. I realize that I have argued forcefully
for the penal sunstitution model of the atonement, and I'm not taking back what I have said. But there is also great mystery about Christ's work on the cross, and I freely admit that I don't have it completely figured out. I don't think you do either! We're still groping, trying to understand it better.

As we continue this dialogue, I sense that our understanding of the cross may be getting closer. I admit that the substitutionary model has sometimes been wrongly expressed as God punishing His Son, or even worse, as God killing His Son. But please be aware that these are distortions. This is not at all what thoughtful proponents of the model are trying to say. Such statements about our loving God horrify me! And I am equally horrified by the idea that a loving Jesus had to pacify a mean, nasty Father. The character of the Father is identical to the character of Jesus. It is infintely loving!

While I continue to affirm the substitutionary model,the distortions of the model that I just outlined are repulsive to me. This is why I am kindly asking that you not repeat the distortions, as if they are what I and other thoughtful proponents of the model believe. When you repeat these distortions, we feel the same way you do when you are accused of being a Gnostic or a Pantheist.

Bob, you said:

As we continue this dialogue, I sense that our understanding of the cross may be getting closer. I admit that the substitutionary model has sometimes been wrongly expressed as God punishing His Son, or even worse, as God killing His Son. But please be aware that these are distortions. This is not at all what thoughtful proponents of the model are trying to say.

In the Book about the 27 Fundamental SdA beliefs, on page 111 you will find the following:

Christ's Death a Necessity. For a loving God to maintain His justice and righteousness, the atoning death of Jesus Christ became "a moral and legal necessity." God's "justice requires that sin be carried to judgment. God must therefore execute judgment on sin and thus on the sinner. In this execution the Son of God took our place, the sinner's place, according to God's will.

The key term here is execution

This lesson's author, wrote in Adventist World, Dec. 2007, on page 40 a discussion about the Moral Influence Theory. He wrote that it is not what the MIT necessarily believes that is wrong, but what it denies. It denies that God had to kill the innocent to save the guilty. I can not provide you a link to this because the Adventist World web site does not have the this article in the English version of the site. I wonder why they left this article out on the web???

So, do "thoughtful proponents of this model" believe that God killed his son? What does the evidence say?

Nic

Yes, I understand that you have been doing at least two things; (1) exploring atonement theories with Christian companions and (2) defending the honor of our mutual friend and mentor, A. Graham Maxwell.

Like everyone else's, his name and reputation deserve to be be treated with respect even when we disagree. And he would be worried about us and everyone else if we never saw some things differently!

Shubee is the only one in this thread who seems not to understand this.

But I get to speak out on my behalf of my friends too and you are one of them. That's why I addressed Shubee as I did.

But back to the subject(s) at hand. Let's not get distracted!

However we understand who He was/is. and what He did/does for all of us, Jesus Christ is worth more thought and discussion than any disrespectful person. Let's focus on Him!

Thank you!

Dave

Let there be no mistake about it. God did not kill Christ. You and I did!

If it were not from man, Christ would not have died.

Trying to make God a villian or a patsy is to create a God in our Image, not God creating man in His image.

We can think and act in only four dimentions. God is infinity.

Why open the gift before Christmas. Let us wait for the Parusia for clarity. It will be our science of eternity.

We have more than adequate evidence that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son". Thus, we have faith in the Christ event as the substance of our redemption.
Who chould ask for anything more?

These fishing trips do not create or strenthen faith--but create doubt, apprehension, controversy, and divisiveness.

Let us be like Paul and know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (for me). Tom

Shubee,

On 14 December 2008 at 7:47 you posted the following Internet link: "The Counterfeit Character of God Movement." I took the time to real the content of said article and I would to like to comment about some of the statements contained therein:

1. “Dr. Maxwell insinuates that God would have never given His people the Ten Commandments if they had only gone along with His desire that they be His people and that He be their God—in other words, let’s strike up a friendship. The theory is that it was only their stubbornness that led God to give the people His law in the first place.”

Since you seem to be well read, you might recall that what Dr, Maxwell suggests is nothing new, since it reflects what Ellen White did describe in her writings. In the event you have any doubt, I will attempt to locate the text. This means that, if you fault Maxwell for making such an assertion, you are condemning Ellen White with the same stroke of your pen.

2. “Dr. Maxwell claims that “the shedding of blood is not a precondition for God in terms of his forgiveness,” but inspiration teaches that it is “through the blood of Christ alone is there forgiveness of sins.”

Evidently you have chosen to interpret the role of the blood of Jesus in a literal manner, forgetting that Jesus himself refused to do so. Take the time to read the sixth chapter of John. In it we find Jesus telling his followers that they must drink his blood. Jesus hearers did what you are doing here: They took Jesus assertion in a literal way; and Jesus took the trouble to clarify the spiritual meaning of drinking his blood as receiving his words of life. This concept is easy to understand if you consider the analogy: The same way our physical blood provides nourishment to our physical cells, Jesus’ words of life provide nourishment to our spiritual soul.

It is true that the Bible states that “there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood,” but, since Jesus equated his blood with his words of life, then I can paraphrase the said biblical statement as follows: “there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of Jesus’ words of life.”

Jesus was fond of metaphors. He made many statements which do not make sense when taken literally: “I am the way,” “I am the door,” “I am the bread,” and so on. He also said: “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.” He was referring to his body, but his enemies accused him of plotting to destroy the Holy Jerusalem Temple.

3. “Dr. Maxwell often asserts that God wants to take away our fear.”

You are forgetting that here again Maxwell was not teaching anything new or heretical. Have you ever read I John 4: 18: “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear.”

I have given you a few examples of the false accusations you have leveled at a man of God who faithfully served our church for many years. Please, stop maligning the character and teachings of a man who is innocent of the charges you have brought against him. The Lord will bless you ministry if you do!

And, by the way, I am still waiting for your response to my previous posting to you in which I argue that you have ignored the fundamental difference between Dr. Maxwell’s teaching and the heretical teachings of pantheism.

Your silence on this will indicate to me that you have no answer to my contention that there is a fundamental difference between the teaching of Graham Maxwel and the basic tenet of pantheism.

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

BH wrote:
--
This lesson's author, wrote in Adventist World, Dec. 2007, on page 40 a discussion about the Moral Influence Theory. He wrote that it is not what the MIT necessarily believes that is wrong, but what it denies. It denies that God had to kill the innocent to save the guilty. I can not provide you a link to this because the Adventist World web site does not have the this article in the English version of the site. I wonder why they left this article out on the web???
--
You actually can find the article now though it appears to never have been properly linked to the Review Website.

Here is the link to the blog article about it from last year:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/12/moral-influence-theory-and-adventist...

Here is the article when Googled:
http://www.adventistworld.org/article.php?id=218

Ron

This lesson's author, wrote in Adventist World, Dec. 2007, on page 40 a discussion about the Moral Influence Theory. He wrote that it is not what the MIT necessarily believes that is wrong, but what it denies. It denies that God had to kill the innocent to save the guilty. I can not provide you a link to this because the Adventist World web site does not have the this article in the English version of the site. I wonder why they left this article out on the web???

So, do "thoughtful proponents of this model" believe that God killed his son? What does the evidence say?
__________________________________________________________
Dear BH,

It is utter heresy for anyone to say that God killed His Son.
For one thing, this splits the Trinity right down the middle.
If you describe the substitutionary model as "God killing His Son," you are grossly misrepresenting it. Please read the thoughts above from Desmond Ford again. He strongly supports the substitutionary model and does an excellent job of explaining it.

Incidentally, I would agree that the Moral Influence Theory is right in what it affirms, but wrong in what it denies.
Christ's death was certainly a magnificent demonstration of God's love, but it was more than this!

I have been asked to explain with greater clarity the pantheism of A. Graham Maxwell. Does that mean that everyone acknowledges the pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg?

Here I shall specify as clearly as I possibly can the sense in which the alpha gospel of John Harvey Kellogg and the omega gospel of A. Graham Maxwell are parallel points of view. The relationship between the alpha and omega deceptions should be easy to understand for every non-spiritualist because my thesis really is simple, straightforward and like the irresistible logic of irrefutable mathematics.

Kellogg's gospel connected God's presence with life. Maxwell's gospel connects God's forsaking and turning away in the final judgment with death. The alpha gospel about God's presence and the omega gospel about the departure of God's presence are remarkably similar constructs. They are exact reflections of each other. They are perfect opposites.

John Harvey Kellogg and his followers were pantheists because they commingled God and nature. They were absolutely thrilled by God being in their bath water, in the air they breathed and in the bread they ate. See Adventism's Past Pantheism. The distance between God and nature was effectively nonexistent in Kellogg's theory. That made Kellogg a pantheist. A. Graham Maxwell and his followers are pantheists because the distance they put between God and nature is practically infinite. Their error is in going to the opposite extreme.

Maxwell asserts that in the final judgment God will not punish the wicked or make them undergo any kind of suffering: It would be a monstrous evil for Him to do so. If nature does all this, then it’s OK. How is this not exalting nature above God? The logic of Maxwell's theology compels us to understand that God is not the Supreme Sovereign of the universe. Maxwell's gospel implicitly assumes that Nature is above God because Nature can punish justly but God cannot. Fortunately for all sentient beings of the universe, God doesn't have to punish anyone. Nature is available to God to do His dirty work.

The Gnostic principle at work here is that God's love prohibits God from punishing the incorrigibly wicked. And praise be to Nature. We have Nature to thank and not God for the eventual and total eradication of evil from the universe. This is precisely the irreverent fallacy that the omega theologians use to diminish God's sovereignty and exalt Nature and themselves in the process. The charm of this sophistry is very similar to the power that Kellogg had over God whenever Kellogg took a bath and splashed God-filled water all over himself. Clearly, reducing God to an exciting presence in our bath water, and something wonderful in the air we breathe and in the food we eat, like the reciprocal principle (the omega), exalting the power and justice of natural consequences above God, qualifies as pantheism. See Pseudo Adventism’s Pantheism.

In conclusion, the alpha and omega heresies are simultaneously parallel, pantheistic, wildly opposite and identical. In these devilishly deceptive heresies, God and nature are either too far apart or too close together.

I think it's helpful to illustrate the similarity between these two pantheistic theories graphically. Suppose you only have a picture of half a face (say the left side). That's the alpha. Take the mirror image of that half face. That's the omega. Bring the two pictures together and you have a perfect whole—a complete object—a naturally symmetric face. The omega is an astoundingly perfect completion of Kellogg's heresy.

One of the fundamental problems of the moral influence view is that it rejects the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. The idea that God had to kill the innocent instead of the guilty in order to save us is considered a violation of justice. Yet the witness of Scripture is that Christ died as our substitute (e.g., Isa. 53; Mark 10:45; 2 Cor. 5:21). In the atonement God Himself voluntarily assumed responsibility for our sin. This is a glorious manifestation of divine grace, not an injustice. Atonement is God’s work for us; it is a matter between Him and us. No third party is involved.
____________________________________________________________
Dear Nic, Ron, BH,

This is how Dr. Rodriguez (the SS lesson author) describes what he sees as a fundamental problem with the moral influence theory. I will take issue with sentence two. I don't like his wording there. Tom Zwemer's above post is much better. God did not kill Christ; you and I did. Christ suffered the penalty for our sins.

However, at the end, Dr. Rodriguez states what I have been trying to tell all of you. Christ was not an innocent third party in the atonement. "No third party was involved." Atonement is a matter between us and God.

So please do not suggest that according to the substitutionary model, Christ was a third party Who was killed by God. Our sins killed Christ, not God. But God gave Himself in Christ as a Substitute for our sins. Regardless of whether you agree with the model, that's the correct way to state it.

have been asked to explain with greater clarity the pantheism of A. Graham Maxwell. Does that mean that everyone acknowledges the pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg?
_____________________________________________________________
Dear Shubee,

There is no doubt in my mind that Dr. Kellogg makes pantheistic statements in "Living Temple." But then he backs up and says that he believes in a personal God right after making statements that deny His personality. Dr. Kellogg seems utterly confused in his theology, and we can't discuss it with him because he is dead. But it is clear that his book "Living Temple" makes pantheistic and indeed, we would say today, New Age statements. These statements are quite heretical.

John Harvey Kellogg and his followers were pantheists because they commingled God and nature. They were absolutely thrilled by God being in their bath water, in the air they breathed and in the bread they ate. See Adventism's Past Pantheism. The distance between God and nature was effectively nonexistent in Kellogg's theory. That made Kellogg a pantheist. A. Graham Maxwell and his followers are pantheists because the distance they put between God and nature is practically infinite. Their error is in going to the opposite extreme.

Maxwell asserts that in the final judgment God will not punish the wicked or make them undergo any kind of suffering: It would be a monstrous evil for Him to do so. If nature does all this, then it’s OK. How is this not exalting nature above God? The logic of Maxwell's theology compels us to understand that God is not the Supreme Sovereign of the universe. Maxwell's gospel implicitly assumes that Nature is above God because Nature can punish justly but God cannot. Fortunately for all sentient beings of the universe, God doesn't have to punish anyone. Nature is available to God to do His dirty work.
___________________________________________________________
Dear Shubee,

OK, I see the pantheism in Kellogg's writings, and by the way, it is also in Waggoner's later writings. And I also see the serious theological error in what Maxwell is saying. He does exalt nature over God. I would simply use a different term for this than pantheism, because Maxwell does not deny the personality of God. In Maxwell's view, God has a real personality, but He is an impotent God. I agree with you that this type of theology is unbiblical, and it does not do justice to God's nature. God is a God of justice, and He will actively liquidate evil wherever it is found. Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, Satan and his demons have been sinning for ages, and I don't see that nature has killed them or even weakened their power in any sense.

Bob Helm wrote:

--
This is how Dr. Rodriguez (the SS lesson author) describes what he sees as a fundamental problem with the moral influence theory. I will take issue with sentence two. I don't like his wording there. Tom Zwemer's above post is much better. God did not kill Christ; you and I did. Christ suffered the penalty for our sins.
--

You tend to just dig your hole deeper. First the Penal/Substitutionary atonement theory is what it is, if you want to redefine it fine give it a new name and describe what the redefined theory is. Please stop telling us that we don't know what the theory says. Also don't get hung up on Nic's "third party" statement as it is not what the Moral Influence theory says and really not a widely held opinion. I don't even know how someone puts Jesus as a third party unless they were tri-theists (something unfortunately all too common in Adventism.

Now did we, that is you and I kill Christ. No we were not alive then, we had no sins committed then even if those sins could have somehow been transferred and somehow mystically killed Christ. You can test the theory by saying what If I or you had never been born...would that have changed whether Jesus died or not? In fact it would not. This is merely a misinterpretation based upon the fact that Jesus died for our benefit. It is true that ultimately the reason behind His death is sin but you could also go back even farther and say that the reason for the death is because God created us.

As long as you frame it as "Christ suffered the penalty for our sins". You have framed it as a punishment from God and remember no where in the New Testament does it say that Jesus paid a penalty. A ransom yes, bought with a price yes, not a penalty.

Ron

Bob Helm wrote:
--
There is no doubt in my mind that Dr. Kellogg makes pantheistic statements in "Living Temple." But then he backs up and says that he believes in a personal God right after making statements that deny His personality. Dr. Kellogg seems utterly confused in his theology, and we can't discuss it with him because he is dead. But it is clear that his book "Living Temple" makes pantheistic and indeed, we would say today, New Age statements. These statements are quite heretical.
--

Earlier I asked you to back up the statement that Kellogg made pantheistic statements in the living temple. You could not do it without pulling partial statements from Kellogg. Just because Kellogg is dead is not an excuse for defaming him by making pretexts by taking what he said out of context. It is wrong to do that to Maxwell and it is wrong to do it to Kellogg. (It is also a horrible error to ever trust Eugene's research and interpretations.)

Ron

Earlier I asked you to back up the statement that Kellogg made pantheistic statements in the living temple. You could not do it without pulling partial statements from Kellogg. Just because Kellogg is dead is not an excuse for defaming him by making pretexts by taking what he said out of context. It is wrong to do that to Maxwell and it is wrong to do it to Kellogg. (It is also a horrible error to ever trust Eugene's research and interpretations.)
_______________________________________________________
Dear Ron,

I do not believe that I am defaming Dr. Kellogg. I took nothing that he said out of context. He stated that God is not behind or above nature; God is in nature. That is a pantheistic statement, and no amount of special pleading can change the fact. To make such a statement and then claim to believe in a peronal God reduces everything to gibberish.

I do not believe Dr. Maxwell ever made statements like those of Dr. Kellogg, so I see no reason to call him a pantheist.
Furthermore, I am not in any sense relying on Eugene Shubert's research. I have read Kellogg for myself.

You tend to just dig your hole deeper. First the Penal/Substitutionary atonement theory is what it is, if you want to redefine it fine give it a new name and describe what the redefined theory is.
________________________________________________________
Dear Ron,

I'm digging any hole, nor am I redefining anything. But I have heard many people (not just Nic) claim that the substitutionary model amounts to God killing His Son or God punishing an innocent third party. This is a plain falsehood.

Whether the New Testament speaks about a penalty, ransom, or curse falling on Christ, it is all the same. Why quibble about words that have the same meaning?

Bob Helm wrote:

OK, I see the pantheism in Kellogg's writings, and by the way, it is also in Waggoner's later writings. And I also see the serious theological error in what Maxwell is saying. He does exalt nature over God. I would simply use a different term for this than pantheism, because Maxwell does not deny the personality of God.

Bob, I believe strongly that you're detracting from a very important truth and exalting completely irrelevant and counterproductive subterfuge because it's the exact same dishonest quibble that the pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists raise.

Ellen White said very clearly that Kellogg was teaching a scientific theory akin to pantheism and immediately following that thought an angel tells Ellen White that it is pantheism.

Nashville, Tennessee, June 23, 1904
To Union Conference Presidents, and
Leading Medical Missionaries:--

Before leaving Washington for Berrien Springs, I was instructed upon some points regarding the work at Battle Creek. In the night season I was shown a meeting. Dr. Kellogg was speaking, and he was filled with enthusiasm regarding his subject. His associate physicians and ministers of the gospel were present. The subject upon which he was speaking was life, and the relation of God to all living things. In his presentation he cloaked the matter somewhat, but in reality he was presenting scientific theories which are akin to pantheism. He presented them as being of the highest value.

After looking upon the pleased, interested countenances of those who were listening, one by my side told me that the evil angels had taken captive the mind of the speaker. He said that we were to stand as guardians of the churches, but that we were on no account to enter into discussion on these subjects with those who hold pantheistic theories. He said that just as surely as the angels who fell were seduced and deceived by Satan, so surely was the speaker under the spiritualistic education of evil angels. —Ellen G. White, Battle Creek Letters, p. 108.

My point is that the omega is here, people are being lost through doctrines of deception and you want to reprove the angel and quibble about semantics.

Maxwell exalts nature over God in the exact same way that Kellogg exalted nature over God.

Dear Shubee,

I'm not wanting to quibble about semantics, but as I see it, the current problem is not pantheism. The problem is a false and totally inadequate view of the atonement. We have many fine scholars in the Adventist Church who uphold the substitutionary atonement, and not one of them has called Dr. Maxwell a pantheist or a gnostic. However, they do believe that he teaches the moral influence theory of the atonement.

It never helps one's case to bring false charges against one's opponent, and while you may consider this type of theology to be pantheistic, you stand nearly alone in your assessment. Believe me, I am also very opposed to this type of theology, but it doesn't do any good to call it something it is not.

Bob Helm wrote:

Maxwell does not deny the personality of God. In Maxwell's view, God has a real personality, but He is an impotent God. I agree with you that this type of theology is unbiblical, and it does not do justice to God's nature.

Kellogg does not deny the personality of God any more than Maxwell does. Please provide a quote or take back your misrepresentation. It is simply that the teachings of Kellogg and Maxwell are equally pantheistic. The alpha heresy is a perfect representation of the omega of deadly heresies.

Bob Helm wrote:

--
Whether the New Testament speaks about a penalty, ransom, or curse falling on Christ, it is all the same. Why quibble about words that have the same meaning?
--

They don't have the same meaning. But clearly they don't fit your presuppositions so you say they do have the same meaning. Just as you take Kellogg's statements out of context even while claiming you are not.

Perhaps it comes down to the acceptance of an illogical theory requires additional illogical ideas to be accepted and then one can't recognize when they are manipulating information versus what the information actually says.

PS you might want to look up information about Ransoms. It was not a penalty it was the cost to bring a captured person back from captivity. You also might want to read interviews with Kellogg where he completely denies being a Pantheist and you might want to check out his history after he was kicked out of the SDA church. He did not join the Theosophists who would be the major players in pantheism at the time but he continued on as a Christian.

Ron

Shubeee et al.

Not to be irreverent, but my God, how can anyone charge A. Graham Maxwell with the emphasis on the moral influence theory when The Review, the General Confernce, The Pacific Press and Herbert Douglass makes it their prime case!

One must take the Crhist Event in its totality. The virgin birth, the dedication, the childhood, the baptism, the ministry, the Passion in the Garden, the Cross, the calling forth, the ascention, and the installation is a single redemptive act.

The Sermon on the Mount had two aspects: One the Action Plan of Jesus, which He fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law, and the model of the duty or life style of the followers of Jesus. The Espisle of James, is a retalling of that Sermon. Please, pray tell how the Moral Influence Theory has no place in the Christian Argument? It does not and should not replace, the magnificent gift of Christ's atoning death. Never, Never, Never, has A. Graham Maxwell ever suggested otherwise. Please in God's name leave the man at peace. I thank God for John, Paul, Edward Heppenstall, H.M.S. Richards, Paul Heubach, and A. Graham Maxwell for leading me to Christ plus nothing. God, the Father, God The Son, and God the Holy Spirit need more than your rants without proof or context. You make me ashamed of the word Christian or brother. Tom

Bob Helm wrote:

I'm not wanting to quibble about semantics, but as I see it, the current problem is not pantheism. The problem is a false and totally inadequate view of the atonement.

You are misrepresenting me. I have compared Maxwell's teachings to the Frankenstein monster:

"Please be aware that the essential parts of several dead heresies have been stitched together and have come back to life, all animated by spiritualism in the Frankenstein theology of Dr. Graham Maxwell."

"It amazes me that the followers of Maxwell refuse to examine his graveyard sources. They want to believe that A. Graham Maxwell is amazingly original. It's true that Dr. Frankenstein will be remembered for following up on an idea that no other human ever thought of before but he certainly didn't create anything new."

Ellen White wrote:

"Ministers inspired of Satan can eloquently dress up this hideous monster, hide its deformity, and make it appear beautiful to many. But it comes so direct from his satanic majesty, that all who have to do with it, he claims as his to control, for they have ventured upon forbidden ground, and have forfeited the protection of their Maker." -- Review and Herald, May 13, 1862.

I assert that Maxwell's doctrine is a unique combination of spiritualism, Gnosticism, Socinianism, pantheism, moral influence theory and Ellen White's Great Controversy theme. That's quite a different beast. Also, I wrote The Denial of Justice And The Man of Lawlessness and Musings About An Adventist Antichrist. Your accusations are false.

We have many fine scholars in the Adventist Church who uphold the substitutionary atonement, and not one of them has called Dr. Maxwell a pantheist or a gnostic.

The argument from authority has long been considered lame and invalid.

However, they do believe that he teaches the moral influence theory of the atonement.

And I agree with them. I'm simply more alarmed by Maxwell's spiritualism.

It never helps one's case to bring false charges against one's opponent,

Your misrepresentations and unsubstantiated claims are of no help to anyone.

and while you may consider this type of theology to be pantheistic, you stand nearly alone in your assessment.

You again repeat your lame argument from authority, no doubt trusting your hazy recollection of what you once read in the Living Temple.

it doesn't do any good to call it something it is not.

All my writings on Kellogg and Maxwell are backed up with primary sources. All your protests are based on ignorance, emotionalism and misperceptions.

Tom
I feel with you. I'm not a church member either, but I think the church deserves better than this kind of insane rhetoric.

Marguerite Duras, a French writer, says of her mother, in one of her books: She did not suffer from her madness. She lived it as if it were health itself.

Alex et al:

I am not a Seventh-day Aventist. I cherish a large number of Seventh-day Adventist Christians including Graham Maxwell.
Why, Why, even after David Larsen asked Shubee to stop, you allow him to defame a fine Christian Scholar, a very gentle man, and a redeemed son of God?

If Shubee has any evidence at all, it points to the foundational basis of the Seventh-day Adventist Church: It is primarily based upon the Moral Influence Theory. Just reread: Why Jesus Waits or anything M.L. Andresean, of Ken Woods, or F.D. Nichols ever wrote.

I am agast that Spectrum allows someone to make a one dimensional accusation against a Scholar of Christ when the Church has championed that MIT cause for generations. I believe, as I have read, listened, and visited with Graham as a dear friend that he has his feet on solid ground of the primacy of the Christ Event in all of its dimensions.

This either or nonsense has got to stop or the SDA church is finished. It obviously cannot hurt Graham. It only makes the "mother" church look like fools.

Spectrum in my day at LLU was to give voice to reason and to defend the "Truth" of classic Adventism.

Why, now in this late, allow smears of such a base nature to continue unabated? Shubee is obviously sick. Why allow him to vomit over the rest of us. Tom

[Tom, I'm sure this will be difficult, but I would ask for your patience and assure you that Shubee's tone and postings are actively being discussed and action being considered. We will not allow repeated ad hominim components to posts. And Shubee, if you read this, you have been warned before and apparently are incapable of self-reflection as to the tone of your postings. You are right on the edge. - website editor]

Bob Helm wrote:

We have many fine scholars in the Adventist Church who uphold the substitutionary atonement, and not one of them has called Dr. Maxwell a pantheist or a gnostic.

There are also many fine scholars and administrators in the Catholic Church and they have all been faithful to a 1962 directive from the Vatican that told church officials to hide sex abuse complaints against clergy. If they have all been so effectively quiet, what makes you so certain that the Seventh-day Adventist Church isn't following its own misguided peace and safety directive and that there is no secret church sanctioned conspiracy of silence that allows the promulgation of Adventist spiritualism?