For the Gospel Forum

Finished Atonement and the SDA Church

2008-11-22T04:45:58-08:00

Since the current Sabbath School Lessons in the Seventh Day Adventist Church deals with the question of the meaning of atonement, I found it properly to translate my resignation letter (written in Romanian, my native language, since I’m a Romanian guy living in Romania) and make it public because it’s related to the issue of the finished atonement. Hope that it will clarify the questions regarding the meaning of the expression “finished atonement” in both the evangelical camp and the adventist camp.

To the Pastor and the board of the SDA Church

The following letter contains my personal reasons which are at the heart of why I’m no longer an Adventist. After reading this letter I hope it will become clear to you and to the board of the church that I’m no longer Adventist at heart and you will show the necessary respect for my religious freedom and will not continue to keep me a member of your church against my decision to resign my membership in the Adventist Church.

Until the mid fifties of the 20th century, the SDA Church was classified in the same category with the Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons and other Pseudo-Christians churches. The Church dedicated itself to the task of correcting her bad image and to demonstrate that her particular understanding of the gospel is in harmony with the gospel of the Reformation, in line with the gospel of Luther, Calvin, Zwingly and the evangelical world, in contrast with the gospel of the Romano Catholic Church and the above mentioned groups. Truly, the gospel is the decisive factor which establishes if the existence of the SDA Church is justified (or vindicated).

In the 60s of the 20th century, Walter Martin, a well-known cult expert, had placed Adventism in the same category with the Mormons and Jehoiva’s Witnesses because of the rejection of the finished atonement accomplished by Jesus on the cross, Arianism, legalism rooted in the Sabbath-Sunday-Mark of the Beast theory, and the belief that Jesus possessed a fallen human nature. Coming in contact with some leaders of the SDA Church, after some exchanges and the publication by the Adventist Church of the book Questions on Doctrine, supposedly an official and authoritative formulation of the present faith confession of the church, Walter Martin re-evaluated his attitude toward the Adventist Church, removing the label cult, recognizing that she is part of the historic orthodox Christianity.

It’s noteworthy to mention that Walter Martin had not changed his previous evaluation of the early Adventist Church, the Adventism of the pioneers, seeing it as heretical and cultic because of the reasons previously mentioned. He had modified his position exclusively in correspondence with the contemporary Adventist theological stance represented by QOD (Questions on Doctrine), perceiving it as different in the points previously mentioned than the historic Adventism understanding of the pioneers. He had considered that the Adventist Church had renounced to the idea that on the cross Jesus just started the process of atonement which will be finished after 1844 in another work of cleansing and atonement for sins according to the model of the Old Testament mosaic sanctuary, containing 2 types of services, one daily and one annually (Day of Atonement). The Adventist position is that in 1844 the Day of Atonement begun in order to complete the process of atonement left unfinished by Jesus after the cross. Nevertheless Walter Martin, being assured by the QOD that Adventist now believe that the atonement was finished on the cross and whatever Jesus is doing in the heavenly sanctuary is only an application of the benefits resulting from his already finished work of atonement on the cross, concluded that indeed the church departed from his previous position, and removed the label cult.

At this point a parenthesis is required in order to understand the evangelical-protestant perspective regarding the finished atonement on the cross. Essential in this understanding is the biblical formula “once for all”, repeated especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. A simple reading of this epistle will be sufficient to see that there is a repeated contrast between the Aaronic priesthood, pertaining to the Old Covenant, and the Melchisedechian priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, the priesthood of the New Covenant. This contrast is seen especially between the plurality characterizing the Old Covenant (OC) and the singularity characterizing the New Covenant (NC)

For example, in the OC there were many priests, in the NC there is a single priest, in the OC there were many sacrifices, in the NC there was a single sacrifice. The superiority of the NL becomes evident in the fact that the sacrifice of Christ obtained an eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12) in the same way his priesthood is eternal.

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Hebrews 10:14

A finished atonement means that the punishment for sin was suffered by Christ once and for all, making in this way “perfect for all time” the true believers. In the same way that Christ’s offering was once for all time, irrepeatable, what he accomplished on the cross for the believer, the righteousness imputed is irrepeatable. When the naked hand of faith receives Christ, to the believer is given what the Lord Jesus obtained on the cross and he becomes perfect for all time. From now on, before God the believer is perfect, covered in Christ’s robe of perfect and spotless righteousness. Jesus Christ sin not dying repeatedly for the believer’s sins after every “serious” sin, He died once for his past, present and future sins.

It results that the believer is justified not only for the present moment, but also for the future, perfected for all time. The continuous intercession of Jesus Christ assures a permanent, uninterrupted application of the benefits of the salvation he obtained by his perfect life lived and a perfect sacrifice, cleansing continually the believer’s life, saving him to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25) those who approach God through Him. There is a difference between progressive sanctification, an internal process, and justification, a one time event. This is why it may be affirmed in the present that “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1)

Now, today, when for the first time the sinner believes, he is blessed with the promise that the future will bring no condemnation to himself. In spite of the fact that he will sin in the future being guilty before God and under a right condemnation, he is covered from in Christ’s robe of righteousness, nobody and nothing being able to separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Nobody can bring charges to him because Jesus died and intermediates for him, and after God already pronounced him righteousness, who can contradict him?

Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Romans 8:33,34)

All of these are rhetorical questions pointing to the reality of the perfect assurance which the believer has in Christ.

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38,39)

The assurance of salvation lies in the accomplishment of a perfect atonement on the cross, which assures to the believer a blameless status before God which assures him that he had escaped from the future wrath of God, the future judgment. Not that there will be no future judgment, but the believer had already been judged, dying with Christ under God’s condemnation and raised together with Him to eternal life, being already seating in heavenly places.

These realities are confirmed clearly by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John, chapter 5, where he talks about the judgment by which it is understood the eternal punishment.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life John 5:24

Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. John 5:28-29

It is in the present time when the believer passes from death to life, from a resurrection of judgment and death to a resurrection of life. It is like he is a student who had already passed the final exam, keeping in his hands the positive result of his exam. These are the benefits of a finished atonement which the believer shares from the first moment of faith.

Walter Martin believed that Adventism stood in line with the evangelical gospel, but the events related with Desmond Ford’s case, his expulsion from ministry, together with the firing of many other Adventist pastors who shared his views regarding the Sanctuary, brought him second thoughts. Martin became aware of the possibility that the Adventist Church may have a different position than what he believed was expressed in QOD regarding the finished atonement on the cross.

He was well informed about the controversies QOD brought immediately after its publication, especially those stirred by M.L. Andreasen, the recognized Adventist expert in the Sanctuary doctrine. Interesting is that Andreasen shared Walter Martin’s opinion regarding the significance of QOD for the traditional position of Adventism, both viewing it as a departure from the traditional and accepted fundamental belief of the church. In spite of having different feelings than Martin about the book, condemning it in harsh language (as a sold out of Adventism to the evangelicals, a sign of the final apostasy), the irony is that Andreasen confirmed indirectly the conclusions of Walter Martin regarding Adventism, based on his perception that there was a real change iin rapport with the pioneer’s position.

In Martin’s eyes, the Adventist Church at its origins could not be considered a protestant evangelical church, and as far as there is no real change in the Adventist theology, especially regarding the atonement, the SDA Church could not claim to be evangelical, in line with the Reformation. In Walter Martin’s eyes QOD brought a real change and Andreasen’s opposition coupled with his lost of credentials brought a welcomed confirmation. Walter Martin was satisfied that officially the church sustained QOD both in theory and practice, taking a stand on its side, but the management of Desmond Ford’s case made brought him second thoughts about this subject.

He noticed that the theology of Desmond Ford who led to his exclusion from ministry does not said in essence nothing different than what Walter Martin believed that was stated by QOD: Jesus Christ entered into the Holy of Holies of the heavenly sanctuary immediately after his resurrection and ascension in the first century AD, not in 1844 as previously was believed, after he accomplished a finished atonement on the cross. Ford’s lost of job for taking a position which Martin perceived to be in harmony with QOD had raised questions about the validity of Martin’s assessment of the situation.

Walter Martin noticed also that the writings of Ellen White were used as a theological arbiter against Desmond Ford. Consequently, the cult expert questioned the General Conference regarding Ellen White’s status, if she is or she is not the infallible interpreter of the Bible. Martin offered a clear example: when disputes appear regarding the interpretations of some texts, has Ellen White the final word? He received no answer form the General Conference, and his suspicion that the writings of Ellen White were used as an infallible interpretation of the Bible grew. A lack of answer worried him, especially because he was very clear in stating that Ellen White should not be a feminine Pope if Adventists want to be numbered between the evangelicals. Otherwise they are in the same category with the mormons and their prophet, Joseph Smith.

At the same time, Walter Martin noticed that QOD was no longer in print, another possible sign that the church departed from QOD’s position and benefited illegally from the positive evaluation of Walter Martin. Even if he received messages that the book still represented the official position of the church, Martin insisted for a reprint coupled with an official explicitly approval, otherwise he will be under the duty to rewrite the chapter about Adventism from his book Kingdom of the Cults, reclassifying the Adventist Church between the cults. A premature death prevented him to formulate his conclusions of his re-evaluation started in the years of Ford’s crisis.

Yet recently, the SDA Church reprinted QOD, albeit not without modifications. The original content was not modified, but notes were added together with a historical introduction written by the well-known theologian Dr. George Knight, many years professor of Adventist history at Andrews University. His notes and the introduction confirmed Walter Martin’s fears, stating that what for many loyal Adventists seemed to be and abandonment of the classic historical position regarding the unfinished atonement was in reality just a semantic facelift. The book represented classical Adventism reworded in order to speak the evangelical language of Walter Martin. According to Knight, even if the authors of QOD used words that apparently conveyed the impression that the atonement was finished on the cross, they only stated that only the sacrificial part of atonement was finished, the process of atonement itself, far from being finalized on the cross, continuing in the sanctuary, a process not finished yet.

Instead of sharing in the benefits of a finished work, of enjoying a salvation and full cleansing of sins, the believer still waits for the judgment’s verdict, because the atonement is not complete and his final fate is undecided. Exactly the opposite of what Walter Martin believed that QOD stated.

Recently at the campus of the Andrews University had taken place a Conference commemorating 50 years from the first publishing of QOD. This conference confirmed what Knight wrote in his introduction to QOD. They recognized the theological changes brought by QOD regarding the human nature of Christ, but also stated that QOD changed nothing regarding the atonement. Perhaps nobody will understand perfectly were the fidelity to the specific denominational theology ends and were inappropriate concessions to evangelical start, nevertheless there is no reasons, according to the leaders involved in the conference to continue the internal division of the church regarding QOD on the atonement subject.

At the end of the Conference, a Lord’s Supper was officiated by Angel Manuel Rodriguez, George Knight, and also by Colin Standish (founder of the ultraconservative Hartland Institute and a vocal critic of QOD). In such a symbolic way it became clear the internal unity of Adventism regarding atonement, if there was need for other proofs. The tendency to reunite the dissident groups with the church proves in the best case great confusion regarding the gospel in the Adventist Church and in the worst case, a clear rejection of the evangelical gospel.

In conclusion nothing significantly changed in Adventism regarding its gospel message, confirming Walter Martin’s fears, and the classification of the Adventist Church in the evangelical group is no longer true, if it ever was.

As long as the Adventist Church will not renounce his anti-gospel position, my desires for good and my affectionate attachment toward this church in which I grew up, in which I learned to study the Bible, in which I made many friends; all these things taken together cannot compensate for the theological problems. I want to be well understood: my attitude toward members at the individual level is different than my attitude toward the theological system, toward the organized faith of the church. I’m positive toward members and negative toward their beliefs. I believe that there are Christians in the Adventist Church as there are Christians in the Roman-Catholic Church, but both churches besides teaching historical Christian doctrines reject the gospel of justification by faith alone, substituting to Christ’s finished atonement on the cross with something else. This creates irreconcilable differences between Adventism and Catholicism on one side and the true evangelical gospel on another side. For these reasons I cannot remain as a member of the Adventist Church because of reasons pertaining to the conscience. I will pray that some day we will be united again around the gospel and the present disagreement will disappear. May God bless you and the church with wisdom to understand his will regarding this life and death subject.

Soli Deo Gloria
To God alone be the glory
Gabriel

Christmas Love Story for Children

2008-11-21T18:11:50-08:00

Dear Parents,

Having difficulty finding biblically-sound reading material for your children as gifts this Christmas? If so, with The Prince’s Poison Cup, Dr. R. C. Sproul continues his series of books designed to present deep biblical truths to children on their own level. In this work, he focuses in on the atonement to show that Jesus had to endure the curse of sin in order to redeem His people from their spiritual death.

When Ella gets sick and has to take yucky medicine, she wonders why something that will help her get well has to taste so bad. When she puts the question to Grandpa, he tells her the story of a great King and His subjects who enjoyed wonderful times together--until the people rebelled against the King and drank from a forbidden well. To their horror, they found that beautiful water in the well made their hearts turn to stone. To reclaim His people, the King asks His Son, the Prince, to drink from a well of horrid poison. The poison will surely kill the Prince--but He is willing to drink it to please His Father and help His people.

Richly illustrated, The Prince’s Poison Cup will help children appreciate the great love of God for His people and the awful price Jesus had to pay because of sin. A ”For Parents” section provides assistance in unfolding the biblical elements of the story. This 56-page, hardcover book sells for $14.40 plus postage and handling, and it can be ordered directly from the http://www.ligonier.org online bookstore. Jesus--the reason for the season!

Dennis Fischer

Former Adventist Teresa Beem converts to Catholicism

2008-10-22T00:59:16-08:00

Here is the story of a former SDA who left SDA for the United Methodist Church, and then converted to Catholicism:

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892289

Arthur and Teresa Beem’s story of leaving the SDA church is found on here:

http://formeradventist.com/stories/teresaarthurbeem.html

Are those who go from Adventism to Catholicism any better off? Or have they just replaced one false gospel for another? I would argue that they are the same false gospels when you get to the root of both of them.

Both of these gospels deny the root of Reformation Theology--that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone.

I am so sorry to hear of this story. We should indeed be praying for this situation.

Stan

Who Cares

2008-10-09T10:49:22-08:00

I can’t seem to get it. Why do we argue about these things? Why do people who should be helping the hurting sit around and talk about minor issues? How many of us have gone looking for a prostitute so we can tell her about Jesus? How many of us have stopped to help the bum on the street? How many of us go to the prison to visit the child rapist and tell him God loves him? How many of us look at those that sin has ruined and think “He got what he deserved”? Well I am glad you can sit up on your high horses and talk about the fine points of religion. I am struggling to find my way. The last thing I care about is if any of you care what I eat. If I want to not eat meat, why should you care? If I want to keep the Sabbath, why do you care? Since we are all here discussing the fine points, I guess all have heard about Jesus love. No? Well then, why not tell them. Some of us are just trying to find our way through this old world. I have been to SDA churches that you could feel the Holy Spirit moving through. I have been to Baptist churches where the same was true. So why do some people in both want to tear down the other? If you have the truth, tell people and let God’s Spirit change the lives of those around you. Don’t spend your life dicussing things. Do something. Or is it as I suspect that most of those hear just want people to agree with them and they really don’t give a flip about the rest of us? For all of you, I leave you with this. I have attended church 1 time in the last 2 years. 1 person has called to see why not. I guess most of them are on sites like this one beating each other up over not being legalistic or beating each other up over not being legalistic enough. Thanks for telling us about how we can escape hell. Oh that’s right, you were too busy discussing if hell goes on forever, or not. Never mind, I will go ask someone if they can introduce me to a Saviour.

A Must See Video by Dr. Desmond Ford on the Gospel

2008-09-22T22:32:27-08:00

Hi everyone,

Dr. Desmond Ford spoke at the Campus Hill SDA church on 9/6/08, and gave a presentation on forensic atonement. In Loma Linda, this is not a popular topic, as most of the theologians teach the false gospel of a bloodless atonement.

But this is a 10 minute segment of the sermon he gave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9yPT3MGXY

Even though I don’t agree with Ford on several issues, I believe this sermon clip will truly bless you. This man does preach Christ and Him crucified.

Stan

SDAs Believe that we are saved by Works.

2008-08-26T14:54:35-08:00

Please notice that I capitalized Works.

Yes, we are truly saved by the Law. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law. We are saved by HIS Works through His blood.

He lived his life in perfect obedience to the Law. He died and sacrificed HIs life that we might be saved.

Therefore .... those who accept His Name are no longer under the condemnation of the Law. But, those who do not accept Him ... They remain under the Law. It condemns them. Why? Because they are not able to live in obedience to the Law. And the law calls for death to those who do not keep all aspects of the Holy Law.

So, in summary ..... you are either saved by Christ’s doing and dying .... or you are left on your own to answer to the Law. And in that case ... you have failed and been found wanting. The result .... DEATH.

If we are judged by the Law ... which we are. How could one say that the Law has been done away with?

The only thing that has been done away with is the condemnation of the Law for those in Christ Jesus.

Thank you Jesus. You are ALL we need.

The "Lesser Light"

2007-04-26T05:46:17-08:00

While we have talked about Graeme Bradford’s book, More Than a Prophet, on another thread, Kevin Paulson, from the website greatcontroversy.org, has begun posting his review of the book, which is scheduled to be released in eight forthcoming sections. The first two have already been put up on the website. I think this might be a good time to refocus some of our discussion in the light of conservative SDAism’s first responses to the book.

Paulson wrote a review of an earlier Bradford book on EGW, a section of which I am exerpting below. This section pertains to EGW’s reference to herself as a “lesser light”. In this section, Paulsen puts forward his view of what this phrase means.

[quote author="Paulson"]It is true, for example, that Ellen White called her writings the lesser light, in relation to the greater light of Scripture (20). But evidence from the totality of Ellen White’s writings, and her own statement of their purpose, makes it clear that her writings occupy this “lesser” status only because, in her words, “additional truth is not brought out, but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given” (21).

In other words, Ellen White’s writings are the lesser light because they teach no original truths, doctrines, or principles. All of these come from the Bible. Ellen White merely amplifies and simplifies what Scripture already teaches. Nowhere does Ellen White give her writings some lesser degree of authority over the beliefs and practices of church members, as if a statement from her pen need not be taken with quite the gravity or seriousness as a text from the Bible. Too often, in modern Adventism, Ellen White’s “lesser light” language has been taken to mean that while the words of Scripture can’t rightly be argued with, the words of Ellen White are another matter. In practical terms, such thinking assumes that while Biblical statements can properly be used to settle a theological or lifestyle issue, statements from Ellen White cannot be thus used. It is thus implied that while Ellen White statements regarding such topics as diet, dress, or worship may say one thing, the issue is left to the believer’s discretion so long as Scripture contains no explicit counsel on the subject in dispute.

Adventists who eat meat have often used this argument. They insist that because the Bible gives them permission to eat clean meat–never mind that it also says to use no fat or blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17), a rule I have yet to see observed by carnivorous Adventists–that on this basis the counsel of Ellen White forbidding the use of all meat can legitimately be ignored. In one Sabbath School class attended by the present writer, a man and his wife also claimed that Adventists should stop imposing “man-made” rules on church members, one of which they said was our stand against smoking. This counsel was “man-made,” in their view, because it is found in Ellen White’s writings but not in the Bible. (In retrospect, I wished I had asked if they thought cocaine or heroin use could rightly be forbidden by the church, since these too are unmentioned in Scripture.)

No distinction is made in the Bible between the authority of canonical and non-canonical prophets. A prophet is not authoritative because he or she is canonical. Rather, a prophet is canonical because he or she is authoritative. God does not have junior prophets. The testimonies of Elijah, Elisha, Huldah, and John the Baptist were no less authoritative in their application to God’s people than those of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Paul. In fact, Jesus declared John the Baptist to be the greatest of the prophets (Matthew 11:9-11). Yet no book of the Bible bears his name.

The Bible also speaks of prophetic books written by certain non-canonical prophets, such as those of Nathan and Gad (1 Chronicles 29:29). One could hardly view these inspired messengers as less authoritative than those whose writings were included in the 66 books of Scripture, especially when we note how God gave rebukes to King David–a canonical Bible writer–through the testimony of these non-canonical prophets (2 Samuel 12:1-14; 24:11-14).

According to Ellen White, “the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and of the Spirit of Prophecy” (22). The former is greater and the latter lesser in the sense that truth is original in the former and amplified in the latter. But nothing in the writings of Ellen White, or in the Biblical testimony concerning the work of prophets, lends any credence to the theory that one set of prophetic writings can lay a greater or lesser claim to the conscience than another.

This earlier review is located here:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php

The new reviews are here:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot1.php

and here:
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot2.php

While I value EGW’s writings on many topics, and believe she was an “inspired” woman and devout spiritual person, I am troubled by Paulson’s apparent equating of EGW’s writings with that found in the Bible.

Is Hell Eternal?

2006-12-02T07:46:16-08:00

Hi everyone,

On FAF we had a stimulating discussion on hell at this link:

http://64.227.85.187/discus/messages/11/4437.html?1152752114

During the course of that discussion I realized that I had never studied this doctrine thoroughly before, and now I am in the process of doing that. Also, during the course of that discussion, Richard (aka deadmanwalking) on FAF posted a link to an article by Dr. Mark Talbot defending the traditional orthodox doctrine of eternal hell linked here:

http://www.the-highway.com/articleMay05.html

While reading that article, I was amazed by a statement by Dr. Talbot, that there was a respected Reformed scholar named Dr. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes,( who taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in the 1980’s, and he has since gone to be with the Lord in 1990), but that he had good Biblical arguments for eventual annihilation of the wicked. Dr. Talbot is quoted from that article here:

“Theologically, a lot hangs on whether our sins merit everlasting punishment, including part of the answer to the question why only God incarnate could make adequate atonement for our sins. Yet the exegetical considerations advanced by Stott, Hughes, and others against the traditional doctrine are not so far-fetched that they can be rejected out of hand.6 A convincing defense of the traditional doctrine needs, then, to address the sorts of wider considerations that have prompted sincere believers like Stott and Hughes to depart from the plain meaning of the biblical texts. I do that here by arguing that the never-ending torment of the impenitent is moral in the sense of serving a just and proper end.”

Then if you go to the author’s footnote number 6 listed above, you find Dr. Talbot saying:

“In my judgment, the exegetical considerations supporting the traditional doctrine are somewhat better than those against it.” See, for instance, Kendall S. Harmon, “The Case Against Conditionalism: A response to Edward William Fudge,” in Cameron, ed., op. cit.”

So, if even an author who is making a good case for eternal punishment, can show enough grace to say that the exegetical considerations are only somewhat better for his position than those who disagree with him, then I can hardly see an argument for dividing with other Christians over this issue.

I purchased the book by Dr. Hughes entitled “The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ”. It can be purchased here:

http://www.marshillaudio.org/resources/article.asp?id=89

It is a well written book on systematic theology as well as church history. J.I. Packer endorses the book with the following: “In this wide-ranging biblical, historical, and theological study a versatile veteran makes convincing use of the concept of the divine image to integrate the doctrines of man and Christ. His biblical bases are solid, his expositions weighty, and his historical interactions judicious and enlightening. This is a very valuable piece of work”

Sinclair B. Ferguson, a former colleague of Hughes while teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary also endorsed the book as follows: “We have come to expect both solid learning and exquisite literary style from Philip E. Hughes. “The True Image’ is no exception. Indeed it is a remarkable piece of work, quarried from a lifetime of study in Biblical exegesis, systematic theology, and church history. It is encyclopedic in its discussion of anthropology and Christology and their mutual relationship. The novitiate will find it instructive, while the theologically advanced will discover comprehensive exposition married to a scholarly judgment that sometimes resurrects classical views, sometimes provides the unexpected, and on occasion surprises with the controversial.”

I am sure that last statement refers to Hughes views on eventual annihilation. However, it should be remembered that Hughes view is not similar to the SDA view in many ways. He clearly is orthodox on the view of the human spirit, and he believes in the intermediate state, and not soul sleep. He does believe that Jesus’ parable in Luke 16 speaks of the wicked in chains waiting the final judgment, depicts accurately the doctrine of Hades. His contention is that in the new heavens and new earth, Death and Hades will be cast finally into the Lake of fire and destroyed completely.

I think his arguments are well worth considering, and comparing with more traditional views. That is why I decided to take the time to type chapter 37 that deals with this topic and present it for your consideration. I haven’t finally made up my mind on this, but at least I am less dogmatic than before after studying this scholar’s arguments.

Stan

Ellen G. White: Prophetess of Health?

2008-07-12T22:42:57-08:00

Many current Adventists hold on to their belief in Ellen White because of her alleged insights into good health. Many claim that she was ahead of her time because she gave us original counsel as to what is good health.

As a physician interested in good health, I have had to analyze the teachings of Ellen White with regard to health to see if she had any special insight. Ron Numbers wrote an excellent book on this topic by the title of this thread.

As far as I can tell, the only two good pieces of advice that she gave on health is 1.) the harms of excessive sugar, and 2.) smoking.

What is the old saying? A stopped clock is right twice a day!

Scientific research today, virtually says that she was wrong on so many issues. I would like to give some examples. I have thought of a lot of examples today, and will share some of these as time permits. I would also appreciate other thoughts on this.

Stan

Was Jesus’ death necessary?

2008-08-24T13:56:30-08:00

I watched recently a public discussion between two adventists pastors on a TV show in which the following question was raised:

“Could God forgive sin without the death of Jesus?”

In order to answer this question, they started with Hebrews 9:22, which says

”without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”

In spite of the apparent clarity of the text, the context was used to prove that the text does not carry an absolute meaning. And it was not the context of the other writings of the Bible, but the religious and cultural context of the ancient pagan world that was brought on the table in order to clarify the meaning of this text.

The line of argument started with the pagan idea that the gods require human sacrifices, and they need to see blood in order to have their anger appeased. This pagan view was put in contrast with the so-called biblical view of a God who doesn’t need to see blood, but used the cultural and religious concepts of the time in order to teach Israel a lesson. Israel was left with the impression that God needs to see blood, but this OT concept and pagan at the same time was corrected only by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:25,26

Speaking about Christ’s atoning death, the text says:
God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The idea is that here Paul corrects a long-held idea, mistakenly borrowed from the pagan world: “God does not need to see blood. Here you have the real explanation for Jesus death. His death was necessary because in the context of the great controversy God’s character was brought in jeopardy by the apparent toleration of sin. It seemed that God is allowing sin to go like it is no sin at all, without any negative reaction toward it. But in Christ, God demonstrates that He’s not tolerating sin at all, that He’s opposed to sin, He made a perfect demonstration of His justice.”

this interpretation is certainly in the harmony with what the text says about Christ’s death as a demonstration of God’s justice. What it fails to take in account is that this demonstration of God’s justice was necessary in order for God to be just when he justifies the believer.

It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

“That he might be just” is modified by this interpretation to “that he might appear just” in the eyes on the onlooking angels and men who questioned God’s just character. Implicit in this interpretation is the idea that God might be just and justify the sinner without any sacrifice, and only the existence of the observers makes the death of Jesus a necessity.
In this view, God is under the constrain of external factors (angels, men) which imposed on Him the necessity of putting His beloved Son to death.

The text affirms that Jesus’ death allowed God to be just and the justifier of the ungodly, and without his death God might not be just and justifier of the ungodly. His death was necessary because something internal, not external, something which is in God’s character, his justice, constrained Him to punish his Son. Christ’s death was an absolute necessity, not a relative one, depending on what others think about God, but on who God is and how he should act in accordance with his absolute just character. God his holy, holy, holy, and He cannot forgive contrary to his just character. He cannot act contrary to his essence, He cannot act in contradiction with Himself. This is why Jesus’ death is a demonstration of God’s integrity in justifying sinners, because in this very act God is gracious and just at the same time.

Paradoxically, the view that God does not need to see blood in order to forgive us, and Christ’s blood is just a demonstration that God takes sin seriously, results in a subtle negation of God’s justice. The idea is that God is able to forgive us by neglecting his justice, but the result is that God’s justice is not totally neglected. If God’s justice is not satisfied by seeing the blood of Jesus, the justice in saving us sinners, must be derived from another source.

My point is: Man was created after God’s image, and God implanted in him the idea of justice, and even in the fallen position man has a sense of God’s justice, and of justice in general. He understands, even in an unconscious or subtle way, that God’s justice requires some satisfaction in exchange for forgiveness. And if this satisfaction is not wholly obtained by Jesus in our behalf, it is left to us to comply with God’s justice. Our acceptance is becoming a problem of offering something on the plate which will satisfy God’s just requirements. Maybe not a perfect life, but the best we can do in the present circumstances is a sine qua non condition for the final salvation. Doing something, doing anything, doing this or that, repenting, paying the tithe, keeping the sabbath, something like this makes the difference between somebody who can be justified by God and somebody who lacks these things and cannot be justified by God because God will be unjust to accept him.

Gabriel