[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
Guibox, I do have to say even though I have changed my view back to annihilation, that I don’t see any relation between that belief (which can be debated honestly between both sides who believe in inerrancy) and debating the very basis of salvation doctrine and the heart of the gospel itself.

Howdy Stan. The question was on how many ‘souls’ have been ‘lost’ due to the IJ. I was merely pointing out that many more have been lost due to eternal torment. The IJ doesn’t put in jeopardy or take away the salvation of a believer in Christ. Though you could call it misguided or galling (that we would think that God needs to be vindicated), one who believes in the IJ is still saved for the church does believe that we are saved by grace and justified by Christ’s blood...as I said before, it is atonement where the confusion starts.

The promoter of eternal torment is just like the Pharisee. Thinking that they have salvation (or in this case, do) and that they are portraying God as He should be. The atheist (or even the Christian turned atheist) looks at this cruel, vindictive God and says “I want nothing to do with it”. Meanwhile the traditionalist smug in his salvation goes along his merry way shaking his head at the heresy of the atheist without any serious thought of their responsibility by peddling damnation as ‘truth’.

Here is the FB on the IJ (My, all these initials!)

The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom.

I don’t see anywhere where it says that our salvation is not determined until our names come up. It is a ‘revelation’ of a judgement that has already occurred. So though one can have an issue with the complete logic of it all, I fail to see how SDAs promote that we are not saved yet until the end. Whereas the atheist is damned for all eternity due to the false promotion of a cruel God who will allow His children to suffer fire for trillions of years.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
Believe me Adventism has created many atheists with EGW legalism and uncertainty.

Though legalism can be soul destroying no doubt, by looking at FAF, one comes to the conclusion that it was EGW and the IJ that made people embrace ‘salvation’. So it can’t all be bad. 

Seriously though, legalism in any church is rampant the SDAs have a misuse of EGW and enforcing of their standards, for another church it will be in another area. All churches need to wake up and realize what is important and stop missing the forest through the trees. I will admit that SDAs do their share of this.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
Those who believe in eternal torment also believe in the simple remedy of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved....I see no compromise of the gospel of salvation in churches that teach eternal torment.

I’m not talking about whether those who believe in eternal torment have their salvation in jeopardy, I am thinking more of their influence to cause many to stumble. However, is not the gospel ultimately about ‘God’s love for sinners’? Why then do Christians avidly promote such a cruel vindictive God and call Him ‘love’? Is this not the grossest misreprentation and hypocrisy there is? What good does ‘salvation by grace through faith’ do to the well seeking atheist who looks at such hypocrisy and walks away?

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
Still, but at some point we must acknowledge that SDA is still being deceptive when it comes to Ellen White and the IJ.

I wouldn’t call it ‘deceptive’. . I don’t think our church looks at the IJ and EGW and says, ‘Gee, there’s absolutely nothing to this..Well we gotta cover our butts now. Let’s keep promoting a lie’. I would call it ‘pig headed’ and a big dose of blinding Pharisaism. I see many in our denomination who do in fact believe that we have all the truth and that as the ‘remnant’ there is nothing that we need to change. Blindly they stick their heads in the sand and claim apostasy at any deviation from their interpretation.

I think honest seekers will come to a revelation of what they should believe. It has to start on a personal level for we cannot convict everyone on what we believe.

Howdy to you Guibox,

It was so well documented by both Ford and Ray Cottrell that there was DELIBERATE deception with regard to the IJ, especially at Glacier View.

Stan

Stan,

Any links supporting that would be appreciated. I know that a witch hunt and a ‘railroading’ occurred at Glacier View, but I would like to know how ‘deliberate deception’ was involved.

Tanks, mon!

Gui

I have posted quite a bit on Muslim and Middle Eastern websites about Christianity, and am quite comfortable defending Christ and the Bible to unbelievers, but I could not defend eternal torment logically to an unbeliever.  It just doesn’t make sense when placed side by side with the statement that “God is love.” I can’t equate that monster who would torture people forever with a God of love.  To me when our interpretation of the Bible is illogical, it is time to reexamine our beliefs rather than claiming the Bible is inerrant and therefore our understanding is also inerrant.

I remember having a discussion with a Baptist man who believed he could not forfeit his salvation because he claimed to believe in Jesus even if he went out an deliberately sinned while another person who had never heard of Jesus was automatically lost even if he lived a good life.  Later on I discovered he was trying to set up a thieft ring in the hospital where he worked.  False beliefs do have consequences and do dishonor God’s name.  Over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that all churches have doctrinal errors some of them very serious, and we all dishonor God because of our human weakness and ignorance, that because we are all human none of us really know exactly what God is like.

I’m also not sure we really understand the gospel completely.  It is easy to maintain we have the magic formula which guarantees salvation, but really what it is all about is God’s goodness, not any creed or formula which saves us.  I believe this is why Jesus told us not to judge other people, because no matter how sure we are we are correct, in God’s eyes all our righteousness is as “filthy rags.”

[quote author="New Mexico"]I can’t equate that monster who would torture people forever with a God of love.  To me when our interpretation of the Bible is illogical, it is time to reexamine our beliefs rather than claiming the Bible is inerrant and therefore our understanding is also inerrant.

New Mexico, I agree with you that when we share our faith with others, we must be very careful how we handle the Word of God.  Hermeneutical errors are at the foundation of most theological errors, and sadly, the science of Biblical interpretation often takes a back seat to “that’s what I think the text means” or worse, “that’s what my church teaches, so it must be true.”

[quote author="New Mexico"]I remember having a discussion with a Baptist man who believed he could not forfeit his salvation because he claimed to believe in Jesus even if he went out an deliberately sinned while another person who had never heard of Jesus was automatically lost even if he lived a good life.  Later on I discovered he was trying to set up a thieft ring in the hospital where he worked.  False beliefs do have consequences and do dishonor God’s name.

Clearly there are many who are quick to affirm their salvation while denying this reality with ther actions.  Brennan Manning, an ex-Catholic recovering alcoholic priest has said, “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, but then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle.  That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” Others have simplified this to “the greatest argument against Christianity is the Christian.” Sadly, in many cases I think this is true.

The biblical counsel in 1 Peter 3:15-17 provides great wisdom for the Christian who would share his faith with others and I think this is wise counsel especially for former Adventists who believe they have something to say to their Adventist brothers and sisters:

...but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

The dangerous thing about the truth is that those who believe they have it can develop a spiritual superiority complex.  This flies in the face of the biblical example, where the apostle Paul “became all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:16-23)

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

This servant mentality is disturbingly absent within the former Adventist community, which many times seems more content to point fingers than to proclaim the gospel with humility.

[quote author="New Mexico"]Over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that all churches have doctrinal errors some of them very serious, and we all dishonor God because of our human weakness and ignorance, that because we are all human none of us really know exactly what God is like.

There is no question that a perfect theology does not exist, but this does not excuse us from being sloppy in our hermeneutics or understanding of Scripture.  As you said above, doctrinal errors give rise to bad behavior, so we should strive to understand more clearly what God has revealed to us, “rightly dividing the Word.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

[quote author="New Mexico"]I’m also not sure we really understand the gospel completely.  It is easy to maintain we have the magic formula which guarantees salvation, but really what it is all about is God’s goodness, not any creed or formula which saves us.  I believe this is why Jesus told us not to judge other people, because no matter how sure we are we are correct, in God’s eyes all our righteousness is as “filthy rags.”

This is where I must disagree with you. If we are unclear on the gospel, we have no basis from which to share our faith with others.  I agree that formulation of a perfect doctrinal statement or creed does not guarantee salvation, but putting faith in Jesus Christ and his gospel does.  Otherwise, we could not stand with the apostle Paul in saying, “...I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes...” (Romans 1:16)

Greg

Guibox,

The documentation for the deception I was talking about is in the Raymond Cottrell paper, and also Ford alludes to this in his manuscript on Glacier View.

I will have to look further when I have more time.

We are getting ready for a new standard poodle puppy 9 weeks old to replace the dog we just lost--we are excited.

Stan

Scanning over Cottrell’s paper “The Sanctuary Doctrine — Asset or Liability?” (http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/AssetOrLiability.html), I have found one potential reference to what Stan was referring to and I may post more later (see below).  If there are others, Stan, perhaps you can point them out.  The section on biblical obscurantism is especially critical of the way in which Adventist theologians have defended the sanctuary doctrine, which effectively has buried the controversy in a 5-volume “scholarly” work having “all the answers,” if only one has the intestinal fortitude to read it.

Greg

Section 10: The Sanctuary Doctrine and Sola Scriptura
The historicist principle by which Adventists have consistently understood and interpreted Bible prophecy has, ever since the beginning, imposed our uninspired modern perspective of salvation history on it, and thereby been in unwitting violation of the sola Scriptura principle. In contrast, the historical principle honors the Bible’s own perspective of salvation history, within which its prophetic messages were given and to which they were intended to apply. It thereby consistently honors the sola Scriptura principle. Let us not soon forget that the historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy has ever been and continues to be responsible for the loss of many otherwise dedicated leaders and the defection of uncounted hundreds of otherwise faithful Seventh-day Adventists. It has, in addition, diverted considerable time, attention, and substantial resources of the church from its mission to the world.

Surely it is high time for responsible church leaders to awake to the situation and do something about it. The obscurantist 1600-page, 5-volume Daniel and Revelation Committee report on Daniel accepts and consistently applies the historicist principle to Bible prophecy---officially for the church. Do we want the twenty-first century to witness the fulfillment of Christ’s promise to return, or do we prefer to repeat our pathetic historicist past complacently and indefinitely into the future, and thereby alienate the respect and confidence of biblically literate Adventists and
non-Adventists?

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]Guibox,

The documentation for the deception I was talking about is in the Raymond Cottrell paper, and also Ford alludes to this in his manuscript on Glacier View.

I can’t speak for Ford’s manuscript but I have read Cottrell’s paper and I saw incompetence and negligence but no outright deception. I’m not saying that it didn’t occur in some instances but I haven’t read about it. Greg’s quote doesn’t really enlighten me on what you are talking about.

I know that Cottrell says that those involved in the lynching didn’t even read Ford’s paper and acted on the simple fact that he went against the church’s teaching and that debate wasn’t what was wanted but a ‘recantation’. In this those inolved acted like the Diet of Worms.

Closing your eyes to something that rings true doesn’t amount to deception. So many Christians today do the same thing concerning most doctrine. I call it stupid and close minded but not outright deception.

There’s closing one’s eyes, and there’s closing the eyes of the members of your church who trust you for guidance.  According to Cottrell, Robert Pierson, who was the GC president following Robert Figuhr (presiding over the publication of Questions on Doctrine), reversed the trajectory of the Adventist church away from biblical honesty to biblical obscurantism.

Greg

Section 11. Obscurantism and the Sanctuary Doctrine
Robert H. Pierson was a gracious person, a dedicated Adventist, a gentleman in every way, but also a person with clear objectives and resolute determination to achieve them. A major objective of his administration as president of the General Conference was to replace the administrator / Bible scholar partnership that had developed during Elder Figuhr’s administration with strict administrative control of the theological and doctrinal processes of the church.

During his thirteen years as president of the General Conference (1966-1979) Elder Pierson completely reversed the policy of his predecessor, R. R. Figuhr, with respect to biblical studies, doctrine, and cooperation with its community of Bible scholars. His very sincere but resolute aim was to restore the situation that had prevailed when he graduated from Southern Junior College in 1933 and left North America three years later for distinguished overseas service in India, the Caribbean, and South Africa, where he served with distinction until he was elected GC president thirty years later. For all practical purposes, in 1936 church administrators had been in exclusive control of theology and doctrine for the church. At that time there were no trained Adventist Bible scholars. Anyone who attended an “outside” university for training in such subjects as biblical languages, archeology, ancient history, and chronology was automatically considered persona non grata by every Adventist college board.

Accordingly, Pierson distrusted the entire Adventist community of Bible scholars and set out to exclude them from meaningful participation in the Biblical and doctrinal deliberations of the church. In private conversation and in GC committees he repeatedly stated it to be his policy that administrators alone--and not in counsel with Bible scholars--should decide exegetical questions for the church. His first step toward implementing this policy took place at the Spring Meeting of the GC in 1969, which eliminated the Bible scholars of the church, en masse, from the Biblical Research Committee--a policy that was never implemented, however, due to vigorous protests from the Theological Seminary faculty. Undaunted, however, later that year he achieved his objective by adding numerous administrators and other non-scholars to BRC, and appointing a vice president of the GC to supervise the Biblical Research Committee (now Institute) and the GC office of biblical studies (BRI).

Still more from the same document…

Also in the spring of 1969, Pierson invited a teacher at his alma mater, Southern Adventist College (now University), to chair BRC--Gordon M. Hyde--whose training was in communication--and who shared Pierson’s Southern Bible belt fundamentalist theological perspective. Hyde protested that he was not trained in theology, but Pierson explained that he was to function as an administrator and not as a Bible scholar. With this understanding Hyde accepted the invitation, and when, during his first years at the GC he was expected to reply to a theological question, he parried the question with the explanation that he was not a theologian.

...

Hyde’s major project designed to promote Hasel as leading theologian of the church was the series of three North American Bible Conferences, the first of which convened at Southern Adventist College, the second at Andrews University, and the third at Pacific Union College. He assigned Hasel the theme topic, biblical hermeneutics, and featured him on every panel discussion. The senior members of the Theological Seminary faculty were bypassed altogether or assigned relatively minor roles.

Hyde’s attempt to have Hasel appointed dean of the Theological Seminary in the spring of 1974 (prior to the conferences) was aborted by the senior members of the faculty because of Hasel’s interference with established Seminary procedures, his collusion with Gordon Hyde and the GC to control Seminary policy, and what the senior members of the faculty referred to as his “intolerable dogmatism.” Hasel did, however, become dean in 1980, but was demoted seven years later for plagiarism and his attempt to separate the Seminary from Andrews University.

Without expertise in biblical studies and theology himself, Hyde selected Gerhart F. Hasel, a former colleague at Southern Adventist College who had transferred to the Seminary in 1967 and whose ultra-conservative perspective he shared, as his mentor and personal adviser in biblical-theological matters. Hyde’s objective was to elevate Hasel to be the leading Adventist theologian and dean of the Theological Seminary at Andrews University, where he would be in a position to indoctrinate the next generation of Adventist Bible scholars and pastors with his obscurantist hermeneutical perspective.

During his tenure as dean, Hasel made several teachers more experienced than he feel unwelcome at the Seminary and, in effect, froze them out--Drs. Sakai Kubo, Ivan Blazen, Fritz Guy, and Larry Geraty. All four were immediately invited to serve at other Adventist institutions of higher education, three of them as college or university presidents. Hasel forthwith appointed Seminary students he had trained, and who accepted his biblical hermeneutic, to replace them. He and Gordon Hyde subsequently forced two other religion faculty members--Drs. Lorenzo Grant and Edwin
Zachrison (sic)--to leave Southern Adventist College at approximately the same time as Jerry Gladson, and the president of the college resigned in protest. Hasel never approached his targets directly, in compliance with Matthew 18:15, but stuck verbal daggers in their back by denouncing them to administrators (who accepted his word without verifying it).

Over the decade 1969 to 1979 this triumvirate--Pierson, Hyde, and Hasel--conspired effectively together to gain control of Adventist Biblical studies, theology, and doctrine in harmony with their fundamentalist, obscurantist perspective.

And more on the effects of obscurantism at Glacier View and beyond…

The Nature and Raison d’Etre of Doctrinal Obscurantism
[D]uring sessions of the Biblical Research Committee (now Institute) Gerhard Hasel repeatedly stated that it was a mistake even to try to be objective. In the plenary session of the Sanctuary Review Committee at Glacier View, for instance, he demonstrated this by emphatically declaring in the plenary session Monday afternoon, August 10, 1980, ”God’s only intention in Daniel 8:14 was to point forward to 1844!” This statement was met by a loud chorus of amens.

Obscurantism was also evident on the part of leaders in charge of study Group 2 at Glacier View on Monday morning. Twelve of the sixteen speeches in the group that morning favored Ford’s point of view, but when chairman of the group--a GC vice president- summed up the opinion of the group for its report to the plenary session that afternoon, he reported the minority of four speeches as the view of the majority---an obvious instance of obscurantism. Following one of the speeches favoring Ford, the other vice president present responded, “We could never accept that!” In the plenary session that afternoon eleven of the fifteen speeches by Bible scholars likewise favored Ford’s position on the same topic, but again administration took the consensus to be negative. From beginning to end obscurantism was in charge at Glacier View.

Obscurantism characterizes the tedious printed reports of the General Conference-appointed Daniel and Revelation Committee that functioned during the 1980s. (See below). It is likewise the guiding principle of the Adventist Theological Society, legitimate heir of Gerhard Hasel’s hermeneutical legacy.

Obscurantism continues to be alive and well at the General Conference level. On November 15, 2000 I sent another major paper on Daniel 8:14 to some eighty Bible scholars and administrators, including the president of the General Conference. His reply was courteous to a “T”, but he referred the paper to the Biblical Research Institute (BRI) with the comment that their reply would be his also. In January 2001 he sent me a copy of the evasive BRI reply, which reported that they had already considered and settled all of the biblical anomalies in the traditional sanctuary doctrine to which my paper had called attention, which I well knew was not so. Evidently obscurantism is still in charge at BRI and the General Conference.

...

As long ago as 1934 W. W. Prescott called attention to this problem in a letter he wrote to W. A. Spicer, president of the General Conference: ”I have waited all these years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not seen or heard it.” Having been a member of the GC committees that met with Ballenger, Fletcher, and Conradi, Prescott realized that the official GC responses, both oral and published, offered presumed reasons for believing the sanctuary doctrine, but left the flaws to which the three had called attention completely unanswered! The same was true with respect to Dr. Ford at Glacier View and the subsequent Daniel and Revelation Committee report. Obscurantism still characterizes GC and BRI responses to valid questions regarding exegetical flaws in the sanctuary doctrine.

Guibox,

After reviewing what Greg has posted above, it seems like semantical games to deny that there has been deception to at least some degree related to 1844.

If you have ever read Ballenger’s story, and the way Ellen White accused him of being influenced by demons when he was only quoting scripture is quite serious indeed. After reading that Ballenger story, it was then that I lost any faith at all that Ellen White was led of God or used by God in any way. She blatantly accused Ballenger of being under demonic control. These quotes are well documented and I will try to find them later.

It seems to me that it is very difficult to keep making escuses for the Adventist church.

Yes, I agree that SDAs are right on with regard to eternal torment. But this is not the key doctrinal area of the Christian faith, as important as I think it is, but the total distortion of the gospel is why Adventism stands judged by the gospel.

Stan

Here is what Ellen White wrote about Ballenger after his challenge of the sanctuary doctrine came to light (taken from MR 760).

I am not able to sleep past one o’clock. I was aroused to write out some things that have been impressed on my mind. Not long ago I met Elder Ballenger in the hall of the building in which we have rooms. As I spoke to him, it came vividly to my mind that this was the man whom I had seen in an assembly bringing before those present certain subjects, and placing upon passages in the Word of God a construction that could not be maintained as truth. He was gathering together a mass of scriptures such as would confuse minds because of his assertions and his misapplication of these scriptures, for the application was misleading and had not the bearing upon the subject at all which he claimed justified his position. Anyone can do this, and will follow his example to testify to a false position: but it was his own. I said to him, You are the one whom the Lord presented before me in Salamanca, as standing with a party who were urging that if the Sabbath truth were left out of the Sentinel, the circulation of that paper would be largely increased. You were the one that wept and confessed your mistakes, and we had the power of the Holy Spirit in that early morning meeting.

...

After I had borne a decided testimony, Brother Ballenger arose, all brokenhearted and weeping, and said, “I receive this testimony as from the Lord. I was in that meeting last night, and I was on the wrong side .”

...

And now again our Brother Ballenger is presenting theories that cannot be substantiated by the Word of God. It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the testimonies that God has been given us for the past half century. I declare in the name of the Lord that the most dangerous heresies are seeking to find entrance among us as a people, and Elder Ballenger is making spoil of his own soul. The Lord has strengthened me to come the long journey to Washington to this meeting to bear my testimony in vindication of the truth of God’s Word and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in confirmation of Bible truth. The word is sure and steadfast, and will stand the test. Human investigations will be brought in, but the Lord lives and He will bring to naught these inventions. We are to proclaim the full truth of the Word of God with decision and unalterable firmness. There is not truth in the explanations of Scripture that Elder Ballenger and those associated with him are presenting. The words are right but misapplied to vindicate error. We must not give countenance to his reasoning. He is not led of God. Our work is to bind up the Testimonies God has given and seal the law among His disciples.

...

The time is worse than lost in spinning out theories that are not sustained in the Bible to vindicate such errors. I am instructed to say to Elder Ballenger, Your theories, which have multitudes of fine threads and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God. The good that you and your associates might have received at this meeting, you have not received. God forbids your course of action--making the blessed Scriptures, by grouping them in your way, to testify to build up a falsehood.

Let us all cling to the established truth of the sanctuary. Those who are so shortsighted that they will begin to do the work that some others have been doing in advocating the sentiments contained in Living Temple, are departing from the living God in spiritualistic, satanic experiences that will not do the souls who receive them any good. They are departing from the faith, seeking to tear down the foundation of truth. The men who have lost their hold on the truths of the sanctuary question as they have been presented by men who have been under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, had better pray more and talk less. I testify in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is led by satanic agencies and spiritualistic, invisible leaders. Those who have the guidance of the Holy Spirit will turn away from these seducing spirits.--Ms 59, 1905. ("The Sabbath Truth in the Sentinel, and Elder Ballenger’s Views,” May 20, 1905.)

We should also keep in mind that Ballenger, Cottrell, Ford, etc. never intended to leave the Adventist church, rather, they intended to apply sound and honest biblical inquiry to the sanctuary doctrine.  Instead of listening and learning from these men, the church took a U-turn and buried the matter under a mountain of technical jargon (the 5-volume DARCOM series) that effectively amounts to deception.  Furthermore, for Ellen White to say Ballenger was led by Satan for testing her teachings by the Bible is both tragic and outrageous.  For “theologically modern” individuals to continue giving the church a pass on this is equally outrageous.

Greg

Guibox said

“The question was on how many ‘souls’ have been ‘lost’ due to the IJ. I was merely pointing out that many more have been lost due to eternal torment. The IJ doesn’t put in jeopardy or take away the salvation of a believer in Christ.”

I have to say I’m with Guibox here. If you think about how few people Adventism has actually touched (which is itself an indictment, albeit of a different sort) along with the fact that the few people it does touch tend to already be Christians (and who would already be saved anyway if they were born again, according to the theology advocated here), then I have to say that the ultimate effect of the IJ has to have been pretty minimal, at least quantitatively.

In terms of its scope, eternal hell-fire has had a far greater reach than the IJ, and I think its implications are much more dire. At least the IJ can be interpreted to mean that someone who’s confessed their sins is forgiven and justified. Is a lack of assurance somehow worse than trillions of people who have lived over the course of history somehow burning up in hell? Eternal hell-fire is just beyond the pale. The IJ, however repubnant it may be when taken to its logical conclusion (which few have done) pales in comparison to the atrocity of a mass, eternal, perpetual genocide.

I’m also unclear how it is that we decide whether some item pertains to, or is in fact “the gospel” and which other items are not. If “the gospel” is just about me being saved, than it would seem the nature of hell would be an important component. If there are two options, with one option being or becoming “born again” (which I don’t think I can cause in any event) and the other option is to burn in hell for eternity, than there’s not much of a genuine option there. Not one with which love has anything to do anyway.

But the importance of the IJ is highlighted by the fact that most of us have spent many years in the Adventist system, and for us, questions of Adventist doctrine loom large. But most people have never heard of SDA’s or the IJ, much less been turned to atheism because of the IJ.

I’m also uncomfortable with the highly individual-centered idea about salvation discussed here by Greg and Stan. Certainly some texts in the N.T. have that emphasis. And this is a problem in Adventism, too. But I wonder if we’re missing something.

The history of God’s leading, as depicted in the bible, is one of a continual failure on the part of God’s people in recognizing God’s aims for their lives. The Israelites during the times of the patriarchs and kings never got it. The Jews during Christ’s day did not. And if more modern history is any guide, the post-apostolic church didn’t get it either. The Jews in Christ day felt entitled by virtue of their geneology: They were Jews and God owed them. And God would overthrow the romans and make of them a great empire. Jesus failed to live up to this expectation. He did not gratify their desires for material or political success.

How different is it today? An unfortunate number of Adventists claim an entitlement based on their “commandment keeping”. Other Christians claim being “born again” insulates them from judgment and entitles them to God’s blessings, whether eternal or temporal.

But can we be missing something? Is God’s kingdom about me, us being “saved” and enjoying golden palaces and walking streets of gold in heaven?

The O.T. is an overwhelming portion of the bible. And when I read the O.T. I don’t see any indication that God was about ensuring any individual’s salvation. People could be lost individually (Uzzah, Achan and his family, etc) but I don’t see any examples where individuals were saved, per se. People’s fortunes generally went up and down with those of the people as a whole, especially the national leadership. There’s almost an “I don’t get saved if everyone doesn’t get saved” ethic.

This sense is pretty much absent in today’s Christian churches. The church is their for support and for direction. But as members we really don’t have a stake in one another’s salvation. It’s pretty much “me” and my born again experience.

In short, there’s something selfish about the whole evangelical Christian project that I think needs to be rethought.