What is the nature of the gospel that makes it good news?  In his book Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism, theologian Robert Brinsmead offers important insights about how the gospel can be considered good news, particularly in a church that has historically not emphasized this.  He says, “The word gospel signifies the proclamation of good news, and it has special reference to the news of victory, particularly victory in battle.  The gospel of Christ is the good news of the victory of Christ.  In our name and on our behalf He fought our great enemies–sin, death and the devil–and utterly defeated them (Colossians 2:15).  He took our sin and alienation upon Himself, reconciled us to God by His death on the cross, and by His resurrection restored the race to favor with God.  The whole deed of our salvation was accomplished and finished in the Christ event.

When we look at the New Testament passages on the gospel (such as Luke 2:10-11, Acts 13:32-33, Romans 1:1-3, Romans 5:6-10, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), it is plain that they all speak of a historical event.  When used in the proper sense (‘By this gospel you are saved’–1 Corinthians 15:1-2), the word gospel refers to what has been done and finished.  What God will do for us if we fulfill certain conditions is not the gospel.  God’s deed of redemption is something He has already done whether we believe it or not.  Our faith does not bring God’s saving deed into existence but confesses its existence.” Read on below for the continuation of Brinsmead’s thoughts on the nature of the gospel.

“Gospel preaching does not declare, ‘If you will do this or take these steps, God will do that.’ This inverts the order as if man were cause and God were response.  It is not far from the pagan idea that deity can be manipulated if man can only find the secret technique–the right prayer, right sacrifice or right incantation.  Rather, the initiative in salvation is wholly with God.  Before we thought about it or had any desire to be reconciled to Him, God acted in Christ to reconcile the world to Himself (Romans 5:6-10).  He worked out the whole matter.  Before we ever asked forgiveness, God paid our debt in the death of His Son, and in His heart forgave the sins of all men (Isaiah 44:22; Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:14-20).

The gospel does not proclaim a technique whereby we may attain salvation.  Salvation by grace through faith is not salvation by technique.  How many times have we heard things like ‘three steps to salvation’ or ‘seven steps to get the Holy Spirit.’ That is not preaching the gospel but preaching law.  Anything which tells us what we must do or how we must live is law. Law has its place, but it must not be confused with the gospel.  For too long we have promoted techniques on how to get the Holy Spirit in order to ‘finish the work.’ This legalism leads the people of God into bondage.  The gospel is the good news that Jesus has won the gift of the Holy Spirit for all His people by His humiliation and exaltation (Acts 2:33).  The gift is ours through faith alone (Galatians 3:1-14).  Gospel preaching does not consist in describing the spiritual feats the believer must take to get the Holy Spirit.  It proclaims the steps Jesus has taken to win a free gift for us. ...

The New Testament everywhere testifies that whoever believes what Christ has done for him is justified and saved to life eternal.  This holy history of Jesus Christ–His life, death and resurrection–is a sheer gift to be received by faith alone.  A poor sinner does not have to look to his inward experience to be accepted of God, but he must come just as he is and accept the gift.  When Christ comes to him clothed in His gospel, the sinner simply consents to have the robe of salvation placed upon him, just as one consents to take the bread given to him at Christ’s Holy Supper.” -Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism, pp. 23-24 (Fallbrook, California: Verdict Publications, 1980)

This entire book is outstanding, but is unfortunately out of print.  It may be purchased used here, here or [url=http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Brinsmead&y=0&tn=Judged+Gospel&x=0</a]here.

Brinsmead is right on when he printed that book.

I like this quote above:

“Gospel preaching does not declare, ‘If you will do this or take these steps, God will do that.’ This inverts the order as if man were cause and God were response. It is not far from the pagan idea that deity can be manipulated if man can only find the secret technique–the right prayer, right sacrifice or right incantation. Rather, the initiative in salvation is wholly with God. Before we thought about it or had any desire to be reconciled to Him, God acted in Christ to reconcile the world to Himself (Romans 5:6-10). He worked out the whole matter. Before we ever asked forgiveness, God paid our debt in the death of His Son, and in His heart forgave the sins of all men (Isaiah 44:22; Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:14-20).”
----------------------------------------------------------

The huge difference between Arminianism and Reformed theology, is the ORDER of salvation. We are born of God and created as new creations in Christ, and then as proof of this new birth, a new creature will respond in love to His Creator and Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is another favorite article of mine on the topic of who acts first in salvation, and clearly defines the Two Religions in the world, by New Covenant theologian John Reisinger:

http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index004.htm

One religion says “If we do this, then God will do that..”

The other religion says that” because God did this, then we will respond to that redeeming grace.”

[quote author="Stan"]One religion says “If we do this, then God will do that..”

The other religion says that” because God did this, then we will respond to that redeeming grace.”

I’m not sure this is it. Even the most historic SDA (as an example of Arminianism) will acknowledge that God acts first. That without Christ’s life, death and resurrection, and that without His grace and our faith in that grace, no one could be saved.

The divide, it seems to me, is what part our “response” plays in obtaining eternal salvation. In its SDA form, Arminianism says there are two kinds of righteousness--the imputed righteousness of Christ (the first part of the process, which is a more forensic, declarative justification) and imparted righteousness (where the power to live the Christian life is given through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the New Birth). Most Arminians believe that this second, imparted righteousness, plays a role in our salvation to some degree, although that degree can vary greatly. Among more historic SDA’s, this imparted righteousness takes on a critical role in our salvation and while it acknowledges Christ’s indwelling presence as its power source, it is often spoken and written of in terms of a work of obedience that we as human beings accomplish through cooperating with Christ’s power. 

Good points Glenn. I agree with your view of the SDA position on this.

I was also referring to the difference between a monergistic vs. a synergistic view of salvation. The article by John Reisinger posted above and here:

http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index004.htm

This explains the difference between the Arminian and Reformed view of salvation.

I will be off line and out of town for the coming week.

Look forward to catching up when I get back.

Stan

Stan,

Thanks for the link to soundofgrace. Will read.

Have a great trip.

Glenn,

I would also like to highly recommend the John Reisinger website Soundofgrace.

I found his article on the New Covenant Sabbath very helpful, and it allowed me to view this topic with new insight that has helped with my perspective on this, the most central Adventist Doctrine.

I hope you enjoy the wealth of material found there.

Randy

Thanks, Randy. I’ll bookmark it.

And last night I read the Reisinger article linked to above. There were a couple of things that stood out.

I could identify with his complaint about the Arminian tendency to “put God on trial”. In historic SDAism this notion is taken to an extreme with Last Generation Theology. LGT basically turns the gospel on its head by making the story about what man does for God’s reputation. As a friend of mine put it once, it’s like saying God’s got himself into quite a fix and it’s up to us to bail him out. In this vein, LGT is like Free Will on steroids. It renders Christ’s sacrificial death of no effect.

And I can also relate to his characterization of how some evangelist preachers will speak of how they or their series or sermons brought X many to Jesus. This is a common tendency among SDA evangelists. Many of these evangelists will speak like this, and then recognizing the implication of what they’re saying, quickly backtrack and offer a back-handed credit to the Holy Spirit; but one suspects that the over-riding spirit of these individuals and organizations is that the speaker and the church is the vehicle and instrument of a person’s conversion or baptism, with the Holy Spirit getting an assist.

These common areas of agreement aside, I did have a couple of issues with the article.

First, I didn’t come across a Bible verse until the bottom of page two. And there weren’t many that followed that one. And those the author did refer to came across as either very tangential to his argument or as not necessarily confirming his point. I got the sense the author recognized this problem because at one point he counters a hypothetical criticism of his approach as being creed based rather than Bible based by stating the essentialness of the formulaic creed he’s espousing. The author seemed more concerned with validating the preaching and teaching of previous evangelists (Edwards, Whitfield, Spurgeon, etc) than with grounding his argument in the Bible.

In making this critique, I’m not suggesting that every article about faith or justification be loaded down with proof-texts. Those of us in or out of SDAism have seen enough of that to know the problems inherent in that approach.

At the same time, there’s a strong sense in reading this article and Calvinist apologetics generally, that the focus of faith is a sort of legalism, a kind of officiousness as to our status with God. Granted, the Calvinist position is a different legalism than Arminianism--one that portrays God as the only real decision-maker in the drama whereas Arminianism includes man as a cooperative agent.  But the concern of both, at least as it is pictured in this article (and in Arminian articles as well), is what our legal standing is with God and how we become or are granted this standing.

I’m not disputing that there isn’t Biblical language to support this approach to God, from either the Arminian or Calivinist orientation. And in critiquing the author’s limited use of the Bible, I’m not contending there aren’t passages or cases he could have used to buttress his points. But I am suggesting that reducing the gospel and the faith experience to a set of legalist propositions (which both Arminianism and Calvinism seem to do) and the Bible itself as a codebook of laws, rules, and doctrines is to miss I think the essential nature of God and his work on our behalf. I’m thinking in particular about how Jesus talked about the lost and found in Luke 15--the love God the Father has for His lost children, the sorrow He feels when we “go off into a distant land”; and the forgiveness and grace He displays upon our return.

As I’ve grappled with ideas relating to the inspiration of Scripture, I’ve come to realize a bit more that the Bible isn’t really a codebook of laws as my SDA upbringing tended to instill in me, but it is essentially a story book; one over-arching story encompassing a multitude of smaller stories all meant to capture how God has led people in the past and how people have understood God. And of course, Jesus was and is the fullest representation and expression of God (Hebrews 1:1-3).

A second point that stood out for me was that, even taking the assumptions of the author, not everything he said supports a pure non-Free Will position.  At one point the author commends preachers who demand to see evidence of conversion on the part of believers:

[quote author="John Reisinger"]Those inspired preachers considered unbelief a vile crime against God, His law, and His kingdom. Men were not asked to make up their minds and decide for Jesus; they were told in no uncertain terms to change their minds and cease in their fixed rebellion—or else! Of course the Apostles spoke of mercy for sinners but they also demanded repentance and evidence that it was genuine.

Why would unbelief be a vile crime against God if man has no Free Will? Or what would be the benefit of condeming an unbeliever who had not been predestined or elected of God? It wouldn’t benefit the unbeliever and it’s hard to see what benefit it would have for the believer as well, as the latter could be already be assured they were called and elected of God and that whatever deficiencies they exhibited, God was sure to sanctify those whom he had elected and justified.

And picking up on the author’s statement about “fixed rebellion”, if there is no Free Will then how can people be any more expected to “change their minds and cease in their fixed rebellion” any more than that same person or persons can “make up their minds and decide for Jesus”? It sounds like the same act is needed in both cases.

So while there are some severe distortions from taking Free Will to some of its logical conclusions, Free Grace as discussed in the artile also has some limitations when taken to certain conclusions. 

Hi Glenn,

I’m sure Stan will have some thoughts on what you wrote when he returns from his trip.

I understand your concern about the lack of Bible texts in Reisinger’s piece.  Reading through it again, it is written more from an apologetic perspective than as a theological treatise.  Using logic, he’s trying to develop the idea that God’s sovereignty excludes man’s will in saving himself.

Many of our problems with the doctrine of election derive from our difficulty in appreciating the sovereignty of God and that he does indeed make choices which may appear capricious to us, but are perfect and just because he has made them.  Romans 9:13-24 is a great example of how God chooses some, but not others, illustrated here in God’s choice between Jacob and Esau.  Anticipating his reader’s problems with God’s sovereignty, Paul answers:

“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory–even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:20-24 ESV)

Some may have a difficult time reading these words because they go against what we believe God should be like.  We have the choice to acknowledge them or not, but if given a little more thought, I hope we can agree that God does as He will for His purposes and for His glory.  From our human perspective, what right do we have to argue with Him about it?

Scripture is literally filled with examples demonstrating God’s sovereignty, from choosing Jacob, Abraham, Noah, the prophets, the disciples, the apostle Paul and so on.  None of these people had any redeemable qualities in themselves, but God chose them to do great things.

Of course there is tension between free will and God’s will and hyper-Calvinists will say that because God is sovereign, human responsibility is nullified.  But this is at odds with what the Bible teaches and what most Calvinists believe.  God certainly wills things to happen, but this does not give license to man to do whatever he pleases because it’s all “the will of God”.  Anyone who takes this view may actually be “given over” by God to their own rebellion.

Where the rubber meets the road is in the gospel message.  After expounding on the sovereignty of God in Romans 9, Paul proceeds to exhort his hearers not to become complacent because “it’s all God’s will, what will happen will happen”.  Instead, he says the way that God has chosen to spread his message of redemption is through preaching of the good news.

“[I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.  For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” (Romans 10:19-13 ESV)

But how can God’s elect (those whom He has predestined to redemption) respond and put their faith in Jesus without hearing the gospel?  This is exactly what was on Paul’s mind as he continues:

“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:14-15 ESV)

Christians should not become complacent just because we know that God is sovereign.  He has specifically called us into action to reach as many people as we can with the gospel message, but what happens when the message is heard is completely His work, based on His sovereign will.

If you’d like to read a sermon from John MacArthur addressing election specifically, and with many Bible texts in support, click here.

I’ll close with the words of Jesus:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.” (John 15:12-17 ESV)

Greg

Greg, I wouldn’t disagree with anything you said here.

I would only add that the Old and New Testaments both give evidence to believe that God had much greater plans for the nation of Israel and that those plans were ultimately thwarted and made of none effect by the people themselves who first rejected the prophets and then rejected Christ, although they were the original elect of God (although they were called to be a blessing to the world and to be used by God for this purpose).

I also believe the writings of Paul in Romans, Galations and Hebrews in particular testify to the main problem the Apostle faced: dealing with Jewish leaders and communities who had a hard time accepting the idea that God had extended his calling to include non-Jewish people. While the disputes on the surface tended to be about things like circumcision and feast days, the ultimate issue was that many Jews resented or at least failed to fully appreciate the new dispensation that made available to people originally not thought of as being of the Promise, God’s blessings. And in this context Paul’s mission wasn’t to narrow or restrict the missionary field but to expand it to all who would believe.

But thanks for the link. I’ll add it to my growing list.

[quote author="RandyGerber"]I found his article on the New Covenant Sabbath very helpful, and it allowed me to view this topic with new insight that has helped with my perspective on this, the most central Adventist Doctrine.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty good, too. I didn’t remember your reference to it at first, but I found it on the site.

The SDA defense of the Sabbath doctrine hinges on two main ideas: the seventh-day Sabbath as a “creation ordinance” and; its place in the Ten Commandments.

I think he deals with the first claim very well.

He doesn’t deal directly with the second claim, although I think he does get at it in a broader sense by the use he makes of the “work” and “rest” concepts in God’s first creation and second, recreation. Some anti-Sabbatarian arguments have been pretty superficial on this point. But I found his treatment of the issue, intertwined with the gospel “work” of God in Christ, new and more thoughtful than most others.

I was particularly intrigued by how he connected the initial work of God in the creation, and that it was “very good”, followed by Adam’s sin and God’s resulting curse on the earth (meaning that as a result of sin and the curse, the earth God created was no longer “very good"), but then attaches significance to the immediate restarting of a new creation process with the promise of Genesis 3:15, culminating with the “It is Finished” words of Christ on the cross.

And that raised in my mind another question, a reoccuring one, having to do with how or if God will ultimately resolve the sin on earth problem. I would argue that this is SDAism’s primary concern--the Sabbath and sanctuary doctrine, as contentious as they have been, are merely byproducts of this emphasis; the sanctuary in heaven, reflective of its earthly model complete with the Ten Commandments in the Ark of the Covenant in the Most Holy Place, and Christ’s ministry there being the reason for our continued presence on earth but a sign and promise of God’s goal to totally redeem his faithful and recreate the earth.

In particular,

[quote author="Reisinger"] One of the great differences in the two works is that sin can never in any way mar this final “once for all” great work! God has been resting in the Redeemer´s great work ever since it was finished and he graciously calls us to enter into that rest with him (Hebrews 4:9-11; Matthew 11:28-30).

What does he mean when he says that “sin can never in any way mar this final ‘once for all’ great work”? It’s true of course that God’s salvation on behalf of man cannot be undone--His forgiveness and acceptance is now forever ensured.  But it begs the question of Why Are We Still Here, particularly given the great horrors that have unfolded over the last two thousand years and the last century in particular. Why does the earth continue to groan under the weight of the original curse (Romans 8:19) if Christ’s work was final and perfect? We are told in various places that His delay in returning is that so all might be saved. And I’m mindful of C.S. Lewis’s words to the effect that in wishing for Christ to return and end all suffering, we better be sure we know what we are asking, because when God does intervene in history, that is The End.

But how do we relate the very grand and appropriate words used in the essay to depict Christ’s ministry, death and resurrection, with the current state of things? This was the over-riding concern of the SDA founders, and it led them to construct a theology to address it.

A secondary question I had was, I wondered who Reisinger was addressing his sabbath essay to? Who was he responding to? Sunday sabbatarians within Calvinism or Christianity generally? Seventh-Day Baptists? Seventh-Day Adventists?

Glenn, you ask a question that I’m not sure can be answered on this side of heaven–"why are we still here?” Why didn’t God put an end to all this misery before now?  The apostles were operating under the assumption that Christ would return very soon, perhaps even in their lifetimes.  The Adventist pioneers also had the same focus, albeit for a slightly different purpose in building a denomination rather than fortifying the wider body of Christian believers.  Even the critics of Adventism acknowledge that their focus on the second coming of Christ was generally a positive development in the late 19th century during a time when the second coming was not given much emphasis.

As I’ve said before, the second coming is very important, however it is even more important to make today the day of salvation.  Instead of looking for signs of the end so we can “get ready”, we should be examining ourselves today to see if we are in the faith.

I think the answer to your big question about why we are still here is known only to God.  We must finally rest in the knowledge that His purposes are bigger than our own and He sees all of earth’s history at a single glance.  He has reasons for the delay, and most of us will be meeting our final destiny before Jesus returns.  The death rate is still 100%!  None of us knows how many days we have left on this earth just as nobody knows the day or the hour of Christ’s return.  Statistically speaking, however, we can deduce that our days will run out before this happens.  Knowing this, our focus should be on sharing the good news with others, furthering the gospel and making disciples of all people for Christ.  The gospel message is relevant no matter what period of history we happen to be in and no matter how soon or distant the second coming of Christ may be.

There’s more wrapped into your question such as “how can a loving God allow so much pain to continue unabated?” This is a hard question, but we must remember that our God suffered more than any man ever has when the weight humanity’s sins–past, present and future–were placed on him on the cross.  If we think our suffering is bad, we should look to the suffering of our God who loved us enough to die for us so that we might spend eternity with Him.

Regarding Reisinger’s Sabbath essay, I know he came under fire from R.C. Sproul and perhaps others because his message was considered by them to be antinomian.  He specifically argues that 9 out of the 10 commandments were reiterated in the New Testament (along with many others), and he is not arguing for a departure from the Law as a true antinomian would.  He is merely trying to be more consistent than those theologians who say that the 10 commandments are binding on Christians while they continue to “break” the fourth commandment on a weekly basis.

Glenn, thanks for your thought-provoking questions.  I don’t have all the answers and I welcome the thoughts of others, even if we don’t agree on every point.

Greg

Greg,

Basically I agree with you about how Christians should think about the second coming. 

The Second Great Awakening of which SDAism was a part and came out of I think gave a new sense of urgency to the church and a refined sense of purpose and mission.

Now with many years past, and with traditional SDA intrepretations of Bible prophesy coming under greater scrutiny, the church is struggling trying to sort out its future and new role(s), if any.

In my own journey, the question of Why Are We Still Here has taken a couple of paths; one, reassessing just what the Bible and in particular the New Testament writers actually had to say about the second coming and the end times, and whether the basis for my original understanding is really quite so clear, from the Bible itself; and the second path is what you spoke of, retreating from the somewhat doomsday approach to life spawned by a narrow focus on apocalyptic imagery and current world affairs to a broader understanding of church history, doctrinal development, and how God’s presence is meaningful to me now, in this life, not in a utopian future.

And strangely enough, the problem of suffering isn’t really an impediment to my spiritual walk, as it seems to be for so many others.  It seems par for the course, living in a world of sin.  And if we didn’t suffer, we wouldn’t always see the need for God.  My only point in raising that question was the context of Reisinger’s statement alluding to the new, more perfect age Christ had ushered in. I think the question more is, how do we understand Christ’s Kingdom on earth as a present and also future reality? There’s a book I’m reading by an Adventist academic. The author is John Brunt and the name of the book is Now and Not Yet. In the book Brunt addresses this topic.

My own view is largely that God is leaving us to our own devices, and not imperially intervening to force His Will on us. It doesn’t mean God is abandoning us. It just means that Christianity, as depicted in the gospels at least, was not a worldly kingdom that seeks to exercise political or military power or to be coercive. It is a heavenly kingdom that relies on the values outlined in the Beatitudes. So, for Christ’s kingdom to become a reality on earth, Christians must partake of the “salt” and be a light in it, rather than a sword.

And the notion of God returning to earth to destroy all non-believers always kind of bothered me, even though I was taught that if I was faithful, I would be able to endure it.  But while I still think the visible return is likely or at least possible, it seems more reasonable to me to believe that Christ wouldn’t have to return to earth to destroy his enemies or non-believers. We’re probably going to take care of that ourselves (war, terrorism, depletion of natural resources, famine and disease, etc).

The problem in historic Adventism, it seems to me, is the idea of our needing to live in the “anti-typical Day of Atonement”, which as Leviticus tells us, was a day when the congregation afflicted itself. Since historic SDA’s believe we, or at least devout SDA’s can hasten His coming, it is up to us to “afflict ourselves”.  Because of this we shouldn’t be “celebrating”, presumably either in church or in our daily lives.

This is an unfortunate stance, as it would require an endless process of self affliction, not knowing when our sadness might turn to joy.

Funny thing is, the New Testament writers didn’t talk like this.  They did advocate holy living of course.  But I was reading I Peter last night--a letter that addresses Christian persecution--and was somewhat startled to notice the many references to joy in the letter, despite the letter’s context.

But the theological conflict at the heart of the church has ramifications for the most basic aspects of church life--are we supposed to be happy, celebrating God’s love for us, or are we supposed to be sad and serious all the time and in our services.  Greg, it sounds like you ran into this in the first SDA church you visited when you were transitioning out of SDAism.

By the way, I also appreciated your retelling of your transition story above. 

[quote author="Greg"]What God will do for us if we fulfill certain conditions is not the gospel.

Well said. Should be every Christian’s motto.

And this is why the gospel of historic SDAism isn’t usually, if at all, portrayed as being good news. And if the good news isn’t good news, than I don’t know where we go from there. Of course one can always include within the gospel message references to bearing our cross or “hating father and mother” as some of the gospel passages read, to imply or infer that the gospel good news is “sharp as a two-edged sword” and paradoxically, not about “peace, but a sword”.  And of course if the gospel is most discernable for the poor and poor in spirit than to many it may not in fact be good news.

[quote author="Robert Brimsmead"]The word gospel signifies the proclamation of good news, and it has special reference to the news of victory, particularly victory in battle. The gospel of Christ is the good news of the victory of Christ. In our name and on our behalf He fought our great enemies–sin, death and the devil–and utterly defeated them (Colossians 2:15).

In historic SDA theology, the “victory” is still distant, is conditional, and is performed by us (with Jesus helping by dwelling in us).

But this--what Brimsmead is saying--is very hard to believe if, as I inquired on this or another thread, it certainly doesn’t appear to the naked eye as if Jesus has triumphed over this world or triumphed over death, since as Greg concurred on another comment, the earthly death rate is still 100%. I wonder how much this has contributed to historic SDAism’s approach to this topic and the centrality of this point to its theology. In effect, it could be seen as the reverse of faith: walking by sight instead of by faith. 

Gospel good news?

Here is a snippet from the pen of Dennis Priebe, a leading historic SDA

[quote author="Dennis Priebe"]There is an important principle in Ecclesiastes 3:1-4. “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to he born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.” In other words, things are not always wrong in and of themselves, but they are inappropriate at certain times. There was a time for killing and breaking down, but now is the time for healing and building up. The real question for us is, On the Day of Atonement, when everything is on the line for us and for Gods name and His government, is this the time for laughing and dancing? Or is the appropriate time for such behavior when the great controversy is over, and God has refuted all of the false charges brought by Satan? There will be abundant time to laugh and dance on the sea of glass, when the victory is won, but that is not today. The issue is, very simply, what is timely and proper for the Day of Atonement. We read earlier that the Day of Atonement was a time to afflict our souls, to confess our sins, and to walk humbly before God. Is not weeping and mourning more appropriate spiritual behavior right now than laughing and dancing?

“There will be abundant time to laugh and dance...when the victory is won, but that is not today .”

So what good news could there be if it hasn’t happened yet and if it awaits our performance?

It’s also worth noting the historic SDA emphasis on “the daily”.  The “daily” of Daniel 8 is usually depicted within SDAism as referring to the trampling of the Heavenly Sanctuary and the taking away of Jesus’ intercessory ministry there--i.e. of the anti-Christ gaining a victory over Christ (albeit temporarily--for 1260 years--and beyond as Christendom resides in Babylon).