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

Gabriel,

Thank you for taking the time to share this with us. I’m short on time so I hope that this follow-up post makes sense?

This exchange between two “Pastors” is very disturbing. While reading it, what came to mind was: yet again they demote Christ and anthropomorphize our Creator! They do this by willfully applying human (a.k.a. depraved) reasoning to Him who is infinitely Just, Perfect, and Intelligent. Yet His love was so great that He allowed “His only begotten Son” to be subjected to torture, to humiliation, and to suffer death!  How could any believer, let alone a “Pastor” ask the question: “Could God forgive sin without the death of Jesus?” when Christ himself revealed the answer to us when He prayed: 

42"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)

He very well knew the answer before he asked the question; and in the same precious sentence He deferred faultlessly to the perfect will of the Father.  Then came to Jesus, a clear affirmation of the Father’s just will, in the form of an angel’s supportive actions:

43An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. (Luke 22:43)

Yet, the increased strength did not diminish the mental torment and suffering of our Lord:

44And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. (Luke 22:44)

Now, with all of this in consideration, who in their right mind could suggest that there might have been another way to accomplish the sovereign will of the Father?!?!

Gabriel,

Who were these two SDA pastors?

This man made theology of Graham Maxwell and so many others is taking a real hold right now in Adventism, and in the liberal circles of the emergent church.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 25 August 2008 09:31 PM

Gabriel,

Who were these two SDA pastors?

This man made theology of Graham Maxwell and so many others is taking a real hold right now in Adventism, and in the liberal circles of the emergent church.

Stan

Stan,

The show is online for anybody to watch it, it was aired from Chicago, they are Romanian pastors, one of them in Chicago, one in London in Romanian speaking Adventist Churches. I know both of them personally from the time than they were in Romania.

One of them had played a big role in my decision to become a minister in the Adventist Church because he challenged people to think for themselves, to study the Bible, to ask questions and search in the Bible for answers. He had a charisma and I think that because I was imbued with his Sola Scriptura, Bible alone principle, I was willing to be led by the Bible where I’m today. His second name is Edmond, and one of the names of my son is Edmond in honor of the role he played in my life. I will ever be grateful for entering in my life at a time when I was on the brink of becoming an agnostic.

I recognize today that God used him in a sovereign way , because for others he was a curse. He had a taste for sensationalism, something which he still has, he had a taste for being popular with the youth, and because he was brilliant, he was able to introduce subtly different ideas which he imported from other places. F.T. Wright, the leader of the Sabbath Rest Advent Church, a split from the SDA Church. And F.T. Wright was on the same line as Graham Maxwell regarding his opposition to the penal view of atonement.

The other pastor was for a time banned from the pulpit because he assumed the role of the leader of this movement which endorsed F.T.Wright in Romania, but he recanted, and regained his position as pastor.

Now, their ideas are not new for me, but I’m deeply disturbed by the subtleties of their position. On the blog attached to the video presentation of their show, nobody perceived the denial of the penal substitutionary view of atonement, even if theoretically this is the official position of the SDA Church. It passed unnoticed and I became more alarmed when even my scholar Adventist friend affirmed that the idea was that Jesus could die in the garden, and not on the cross, but the cross was necessary for the others to see and watch the show. I protested and plainly spoke my mind to him, and even if he gave his approval, still on the blog he criticized other ideas, not this one.

My conclusion after seeing all these things happening is that the Adventist Church is able to tolerate heretical views about the atonement as those exhibited by Graham Maxwell, but is not willing to tolerate people who are orthodox on the understanding of the atonement like Des Ford. This is a clear signal what is more important for the SDA Church. The cross is not as important as Ellen White and the Investigative Judgment. Graham Maxwell is denying the atonement and he’s still an Adventist, as these pastors. The SDA Church pays them as long as they give lip service to the Investigative Judgment and Ellen White, and simply don’t care too much what they believe about the gospel.

I remember an old book coming from a guy who suddenly disappeared from the public Adventist scene, he was an associate editor of Ministry Magazine, if I remember correctly, Martin Weber. He wrote a book “Who’s Got the Truth?” in which he critically interacted with 5 different gospels preached by Adventists’ gurus: Jack Sequeira, Graham Maxwell, Morris Venden, George Knight, and Ralph Larson. I wonder why he’s silent from that time on. In my view, his book and the critique he offered to the others was the closest protestant view of salvation I found in Adventism. I wonder if his critical attitude had not brought him in trouble. He was still an Arminian and wrote a book in defense of IJ from this perspective but a very diluted version of it. His book “Who’s Got the Truth?” highlighted the fact that the SDA Church is not at all clear about what the gospel is, but is divided in different camps with different school of thought.

Gabriel

“I remember an old book coming from a guy who suddenly disappeared from the public Adventist scene, he was an associate editor of Ministry Magazine, if I remember correctly, Martin Weber. He wrote a book “Who’s Got the Truth?” in which he critically interacted with 5 different gospels preached by Adventists’ gurus: Jack Sequeira, Graham Maxwell, Morris Venden, George Knight, and Ralph Larson. I wonder why he’s silent from that time on. In my view, his book and the critique he offered to the others was the closest protestant view of salvation I found in Adventism. I wonder if his critical attitude had not brought him in trouble.”

Martin Weber remains a loyal SDA and continues to speak in SDA circles. I heard him speak last summer. Good man. I think he expresses the typical beliefs of Adventism. And that old comparison book of his is good. I have it on my bookshelf. I think it was a good start for dialogue in our church.

Glorify Him - 26 August 2008 03:03 PM

Martin Weber remains a loyal SDA and continues to speak in SDA circles.
I heard him speak last summer. Good man. I think he expresses the typical beliefs of Adventism. And that old comparison book of his is good. I have it on my bookshelf. I think it was a good start for dialogue in our church.

So he had not made any progress in understanding the gospel since he wrote “Some Call It Heresy”. I was thinking about him in the word that Jesus spoke to somebody in Mark 12:34 ““You are not far from the kingdom of God.” Because of his own misconceptions about the gospel, Martin Weber helped me to come closer to an understanding of the gospel than many others, I read his books when I was studying for the ministry. Still His readings are not clear enough to help somebody convinced of the cultic doctrine of the Investigative Judgment to embrace the gospel of God’s free grace. Sola Gratia, Grace Alone, Sola Fide, Faith Alone, and Soli Deo Gloria are unfortunately not present in his Arminian writings. As usually, the gospel of Arminianism proves to be a hindrance to a clear vision about God’s sovereign grace.

Gabriel

At Together For the Gospel 2008, Albert Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, in his presentation entitled Why Do They Hate It So? The Doctrine of Substitution, said something interesting about his own denominational problems in struggling with the biblical expression blood of Christ. The so called pagan blood religion of the OT, rejected by the modern “Christians” schools of thought made it’s effect to the degree that they deliberately changed a word in the “hymn” of the Seminary.

Composed at the foundation of the Seminary by Basil Manly, Jr, the first verse in the original was

Soldiers of Christ, in truth arrayed,
A world in ruins needs your aid:
A world by sin destroyed and dead;
A world for which the Savior bled.

When the Seminary came under the influence of those who hated the doctrine of substitutionary penal view of atonement, the hymn was modified. The last word was changed from bled to died.

A world by sin destroyed and dead;
A world for which the Savior died

When Albert Mohler became the President of the Seminary he changed the hymn again to the original, and to Mohler’s surprise, a faculty member of the old regime came to him and said that he was pleased by the change. Mohler was also pleased also that he was pleased, but as the former faculty member continued talking about the reason he was pleased, Albert Mohler lost any pleasure. “I’m glad you changed the hymn. It was bad poetry.”

Gabriel