I came across a new website today created to defend Adventism, in particular FAF but there is also a dialogue with Desmond Ford that I haven’t yet read.  I’ve only started looking it over but I’m wondering what some of your thoughts are on this. 

You can find the site here: http://sdaforme.cmcconnell.com/

It looks like Dale Ratzlaff has interacted with the administrator/s of this site but I haven’t seen any discussion of it as of yet on the FAF forum.

You’ll find a link to the blogpost about the creation of the site by its originator, Martin Weber here.

Aaron, thanks for those links. On that second link, we find this:

“Our good name is getting massacred by an assortment of anti-Adventist websites, usually run by out-of-touch former members.”

This is just classic. So if someone has the nerve to leave Adventism and make critical statements about the church, he is “out of touch”? I bet if someone left Catholicism for Adventism and criticized the Catholic church, he’d be treated as a hero.

“People who dislike or even despise Adventists are defining us to our neighbors.”

Adventists have done a good job defining themselves. Remember Ellen White’s quote about the name “Seventh-day Adventist” being a “standing rebuke” to the Christian world?

Greg

Greg - 18 August 2009 09:00 PM

Adventists have done a good job defining themselves. Remember Ellen White’s quote about the name “Seventh-day Adventist” being a “standing rebuke” to the Christian world?

Exactly, Greg. And yet, check out the following FAQ on his site: What was Ellen White’s attitude toward non-SDA Christians? The revisionism is incredible!

Jeremy

Another quote:

“Mark Finley’s explanation of the SDA doctrine of judgment was profoundly deep yet astonishingly simple. The root problem was that we were imposing our Western understanding of judgment upon that biblical doctrine. To the ancient Hebrews, judgment meant first of all vindication, not condemnation. The name “Daniel,” for example, means “God is my judge”—my vindicator and deliverer.  In the book of Judges, you don’t see a bunch of condemners going around; the judges were deliverers of God’s people. To apply this reality to the pre-Advent judgment: God is vindicating His people in heaven’s sanctuary, delivering them from the devil’s accusations. He finds all the evidence He needs to justify us in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior and High Priest.

That key insight was the tipping point for me. I realized that the core Adventist teaching of the judgment was not inherently legalistic at all. Western presuppositions imposed upon Scripture had caused an unnecessary doctrinal dilemma. I was delighted to discover that Ellen White herself began picking up this theme of vindication in heaven’s pre-Advent judgment in her later writings.” Source here.

This is quite confusing. So Ellen White’s initial visions about what was happening in heaven after 1844 were wrong? She certainly shared the “Western view” of judgment at that point in time. How does this definition of “judgment” reconcile with Ellen White’s assertion that an unconfessed sin would render a Christian guilty in the investigative judgment?

The bottom line is that for Ellen White’s writings to match Scripture, you need to do a lot of verbal gymnastics, redefining words and ascribing motives to her that are not at all clear in her writings.

Greg

Jeremy, that’s a serious revision. Where are these examples of Ellen White collaborating with Christians? She taught that these folks are spiritual Babylon and are to be separated from, not joined.

I am not sure how the author of this website expects former Adventists to be swayed by these types of arguments. Oh, I forgot, I am “out of touch” so I can’t be expected to understand. Please excuse my sarcasm, but this is really too much.

Greg

Hey guys, he’s my favorite Adventist author. I have read a lot of his books, including “Some Call It Heresy” and was, for a time, satisfied with his gospel. In my view, he’s the Adventist author who articulates a version of the Adventist gospel which is closest to the real gospel.

His writings were a step in the right direction for me when I was in Adventism, but when God made me understand the gospel, I found his position inadequate, falling short of providing the answer I was looking for. So, when I left Adventism, I was not out of touch with Martin Weber’s views. He should be aware that he’s not providing anything new for former Adventists.

The guy has quite a story in which he was deeply involved in seeking perfection, trying all the stuff the traditional Adventist put forward. So he eat a lot of the historical Adventist “gospel” in order to understand that it’s not a true gospel.  Why is he endorsing Adventism?

Greg - 18 August 2009 09:21 PM

This is quite confusing. So Ellen White’s initial visions about what was happening in heaven after 1844 were wrong? She certainly shared the “Western view” of judgment at that point in time. How does this definition of “judgment” reconcile with Ellen White’s assertion that an unconfessed sin would render a Christian guilty in the investigative judgment?

The bottom line is that for Ellen White’s writings to match Scripture, you need to do a lot of verbal gymnastics, redefining words and ascribing motives to her that are not at all clear in her writings.

He’s arguing that Ellen White grew in understanding and uses John the Baptist as an example of a “legalist true prophet”. Look here

That desert prophet who announced the coming Messiah suffered from serious theological error. When people asked him how to be saved, he put them on a works trip. The apostle Paul even had to rebaptize converts confused by his misunderstanding of the Gospel. Yes, John did announce: “Behold the Lamb of God,” but he obviously didn’t realize what he was talking about. When Jesus fulfilled that role, John questioned whether He was indeed the true Messiah. Yet despite John’s theological error and confusion, Jesus endorsed him as among the greatest of the prophets.

Pretty smart answer, but, John was a prophet of the Old Covenant pronouncing God’s cursing on Israel for disobedience and blessings for obedience. The principle of the Old Covenant “Do this and you should live” was at the basis for John’s ministry. He was, as the law is, a schoolmaster leading people to Christ.

I like to interact with Weber. While he’s articulate and provides smart answers, he’s “out of touch” with the covenants.

Gabriel

Thanks Gabriel for that clarification. The problem with the progressive view of truth when it comes to Ellen White is that the Adventist church has never moved to help the reader know what is true and what is false. It is all packaged and sold as “The Spirit of Prophecy”. Ellen White herself said that her writings were a single chain of unbroken truth and without a single heretical sentence. It is one thing to say that she progressively learned truth over time, but quite another to disagree with her explicit claims to the contrary. Unless of course those iron-clad statements from God were not really from God—a thorny problem, isn’t it?

Greg

Oh my! I hadn’t seen the first part of that quote that Gabriel posted from Weber about John the Baptist. Once again, we see that SDAs have to tear down the Bible prophets in order to hold onto Ellen. I can’t believe he is claiming that John the Baptist was preaching a false gospel!

Jeremy

http://sdaforme.cmcconnell.com/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=38268

How can we have assurance in the judgment?
Here is a personal experience Martin had that illustrates to him the meaning of judgment for Christians.  One sunny day he rode the Amtrak rails from Los Angeles to San Diego.  As the train skimmed the beautiful Pacific coastline, the conductor began his judgment of who was worthy to ride his train.  Since Martin held a ticket, he felt no threat to secure passage.  It was predetermined that his worthiness was based exclusively on that ticket.  Thus the investigation was not of his achievements or fail¬ures, but of his claim to hold the ticket.  The inspection did not threaten his security, but manifested it.

Likewise with us before God.  We must all give account of what we did with our ticket, which is redemption through accepting our position in Jesus.  But our personal worthiness from Adam, which was condemned at Calvary, does not even qualify for investigation. Only our claim to have lived by faith in Jesus is evaluated. We choose our verdict in the judgment by identifying ourselves with Christ’s act of justification instead of Adam’s act of condemnation.

If we have chosen to receive Jesus, we need not fear the judgment.  But if we have rejected Him through rebellion or neglect, we are already condemned.  This world is considered sinful, Christ taught, “because they do not believe in Me” (John 16:9).

Passengers can’t purchase tickets and then discard them, or they have no claim to the train.  For us as well, since it’s possible to rebel and leave Jesus, there is no such thing as once saved, always saved.  Our initial acceptance of Him does not guarantee that we want His life today.  Day by day we must receive renewal in Christ, “who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us” (Rom. 8:34).

Martin Weber sounds as evangelical as he can as an Adventist. Apparently his view is no different than the correct view: those people who are justified before God, who pass the judgment, are also sanctified, and have fruits. And it seems only normal to say that those who are sanctified are the only people who are justified.

The radical difference between the biblical gospel and Weber’s gospel is:

1. Biblical gospel: sanctification is the fruit of justification. Consequently justification is not conditioned by sanctification. We are not accounted righteous in God’s sight and received into his kingdom because we are sanctified, or because the condition of sanctification is met by us. It’s unconditional, free.

2. Weber’s gospel makes justification conditioned by sanctification. He says that justification, what we receive at the beginning of the Christian life can be lost by a failure to met the condition of sanctification, “day by day” receiving of “renewal in Christ”, and what is evaluated at the judgment is “our claim to have lived by faith in Jesus”. “Living by faith” = living a Christian life = sanctification. So, our claim to be sanctified is evaluated and if our claim to have true faith is validated, we pass the test.

That’s a serious mistake, confusing the fruit of grace with the condition of grace. Practically God looks for fruit in the judgment to decide if he will receive us into heaven. This difference between sanctification being a condition of justification and sanctification as the fruit of justification is old as the Reformation. It represents the dividing line between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

This confusion is fatal, because apparently Martin Weber’s position is that only justification is what counts in the judgment since “our personal worthiness from Adam, which was condemned at Calvary, does not even qualify for investigation”. Apparently he teaches imputation but that’s just apparent. On a different thread I wrote this and consider worthy of repeating here:

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 31 July 2009 09:00 AM

We are justified by something in which we had no share, consequently why investigate our lives in order to see if we fulfill some conditions, if we share in some of his righteousness? Christ had no share in our sins, we had no share in his righteousness. As Christ didn’t need to manifest sin in his life in order to be condemned, we didn’t need to manifest righteousness in our life, a transformation, in order to be justified and accepted into heaven. The Investigative Judgment strikes at the heart of this concept of double imputation by making justification and entrance into heaven dependent on sanctification.

I’m going to look at those exchanges Martin Weber had with Desmond Ford.

Gabriel

I spent a lot of time reading Weber’s site and his story, and like Gabriel I believe he at least comes close to the gospel. I think other evangelical apologists reading his site would judge that Weber is indeed a true Christian, and I believe from reading his material that this is true.

I just think that he is in denial. I am surprised he did not leave the SDA church after he was treated in such a poor manner by the leadership. He just seems to want to justify being an SDA in any way he can. He certainly does not hold the same view of EGW as traditionalists and if you read other threads on what he says about EGW, he could come under criticism from the SDA church.

If this man is an honest seeker of truth as he claims, then I hope he would come on here and defend his views. This seems like an opportunity to dialogue, if he would come on here?

Does anyone think a dialogue would be productive? is it possible that this is someone who could be open to more truth and be brought to a better understanding of the gospel.

Stan

Stan,

I welcome such dialogue. I have not had a chance to review Weber’s site thoroughly, however I do want to say I appreciated his honesty about some of the troubles he faced in the Adventist church. At one point, he even identified what he experienced as spiritual abuse. This is an unusual admission from someone who appears to be an Adventist apologist. That said, I am troubled by some of the repackaging of Adventist history and doctrine that he has done. Maybe he would like to have an open dialogue about his ideas here, where comments are not moderated and there is an open platform for both Adventists and former Adventists to express and defend their beliefs. I did notice his site was moderated and I think this is a significant barrier to any two-way discussion.

Greg

I’ve been looking over some of the FAQ section of the site and have been quite underwhelmed by the very short, half-hearted and same old same old responses to traditionally hot-button areas like Colossians 2 and Romans 14… Paul’s talking about ceremonial Sabbaths, the holy days in Romans 14 aren’t talking about the Sabbath, etc.  For those of us who are familiar with these sorts of debates or discussions there doesn’t seem to be anything very new here.

Here’s an example of an underwhelming response to a highlighted question:

Q: How do you know EGW was a true prophet?

A: She was moving in right direction, which is the proof of being inspired by the Holy Spirit, Jesus said: “When He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

Huh? That’s it?  And we know EGW is true why?  Because since we know she’s true and John said the Holy Spirit will guide us in into all truth we know that she’s led by the Holy Spirit and thus true?  This is clearly circular reasoning unless I’m just not understanding what he’s trying to say in this instance.  I would like Martin to clarify this explanation and also what “moving in right direction” means.  Incrementally less error than before?

On the upside, the tone does seem less vitriolic than many of the other sites and discussion forums out there and he deserves some credit for that.  Further, he isn’t hiding behind some anonymous moniker where he can just spout off with no accountability but he puts his identity and background out there for all to see as a conference employee.

Stan Ermshar - 19 August 2009 05:40 PM

I just think that he is in denial. I am surprised he did not leave the SDA church after he was treated in such a poor manner by the leadership. He just seems to want to justify being an SDA in any way he can. He certainly does not hold the same view of EGW as traditionalists and if you read other threads on what he says about EGW, he could come under criticism from the SDA church.

If this man is an honest seeker of truth as he claims, then I hope he would come on here and defend his views. This seems like an opportunity to dialogue, if he would come on here?

Does anyone think a dialogue would be productive? is it possible that this is someone who could be open to more truth and be brought to a better understanding of the gospel.

While I’m for a dialogue and I put my trust in God for the outcome, I’m not feeling positive about the chances that Weber will change his mind.

Stan, you’re a regular listener of White Horse Inn, and I think that you know very well what the guys said about mixing the gospel with law, resulting in “glawspel”. In such cases, the bad news about ourselves is not as bad as it should be, and consequently the good news is not as good as it should be. The law, being mixed with gospel, with grace, is prevented to do it’s work, namely, to be terrifying enough by asking exact and perfect obedience from the sinner in order to make him feel that there is no chance for him to be perfect outside of Christ.

Martin Weber had an unusual experience in seeking perfection to the degree that he went to extremes in pursuing perfection. He came to the point where he spent an entire night in prayer in order to have the same power as Jesus had to overcome sin, and life became miserable for him that he secretly wished to be dead and at some point he was close to death in a car accident when he almost fell asleep.

He seems to get the message of the law when he says that only Christ’s imputed righteousness can count in the judgment because only this righteousness is perfect enough to meet the standard.

It was predetermined that his worthiness was based exclusively on that ticket.  Thus the investigation was not of his achievements or fail¬ures, but of his claim to hold the ticket.  The inspection did not threaten his security, but manifested it.

The ticket is Christ’s righteousness which is credited to our account, not our performance, or as he puts it, our achievements. He’s clear that the investigation does not deal with “achievements or failures.” He seems to understand that what it happens in us is not investigated, the only thing that counts is what happens outside of us, what happened with Christ, who lived for us a perfect life, died for our sins and had been resurrected for our justification.

Despite this positive and correct view of the law, he’s ruining his entire case:

Only our claim to have lived by faith in Jesus is evaluated. [...]
Day by day we must receive renewal in Christ

It seems that after all, our achievements and failures in living the Christian life are indeed evaluated. Our success in cooperating with God’s grace, in making this grace efficient in our lives, of maintaining a relation with God in receiving the daily renewal, all these things are evaluated. The question is: by what standard? It’s by law, by God’s perfect standard, or by a lower standard, some law and grace mixed, in which God accepts, out of grace our imperfect deeds?

While not stated explicitly, it’s evident that Martin will not opt for an evaluation by the standard of God’s perfect law, because he’s consistent in affirming the impossibility of perfection. Consequently, the standard by which God evaluates our performance is lesser than God’s perfection, is something lower, a law mixed with grace. Look here at the lower standard which we have to met in order to benefit of God’s grace in Christ:

From the world of baseball comes an illustration to help us understand the judgment:  As our representative, Jesus pinch hit a home run, the game-winning hit for all humanity.  But our run will not count for us unless we circle the base paths with Him; He will hold our hand.  In Adam’s sinful flesh, we are born into the devil’s dugout and there is plenty to keep us preoccupied.  God must first get our attention to inform us of Adam’s game-losing error and our inability to even the score.  Next He proclaims the wonderful work of Jesus.  Having acquainted us with these saving facts, He then seeks to persuade us that what He offers in Christ is worth more than Adam’s toys of sin and tools of self-improvement.  He urges us to repent of our foolishness, exchange what Adam offers for what Christ offers, and circle the “straight and narrow” base paths with Jesus.  But we must stay out of the batters’ box; there’s no need for us to manufacture a righteous batting average.  For us to “swing a bat” would be to deny Jesus.  Having already struck out for eternity in Adam, we cannot now compete with Christ’s accomplishments for us.  We accept salvation as a gift and keep God’s commandments in love.
http://sdaforme.cmcconnell.com/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=38267

1. Swing the bat = perfect obedience (only Jesus)
2. circle the base paths with Christ = our imperfect obedience (that doesn’t match Christ’s obedience)

Well, “our run will not count” until we do no. 2. Justification does not count or is worthless if we are not obeying, albeit imperfectly, and after we do this, after we are investigated for obeying imperfectly (after some less than perfect standard), Christ’s imputed righteousness counts.

By making the standard of judgment a lesser than a perfect standard, Weber is, in practical terms taking all the force of the law to condemn all sin, setting the stage for human imperfection to pass the standard, and losing all that he had learned about the law until this point. All the precious lessons resulting from the pursuing of perfection to the extremes that Luther did are also lost at this point. He’s no longer feeling the utter impossibility to meet God’s standards in the judgment, he’s no longer feeling what long ago he felt, that he needs to be perfect, that God requires him to be perfect, he feels that now God requires him to obey to a certain degree in order to pass the evaluation. In a certain way, the law for him, after it had powerfully worked in his life, lost the capacity and ability to bring him to Christ in desperation of his truly sinful condition.

He lived so long time in this tension: holding two irreconcilable positions about the law: the reformed and the adventist position and two irreconcilable gospels. He had so long lived in such a tension that I doubt anything I can say will have an effect. He already knows the true gospel, he already knows the true meaning of the law. He’s just not willing to be consistent with it and at the practical level he lives in the realm of the adventist gospel.

If it was years ago when he still thought that God requires even from his saints perfect obedience in order to pass the judgment, the offer of the gospel would have sound sweet for him. But now, since God seems to operate on a different standard in the judgment, a lesser standard, he’s not at all under pressure to offer perfect obedience. He’s at ease with his position since he uses the true gospel to evade the pressure of being perfect. He’s in a worse position than he was a long time ago when he was closer to the gospel because he was closer to the law: perfection required, no hope but Christ’s perfection imputed to me.

There are years of living in such a situation, consequently, while not being optimistic about a dialogue, I’m intrigued about such a possibility and I would like very much to watch how you (Stan) will engage Weber in such a conversation.

Gabriel

It would seem that the exacting requirements of the Law is actually their ‘good intentions’ to do so plus God taking up the slack (their definition of grace) in their feeble attempts, thus gaining the right to claim they actually do.

I believe that the Arminian free will/synergistic position either results in or stems from a distorted concept of sinfulness and grace. Until the two parties are in agreement with these terms, dialogue will be fruitless

A recent post on CARM illustrates this

Quote by Patti in reference to her OP: S.A. (sinners anonymous) where she openly confesses her sinfulness

“.. by some of the reactions to this thread.

I am more than taken aback by the hostility that has arisen due to this simple confession. I really don’t know what to make of it. Why my confession of my own sinfulness somehow an afront to others I will never understand.”

My response:

‘I’m not. Those who deny their sinful nature consider sinful as being what you do, not what you are. Anyone admitting they are sinful are, in their eyes, reveling in their sinful acts.

The denial of

Psalms 51:5 (AMP) Behold, I was brought forth in [a state of] iniquity; my mother was sinful who conceived me [and I too am sinful].

renders this as incomprehensible

Ephesians 2:5 (AMP) Even when we were dead (slain) by [our own] shortcomings and trespasses, He made us alive together in fellowship and in union with Christ; [He gave us the very life of Christ Himself, the same new life with which He quickened Him, for] it is by grace (His favor and mercy which you did not deserve) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation).

Ephesians 2:8 (AMP) For it is by free grace that you are saved through your faith. And this salvation is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;

Tit 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
…

And in response to a detractor who stated: “So true. We’re all sinners, but we can’t embrace it and revel in it.”

‘I embrace the reality that I am ‘guilty of sin from birth’ and ‘dead in trespasses’ and revel in God’s grace!’

John

Aaron - 19 August 2009 09:28 PM

Here’s an example of an underwhelming response to a highlighted question:

Q: How do you know EGW was a true prophet?

A: She was moving in right direction, which is the proof of being inspired by the Holy Spirit, Jesus said: “When He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

Huh? That’s it?  And we know EGW is true why?  Because since we know she’s true and John said the Holy Spirit will guide us in into all truth we know that she’s led by the Holy Spirit and thus true?  This is clearly circular reasoning unless I’m just not understanding what he’s trying to say in this instance.  I would like Martin to clarify this explanation and also what “moving in right direction” means.  Incrementally less error than before?

Exactly, Aaron. And notice that he’s saying that the reason we can know that EGW was a true prophet is because she...taught error and her prophetic foundation was falsehood! If she was “moving in the right direction” then that means she started out in error/falsehood and never even got to the point of teaching truth/only truth!

And this is what he calls the proof of a true prophet! So would a false prophet then be someone who starts with 100% absolute truth and moves “in the wrong direction"/towards error?

He’s simply making an absolute mockery of the concepts of inspiration and prophecy.

Jeremy