Jeremy,

After I smiled after reading your post, I thought about other possible explanation that may resolve in good jesuitical fashion the tension between “nothing has changed” and “no posts allowed”. I remembered how adventists explain the following text

But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.  Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him. Luke 20:37,38

When confronted with the claim that the soul survives the death of the body and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, since God is God of the living, they explain this by appealing to resurrection, in virtue of which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive. Even if they today have no life, we are told, they are alive in virtue of their future resurrection, and the text says nothing about their present state. In this way, the first part of the text is at odds with the last part, which clearly affirm “all live to him”, verb indicative present in greek. It’s perfectly clear that this text describes a present state of facts, not a future state. God is today God of the living, not of the dead.

Coming back to our site, the parallel argument will be that, because in the future Martin Weber promised to open the blog again for those who want to post and ask question, nothing changed, even if the present position the blog is closed to any questions. The blog is alive and very well in virtue of its future life in spite of it’s present deadness.

I hope this answers your concerns, Dennis.

Gabriel

Jeremy,

The same office secretary reported that at least two former Adventists have returned to the “ark of safety” as a direct result of this new pro-SDA website.  It seems very unlikely that they would be able to make such a claim within only three weeks.  As you already know, Seventh-day Adventist apologists are notorious for hyperbole (exaggeration) in their numbers game.  The Sabbath School class members have been asked to fervently pray for this new pro-SDA website.

Moreover, this lady has reported to her SS class an extraordinary amount of hits on the new website.  If that was really the case, they were totally unprepared for the enormous response from former Adventists asking some real hard questions.  With no further discussion allowed, their website will likely receive alot less attention and Dr. Weber will no longer have sleepless nights.  Any dialogue kills the intent of their website--making it largely anti-Adventist instead.  However, without any dialogue allowed, how can they hope to regain the formers to their exclusive franchise from heaven?

Dennis Fischer

Dennis - 19 September 2009 07:41 AM

However, without any dialogue allowed, how can they hope to regain the formers to their exclusive franchise from heaven?

I doubt that the site’s goal is to regain the formers, in spite of the claims to the contrary. I think their target is to keep those who just came into contact with the serious criticism of the sda theology, and make it appear that there are reasonable answers. When these answers are questioned and their weakness exposed, it’s time to close the interaction. That was the typical approach, they try to answer at a superficial level, when your questions go deeper, they are out of answers.

Gabriel

Good points, Gabriel!  With hiring limits and wage freezes in place, the SDA Church is suffering in this economic downturn.

Dennis Fischer

Dennis,

I found a comment by Martin Weber that may arouse your attention, since the existence of the soul and the corresponding eternal punishment are one of your favorite subjects. Arguing against the evangelical concept of atonement finished on the cross, Weber says at this link:

Many Christians would be surprised to learn from the Bible that not all atonement is salvation atonement.  Punishment of sinners also is called atonement. When an Israelite leader brought a prostitute into his tent, Phinehas, grandson of Aaron the high priest, took a spear and killed them both.  By punishing the sinner for his crime he “made atonement for the sons of Israel” (Num. 25:13).  Divine justice was expiated by the death of the guilty. A similar example is the “atonement” made for the murder of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1 3).  The stoning of greedy Achan is another exhibit of divine disfavor being atoned for in the execution of the evildoer.  Evidently all punishment for sin is considered atonement.  Those who refuse the atoning sacrifice of Christ will receive their own punishment and provide their own atonement at the end of the world.  Not until hell’s cleansing fire turns to ashes will atonement finally be finished.

Obviously Weber reads too much in the typological atonement prefigured by the death, the first death, of the sinner who was temporary punished for his sin. That this punishment was not the actual atonement, the real deal, is immediately clear when we think that the Israelite leader will face the second death, the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). God is just and doesn’t punish sin twice, consequently the first punishment described in Numbers is a part of the final punishment. But if this is true atonement, and the sinners are providing their own atonement, expiating their sins by paying in full the debts they had toward God and satisfy his justice, this raises the question: why are not these people, once they payed in full their debts, free? Once they finish the atonement for their sins, is any obstacle that will prevent them to enjoy heaven? A criminal who pays for his wrongs with a number of years in prison, once he arrives at the end of his punishment, once he satisfied the justice that required a certain and limited amount of punishment, is free to return to his previous life of freedom. Logically Weber’s view leads to universalism, all sinners, after they made atonement, are free to go to heaven.

There is a big IF, it’s the “IF they can atone for their sin”, and “can” is a real possibility only IF (another if) our debt to God is finite and not infinite. Adventist opt for the first situation, our debt to God is finite. The Christians, in the great majority, opt for the second situation, our debt to God is infinite. The contrast between these views become clearer when the implication of them are spelled out and follow as necessary and logical conclusion.

If our debt to God for our sins is infinite since we sinned against an infinite good and holy God, being guilty of an infinite evil, the wicked will pay for their sins for an infinite time, always paying their debts and never paying the entire price, never paying in full, never finishing to “make atonement”, if we would adopt Weber’s category. If our debt toward God would be payed, it becomes evident that only an infinite person can pay an infinite debt. Since only God is infinite, only the Son of God was able to pay this debt. That’s why in the history of the Christian church, people understood that Christ’s divinity is essential for providing a real solution to man’s problem. If Christ is not infinite, no full atonement, but if He is, a full atonement was made by Him when he suffered for our sins on the cross. No further atonement needed, just the thought that now Christ is making atonement in the heaven is blasphemy, being no better than the Roman Catholic Church’s idea that in the mass, or Eucharist, Christ is making a bloodless atonement.

It becomes obvious that the necessity for an infinite person to make atonement for sin evaporates if the debt is finite. Man can provide, as Weber explicitly wrote, his own atonement. No need for Christ’s death, or no need for Christ to be fully God, infinite, He can be the Jesus of Arians. Man is truly able to save himself by undergoing the punishment for his own sins, and, logically, nothing can prevent him to enjoy heaven forever. Universalism and annihilationism run closely one to another, but fortunately, only because of a very good and useful inconsistency believers in annihilationism, like adventists, don’t become universalists. Only when somebody like Weber speaks freely about how they understand the final punishment, the close proximity of their paths become clear. Anyway, it becomes clear to me as time goes on why more and more adventists are rejecting the penal substitutionary atonement and the church allows this situation without taking disciplinary actions against people who promote the moral influence view of the atonement like Graham Maxwell. It’s not necessary, it’s not a sine qua non, neither Christ’s infinity. Beside interests for their image as true evangelicals, the leaders have no problem with members of their churches being Arians. Even if they are not Arians or followers of Graham Maxwell, the others don’t pay much attention to the disputes. It’s not an issue for them, because they don’t realize the importance of the doctrines they claim to believe.

Somebody from White Horse Inn quoted a theologian who said that if God is removed from Charles Finney’s Systematic Theology, the work will not suffer at all. With or without God, Finney’s theology is the same. It is the same with Adventism: with or without Christ as infinite God, with or without His penal substitutionary atonement, it doesn’t matter. The internal coherence of the theological system of adventism doesn’t suffer at all. I often heard the question: “And if Christ has a beginning in time, does is really matter? What’s the difference?” I learned that a realistical answer to this question is: “For you, it doesn’t matter”

Gabriel

Gabriel,

Thanks for sharing the quote from Martin Weber.  You have provided excellent points that expose the leniency of official Adventism in allowing the moral influence theory to thrive in their midst.  The Lord Jesus is not a very big deal to them after all.  In stark contrast, however, the withholding of tithe gets the attention of SDA leaders very quickly.  The Adventist pastor who does not comply with the SDA working policy about tithing will be called on the red carpet without any delay. 

Moreover, the non-tithing pastor may be given the option of either paying the back tithe and keep current on tithe in order to keep his job or get fired immediately for non-compliance. Obviously and sadly, in SDA parlance, not tithing is of greater consequence and significance than negating the substitutionary atonement of Christ.  As with other cults, in Adventist circles money speaks louder than aberrant soteriological views.  Dr. Maxwell and his team of heretics continue to enjoy lots of respect in official Adventism whereas Dr. Ford got fired for exposing an unbiblical doctrine.  Truly, legalism is never consistent.

Dennis Fischer

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 20 September 2009 02:07 PM

Dennis,

I found a comment by Martin Weber that may arouse your attention, since the existence of the soul and the corresponding eternal punishment are one of your favorite subjects. Arguing against the evangelical concept of atonement finished on the cross, Weber says at this link:

Many Christians would be surprised to learn from the Bible that not all atonement is salvation atonement.  Punishment of sinners also is called atonement. When an Israelite leader brought a prostitute into his tent, Phinehas, grandson of Aaron the high priest, took a spear and killed them both.  By punishing the sinner for his crime he “made atonement for the sons of Israel” (Num. 25:13).  Divine justice was expiated by the death of the guilty. A similar example is the “atonement” made for the murder of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1 3).  The stoning of greedy Achan is another exhibit of divine disfavor being atoned for in the execution of the evildoer.  Evidently all punishment for sin is considered atonement.  Those who refuse the atoning sacrifice of Christ will receive their own punishment and provide their own atonement at the end of the world.  Not until hell’s cleansing fire turns to ashes will atonement finally be finished.

Obviously Weber reads too much in the typological atonement prefigured by the death, the first death, of the sinner who was temporary punished for his sin. That this punishment was not the actual atonement, the real deal, is immediately clear when we think that the Israelite leader will face the second death, the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). God is just and doesn’t punish sin twice, consequently the first punishment described in Numbers is a part of the final punishment. But if this is true atonement, and the sinners are providing their own atonement, expiating their sins by paying in full the debts they had toward God and satisfy his justice, this raises the question: why are not these people, once they payed in full their debts, free? Once they finish the atonement for their sins, is any obstacle that will prevent them to enjoy heaven? A criminal who pays for his wrongs with a number of years in prison, once he arrives at the end of his punishment, once he satisfied the justice that required a certain and limited amount of punishment, is free to return to his previous life of freedom. Logically Weber’s view leads to universalism, all sinners, after they made atonement, are free to go to heaven.

There is a big IF, it’s the “IF they can atone for their sin”, and “can” is a real possibility only IF (another if) our debt to God is finite and not infinite. Adventist opt for the first situation, our debt to God is finite. The Christians, in the great majority, opt for the second situation, our debt to God is infinite. The contrast between these views become clearer when the implication of them are spelled out and follow as necessary and logical conclusion.

If our debt to God for our sins is infinite since we sinned against an infinite good and holy God, being guilty of an infinite evil, the wicked will pay for their sins for an infinite time, always paying their debts and never paying the entire price, never paying in full, never finishing to “make atonement”, if we would adopt Weber’s category. If our debt toward God would be payed, it becomes evident that only an infinite person can pay an infinite debt. Since only God is infinite, only the Son of God was able to pay this debt. That’s why in the history of the Christian church, people understood that Christ’s divinity is essential for providing a real solution to man’s problem. If Christ is not infinite, no full atonement, but if He is, a full atonement was made by Him when he suffered for our sins on the cross. No further atonement needed, just the thought that now Christ is making atonement in the heaven is blasphemy, being no better than the Roman Catholic Church’s idea that in the mass, or Eucharist, Christ is making a bloodless atonement.

It becomes obvious that the necessity for an infinite person to make atonement for sin evaporates if the debt is finite. Man can provide, as Weber explicitly wrote, his own atonement. No need for Christ’s death, or no need for Christ to be fully God, infinite, He can be the Jesus of Arians. Man is truly able to save himself by undergoing the punishment for his own sins, and, logically, nothing can prevent him to enjoy heaven forever. Universalism and annihilationism run closely one to another, but fortunately, only because of a very good and useful inconsistency believers in annihilationism, like adventists, don’t become universalists. Only when somebody like Weber speaks freely about how they understand the final punishment, the close proximity of their paths become clear. Anyway, it becomes clear to me as time goes on why more and more adventists are rejecting the penal substitutionary atonement and the church allows this situation without taking disciplinary actions against people who promote the moral influence view of the atonement like Graham Maxwell. It’s not necessary, it’s not a sine qua non, neither Christ’s infinity. Beside interests for their image as true evangelicals, the leaders have no problem with members of their churches being Arians. Even if they are not Arians or followers of Graham Maxwell, the others don’t pay much attention to the disputes. It’s not an issue for them, because they don’t realize the importance of the doctrines they claim to believe.

Somebody from White Horse Inn quoted a theologian who said that if God is removed from Charles Finney’s Systematic Theology, the work will not suffer at all. With or without God, Finney’s theology is the same. It is the same with Adventism: with or without Christ as infinite God, with or without His penal substitutionary atonement, it doesn’t matter. The internal coherence of the theological system of adventism doesn’t suffer at all. I often heard the question: “And if Christ has a beginning in time, does is really matter? What’s the difference?” I learned that a realistical answer to this question is: “For you, it doesn’t matter”

Gabriel

Gabriel, I think it comes down to short-changing the holiness of God and the perfection required to propitiate His divine wrath.  By making sinful man capable of atoning for and expiating sin it leaves no room for the absolute necessity of the cross.  If sin must be punished and an immutable God is infinite and outside of the bounds of time then it would seem to me that the only way for suffering in hell to be finite is if man could somehow atone for his own sin and satisfy the wrath of God.  But if this is the case and man could atone for sin at ANY time, even future, then why did Jesus need to die? 

But He did need to die because only He, in His perfection, could propitiate the wrath of an infinite and holy God which is why He alone is the way, the truth and the life.  There is no other name by which man might be saved.  Perhaps He was the only in which the fire could be quenched, also.

If you understand the depravity of our sin and the holiness that God requires in order to be reconciled to Him, then penal substitution is the only thing that could save and other man-generated theories, like moral influence theory, just seem silly by comparison, completely insufficient, and tries to share in the glory that belongs ONLY to Him.

Aaron - 20 September 2009 10:07 PM

But He did need to die because only He, in His perfection, could propitiate the wrath of an infinite and holy God which is why He alone is the way, the truth and the life.  There is no other name by which man might be saved.  Perhaps He was the only in which the fire could be quenched, also.

Aaron, more and more I’m led to the conclusion that He was the only in which the fire could be quenched. Together with God’s absolute holiness, this thought is more and more a solemn truth that drives me to my knees. Oh, the depths of God’s mercy!

Aaron - 20 September 2009 10:07 PM

If you understand the depravity of our sin and the holiness that God requires in order to be reconciled to Him, then penal substitution is the only thing that could save and other man-generated theories, like moral influence theory, just seem silly by comparison, completely insufficient, and tries to share in the glory that belongs ONLY to Him.

The gulf between our sin and God’s holiness is bigger than we can ever think. I feel like I just scratched the surface of God’s revelation of his mercy. Thanks for your insights, you are perfectly right that any other theory about atonement is insufficient and silly. We serve a marvelous God, and the churches need to put the Amazing back into Grace, if you know what I mean.

Gabriel