Dan Smith used to be senior pastor at La Sierra University church for several years and before that at Hinsdale Adventist church outside of Chicago which is also a very large congregation.  Recently he left LSU to become an evangelist for the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

His book, Lord I Have A Question, was given to me by a family member who sat under his teaching at La Sierra for many years and thinks he is just the best pastor and speaker ever.  However, this book has raised several red flags, the first of which seems to be that he denies denies Christ as a Substitute that has bourne the wrath of God or received punishment from God for our sin. 

Here’s a passage:

“The choice we make at the fork in the road, at the Tree in the garden, leads inevitably to what we will conclude about how the wicked will be removed at the end of the world.  Whatever we decide at the Tree will also be true of the Cross and the Fire at the end of the world.

If a person believes that at the Tree, God ws threatening divine punishment that He would administer Himself, then it is logical to believe that at the Cross, Christ takes the Father’s wrath and punishment upon Himself.  And it would be logical to believe that the wicked who have refused to accept the atonement that the Substitute provided for them will endure that same wrath and punishment at the second death.

On the other hand, we may choose to believe that , at the Tree, God was giving a loving warning of the natural consequences of sin.  Then we’ll most likely understand the Cross in terms of the Father and the Son together experiencing the natural consequences of sin in the terrible separation They endured from Friday to Sunday.  And we’ll most likely believe that the wicked will endure the natural consequences of sin, the separation from God as the Source of life, at the end of the world, rather than enduring the punishment of eternal death at the hands of God.

Whe have to be consistent.  If, at the Tree, God was outlining one of the fundamental realities of the universe—that those who sin will surely die the second death—and if Christ died the second death in our place, then what we believe about the Tree affects what we believe about the Cross.  And if Christ died the second death in our place, then we can look at the Cross to understand the basic reality that will occur at the second death.  If we see divine punishment at the Tree, then we’ll see divine punishment at the Cross and at the Fire.  But if we see natural consequences at the Tree, then we would see natural consequences at the Cross and the Fire.  If Christ died at the hands of an angry God, than that is how the wicked who reject Christ will die.  But if Christ died instead because God “let Him go” to the natural consequences of the sins he vicariously took upon Himself, then that is how the wicked will die the second death—God will “let them go” to experience the natural consequences of separation from Him.

Good Christians, Christians who are committed to the Bible, have disagreed about these issues for a long time.  No doubt people holding either view can be saved.  Perhaps someday we’ll find another view that will resolve the issue.  But our goal is to see God at His very best, to know a God consistent with the nonnegotiable anchor points listed in chapter two.  So, with great respect for each other, we keep studying!” Dan Smith, Lord I Have a Question, p. 40-41.

So Christ doesn’t take the Father’s wrath and punishment in his view so then when one puts their faith in Christ what are they placing their faith in?  Evidently it’s not putting our faith in a Jesus who took the punishment our sin deserves but one who was demonstrating a “loving warning”.  If you are putting your faith in anything other than Christ bearing the punishment we deserve does this faith actually save?  Smith seems to believe it does but I’m not so sure about that.  I’d be interested to hear some of your thoughts on this. 

Should I worry about my Adventist relatives who may have bought into this view?  Granted, I don’t know how much this has been taught from the pulpit, but it at least raises red flags about this man as a Bible teacher when he gets the foundation of the Christian faith so egregiously wrong.  I know we aren’t saved by a theology exam but at the same time this seems to be taking people to a very dangerous place.  Unfortunately, this sort of teaching seems to be gaining some ground at least in places like Southern California with groups like HeavenlySanctuary.com and the “Good News Tour”.

There are other very alarming things in this book, so far, but this seemed like a pretty good place to start.

Here are the “Nonnegotiable Anchor Points” I mentioned earlier.  I’ll just list them out rather than include any of the comment under each item.

1. God is not a thief!

2. We need not fear God.

3. God is good news!

4. God brings great joy!

5. “He ain’t heavy!”

6. God is righteous.

7. God makes sense.

8. God is our friend.

9. God the Father and God the Son are exactly allike.

10. God is love.

Again note that there is absolutely no reason to fear God.  He just wants to be our friend and apparently has no need to punish sin.

Hi Aaron

Yes, you should worry, independent of what an adventist will think about the atonement. Under the adventist theological umbrella is space enough for those who believe in penal substitutionary atonement and for those who don’t, for those who believe that Jesus took the fallen human nature of Adam and for those who don’t, for those who are arians and for those who aren’t. Those questions were and still are seen as secondary in relation with the adventist’s distinctive doctrines, sabbath and the sanctuary. The pioneers of the SDA Church are respected as Christians, even those who explicitly had rejected the Trinity, like Uriah Smith and James White. And, if somebody can deny the Trinity and still be regarded a Christian, it’s because the doctrine of the Trinity is not perceived as essential and basic.

The situation is different respecting the distinctive, peculiar doctrines of the adventists. Those doctrines define the identity of the church, and are non-negotiable, are essential. Compared with those hold in common with other christians, they have priority. Beside them, the rest are negotiable. In conclusion, even those who seem to get the atonement right will not see it as an essential element of the Christian faith, rather as an optional, as far as salvation is concerned. In this view, believing in the moral influence theory is relatively OK as long as somebody is a seventh-day sabbatarian.

Hope it helps, even if I had not addressed the book itself…

Gabriel

If Dan Smith is correct and God simply “lets people go” to feel the results of their sin, there remains the possibility that one can be saved without Christ’s death at all. If one can strive for perfection, achieve it and successfully maintain it, he will not be “let go” by God—but he also does not need a Savior. I doubt this is what Smith meant when he wrote the passage in question, but his conclusions allow room for those Adventists who teach perfectionism and also for those who believe that Jesus’ death removes only past sins. Basically the problem here is that Smith’s conclusions muddy the waters on what Jesus’ death actually secured.

There will definitely be various levels of understanding of Jesus’ work among those who are saved, and we need to be careful about reducing Christianity and salvation to the level of gnosticism (e.g. those who have special knowledge will be saved). But at the same time, we should strive to have an accurate understanding of these issues and teach others in a way that is most consistent with what he has revealed about himself. I worry about using an either/or approach with a Christian doctrine that is so central to everything else, because it implies that the truth is not knowable with certainty and it leaves room for Christians to remain very confused. Further, as Gabriel said, the central doctrines of Adventism are never treated this way by those in positions of authority. For example, when was the last time any of us heard a high-profile Adventist say that Sabbath is understood in different ways by different people and that there may be valid alternatives to the Adventist position?

Greg

Some of the founder’s of the SDA church were Arian for a time. But they came to understand they were wrong through the writings of Sister White and became Trinitarians. Because people make mistakes and are not right all the time are we to hold that against them?

Samuelbb7 - 11 July 2009 02:25 PM

Some of the founder’s of the SDA church were Arian for a time. But they came to understand they were wrong through the writings of Sister White and became Trinitarians. Because people make mistakes and are not right all the time are we to hold that against them?

how can one teach perfectionism when there was no one perfect but Christ Scripture says all have sinned so if one could be perfect then Christ had died in vain and I wouldnt need a Saviour

Aaron - 03 July 2009 06:38 AM

If you are putting your faith in anything other than Christ bearing the punishment we deserve does this faith actually save?

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Rom 5:11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.