Bravo! For telling it like it is! How many readers or students next year when reading this quarterly will be confused? Or, will they readily accept what they've been told that the Bible is the Word of God to man with no contradictions?

It is the "true believers" who are so certain of what they believe who have not read the Bible in its entirety, or with such rose-colored glasses that they skip over, failing to see the hundreds of contradictions, anachronisms and impossibilities.

Faith does not demand that we leave our minds on a shelf when reading the Bible. It should be read just as similar ancient writings, which is what it is. Comparing it to modern literature proves futile and ignores the entirely different agenda of ancient writers who were never intent on recording actual facts but wrote an etiological tale of their lives as they perceived
the world and its dimensions.

Today, we seldom realize that long before the Bible (especially the OT) was written, it was orally told, and retold for thousands of years to illiterate people and that with each telling, it was interpreted and re-interpreted with no documentary tests as used today. As Dr. Weiss shows, there was a variety of opinions about God, some completely contradictory: some described him as loving, others as arbitrary and destroying entire tribes, even the entire world in the Flood. Was he a "hands-off" God, or did he intervene in all human affairs? Pick you text to prove either position.

So much has been taken for granted that is NOT found in the Bible: The "Fall of Man;" that Abraham was the first monotheist; that David was a pious king who wrote the book of Psalms, are a few examples.

Is it any wonder that agnosicism is increasing at the same time that literal fundamentalism is also on the rise? The dubious acceptance of the Bible as inerrant and infallible is only one, if not the greatest reason to reject it.

the article says:
--
What is to be noticed, however, is that both the creation of the world and the incarnation of the Son of God took place outside the pages of the Bible, and neither of these divine acts involved propositional truths, or information.

also:

The impact of Jesus’ life-giving life, as the most perfect revelation of God within the created world, remains outside the pages of Scripture.

--

I am somewhat confused about what this two similar statements are trying to say. Without information we are left with nothing to work with. Thus the information is recounted in the Bible, but as will all information it requires interpretation, analysis and application. Jesus' incarnation was not an incarnation in pages but in life yet it is only through the written accounts that we can attain the information.

So in the last quote above that Jesus represents the most perfect revelation of God, without the written accounts that information would be limited to a few thousand people and most of them would have only second and third hand information at best.

Can you elaborate?

Ron

I would like to know how you think of the following statement made by a member of the Ellen G. White Estat some weeks ago. It goes like that:
"We have to see Ellen G. White on the level of inspiration at the same level as all biblical prophets, but not so in her authority."
I asked the person how I should understand that practically. Does it mean that it would be possible that we could find faults and contradictions in Ellen G. White writings in spite of her inspiration as a prophet, but not so in the Bible?
The answer was that there could not be found any real disharmony to the Bible in EGW writings. If it is so - my question was - so why then do we not place her at the same level of authority with the Bible?

I`m still waiting for an answer to that strange principle. So I think the theme of this new SS lesson could be another chance to get a clearer understanding of what we have to understand by inspiration of a prophet. To many Adventist are longing for a good biblical hermeneutic how to understand the Prophets in the Bible and the prophets outside of the Bible.

I add a text from Psalm 69: 19 – 30 to ask you if David wrote the following words about his enemies under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The first part (19-21) we usually bring in relation to Jesus on the cross, but where did Jesus pray on the cross such a prayer that we find in the second part of this part of this Psalm in V. 22-30 ???

19 Thou hast known my reproach and my shame and my dishonor; mine adversaries are all before Thee.
20 Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness; I looked for some to take pity, but there was none, and for comforters, but I found none.
21 They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

22 ¶ Let their table become a snare before them, and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.
23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.
24 Pour out Thine indignation upon them, and let Thy wrathful anger take hold of them.
25 Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents.
26 For they persecute him whom Thou hast smitten, and they talk of the grief of those whom Thou hast wounded.
27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity, and let them not come into Thy righteousness.
28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
29 But I am poor and sorrowful; let Thy salvation, O God, set me up on high.

This was not at all what Jesus prayed on the cross, wasn´t it? Didn´t he prayed exactly the opposite of that for His enemies?

If David as the writer of this Psalm was filled by the Holy Spirit in writing this Psalm then we should ask our church why nobody in our church ever prays such a prayer in the church, or why we do not write songs like that and sing it in the church?

Would that nit be an example how carful we should deal with the question of inspiration of biblical prophets? This is just one example to think of but there are much more.

How do we deal with that kind of problem of inspiration? As I saw, the writer of the SS lesson does not treat that kind of problem.

Armin

The issue remains: Was Jesus Christ our substitute or our example?
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 30 December 2008 at 9:48

Both

Its what I call an example of an actionable sequence.
Christ as our substitute is a mental acknowledgment that we only have to realize and accept.
Christ as our example is actionable. We seek to model him not in our own power and effort but through his. Since we interact on this side of the equation ONLY it is perhaps easy to percieve that too much emphasis is applied here, but we have no effect whatsoever on the other side of the coin so it becomes a matter of perspective.

I have read enough of your EGW expositions to have a small grasp of your perspective. You brace at certain emphasis of things at the expense of things you perceive as neglected.

In some cases you are possibly even right but some of your charges are overly broad to my way of thinking.

We, as a church, have never made claims of inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture. We came close in 1980 when we added the words “infallible revelation of God’s will” to our doctrines.

We have, as most conservative Christians, never clearly taught the difference between a message being inspired and one having authority. There are critical differences that need to be acknowledged.

We have given little serious study to the development of the Biblical cannon and the implications as to what constitutes authority.

We give lip service to the notion that the Christ was sincere in his promise that the Holy Spirit would be present in his church to guide his people unto the end of time and yet we haven’t the foggiest notion of what that entails. (I, personally, believe the Holy Spirit was present in Dallas to hold in check those who would have changed our historic position.)

We are not, doctrinally, a fundamental, evangelical church despite the fact that most Adventists continue to think we are. Those who take the Bible literally, probably have never really read it.

We are desperately in need of a definitive position on the doctrine of inspiration. Most of the divisions of belief within our community from the nature of Christ to the ordination of women have as their bottom line a different concept of inspiration. The comments on this forum reflect this.

The Sabbath School class is the best place for this need to be address. Sadly, we are left wanting this quarter.

Dr Weiss
For ten years of my life--the 1970s--I was a fundamentalist Adventist. The events of the late 70s put an end to that. After a year at Andrews, much of it spent in the historical archives of the church, I realized that much of what I had believed about EGW and the divine credentials of the church, had little or no basis in reality. To a fundamentalist it is a shattering experience to realize that sincerity is about integrity, not truth.

I then turned my eyes to the bible, asking myself if my faith in it was as ill-placed as was my faith in EGW. Like Descartes, I took every apple out of my faith basket, looking for the rotten ones, deciding only to put back the ones that passed the smell test. Now, that approach may have worked for Descartes, but my apples are still on the floor. I have been unable to determine which ones should go back in.

One of them is your belief (or is "faith" a better word?) that Jesus was a revelation of God. I have no problems with the rest of your article; you're simply being honest--a luxury that fundamentalists can not indulge in. What did Jesus reveal about God and how do we know?

What complicates things for me is that the Gospels, as you point out, give us at least two versions of who Jesus was: the ethnic redeemer of the Synoptics, who reveres the Torah with all its "medieval" provisions, and, on the other hand, the divine savior of the world (Gospel of John). If the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels reveals God to us, what does the Jesus of John's Gospel do?

The Jesus of John was the Jesus who conquered the Western world. The synoptic Jesus survived, but only by being viewed through the lens of John's Gospel and Paul's Epistles.

Where would an outsider look into the heart of contemporary Adventism? How about the place where Adventist literature is sold? At www.adventistbookcenter.com there is a section for Bibles. Fifteen of the 37 items are varieties of Jack Blanco's 'Clear Word'. That's one way Adventism projects itself to the world. Most SdAs do not care that Blanco inserted his own definition of the atonement into Genesis 3:21, but for those that do, consider how this
*He told Adam to sacrifice a lamb as a token of what that salvation would cost.*
turns the salvation story on its head.

I have a copy of the Clear Word by Jack Blanco, and as I looked over some of this passages, I got the impression that it is a paraphrase of the Bible through the lens of Ellen White's writings. That is, the Bible is being interpreted through her writings, rather than her writings being interpreted through the Bible.

Although Dr. Blanco has some beautiful paraphrases in areas where there is no dispute between the rest of Christianity, I have quit using the book because I do not feel that Mrs. White's writings should be the lens through which to view the Bible - and as I understand her writings, she would agree with my stand - and would condemn the publication of this paraphrase.

Henry

Where would an outsider look into the heart of contemporary Adventism? How about the place where Adventist literature is sold? At www.adventistbookcenter.com there is a section for Bibles. Fifteen of the 37 items are varieties of Jack Blanco's 'Clear Word'.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When i see this, it makes me feel that we're more ingrown and inbred then we even realize!!

Anyway, on a lighter note...Happy New Year everyone!!

Frank

Dear friends

The discussion on the question concerning the problem in our 24th fundamental belief I find it very interesting and crucial for Adventists today. As I realize since I entered in these different discussions in this forum of “Adventist Today” many of Adventists on all levels do have great problems with everything our church officially has said up to now concerning 1844 and the investigation judgment. As I observe, most of you who write in this forum on different questions, do have probably the greatest problem with the following two sentences we find in the 24th point of the fundamental beliefs. There we read:

“In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.”

Many Adventist Scholars, Pastors and simple members all over the world do not belief anymore as it is said here, in spite of the fact, that it is in perfect harmony with the understanding of Ellen G. White as an officially accepted and proclaimed “prophet” or “messenger of the Lord”, as she herself preferred to say, and as we will be taught again be the SS during the first Quarter 2009.

Pastors and teachers in past time, who did not belief anymore just one of these 24 points as they are formulated by the church, were taken out of official service from within the church and some of them even excluded from the church. But at the time I observe that there are many pastors and teachers and members within the church who do not belief and teach anymore the 24th point of SDA belief are voluntarily accepted within Seminaries, Universities and in local churches all over the world. If it is not so, please correct me. If it is so, then we have to see it as a great shift or even progress within our church in dealing with people who have their problem with some of the 24 statements.

On the other side I still know of Adventists today, who are still excluded by the church because they just question some statements within the fundamental beliefs as for example the 24th one and they also question the high authority of Ellen G. White, as a kind of infallible interpreter of the Bible, as some leaders of the church still does.

Now I would like to make you aware of a problem that I have with the fundamental belief Nr. 24.
Most of you and of Adventists do have the problem, as I already said, with the 4th and 5th sentence in relation to 1844 and the investigation Judgement. But I do not yet know that Adventists question the first three sentences of this point Nr. 24. So I would like to ask you some questions on these three first sentences.
I do not know if somebody would be ready to take up the discussion on this part of the statement, but I try to ask it anyway. Nobody is forced to answer my questions which I do have since about some years.

The first sentence in the 24th belief says:

“There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man.”

Here my questions to that statement:

1. Do we know exactly by the Bible or just by deeper reflections, when the heavenly sanctuary could have been set up by our Lord in heaven as a “Typos” for the earthly sanctuary?

2. Did the heavenly sanctuary exist already in heaven before sin come up in heaven or could it have been only set up since the sin of Adam and Eve?

3. Will the heavenly sanctuary still exist in heaven for Eternity?

The second phrase concerning the heavenly sanctuary says about Jesus:

“ In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross:

1. Can you please help me to find such a description of the work of Jesus in His sanctuary in the Bible? Where does it say that Jesus is “making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifices offered for all on the cross”? Which texts of the Bible would you use for sustaining such a description and what does it practical mean?

2. Can we find also in the OT-service that the Priests or the High Priests as representants of the heavenly Priest were making available to the believers the benefits of the atoning sacrifices offered for them on the altar in the earthly sanctuary?

3. Why does Jesus only make available to believers His the benefits of His atoning sacrifice and not also for unbelieving people?

4. Does Jesus really be only a mediator and High Priests to make available his atoning sacrifice for people who belief and not also for those who do not belief? Does this mean that Jesus also died only for believers and not also for unbelievers?

The third phrase in the statement says:

“He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension.”

1. Where does the Bible say when Jesus was inaugurated as our High Priest and when in history of the universe exactly he began His intercessory ministry in heaven? What text of the Bible would you use to prove that it was only at His ascension?

2. In OT-time the inauguration of the earthly sanctuary took place right after its erecting by Moses. At the same time also took place the inauguration of the priests and the High priests. The whole inauguration fest took seemingly 20 days. (See Ex, 40 and Lev. 8 and 9 and Num.7)

3. Where in the Bible can we find a text of the inauguration or anointing of the heavenly sanctuary and so also of the inauguration and beginning of Jesus ministry as mediator, advocate and High Priest for sinners?

4. If probably the sanctuary could have already existed in heaven in OT-time could then it be possible that the inauguration of Jesus as our High Priest could have taken place only after the time of His ascension as we usually teach it?

5. In the earthly sanctuary not only the High Priest was anointed to His service in the sanctuary but also the normal priests as we see it in Lev. 8 and 9. Also the Levites were set apart for the service in the sanctuary. Do we have a heavenly “Type” also for them all or do we only have the type of the High Priest in heaven? Where do we find the heavenly ”Type” or counterpart for the ministry of the normal priests and for the Levites, who were chosen by God himself to a special service in the earthly sanctuary?

6. In the time of the temple of Salomon there was also set an order of 24 groups of Priests and Singers doing there service at their appointed time in the temple. Did it also have a certain heavenly counterpart?

I would be very thankful if you could try answer my questions and help me in my problem with these first three sentences in our fundamental belief before we discuss intelligently the part of the questions, which deal with the most discussed questions among Adventists, on the 1844 problem and the investigation judgment; in order to find still better out how biblical fundamented is the formulation of the fundamental belief Nr. 24?

Thanks for giving me your thoughts on just this tree first sentences. I would ask you still other questions to the formulation of Nr. 24 of the fundamental beliefs later on! Or do you think that it is a sacrilege to ask such questions in this actual discussion within the SDA church?

Armin

Armin,

Perhaps this provides some answers to some of your questions?

From last quarters SS lesson 11, Doug Batchelor's said something on the initiation of the sanctuary.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CSHVideo/~3/472752525/SS2850.MP4
Around 23 minutes through to about 27 minutes.

First, Jesus says Mary don't touch me, I have not yet ascended to My Father. Later on doubting Thomas touches Jesus hand and side. Something changed.

Also he refers to Dr Leslie Harding? Perhaps "Shadows of His Sacrifice"?

When Christ first ascended, he activated the heavenly sanctuary.

But Tom makes an interesting counter point, the work of atonement started directly after Man's sin, I don't know if that necessarily equates to activating the heavenly sanctuary?

Time between Adam and Jesus, must have been forward looking to Jesus paying the price for atonement.
Life went on, but sin still existed. Likewise, salvation is not complete yet, even though Jesus death paid the price for the atonement.
Proof - Jesus rose to continue work of atonement.
Proof - Sin still exists.

Also, normal priests = first fruits of resurrection = 24 elders in revelation?

Tom,

My experience has seen a shift in Adventism in the last couple of decades - towards what some call 'relational theology'.
Definite shift going on - but also less ability to answer complex biblical questions. i.e. average Adventist is less versed in the bible - at least from what I can tell.
Because of this, I suspect it's currently more susceptible to losing its unique distinct message, and more likely to adopt influences from other systems - in particular ecumenical perspectives.

Also last couple years, a small amount of renewed interest in sanctuary doctrine. The sanctuary doctrine requires Jesus as both substitute (lamb) and mediator (high priest).
As for the perfect example, is that not what we all want? Is that not the reason for the substitute and mediator, ultimately?
Why reduce focus one from the other, these two pillars of the gospel? Or were you suggesting that Adventism had so focused on the mediator at the expense of the substitute?

Fascinating about the Pharaoh's traveling throne. I guess that a lot of their culture and philosophy would naturally have come direct from Egyptian society.

As to the main article above. I'm not sure if the reason given in that article for E. G. White not being 'canonised' was due to her not having the same authority of the biblical prophets, or if the author was saying that none of the biblical prophets should have authority, which to me would mean then that no-one should have authority, and so E. G. White was not 'canonised' for that reason? I.e. was he downgrading E. G. White, or downgrading the biblical prophets, or was he doing both? It seems he was suggesting both - which makes the whole argument kind of meaningless to me of why not allow E. G. White to be 'canonised'!

I'm not arguing for her to be canonised in any way, I am just curious as to the authors reasoning, because it seems a bit self defeating.

Finally, the author said "The total lack of morality in nature, when considered as the work of God, leaves us confused. Nature does not speak with one voice about a Good and Just God." This is certainly not confused in Adventist doctrine. Not sure why he says this, he doesn't really connect it with anything - except that sin is also recorded in the Bible. They both show evidence that we need a saviour. So, nature and the bible are in accord, what is his point? Is he invoking the idea that atheists use, that sin can't exist if there is an omnipotent God?

Thanks,

Chris

Just to tell you that if nature does no reflect the fullness of God TODAY, it's because it is harmed as a consequence of our sins. Should it be like it was by the first Sabbath, when God's creation was just completed, it would definitly reflect Him, as a perfect and loving creator.
Regards.

Tom,

I just want to clarify that in my message above, only a couple paragraphs were directed towards you specifically. Whereas the last few paragraphs were for anyone in general.

Armin,

That video provided me comfort, and a really good nights sleep too. Knowing that Jesus, God incarnate, restores us by doing the work of atonement - I don't see why you were shocked! Doug Batchelor backed it up with a number of scriptures as well. In particular, you were asking for the scriptural references to your questions. Were you able to get those scriptural answers from that video reference? i.e. did it answer your initial questions? Have we moved passed that yet?

So, tried to answer some of your questions, but now I realise you have a much wider agenda. We seem to have a different model to start with. From this model derives our different responses to such a message. At this stage, I think that your model distorts the story unnecessarily. The inconsistencies you see in the standard Adventist model are not there. At least I'll try to explain why the problems you raised are resolved. I'm relatively new to all this, am not a theologian or anything, so my perspective is brought from a simple layman's understanding. You may be aiming at something else that I am not fully aware of - so you may have to state your position a bit more clearly for me, your Weltanschauung.

The first problem I'll address fits the pattern described by the conflict between justice and mercy. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. The wages of sin is death. In this model, and pretty well supported by the bible, is that Sin exists, it is real. This matches my experience of real life as well. If we eat from the knowledge of good and evil, two things are expected to happen. 1. We will learn knowledge of good and evil. 2. This naturally leads to death.

So, for God to be just, justice must follow, justice comes from God, we all die and have no hope. This judgment is natural consequence of sin. This matches all physical evidence. BUT, the beauty of the bible, the pattern repeated over and over in the bible, is there is this big BUT. And that is salvation, mercy which is also from God. Paid for by Jesus Christ. We could not achieve it, so we require God to condescend, God as incarnate Jesus.

You said this, of Adventist doctrine: "God Father would be a being who would need his Son to keep Him back daily from destroying and punishing people because of their sins". Yes true in a way, as I described above. But keep in mind that God and Jesus are one. They are not in conflict. The conflict is reconciling mercy with justice. It is only the One true God who can resolve this conflict within itself. It is not shocking news, it is Good news.

The only way that I can see this being shocking for you, is that if sin is not real. If sin is only delusional. Is this your understanding? It is certainly not the Adventist understanding. Actually, certainly not the general Christian understanding (as I understand it.) If sin is not real, then why did Christ need to die in the first place?

The next issue: "I would have had so many questions to that man about all the people who lived in OT-time and did their earnest prayer. How did their prayer come to God´s throne if Jesus was not yet doing his intercession work at this time?" I don't see any temporal issue. If you accept that Christ hadn't even died yet, while that was the price paid for atonement, then the issue you raise seems insignificant. Also, if you wonder why we are not in heaven now, while the price has already been paid, same issue.

The work of salvation and atonement must have begun directly after Adam sinned, no doubt about that. But our human paradigm shifted after Jesus paid the price. This was the ending of the earthly sanctuary system. This is also reflected in the world by the birth of the Christian church. Adventists associate those events in heaven with significant movements on earth. This association is obvious also in the 1844 message, as the start of the Adventist movement.

The other point about the temporal issue, is that in the Adventist model, that Glorification is only achieved at the second coming, when we are re-created / resurrected. Why hasn't this happened already? The Adventist answer is that something must be going on now. This sanctuary answer is the best one I've seen to this question. It fits the Adventist model very well. Also, you must have seen the 1844 explained by scriptures - and there is no doubt that a world movement started then as well.

I really need to see what your model is that answers these questions, so I can compare the models. You can keep poking at this model if you like - it is very interesting and challenging for me. But I don't see the point of you poking holes without providing some alternative answers to these questions. So I look forward to your model. Perhaps I can learn from your model, the deeper meaning that you promise as well.

Thanks,

Chris.

Since the discussion along this thread has become widespread, let me add a column I wrote some ten years ago:

Can a true prophet err?

It is interesting that we had hardly ever touched this question until some 20 years ago, when suddenly a suitable theory was sought out to prove the fallibility of the Biblical prophets. The logic of the theory followed that if we proved the literal and communicational fallibility of the canonical prophets, by default this would lead to a more flexible attitude towards a contemporary prophet, namely Ellen G. White.

Recently the question was echoed again in several presentations of Dr. Allan Lindsay, Director of the Australian EGW Research Center. He suggested that adhering to a correct view of inspiration would save us many headaches caused by the Ellen G. White critics because, as he said, "the bottom line of all those issues is the question of inspiration".

Dr. Lindsay gave a preference to the Thought Inspiration View over the Verbal Inspiration View, because the first one provides space for human touch in the process of prophetic inspiration. The argument follows that, wherever there is a human element involved, there is a room for misinformation, misinterpretation, edition, revision - the very things, we now reluctantly admit, are being discovered in the writings of Ellen G. White.

Fair enough! For a considerable time now I too have preferred this rather flexible view of inspiration to the rigid one. Even in assessing the ministry of the Biblical prophets one has to tolerate a "surprise or two". The Bible does provide evidence to that end. Nathan reversed his personal affirmation of David's intention to build the temple after being instructed otherwise by the Lord (2. Samuel 7:1-17.). Jeremiah produced a revised version of the Lords instruction, after the king Jehoiakim burned the first edition (Jeremiah 36:27-32). Indeed, if one looks for a more mature interpretation of inspiration, the Thought Inspiration View would do a better job than the Verbal Inspiration View.

However, it could be very much misleading if one is to conclude that therein lies a satisfactory answer to all the major challenges presented by the Ellen G. White critics today.

The reason for this is that the Thought Inspiration View provides only a tiny hole for human maneuvering; one that would allow only a few irrelevant mice to get through, but could never smuggle the elephants of plagiarism, confusing theological inconsistencies, contradicting or far stretched claims and unfulfilled prophecies. Otherwise, how would one ever know with certainty that the message, revelation or other information from Heaven has ever reached the targeted audience in a trustworthy, reliable and accurate manner, so that, at the end of the day, we may conclude assuredly that "the Lord has spoken indeed”? For the bottom line in our ongoing controversy is not whether the Church can provide a suitable theory of inspiration, but rather if we could trust a prophet regardless of one’s view on the nature of inspiration.

What I am trying to suggest is that within the framework of a prophetic calling, even with the Though Inspiration View in mind, there remains only a limited space for human coloring. Once the identifying signature "Thus said the Lord!" or "I was shown!" or “I saw” has been launched, there remain only two mutually exclusive options. Either "the Lord has spoken" in no misleading terms, or the prophet "has spoken presumptuously" (Deuteronomy 18:22.). No middle or compromising option is possible there where a special revelation is claimed. There would be simply something wrong if a prophet would claim: "The Lord had spoken, but sorry, I thought it meant something else!"

Let me illustrate.

There is a world of difference between the ministry of a prophet and the ministry of a pastor. If a pastor apologizes one day from the pulpit for having formerly misunderstood some aspects of the Word of God, this gesture could even be interpreted as a sign of his maturity, humility and honesty to the Word of God. This is because a balanced minister would never claim the gift of a special revelation. In his case inspiration works through the ongoing Spirit led process of learning, and unlearning when necessary.

On the other hand, in the case of a prophet who has an advantage over a pastor in that he does handle the means of direct inspiration, special revelation, speaking with the Lord "face-to-face" - various forms of updating, correcting, revising and admittances of mistakes would soon become a serious problem rather than a virtue. The claim "Thus said the Lord" makes the whole world of difference, for the prophet’s source of information does not come from the Spirit led process of learning but from a direct revelation. While in the pastoral ministry, between the two extremes there is always a room for another option ­ a honest misunderstanding which ultimately leads to a correction, in the case of the prophetic ministry the claim to a direct revelation makes such an option a dangerous luxury.

Thus, a true prophet can err. But once he or she attaches the signature tune "Thus said the Lord!”, there'd better be as few "surprises" as possible. Otherwise one day someone may wonder if the Lord has spoken at all.

Herold Weiss: The Bible has led many astray.

Ouch! Some things are better thought but not actually written out. The examples you mention are tragedies. To fault the Bible for causing those tragedies seems to express a negative opinion of the Word of God. People lead themselves astray. The Bible is a book of life, and specifically the New Life in Jesus. Your words make it seem more like a book of death. And that sounds very ugly.

While I found your reflections on the Sabbath School lesson challenging, ultimately, I received very little spiritual blessing from your words.

With so many things wrong with the Bible, as you express them, one would wonder why bother reading it at all.

In spite of the problems with the Bible and with its track record of leading "many astray" I intend to continue reading my Bible. I pray it won't lead me astray. In fact, I have found that since I've been reading it during the past four years--in spite of some ugly passages about genocidal massacres and lakes of fire--the effect it has had on my life is far from leading me toward the dark side. Instead, it has lead me toward the light. And for that I am grateful. Peace.

Armin,

You said: "We sure can trust that Jesus would do the right things in heaven for us, but we ought to know, what it is and what he can and what he not do for us in heaven."

And you reject anything other than what scripture says, sounds good, "sola scriptura", but we still read it and try and understand statements like: "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25, NIV).

You say there is something deeper - you have my attention, I am listening. I think you answered Franks response by the line saying that we "ought to know", while I think we all agree with that excellent premise that we can be assured that His work is sufficient for our needs. The reason you say we ought to know is to reach a deeper meaning. But I think you did not acknowledge the most important thing that I think both Frank and I were saying. Primarily, that His work is sufficient. Sorry if I am paraphrasing you Frank.

I provided more detail in my previous post, notably that I believe that His work is in reconciling justice with mercy. This was my central theme of that post - you didn't seem to address that at all? I'm not sure what your thought are on that.

I agree that there are many things we can get from the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. I do believe that his death was the price for atonement. I don't believe it was God's choice that caused it, not something as you say God wanted, but I do believe it was Gods response to giving us free will. God didn't want it any more than he wanted us to eat from the knowledge of good and evil - but we did, and this is part of his plan. We do not say, as you suggest we do, that God wanted it - that was an unfair comment from you - almost appears to me that you were setting up a straw man for your own argument.

You seem to disagree with substitutionary atonement, is this correct? At least there are scriptures that support it
e.g. "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18 NIV)

Also, "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5)

The atonement price was paid by His death. We can understand this at all sorts of levels. It is significant that it was done by the Israelite people, i.e. His own people, also significant that it was for our sins. While I also agree that there are many more lessons about His life, as well as His resurrection, and then again about His ascension. I do not disagree that there are other aspects - they are not mutually exclusive, are they? It seems to me that you are suggesting that they are mutually exclusive? While I am still to hear what your main point is going to be for me to start thinking about it.

Now to your direction, I think was aiming to explain what Christ is doing for us in Heaven. One understanding, as I suggested is from the model of the sanctuary. The theme and purpose of the sanctuary is most definitely about salvation and restoration from sin, i.e. atonement. And I also added about my understanding to do with time, is reflected in movements of humans on earth. I don't know if that is a necessary requirement, I must admit I have not studied it enough to know of alternatives, but that is my current understanding. The affect of the Adventist movement, from 1844, as I understand it, is a shift toward understanding judgment and this ultimately means about restoration between us towards the Holy Law of God. That the Law is an aspect of God, an expression of His Holiness for us - and so is intrinsically linked with our restoration to God. And of coarse the other obvious aspect of the movement that I see, is remembering the Creator and creation relationship - as explicitly expressed in the 4th Commandment. I don't think it was any coincidence that our movement started around the time Darwinism also started to erode peoples faith in this relationship. I see these aspects of this earthly movement in harmony with what is called Investigative Judgment. So our God Christ is undertaking the Investigative Judgment has a real meaning on earth. I think that you might see that my understanding is not as simple as Christ in Heaven going through the record books determining the rewards for everyone, it is deeper than that, I think that Adventism connects these sanctuary transitions to real world movements.

I agree with "sola scriptura", as you seem to, so we at least have a common foundation - but I still don't understand the specific reason that you invoked this idea. You have not yet said which propositions specifically that you claim is contrary to scripture. I suspect you are hinting that something in the Fundamental statement is against scripture? But you have not yet said outright which of those scriptures have been interpreted incorrectly. You have not been explicit about that, only implicit so far. (Perhaps it is a language thing, forgive me for asking but is English your first language?)

So, I have tried to give you an overview of my understanding, which may help you to explain to me your position. I am keen to hear your position, but so far you appear to be simply questioning my position. And I think I have answered your questions so far. Your questioning has given me hints that your position may be contrary to my position. But I think that the answers hold? I am not yet sure until you actually state your position clearly. So, over to you.

Mike MacLennan

Interesting line of thought, I see your sarcasm, humorous to contrast it with our society. I didn't realise that Canada and Mexico were next to Israel. Or here is another one, I'm an Aussie and we have no adjacent neighbours so I can't get any slaves over here! Is that fair? But to be honest, I don't really see a specific point to what you were saying.

Is your point in support of the idea that the bible leads people astray?

What room should we give for the context of the society that these things were recorded in? We see a different authority when talking about the 10 Commandments as God's Law, and these things you mention as the Mosaic law. What room does this distinction in authority allow for, with respect to the context of those societies?

I like this one: Leviticus 25
35 If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.

See how the tables are reversed, and they could judge our immoral society today also.

I enjoy and had a good laugh, but wonder if there is a serious point as well?

Chris

Chris Plewright,

Thank you for sharing "Leviticus 25 35 If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit." This is love in action. There are some countries in the world who carry out these principles, where the tourists and foreigners really feel welcome, besides taking care of their own citizens.

Now as to why I posted it: probably different reasons: 1. to have a good laugh, which is something that is healthy for us to do, especially as SDAs. 2. to give support to the point of Herold Weiss, that we should not take a verbal inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White.

I think the point of the original posting and my copy here is simply to show that it is laughable to take a verbal inspiration view of the Bible. It is commonly heard in the SDA churches here in the Dominican Republic the words "la pluma inspirada" (inspired pen) - when about to give a quote not from the Bible but Ellen White. I think the SDA church unofficially has put Ellen White to a level that not even the Bible should be put. When I compare some of the Bible bashing fanatics inside and outside our church with the Ellen White fanatics - they basically appear to be the same. They are excessively hard on others. Have no joy or assurance and probably do more harm than good.

As Christians the issue is in the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is our blessed assurance of a loving God and a new life in Him.

Dear Chris,

Excuse me please that I have not been able to answer sooner your very important questions and your comment on my posting. But as you see my answer this time is a very long one but you will soon find out why I wanted to answer this way. I think you will not regret the time reading it carfully through, if you are real interested to understand still deeper the plan of salvation!

First let me tell you that you are right that English is not my first language. I live in Austria and so I speak German. I apologize therefore being not able to express my thoughts in English as good as I would like to do it. So thanks for being gracious to me. I´ll try my best, but I am glad that you asked me about the problem of language and I hope you can understand what I really want to say.

So let me try to explain first a little more the problems that I have with some thoughts that Desmond Ford expressed in his initial article for this discussion. Next I would still like to come back to what Dough Batchelor said on his video for which I am very thankful to you having given me the link to it. All that has to do with the problems that you had with some of my questions and comments.

You were asking me the question about the conflict about justice and mercy of God in the concept of salvation. You surely did right to point out this problem. It is of greatest importance and it hits exactly the kernel of the problem of salvation and it has much to do with the question, why Jesus had to die that shameful death on the cross with all suffering, mockery and scourging before his death. In sum lot of Christians in all churches and denominations and even Christian cults and in general also all SD-Adventists believe that God´s justice could only be satisfied by such a cruel death of the innocent Son of God as the second Person of the Trinity.

Our theology says that His constant rejection and hateful confrontations during his sinless,
holy and self scarifying life in this world and among His chosen people, his lamentable suffering and shameful death on the cross was not just something that sinful men under the influence of Satan were afflicting to the Son of God, but the justice of God in His heavenly counsel had decided to make it happen like that as the only way to save men from sin, and to atone for the sins of men. They also say that this would have been the only way for God to get the right to even forgive the sins of the world. According to that traditional theology, God Father and Jesus in accordance also with the Holy Spirit in this triune Godhead were in a certain way even forced to make it happen like that, because of their own justice and because this was the only way to demonstrate to the Universe that God´s government, rulership and character challenged by Satan is not just justice but also love and mercy.

You stated this concerning:

“The first problem I'll address fits the pattern described by the conflict between justice and mercy. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. The wages of sin is death. In this model, and pretty well supported by the bible, is that Sin exists, it is real.”

My comment to that part of your comment is as follows:

No real Christian would ever doubt that all men have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God and that the result of that was finally death and destruction in the spiritual but also in the physical world. I also absolutely believe so. If we are not evolutionists but creationists we do not have another possibility to explain the existence of death and destruction in this world and in the Universe over us than by sin. But we also should ask, which sin did bring death to all men? Was it only Adam´s sin or was it also the sin of Lucifer? This question normally we answer by quoting Rom. 5:12 were Paul says:

“Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, so death passed onto all men, for all have sinned.”

Paul does not mention Satan in this context and making him also responsible for having brought sin and death into this world, but remember Jesus did so. In John 8:44 Jesus said to the Jews:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.”

We must not make now the mistake to build our theology on the origin of sin and redemption just on one verse of the Apostle Paul but we have to build before and after all also on what Jesus and the whole Bible says about it! If you want to find the real responsible for all sin in this Universe it is not Adam but it is Satan. He is the real origin of sin and of death on this earth Jesus also made it very clear in parable of the tares of the field when he said. “but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil;”

Just be also aware that Jesus himself never mentioned Adam as responsible for all the consequences of sin in this world as we normally do! He also did not say that Cain was the first murderer but he said the devil was a murderer from the beginning.

We all know and agree that Adam and Eve sinned because they were seduced by Satan, who sinned already some time before them in heaven even before our world and before man was created. Do you agree with me on that, or do you have a problem with that version? (I ask that simple question because lot Christians and even Adventists think that the fall of Lucifer took place after the creation of our world or after the creation of Adam and Eve.)

In fact, Satan was the first sinner, and we know that he did not first seduce men to sin against God, but he seduced also angels in heaven first to rebel against God with him. This must have been at least some time before our creation. Otherwise there would not be a good reason why God had put he tree of knowledg into the garden of Eden. But we do not know exactly how long before that time Lucifer started to rebell against God in heaven.

So we should ask, if sin did not start first here on earth but in heaven, and if the wages of sin here on earth is death, does this law of reason and effect also be the same for sinners in heaven? Does it mean that sin does not only bring death unto men, but does it also bring death to Satan and His angels who sinned against God?

We know for sure that sin in heaven did not bring also death to all angels in heaven just because one has sinned there, as it was here on earth. But we know that death will be finally the sure result for Satan and for all the angels who have sinned as it is for all men who sinned. The reason why sin did not bring automatically death to all angels because of the one sin up there is very simple. The Bible does not say that all angels have sinned as it happened here on earth. We just know of a third part of angels who let them self finally seduce to sin against God by Lucifer. That’s why they were thrown out of heaven and will be destructed at the end of time!

But now we have still to think of a great difference concerning the death that Lucifer and his angels will die and the death that human beings die and still will die. Satan and his angels, who sinned long before men, are still alive after Thousands of years of their sin, and they finally will die only after the Millenium, as we know it from Rev. 20. This will be at the time when all unbelieving men and unrepentant men will also die a death that the Bible call “the second death”. (Rev. 2:11; 20, 6.14 and Rev. 21, 8)

So this means that the devil and His angels will not die a second death, as men will have to, but their death will be only a “first death” and it will be a death for eternity, of which there would not be any resurrection. So why does God deal so differently with sinners in heaven and sinners on earth? Have you ever thought about such a difference between the wages of sin for the devil and his angels and of men?

Why did God make that difference and why will he let die the much greater part of the sons of Adam twice because of our there sins, and the fallen angels he will let die just once? Adam and all men before the flood had to die after more than 930 Years of age. After the flood the sons of Noah and their children had already to die after about 400 years and after some generations later they suddenly died already after about 200 years. (See for that Gen. 5 and 11) After some time the age went down progressively to about 120 years as it was announced by God in Gen. 6,3-4. Later on the average of the age went down and down and it came a time when even the children died before their parents, and so some children had already to die not long after birth and even at the birth, and later on even before the birth as we see it today as a normal fact. (It was not from the beginning like that!)

All that did not happen to fallen angels in heaven who sinned. They all are still living in spite of there sinning life and in spite of the fact that they were already cast out of the heaven some time in past history. Did you ever ask the question why God gives sinners in heaven and sinners on this world such a great difference of time to live in spite of their sin? Why do they not have all the same chance to life a long life in spite of sin? I think that God wants to demonstrate important things by that so that we could better understand the secret of the sin and the secrets of his plan of salvation that He has revealed us in the Bible and which has to do with restitution of the original order in this universe.

There are still other questions which we normally do not ask and think of. Did you for example ever ask yourself how we should understand the fact that we have 2 men that lived here on earth as sinners, and that the wages of their sins was not death at all, even if Paul said in Rom. 5,12 that because of sin death passed also unto all men? Did Paul not know the story about Henoch and Elija, or did he just not think of them, when he wrote his letter to the Romans in another context of thought?

We also know that there will still be a great number of men at the last generation, which will not experience either the death as wages for their sins. There will be probably Millions of faithful men and women of all tribes and nations who will not taste death as wages for their sins at all, for they will be taken to heaven without dying the first death and they will also not die the second death.

So this for me is a prove that the Bible does not allow to say that the wages of every sin in every case and under all circumstances is the death of a sinner. There is a possibility that sin must not lead automatically to death, either to the first death nor to the second death. It obviously depends on how the sinner deals with sin and how his relationship is to God and how God deals with a sinner in reality after he has started to sin. So what is the real truth about the the wages of sin? Is there still another understanding possible than the one we we traditionally have?

These reflections for me are very important and they are also in absolute accordance with the statement of Paul in Rom. 6, 23: He says very clearly that death for sins will be given for sure only to all those, who do not belief in Jesus and who refuse to get the gift of the eternal life! “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Do we really understand and believe what Pauls says in that verse?

How ever we may think of that interpretation, we know for sure that up to today in the history of this earth we have at least two men who did not die the first dead as a natural consequence of sin, as we usual say!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And there still will be a great number of sinners who will not taste death at all as a natural consequence of their sins. Obviously the Apostle Paul did not think of this exception in Rom. 5,12 but he knew of all those who would be still alive when Jesus would appear in the clouds of heaven. He knew of all those who will be taken to heaven without dying a first death and it will be in a simliar manner as it was with Henoch and Elia long ago and even before the death and resurrection of Jesus. This will be the real experience of all believers, who will be part of the “144.000” as a symbolic number of all those who will not die the first death at the end of the time. Their wages of sin will not be death as we interpret it. But this does not contradict what Paul said in Rom. 6, 23 because he added a “but” in his sentence “but the gift of God is eternal life!!!” Could it not be that the question of the wages of sin should be thought over a little more in this context?

Did God probably have another plan with sinners on this world and with sinners in heaven as the one that was finally realized and that we can find in past and present and future history? I know this is a challenging thought but do our reflections up to now not bring it to such a conclusion?

Now let´s go to ask the following question concerning the final judgement over Satan and his angels: Why will the devil and his angels finally die the eternal death ? It will not be because they started with sin and committed sins during a certain time, but because they did not repent from their rebellion against God and they probably also did not willingly accept the gift of eternal life, which must have been also offered them by God through Jesus Christ long before it was offered to sinful men. Or am I wrong to think like that? I conclude it from Ez. 33,11 where God said:

“Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”

I personally believe that this promise was not only given to Israel but it must have been also of value for Lucifer and His angels in heaven. I do not believe that the God on earth is another than the God in heaven and I believe that He does not deal with sin and sinners on earth according to other principles as he did in heaven.

I believe the following words of Ez. 33 could be transferred as a reality also to Lucifer and all his angels: “When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.”

This will be the reason why Lucifer and all those, who went with him in spite of the chance they must have had to come back to God, finally will die, and why the wages of their sin will be eternal death without dying a first death. So there situation could have been exactly the same as we have it in the case of Henoch or Elijah.

Could it be that the story of those two men could even have served as an example and a demonstration of God´s original plan with all sinners in heaven and on earth? At least this is my personal understanding of the deeper sense of how we should understand the problem of the death as “wages of the sin” and of God´s justice and love in dealing with sinners even if HE says that they would die if they would sin against God!

-------------

Now let´s come back again to Rom. 5,12: Paul is saying there that sin entered into the world
And it came to all men and so death came also to all men because all have sinned. So this we usually use as prove that the wages of sin on the level of men is absolutely death and normally we still add, that it means the eternal death that men would have had to die if Jesus would not have died or not have been killed on the cross for them. This is also what you sure wanted to say by your following statements:

“This matches my experience of real life as well. If we eat from the knowledge of good and evil, two things are expected to happen. 1. We will learn knowledge of good and evil. 2. This naturally leads to death.”

So by that you sure wanted to say, as usual also our theology tells us, that the wages of only the first sin of Adam and Eve would have been eternal death for them and for the whole race of humans, which would be born from them. That´s what you sure mean when you say that we would not have any hope:

You said:

“ So, for God to be just, justice must follow, justice comes from God, we all die and have no hope. This judgment is natural consequence of sin.”

According to this model the Justice of God would have demanded the eternal death from Adam and Eve just because of only one sin they committed in the Garden of Eden. They would have had to die the eternal death, even when they would have repented and if they would heave felt very sorry of their sin and asked God to forgive their sin. We usually say, God´s justice could not have forgiven their sin because His Justice demanded the eternal death of the sinner even if he repents. The love and mercy of God could not have forgiven them and give them a second chance to obey and trust God, because love and mercy in that model could not go against his Justice, because sin has to be punished by eternal death, our theology normally says. The only chance for God to forgive men would be, that he finds an absolute holy and righteous substitute that would be ready to die at the place of men the death, which men would have normally to die. So this could not just be the first death but the second death or eternal death.

This was a great problem for God Father, as the first Person of the Godhead, but also for His Son, as the second Person and the Holy Spirit, as the third Person in the heavenly counsel. One of them would have to die at the place of men for just the only sin of Adam and Eve, otherwise they could not be forgiven and have a second chance to live and be saved for eternal life. So in this situation Jesus proposed to be ready to come to the earth 4000 years after the creation of the world and of the fall in Eden. He would be ready to become a man and life as a man for sometime on this earth and than let him kill himself by hateful human beings seduced by the devil. This would be the only possibility and the only price demanded by the Justice of God, so that God could be able to forgive man only the first sin and all other sins committed in this world. This also is presented by the very defended theology of substitution as the only way, by which the justice of God and the love and mercy of God could brought in harmony together and exist side by side.

So finally Jesus did all that. He came to this world about 4000 years after creation and the fall and had to die not only the first death but the “second death” at the place of men. So in order to be able to die the second death he was not allowed to die a normal death, but it had to be a very cruel and shameful death, because otherwise the prize would have not high enough to atone all sins of manhood and be paid for all the sins of all humanity.

Dear Chris, I do not know if you could follow me up to now, but if you have at least a problem with this model of Jesus dying the second death at our place, so I would like to make you aware that this is what our theology is really teaching and what Desmond Ford was commenting in His initial article at the starting point to that discussion:

Ford stated:

“Calvary apart from Gethsemane is incomprehensible. The weight of the sin of the world began in the garden of the olive press to deprive our Lord of life. Thus, it is impossible to believe that Gethsemane and Calvary were merely gestures of the love of God for sinners. They were that but they were also incalculably more, and the writer of this lesson has made that very clear and should be richly commended. He has correctly invoked “the second death” as the penalty for sin, and Christ experienced that penalty. The cross magnified the law and satisfied justice as well as providing atonement and expiation.”

Here the statement in the book of the 28 Beliefs of our church on Page 114

“Adam's rebellion brought sin, condemnation, and death to all. Christ reversed the downward trend. In His great love, He subjected Himself to the divine judgment on sin and became humanity's representative. His substitutionary death provided the deliverance from the penalty of sin and the gift of eternal life for repentant sinners (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 6:23; 1 Peter 3:18). Scripture clearly teaches the universal nature of Christ's substitutionary death. By "the grace of God," He experienced death for everyone (Heb. 2:9). Like Adam, all have sinned (Rom. 5:12), therefore, everyone experiences death—the first death. The death that Christ tasted for everyone was the second death—the full curse of death (Rev. 20:6; see chapter 26 of this book).”

So now I would have some question to you? Have you as an Adventist ever known that this is a very basic argument for dealing with the conflict between justice and love in the plan of redemption? Do you personally believe that the death of Jesus has to be believed as the second death that he died not just for humanity but at the place or instead of Adam and also instead of all humanity? If he had not died the second death instead of us - so our traditional theology says - God could not have forgiven one sin to men, even if they had asked for forgiving and if they would have been ready to change their life and to make peace with God and live a holy life by the power of God.

If you also believe that, then I would like to ask you how could Jesus have died the second or eternal death at the place of humanity and at the same time we believe that he has risen out of this second and eternal death after three days? If he really had to die the second death at our place or instead of us, so why does he not still be in the grave on our place? Could you tell me by what text in the Bible we could really tell that Jesus did not die the first but the second death on our place?

Does the biblical text (Rev. 20:6) or the other texts mentioned in the above statement of the 28 SDA-Beliefs really say that Jesus has died the second death on our place? Try to verify it yourself if this are good texts to prove it! Or would you find better ones in the Bible?

Do you also belief that God´s justice would not have allowed to forgive Adam und Eve if they would have asked God to forgive them and if they would have repented and lived a holy life with God, except that Jesus would be delivered to sinful men in order to kill him on a cross under the influence of the devil and his angels?

Could you find me some texts in the Bible, which tell us that the Justice of God demands absolutely the death of a sinner even if he repents, and that forgiving is not a question of justice but only of love and mercy? This would mean that forgiving sins without punishing the sinner by eternal death would be unjust, if the prize for the sins is not paid by an innocent substitute? What does the Bible say about who has to be punished and who not?

Could you find in your English Bibles the word “substitute” at all some where in relation to the death of Christ or in the context of sacrifices in the OT ? Did the prophets, or the Apostles or Jesus himself ever use the word “substitute” to describe how we should understand the OT-testament sacrifices and the death of Christ?

Did you ever think about the question, if God had also a plan for salvation and forgiving of Satan and His angels, which also were seduced by Satan as men were seduced on earth????? Or do we have to think that Lucifer after the first sin was also condemned to eternal death, without giving him and his angels a chance to conversion und making peace with God????? On what basis would God have been able to forgive them their sins and to reconciliate them with Him? Would you think, as theologians generally do, that the rules and principles, by which God forgives sinners in heaven are not the same than on earth?

If God also would have made provision to forgive Lucifer and His angels this would mean that God wanted to be not only a Saviour to fallen men but also to fallen angels. Would that also mean that Christ would not only have been a Mediator, Advocate and Saviour for fallen men but also for fallen angels long before sin entered in this world? Would that farther mean that Jesus did not wait until the time after his death to be a mediator for fallen men in the heavenly sanctuary but that he must have already been a mediator since sin entered into the world? Do we find places in the Bible that shows Jesus in these saving functions as a Mediator and Advocate for fallen men long before he came in this world?

I will wait now for your answers and if possible also answers from other readers of this forum, and then we will see, where we get farther on in our reflections

Thanks for trying to understand me in spite of expressing my thoughts in a foreign language! It was not possible to me to answer to all your questions and reflections and I guess you will understand that there are still much more to be said on the topic if we really want to understand more about real salvation. That´s why Ellen G. White tells us, that we will still have an Eternity to think and to understand better and better the plan of salvation. So let´s not make the mistake to think that we do not have to understand more than just to know that Jesus died for us or at our place and that he will do all right for us in the heavenly sanctuary! I want to drink more of the precious truth which are hidden in the Word of God and be waiting to be found there as a treasure for a better and at last for our eternal life.

God bless us in our continuing exchange!

Armin

God breathed, but interpreted through subjective human minds. It was common to use God to give expression to law, order and power, in many societies, but Israel seemed to be the first society to insist so emphatically on the jealous monotheism we associate with that period in history. I believe, a lot of what is attributed to God is the product of human sin and a simple tribal law to preserve honor, unity, patriarchal supremacy and procreation, and a war like attitude, but these things may have been needed in that world. Humans can escape the punishment of man, or society, but God is greater and cannot be tricked, so it is helpful if a law came from God, more chance of enforcing it. El, early name of God, just means high, referring to the power of the mountains, the awe inspired by the high places. If we study the Hebrew etymology we find that most early names for God are simply anthropomorphic projections of natural power, but then, we get YHWH (I am or I will be like, eternity...) I believe that God and his purposes are rvealed in Bible but that they can be discerned, but I feel the Bible should be directive, not imperative. That is the Catholic view point. Where Catholics go wrong however is that they have interpreted scripture through Greek philosophy. This is forgivable as the Gospel is written in Greek, and many words used (spiritos, psuchhe, pneuma, logos, rhema, zoe', agape') for example) have a different meaning in Greek philosophy than what was intended by the writers, who were expressinh Hebrew concepts (Ruahch, Nephesh, Ahaba) through Greek words. But if we compare what was being said to the Hebrew equivalents (much of the NT is OT resaid) we see that what was intended by these words was a more traditional Hebrew understanding of the concepts expressed. Anyway, the way of God is not passive, it is active, I mean, neo-platonic Monsticism, and other worldliness in a contemplative mystical sense does not exist in Hebrew thought, so Catholic monasticism has missed it there. Warfare is more an expression of being with God, in Hebrew thought. Suffering, in Hebrew, is not passive rsignation in Hebrew thought like in Catholic thought, it is a burning energy for change. Suffering with Christ does not mean whipping yourself it means working hard for him. Love is not a feel good feeling in Hebrew thought, it is a burning zeal, in fact it is (Ahaba) not a description of a feeling but a description of duty, it is an action. Also, compassion (Sumpascho in Greek means suffering with) is trying to express the Hebrew Ruhamah, mercy or compassiojn which means a mothers womb and implies the pain of child birth, compassion is a much intenser suffering in Hebrew thought, it is not a feel good euphoric feeling for the well being of all, it is a warfare of love which involves a painful sacrifice of self, a putting others before self even if it means death or pain. I think, though SDA tends to be very fundamentalist, they do stick closer to the intended meaning of scripture, and therefore they are I feel closer to the God of Bible who is the one true God, I believe.

Friend

This is an interesting definition of a deeper biblical understanding and sense of suffering and death for the benefit of others. Did you want to say by that that we could see also the suffering and death of Jesus in such a way, having accepted it in injustice but for the benefit and for the change of life for many people in this world, so that they would not just live for themselves but for others?
Would it be totally wrong to interpret the suffering and death of Jesus that way, and not so much as a needed substitute for wicked people, who just live for themselves and go on living this way in spite of His great example of self-sacrifice ?

Armin

Friend

Thanks for your very deep response. I could not find one sentence that I would not agree on everything that you wrote. I see it exactly that way. The question still remains if we could see the suffering of Jesus the same way? I do not find in the Bible the death of Jesus interpreted as a substitute for our sins but as a suffering and dying for the benefit of men to help them to see sin more awful and help them to come close to God and live with him a life according to his example and not as a substitutionary punishment of our sin. I do not find in the Bible that God needed to sacrifice His Son and to deliver Him to wicked man because he needed to satisfy the claim of the law, which is the death for sinners. So I do not belief, that Jesus had to be crucified otherwise God would not have the right to forgive any sin as the theology of substitution tells us to believe!

How do you think of that concept of salvation?

Armin