Excellent work, Jared.

I have been dreaming of some vlogging on Spectrum. These interviews - remember folks he's working with a budget of ZERO - are great. (Seriously, we are like the most-bang-for-your-buck media ministry in the church.)

Time for some 3 Angels Spectrum Broadcasting?

That was good Jared...and expresses the different understandings that exists on the atonement within Adventism.

regards,

pat

It's what you get with a dude, a digital camcorder and a tripod. Dr. Brad Cole, one of the co-founders of the Good News Tour, graciously invited me to attend a gathering at his home in Redlands following the last meetings on Sabbath. I brought my camera along hoping for some interviews, and a few folks obliged.

I interviewed Dr. Cole first. After setting up my camera, we spent some time talking about the beginnings of the Good News Tour, what Gospel means to him, and how he might differ slightly from those in the "forensic" camp. It was a good conversation, if I do say so myself (which I do). When I got home and watched the footage, Dr. Cole was only halfway in the frame most of the time, and completely out of the picture at times. I was so embarrassed! I vowed then and there to get a decent camera and at the least one video technician guy to with filming before I try this again.

So much for a budget of zero!

Thanks Jared I really appreciated the interviews you did. Actually I made a statement in the Alden Thompson interview the subject of my latest blog article. I found it rather revealing:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com

PS I did say that one word in your question was unintelligible. Maybe you could clear it up for me and I will change the blog. It was not meant as a criticism.

rc - I read your blog. You say,

"Ellen White is very clearly a supporter of Penal Substitutionary Atonement even going so far as picturing Christ pleading to the Father".

Really? Where do you read she was pleading "to" the father? I'm not sure I read that. What does she say? Christ is pleading before the father. Which way is he facing, towards God or towards us? Is the pleading made to God or the pleading made to the transgressor?

The infinite God, said Jesus, makes it your privilege to approach Him by the name of Father. Understand all that this implies. No earthly parent ever pleaded so earnestly with an erring child as He who made you pleads with the transgressor. {ST, October 28, 1903 par. 3}

"Our crucified Lord is pleading for us in the presence of the Father at the throne of grace. {7BC 948.3}"

Christ is pleading to us, in the presence of the Father (before the Father). That is different than pleading TO the Father. I read it Jesus is pleading TO us in the presence of the Father. Other places she says:

"If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

An advocate WITH the Father. Together with the Father, they plead with us, as in Romans 8, where the Spirit pleads with us, Jesus pleads with us, and God pleads with us. God is for us.

Rom 8:31 NIV What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Joh 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf.
Joh 16:27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

God is one, there is no tension in the Godhead. They have one goal, one purpose. Or so it seems to me...

Bh see Experience and teachings of Ellen white 1922
----
"Sabbath afternoon one of our number was sick, and requested prayers that he might be healed. We all united in applying to the Physician who never lost

102

a case, and while healing power came down, and the sick was healed, the Spirit fell upon me, and I was taken off in vision. {CET 101.3}

I saw four angels who had a work to do on the earth, and were on their way to accomplish it. Jesus was clothed with priestly garments. He gazed in pity on the remnant, then raised His hands, and with a voice of deep pity cried, "My blood, Father, My blood! My blood! My blood!" Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from God, who sat upon the great white throne, and was shed all about Jesus. Then I saw an angel fly with a commission from Jesus, swiftly flying to the four angels who had a work to do in the earth, and waving something up and down in his hand, and crying with a loud voice, "Hold! hold! hold! hold! until the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads." {CET 102.1}

I asked my accompanying angel the meaning of what I heard, and what the four angels were about to do. He said to me that it was God that restrained the powers, and that He gave His angels charge over things on the earth; that the four angels had power from God to hold the four winds, and that they were about to let them go; but while their hands were loosening, and the four winds were about to blow, the merciful eye of Jesus gazed on the remnant that were not sealed, and He raised His hands to the Father, and pleaded with Him that He had spilled His blood for them. Then another angel was commissioned to fly swiftly to the four angels, and bid them hold, until the servants of God were sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads. {CET 102.2}
----

You will also find it multiple other places such as Life Sketches {LS 118.3}and Early Writings {EW 38.2}

What is so interesting about this quote is how it seperates Christ from God. God has a plan then Christ pleads my blood to change God's mind, in this case because not enough of the remnant have been sealed. It takes the Christ sacrifice of the penal theory to the end time result that Christ intercedes for us with God, because well God does not really love us as much as Christ does, God had to be satisfied by punishing, while Christ could forgive and give of Himself. God is too aloof for that. So we see all these harmful elements that are ever present in Penal theory. A division of God into the wrathful angry God and the loving forgiving God seen in Jesus. That has always been the problem of the penal theory...how it makes God look.

We also see it in such books as the compilation In Heavenly Places:
----

This Advocate pleads for sinners and the Father accepts His prayer. He turns not away the request of His beloved Son. He who so loved you as to give His own life for you will not turn you off and forsake you unless you willfully, determinedly forsake Him to serve the world and Satan. Jesus loves to have you come to Him just as you are, hopeless and helpless, and cast yourself upon His all- abundant mercy and believe that He will receive you just as you are. {HP 119.3}
---
Or this from the Signs of the Times:
----
Jehovah did not deem the plan of salvation complete while it was invested only with His own love. He has placed at His altar an Advocate clothed with our nature, whose office it is to introduce us to God as His sons and daughters. Christ intercedes in behalf of all who receive Him. He gives to them power to become the sons of God. And the Father demonstrates His love for Christ by receiving and welcoming Christ's friends as His friends. He is satisfied with the atonement made. He is glorified by the mediation of His Son. We are accepted in the Beloved. {ST, August 13, 1902 par. 2}
---
I could go on and on.
I would give you the link but the search engine does not work that way. http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org

OK - I'll take one of your examples, and read more. You quoted HP 119.3. See 119.4:

You dwell upon the dark side. You must turn your mind away, and instead of thinking all the time upon the wrath of God, think of His abundant mercy, His willingness to save poor sinners, and then believe He saves you. You must in the name of God break this spell that is upon you. You must cry out, "I will, I do believe!" Jesus retains your name upon His breastplate and pleads for you before His Father, and if your eyes could be opened you would see heavenly angels ministering unto you, hovering about and driving back the evil angels that they should not utterly destroy. . . . {HP 119.4}

I read this to mean that Jesus is pleading for YOU, to YOU, and if you open your eyes, you will see how this intercession is working; Angels are ministering unto you, driving back the evil angels. And he does this along side the Father. Is that legal? And speaking of wrath, in the book Great Controversy, she writes:

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.

Is that legal?

In my article I point out that many Penal theory proponents also hold to the demonstrative atonement views. They are however an addition to the Penal view. So it is not surprising that you can find that in Ellen White or John MacArthur or most any Penal atonement theorist you come upon. However, I long ago realized this inconsistancy in the larger view proponents so I put together a list of Ellen White quotes to demonstrate her clearly Penal views. Here is the link a few examples:

http://newprotestants.com/EGWsubq.htm
---
This is for people who think that Ellen White did not hold to the Substitutionary view of the Atonement. Many of the followers of A. Graham Maxwell think that Ellen would subscribe to what he terms the “Larger View” which is more similar to the Moral Influence Theory then to the Penal/ Substitutionary theory. A search of the MLI software CD Rom of all the published writings of Ellen White with the addition of a few private collections reveals that she used the term “Substitute and surety” about Jesus 156 times. The following 55 pages of Ellen White quotes includes all of those 156 references as well as her other references where she speaks of Jesus Christ as man’s substitute. If anyone is honest with themselves they will realize that the term substitute is the foundation upon which the Penal / Substitutionary theory of the atonement is based. She is not Substitutionary in isolated instances but that is her predominate view. She does include some Moral Influence views also, as does almost all other theories of the Atonement since it is the clearest and most straight forward of Atonement views and has been a part of the Substitutionary view of the atonement since the days of Hugo Grotus.

Before the comprehensive listing of Ellen White’s “Substitute” quotes I have created a section which lists her most exclaimatory comments reflecting her Substitutionary view of the atonement. To save space relevant sections are quoted in the first section, the following section contains the entire paragraph quotes.

DA.753.001

Upon Christ as our substitute and surety was laid the iniquity of us all. He was counted a transgressor, that He might redeem us from the condemnation of the law. The guilt of every descendant of Adam was pressing upon His heart. The wrath of God against sin, the terrible manifestation of His displeasure because of iniquity, filled the soul of His Son with consternation.

AG.1903-08-19.003 Atlantic Union Gleaner 1903

Our Only Hope. God's law has lost none of its force. In his sight sin is still a hateful thing. Because we have sinned, we must personally bear the condemnation of the law, unless some one else, one in whom no taint of sin can be found, will bear the condemnation in our behalf. Without a substitute, we have no hope of pardon and salvation.

BE.1894-11-05.005 Bible Echo 1894

We are not under a system of mere requirements, mere justice, and unsympathizing rigour. The penalty of transgressing the law has fallen upon our Substitute and Surety, and for a time has been suspended, so that the guilty do not feel its weight; but the object of this suspension is not to teach us that its claims are over, its exactions set aside, but to attract us to holiness, to obedience.

PT.1886-02-04.001 Present Truth (British) 1886

It was not the dread of death which caused the inexpressible agony of Jesus…. It was the guilt of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon him as man's substitute, that broke the heart of the Son of God.

SS.1895-11-01.003 Sabbath-School Worker 1895

The plan of redemption is perfect in all its parts. It does not demerit or lessen the claims of the law of God in one jot or one tittle in saving the sinner from the just penalty of the law. Through the provision of the death of God's only-begotten Son in sinners' behalf, the immutability of the law of God is demonstrated for time and eternity. Justice honors the law of God in providing a substitute for the transgressor; for Christ gave his own life a ransom in order that God might be just and yet be the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. The work of saving the lost through the merit of Christ magnifies the law and harmonizes with every perfection of Jehovah. In the plan of salvation the highest honor is paid to the law of heaven's government, and yet mercy is freely dispensed to the fallen sons of Adam.

RH.1873-01-21.003 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 1873

Christ came not confessing his own sins; but guilt was imputed to him as the sinner's substitute. He came not to repent on his own account; but in behalf of the sinner. As man had transgressed the law of God, Christ was to fulfill every requirement of that law, and thus show perfect obedience. "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God!" Christ honored the ordinance of baptism by submitting to this rite. In this act he identified himself with his people as their representative and head. As their substitute, he takes upon him their sins, numbering himself with the transgressors, taking the steps the sinner is required to take, and doing the work the sinner must do

RH.1874-03-03.001

Fallen man, because of his guilt, could no longer come directly before God with his supplications, for his transgression of the divine law had placed an impassable barrier between the holy God and the transgressor. But a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a substitute of superior value to the law of God. In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die." And the flowing of the blood from the victim would also signify an atonement. There was no virtue in the blood of animals; but the shedding of the blood of beasts was to point forward to a Redeemer who would one day come to the world and die for the sins of men. And thus Christ would fully vindicate his Father's law.

RH.1887-07-05.008

Christ was to die as man's substitute. Man was a criminal under the sentence of death for transgression of the law of God as a traitor, a rebel; hence a substitute for man must die as a malefactor, because he stood in the place of the traitors, with all their treasured sins upon his divine soul. It was not enough that Jesus should die in order to fully meet the demands of the broken law, but he died a shameful death. The prophet gives to the world his words, "I hid not my face from shame and spitting."

---

You have to consider these quotes with all of her writing where she talks of God's wrath. The whole setting of the great controversy, the purpose of this creation, the roll Adam and Eve were to have, and Christ as Adam's substitute, the second Adam. I think you would be in sympathy with the Good News Tour if they left EGW out of it, which for the most part they do. I now see, you have a perception different than mine, that will not easily change, which is OK because you are not saved by EGW, but by God. Are you MIT, or is there more?

I am very much in sympathy with the Good News Tour. But they don't leave Ellen White out of it. They don't constantly quote her or anything but the founding presuppositions are there. Most Adventists don't even know how heavily their theology is influenced by EGW, you especially hear it in the way they setup the beginning proposition of the Great Controversy. The war in heaven stuff and the mythology about Lucifer. They pick references like yours above:

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown."

Ignoring the ones about the wicked suffering for days:
--
" The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. They "shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished according to their deeds. The sins of the righteous have been transferred to Satan, the originator of evil, who must bear their penalty. Thus he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch,-- Satan the root, his followers the branches. The justice of God is satisfied, and the saints and all the angelic host say with a loud voice, Amen. {4SP 488.1}

While the earth is wrapped in the fire of God's vengeance, the righteous abide safely in the holy city. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. [REV. 20:6.] While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, he is to his people both a sun and a shield. [PS. 84:11.] {4SP 489.1}" {GC88 673.1}
--

I hold to the moral Influence theory (remember there is more, the MIT is only about the atonement,in theological terms what the death accomplishes, it does not deal with how God acts upon people through the resurrection or Christ living in them etc.), I see no way to reconcile it with the Penal theory and I foresee only failure for those who try to stand against the Penal theory while embracing Ellen White.

To jump in on this conversation in progress, a key problem (or benefit if you take Alden Thompson's tack) in the debate about atonement models / metaphors is that they are all biblical. I've said this before, but here I go again: "forensic" justification has plenty of biblical support. So do all the other models that people employ.

Arguing these points on Scriptural grounds isn't going to get us anyplace in the end because we can all get where we want to go in the same vehicle - the Bible - even when our destinations are on opposite sides of the theological world.

I wish we could all get to the point where we'd admit that yes, all of these models and metaphors are thoroughly biblical, and then move on to the more difficult task of figuring out what it really means when we say that God is just, or God is love, or God is all good all the time.

But notice, please notice, that when we really start pushing the bounds of these ideas (God is just, God is all love, God is all good), we're going to have to move beyond Scripture. Scripture doesn't reveal an all just, all good, all loving God. Some day, we as a faith community will have to acknowledge that fact. Ditto Ellen White's writings. We can build almost any case we want to build by cherry-picking statements from this book or that, but eventually we'll have to admit that she, like the Bible, does not present a singular, unified and cohesive picture of God.

(I say all of this to our Adventist community as a whole, more than to those who have commented in this thread)

Jared

We are all like the six blind men of Hindustan! We each see a part of the whole. Just as one cannot see the entire Alps out of one car window, neither can we see God through a cherry-picking of Old and New Testament texts. That is why the heavenly host sing Glory, Glory, Glory: not in repetition but in an ever new view of a majestic Deity. We constantly try to bring God down to our size. Our world is less than a grain of sand in the universe, yet God emptied Heaven for us. Yet we insist on our pathetic myoptic view of an eternal divine Triune Godhead. I am willing to wait for the big picture to unfold. I just feel sorry for those who think they already have a hold on the totality of divinity--insisting on their view as the only completely correct one. Tom

Tom, experience brings wisdom. You remind me of that.

I like that blind man and elephant story. I used to tell it to my Buddhist Bible class in Thailand.

Fair enough Jared...

But why do you say so, "Scripture doesn't reveal an all just, all good, all loving God."

And why does the "good news tour" omit propitiation, justification and substitution as necessary parts?

I do not deny that God's "love" was the motivating, driving factor and the "metaphors" of propitiation, redemption, justification, ransom etc. were God's means and benefits of our salvation.

"By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." 1 JN.4:9-11.

regards,

pat

Jared:

No actually all the atonement theories are not Biblical. Take for instance one of the second earliest theories which held reign for a couple hundred years. It was known as the ransom theory, in which Jesus was a ransom paid to Satan.

They found support for it in the Bible, not because the Bible said anything of the kind but because they read that idea into particular verses.

That is why I constantly point out that there is no where in the New Testament that it says that Jeus paid a penalty, no where that it says that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus. Yet those are the classical phrases from the Penal theory. The simple fact is that they don't all work, they don't all have a place in current Christianity.

Thompson's use of saying that a church needs both the MIT and the Penal theory to be balanced is like saying a church needs both those who believe in eternal torment in hell and those who believe in annialation. Or saying that we need those who believe in salvation by works and those who believe in salvation by faith.

It sounds wonderful that we have a big tent and can accept everything. In any other area of theology we would not encourage the polar opposites, yet here in order to silence the MIT portion from their denouncement of Penal theory it is encouraged. Because as I said Penal theory has no problem with moral influence theory as long as you include penal theory also. So they give up nothing yet appear to be granting everything to those not paying attention.

rc, Is this penal theory?

The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us, but in our hearts and characters.--Letter 406, 1906. {7ABC 464.2}

That sure does not sound penal theory. I'm sure you can pick out quotes and make them penal. But taken as a whole, I don't see it. But that is my opinion. YMMV

BH you can test your theory by simply asking any penal theory believing Adventist or any other Christian for that matter if they would agree with that Ellen White quote or not? You know the answer, they will agree wholeheartedly with the quote. To them penal theory is never simply a skillful way of pardoning sin, if we said that to them they would simply say we don't understand what the Penal theory is or what Jesus did.

Pat,

When I say that Scripture doesn't portray an "all-good", "all-loving", "all-just" God, perhaps a better way of conveying what I mean would be to say that the picture of God in Scipture is not exclusively Good, exclusively just, or exclusively loving. What I mean to say is that Scripture portrays very diverse portraits of God, and that they are not all cohesive.

RC,
I'll agree with you that not every model of atonement that has been proposed by humanity is biblical. Pardon my hyperbole on that count. The idea is that there are many metaphors in Scripture, and that they are not always compatible. Scripture lives with that tension just fine, but I think we're not as fine with it as Scripture seems to be.

The difference Jared is that a metaphor is not an atonement theory. A metaphor is a figure of speech used to show a seblance between otherwise unrelated items. So a metaphor about having your day in court does not have anything to do with literally having a court appearance.

That the Bible uses multitudes of metaphors is not really of any significance to the question of atonement theories. As a metaphor is created by how you the person using the metaphor wants to use it, the connection between two otherwise disimilar ideas. So depending upon how you precieve the atonement will determine how you are connecting the metaphors used by someone else, because the Bible authors did not give the theory behind their view only the metaphor. And actually in many of the metaphors used they are not even addressing the overall atonement theory just some particular point the author is dealing with.

Is a metaphor useful for all time just because a Bible author used it for his purpose at that point in his life? Not necessarily. Could a brand new metaphor be even better than any of the biblical ones? I think so! Might some metaphors be now obsolete? Quite possibly.

Just because you see it in the Bible, it doesn't mean it's useful. Just because you don't see it in the Bible, it doesn't mean it's wrong. You can't limit God and the Work of God to what is revealed in the Bible.

I'm prepared to be surprised when God will text me directly to my frontal lobe - "penal theory? yeah that works i guess ... but my fav was the reeses peanut butter cup theory, lol" Dude, God IS sweetness! ^_^

A bit of this discussion has occurred over at Atomorrow.com
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/8/15243.html?1221223891#POST880...

Bill S. being a devoted penal theorist posted the following EGW comment. So I will post it here and ask BH if he finds the quote forensic or not.

-PC- ST
-PT- The Signs of the Times
-DT- 12-23-86
-AT- Cain and Abel Tested
-PR- 05
-TEXT-
This was the first gospel sermon ever preached to fallen man; this promise was the star of hope, illuminating the dark and dismal future of the race. Adam gladly received the welcome assurance of deliverance, and diligently instructed his children in the way of the Lord. This promise was presented in close connection with the altar of sacrificial offerings. The altar and the promise stand side by side, and one casts clear beams of light upon the other, showing that the justice of an offended God could be appeased only by the death of his beloved Son. The bleeding victim consuming on the altar illustrated Adam's teachings, and thus the sight of the eyes deepened the impression made by the hearing of the ear."

Hard to take those words any other way;
"showing that the justice of an offended God could be appeased only by the death of his beloved Son."

But I have to caution the Bible says nothing of this "first gospel sermon ever preached to fallen man".

What absolute rubbish. Appeasing an offended God. Hasn't anyone read John 3:16 "For God so Loved, that He gave!!!!!!!

The Trinity were together on the Covenant of Redemption. That is one thing that Reform Theology got right.

The issue was how to have peace and justice kiss each other!

If God was going to be justice with Lucifer then He also had to be justice with those decieved by Lucifer. That justice weas assumed by the Creator Himself and confirmed by Grace upon each one of us. It is now up to us to accept or reject that mercy in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Adam didn't offend God, he disappointed God. Thanks be to God that He made provision before hand for than possibility.
We are doubly His, by creation and by redemption--just don't blow it with self agrandizing speculation. Tom

I was recently asked to give my opinion on the last GNT presentation. Which might have been better titled "in praise of Origen". It is kind of surprising I have not heard anything about the presentation, Anyway you can read the article at:
http://www.cafesda.blogspot.com/