Last GenerationTheology the historical Adventist view.

Last GenerationTheology the historical Adventist view. By Ron Corson

Mark Finley recently gave a sermon that deals with Last Generation Theology (LGT). He begins with this paragraph:

The Bible makes a stunning prediction. At the end of time, God will have a group of people that are totally completely loyal to him. A people whose hearts are undivided. A people whose lives reflect the character of Christ fully. When that happens, the earth will be lightened with the glory of God. This will be a loyal people, an obedient people right here on this sinful planet. Now, some people call this concept last generation theology. But is it biblical? And what do we mean by that? Can grace so transform us that we live loyal lives? When we use the term perfection, what does that mean? We're going to probe that in this presentation. Let's be honest, it almost sounds like it's impossible to live obedient, godly lives in this sinful world. We look around, we see compromise in the world. We see weakness in the church. We see inconsistency in ourselves. We believe in grace but complete obedience. And then we wonder, can Jesus only pardon our sin? Or can Jesus deliver us from sin? And if he can, can he only deliver us from grosser, larger sins? Or can he deliver us from sins of of attitude and disposition? In Revelation 14:12, we find these words, Revelation the 14th chapter and the 12th verse. And the Bible says, "Here is the patience of the saints. Here are those that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus." So the question isn't will God have such a people? The question really is how will that people be revealed and how will they be enabled to keep the commandments of God? How actually is this going to happen? How can broken people like us reflect the character of Christ? How can a generation raised in weakness become a 2:38 generation that walks in victory? 

This sermon has created a lot of controversy in the SDA church. Is LGT true or not, is it from Ellen White or the Bible. Is it perhaps just the misinterpretation of based upon M.L. Andreason [Milian Lauritz Andreasen (1876-1962) ].

There is however only one answer to the question and that is that it is the historical position of the Adventist denomination. It was set forth by the Adventist pioneers, the followers of William Miller who expected the second coming to occur in 1843 and then 1844. After the great disappointment, the Adventist pioneers followed Ellen White in her belief that the door of salvation had been closed. The key text that Mark Finley used was Revelation 14:12 was one of the key texts that those Adventist pioneers used in their writing after 1844. They thought they were the final generation.

Ellen White writes in her first book Early Writings:

“Servants of God, endowed with power from on high with their faces lighted up, and shining with holy consecration, went forth to proclaim the message from heaven. Souls that were scattered all through the religious bodies answered to the call, and the precious were hurried out of the doomed churches, as Lot was hurried out of Sodom before her destruction. God’s people were strengthened by the excellent glory which rested upon them in rich abundance and prepared them to endure the hour of temptation. I heard everywhere a multitude of voices saying, “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” EW 278.2

["This volume is a comprehensive selection of Ellen G. White’s published writings from the 1850s, along with a prologue explaining the historical background of the text. The autobiographical section of the book describes the author’s conversion experience, the Millerite movement of 1840-1844, and the early visions that formed the foundation of her theology and ministry." from the publisher]

What is important to remember is that this was at a time before the Adventist pioneers came to the conclusion that Saturday was the seventh-day sabbath. From the very beginning, many of the Adventist pioneers read their current generation in the book of Revelation. Mark Finley has taken the Adventist history of reading themselves into Revelation, but in this case, he puts a future final generation reading into it. He and Adventists also see themselves as the three angels' messages of the book of Revelation

Adventists have also used the verse above to show that they are the true church because they keep the true sabbath. Finley has simply taken the position that the first use by the Adventists was true for the early pioneers who thought that they were on the narrow path that took them to heaven. Continued to use the same verse to show that the Adventists are the true commandment keepers, and finally used the verse to show that there is a last generation of people who have been perfected by God to lead lives which are pure enough to be called perfect in a final generation.

Again from the book Early Writings: 

“While I was praying at the family altar, the Holy Ghost fell upon me, and I seemed to be rising higher and higher, far above the dark world. I turned to look for the Advent people in the world, but could not find them, when a voice said to me, “Look again, and look a little higher.” At this I raised my eyes, and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so that they might not stumble. If they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the city, they were safe. But soon some grew weary, and said the city was a great way off, and they expected to have entered it before. Then Jesus would encourage them by raising His glorious right arm, and from His arm came a light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted, “Alleluia!” Others rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below. Soon we [See Appendix.] heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and hour of Jesus’ coming. The living saints, 144,000 in number, knew and understood the voice, while the wicked thought it was thunder and an earthquake. When God spoke the time, He poured upon us the Holy Ghost, and our faces began to light up and shine with the glory of God, as Moses’ did when he came down from Mount Sinai."

"The 144,000 were all sealed and perfectly united. On their foreheads was written, God, New Jerusalem, and a glorious star containing Jesus’ new name. At our happy, holy state the wicked were enraged, and would rush violently up to lay hands on us to thrust us into prison, when we would stretch forth the hand in the name of the Lord, and they would fall helpless to the ground. Then it was that the synagogue of Satan knew that God had loved us who could wash one another’s feet and salute the brethren with a holy kiss, and they worshiped at our feet." (EW 14-15)

The historical Prologue of Early Writings states: 

“James and Ellen White took their stand purely from the scriptural evidence to which their minds had been directed in the Bates tract. Then on the first Sabbath in April, 1847, seven months after they began to keep and teach the Seventh-day Sabbath, the Lord gave a vision to Mrs. White at Topsham, Maine, in which the importance of the Sabbath was stressed. She saw the tables of the law in the ark in the heavenly sanctuary, and a halo of light about the fourth commandment. See pages 32-35 for the account of this vision. The position previously taken from the study of the word of God was confirmed. The vision also helped to broaden the believer’s concept of Sabbath observance. In this revelation, Mrs. White was carried down to the close of time and saw the Sabbath as the great testing truth on which men decide whether to serve God or to serve an apostate power. Looking back in 1874 to this experience, she wrote:

“I believed the truth upon the Sabbath question before I had seen anything in vision in reference to the Sabbath. It was months after I had commenced keeping the Sabbath before I was shown its importance and its place in the third angel’s message.”—E. G. White Letter 2, 1874. (EW xxi.1-xxii.1

This Historical Prologue of the book Early Writings also presents this about the Shut door: 

“Certain references occur in this work, on pages 42-45, to the “open door” and the “shut door.” This is correctly understood only in the light of the background of the experience of our early believers.

Not too long after the Disappointment the pioneers saw that while there were those who through the definite rejection of light had closed the door to their salvation, there were many who had not heard the message and had not rejected it, and these might benefit from the provisions made for man’s salvation. By the early 1850’s these points stood out clearly. Then too, avenues for the presentation of the three angels’ messages were beginning to open up. Prejudice was dying away. Ellen White, looking back to their experience following the Disappointment wrote:

“‘It was then next to impossible to obtain access to unbelievers. The disappointment in 1844 had confused the minds of many, and they would not listen to any explanation of the matter.’”—The Review and Herald, November 20, 1883.

But in 1851 Elder White was able to report: “‘Now the door is open almost everywhere to present the truth, and many are prepared to read the publications who have formerly had no interest to investigate.’”—The Review and Herald, August 19, 1851. (EW xxix.4-xxx.3) See also https://whiteestate.org/about/issues1/unusual/shut-door/

Here is a common example of how Adventism has used Revelation 14:12:

The second angel warns us to watch out for the wine of Babylon, and the third angel warns us that false worship will be introduced by Babylon, and that it will be associated with a specific “mark.” The third message ends with a people who believe God. They are loyal to Him, and they worship Him. Revelation 14:12 says, “Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” These saints endure and keep the commandments of God and keep the faith of Jesus. Both characteristics have meaning. We will look at them separately.

The first defining characteristic is, “those who keep the commandments of God”. At the center of the commandments is the fourth commandment, which is the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy as the ultimate seal of God. We will look at 7 aspects that differentiate the seal of God from the mark of the beast.” The Seal of God and Mark of the Beast: Part 1 

There are other factors to the LGT one of which is the idea that the perfected last generation somehow vindicates God. As this paper states:

“Andreasen’s Great Controversy theme does not differ much from Ellen White’s. In fact, his beliefs were based on White’s concept. The slight difference is in the purpose of the saints and their righteous lives. According to the Spirit of Prophecy, the saints, through their lives, will help vindicate the character of God, while Andreasen went further by teaching that the vindication of God’s character depends on the saints. If they fail, God fails. Satan can still claim victory over God if the saints fail. However, the Spirit of Prophecy teaches that victory over Satan had already been accomplished on Calvary when Jesus cried, “It is finished.” (A Critical Evaluation of The LastGeneration Theology (LGT) of (L) ML Andreasen Through the Lens of TheScriptures and The Writings of Ellen G. White Dr. Koberson Langhu, Assistant Professor, Division of Religious Studies, Spicer Adventist University” 

Earlier in the paper Dr. Koberson Langhu wrote: "

According to Ellen White, Satan has accused God, saying that He cannot forgive the saints because they have committed many sins. And if He forgives them and yet destroys him and his angels, it would be an injustice on His part. To prove Satan wrong and to show that the saints have confessed their sins and have been forgiven, God “permits him to try them to the uttermost” (White 1939, 618). She also points out that God has His people who are “to be the depositories of His holy law and to vindicate His character before the world,” a “distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God” (White 1962, 58). They are to manifest His glory through their lives and character. She teaches that the saints will play a part in vindicating God’s character. However, we do not find any statement where she claims that the vindication of God’s character depends on the faithfulness of the saints.

It should be noted here that if someone has to vindicate someone else, the vindication must be essential to the process or it would not be a vindication. That is the key problem for both Ellen White and Andreasen. We note that Ellen White uses the term "vindicate" or "vindication" but we also note that she says the following and here is the full quote rather than the snippet that is most often used in certain highly edited books put out by the White Estate:

“Christ on the cross not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law—for whom God pardons He first makes penitent—but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body, satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made. He suffered in the flesh, that with His bruised and broken body He might cover the defenseless sinner. The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe and silenced his charges that self-denial was impossible with God and therefore not essential in the human family.

Satan’s position in heaven had been next to the Son of God. He was first among the angels. His power had been debasing, but God could not reveal it in its true light and carry all heaven in harmony with him in removing him with his evil influences. His power was increasing, but [the] evil [was] yet unrecognized. It was a deadly power to the universe, but for the security of the worlds and the government of heaven, it was necessary that it should develop and be revealed in its true light.

In carrying out his enmity to Christ until He hung upon the cross of Calvary, with wounded, bruised body and broken heart, Satan completely uprooted himself from the affections of the universe. It was then seen that God had in His Son denied Himself, giving Himself for the sins of the world, because He loved mankind. The Creator was revealed in the Son of the infinite God. Here the question, “Can there be self-denial with God?” was forever answered. Christ was God, and condescending to be made flesh, He assumed humanity and became obedient unto death, that He might undergo infinite sacrifice.

Whatever sacrifice a human being could undergo Christ endured, notwithstanding Satan put forth every effort to seduce Him with temptations; but the greater the temptation, the more perfect was the sacrifice. All that was possible for man to endure in the conflict with Satan, Christ endured in His human and divine nature combined. Obedient, sinless to the last, He died for man, his substitute and surety, enduring all that men ever endure from the deceiving tempter, that man may overcome by being a partaker of the divine nature.” Letters and Manuscripts Volume 15 1900 March 28 {15LtMs. Ms 50 1900}

This leaves the question of what could possibly be needed to vindicate God.

From Ellen White we have a couple of statements.

1. Let all be careful not to make an outcry against the only people who are fulfilling the description given of the remnant people, who keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus.... God has a distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God.... My brother, if you are teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is Babylon, you are wrong.—Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 50, 58, 59 (1893). [The book of Revelation focuses on two sets of God’s people—the visible remnant (12:17) and “My people” in Babylon (18:4). This chapter deals with the former, and chapter 14, “The Loud Cry,” deals with the latter.] (Lde 43.1-3)

2. Of the Spirit Jesus said, “He shall glorify Me.” The Saviour came to glorify the Father by the demonstration of His love; so the Spirit was to glorify Christ by revealing His grace to the world. The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of His people. (DA 671.3)

   {{Perfection of character vs. royal law of liberty.]

3. I have to note here that she had a second paragraph which kind of changes things in the 1904 Review and Herald:
   “At the cost of infinite sacrifice and suffering, Christ has provided for us every essential to success in the Christian warfare. The Holy Spirit brings power that enables man to overcome. It is through the agency of the Spirit that the government of Satan is to be subdued. It is the Spirit that convinces of sin, and, with the consent of the human being, expels sin from the heart. The mind is then brought under a new law,—the royal law of liberty.” (RH May 19. 1904 par 5)“When the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.” Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.” (COL 69.1)

Can these quotes be harmonized to be a vindication of God or of God's law? We will assume, since Ellen White thought that the law of God was a transcript of God's character, that they are one and the same. Is there a reason to vindicate God's law? Biblically, there is nothing that accuses God's law of having any sort of problem. The only problem likely is that people don't like to keep God's law. So if the law is not the problem, then that leaves God Himself as the one who needs to be vindicated. That moves us to number 2 above, the honor of God and Christ is involved in the perfection of Character. This idea is less about vindicating God but about the healing and restoration that God gives to us. It even seems more useful in the context of the Royal law mentioned in the book of James, as you shall love your neighbor as yourself, it is not a burden as God has written on the heart in the new covenant, it is not rule keeping but love and justice where mercy triumphs over judgment, as those who receive mercy show mercy. But the law of liberty is fulfilled in Christ, which is why He says my yoke is easy my burden light (Matt 11:30), and who the Lord has set free is free indeed (John 8:36). As the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and evicts the attraction of sin from the heart of people, the U-turn of the road of life as Hank Hanegraaff would often describe repentance. It is not a vindication that God can do something; the creator of the Universe can, as Paul says, change in an instant death to life and transform those still alive (1 Corinthians 15:52). There is no need for last generation theology; it is very much the conclusion of the plan of salvation. One could argue that the plan of salvation includes this as its last generation theology, but the point here is that it is not needed, and the plan succeeds without any LGT.

Number 3 gives us the idea that Christ has not been manifested in the Christian church and will someday perfectly reproduce His character in both the church and his people. When this character perfection is attained by the remnant people/church, then the harvest occurs. That is perhaps the best statement that comes close to being a vindication. When it occurs, then the harvest at the end of the world can happen. Yet it comes back to this is not even close to being a vindication of God as much as a completion of God's plan of redemption/salvation. In which case, it is only a vindication in that God has finished what He started. To vindicate according to Merriam Webster's dictionary, the first two definitions are: 

a. to free from allegation or blame

b.: confirm, substantiate

The problem is that there are two different presuppositions for Adventists: For many, maybe even most Adventists today, they begin with what is termed the Great Controversy Theme/view, and it is extra-biblical. When you look at Ellen White's quotes with her Great Controversy view, you have to say that there was,  before the earth was created. a claim made by Satan, known to Adventists as Lucifer, that God's government was unfair. That the Law is unjust and cannot be kept. If one uses the extra-biblical worldview of Ellen White than it can become human vindication. By keeping the commandments, humans prove the law is holy, just, and good, and this vindicates the Heavenly Government

So under Ellen White's view humans can vindicate God by proving to the Universe that God's law can be kept by humans and that by perfecting a final generation, God proves his reputation by getting humans to the spiritually healthy, sinless state proving God power to heal and restore. Adventists who take this route often say something about our mission is vindicate the character of God. So Adventists are at an impasse; they want to be Biblical yet want to follow their prophet, whom they often refer to as the spirit of prophecy, pen of inspiration, the Lord's Messenger, the Testimonies. But there are two different starting points, which necessitate two different ending points.

2-14-26 Update

I just saw that Heritage & Hope Ministries 18 hours ago from this writing posted a video entitled God's Character and the Last Generation I will at some point do more on this video but to begin with there are a couple things which verify my presentation above. I won't place them in order but we have about 33 minutes we hear one of the presenters say: 

32:39

...if you believe that, if you believe that we're all born guilty of sin, that there's something in our nature that causes us to be guilty at birth, or that there's something there that cannot be changed until our flesh is changed, then you've created a situation where no amount of remediation by God works until he actually changes your flesh. And so that means that you don't really have a choice. You can try and God can help you. That's why it's only partial. It's never complete as that quote was saying, which is an error. Again, it's like making an excuse for sin. You can say, "I was born this way, and I can only go so far, and there is an excuse, well, then I cannot keep the law of God." Well, then, as soon as there's an excuse for sin, in a sense, it would become, it ceased to become sin. It would cease to be sin. And this is all about the great controversy over the law of God. 

Notice how the root to this person is the great controversy over the law of God. Not a biblical concept! Next they spend time complaining about a book entitled God's Character in the Last Generation. We hear this from the presenter:

6:49 And so with that in mind, you know, we do want to have a correct understanding of those who are living on this earth and their nature as we go forward. Will they be able to overcome sin? Will they not be able to overcome sin? What about the close of probation? What about Christ's administration in the most holy place above? These are all details that are very important to present truth-believing Seventh-day Adventists.

This brings us to the first point of the presentation, which is that Adventists hold to a unique view of the Sanctuary in heaven. Thus, he says, what bout the close of probation (to an SDA that is when Christ ends his intercession in heaven and throws down his censor, and once intercession has ended, we stand without an intercessor before God. (Again, not a biblical view because the Bible specifically says Heb 7:25) He continues that these are very important to present truth-believing SDA's. What does Present truth mean to SDA's? To Adventists present truth is the teaching of the Adventist church. That is different from Biblical truths as the present truths are time sensitive; it is a message of the last days, it is based on their understanding of prophecy, which is centered upon Ellen White, their last-day prophet. It directs them on how to live, Sabbath as the seal of God and a coming Sunday law which restricts them from worshipping on the Sabbath and Sunday at that time will be called the mark of the beast (at that time being once probation closes) And lastly they claim it is consistent with the Bible, which is only possible if one interprets the Bible according to their Present Truth traditions.

The important point is again we have two different starting points and two different ending points as the Adventist Church does not start at the Bible but starts at a pre biblical Great Controversy in heaven and ends with the Great Controversy concluded with human beings vindicating that God's law can be kept by human beings. 

 
 

Law of Love

God is Love, The Law

By Ron Corson

Submitted for your consideration; there is little written about the conditions which produced our world in the state it is in. The following is my theory as to the role played in this story by God’s Law. It is based largely on my understanding of the entire Bible beginning to end, it is likely much different from what most people think about when they think about God's Law.

Sometime ago undoubtedly before the creation of Earth, there existed a Law. A law I will refer to as the Law of God. This law in its basic nature was extremely simply yet profound. The Law is "God is Love". Like the law of gravity this law can’t be broken. It is a fact, it is just the way things are, it exists because that is what the character of God is. Nothing anyone can do can change this law, however someone could distort, or misrepresent the law. To use and old English word, the law can be transgressed. Say I am a cleverly deceptive person and I try to tell you that gravity is not a result of the mass of an object, but the result of a giant gopher who is trapped in the center of the earth and by his animal magnetism he draws all objects toward him. Lets say I got a lot of people to believe my explanation of gravity. In fact in doing all this I have not changed the law of gravity, it still exists as it always did. However I have gone beyond the bounds of the law (transgression). I have violated it by my bizarre reinterpretation of the law of gravity.

Now lets move from earth to heaven in the beginning (whenever that was). There is a law in heaven, not a set of written precepts, but one based on the nature of the author of the universe. That law is "God is Love". Like the law of gravity on earth, this law can’t be broken, it exists and it is true. But this Law of God can be reinterpreted in such a way that it is violated. Say there was a cleverly deceptive person, lets say Satan (the name literally means an adversary). Now if Satan were to say that God is not really loving, that He is hiding important information from us, information that could make us just like Him. And that basically God is not a truthful person, Satan’s reinterpretation of the Law of God would violate the true Law of God. The law that "God is love" still exists and is still true, but Satan’s transgressed against the law, his redefining what God is, has confused other persons.

At this point it is important to note that God has no law that says you must love Him. He wants us to love Him but love can never be forced, in fact to force love would be against God’s Law, i.e. "God is Love". It is His kindness which leads us to repentance, and repentance leads us back to loving God. Do what I say or else, is one of the distortions which try to redefine love. Because of Satan’s distortions of God, Satan is removed from Heaven and God proceeds with His plan to answer Satan’s inaccurate and slanderous view of God. Remember that Satan literally means adversary which indicates that God now has to answer people's misunderstanding of God as well because even with the best of intentions a person could misunderstand God and distort what God is like thus transgressing the Law of Love. This is important to remember as we even as Christians and believers in God have been known to and often continue to distort the law of God, the law of love.

The Law "God is love" is the foundation upon which all other laws dealing with humans is based. It is to what all other laws point. The laws given in the old testament are intended as our school master to point us to the one supreme law of God. This is why on the Sermon on the Mount Jesus points out that even our thoughts quite apart from actions can be counted as sin. Or as Paul tells us even good things done, if done apart from faith in God are sins. We violate the law when we misrepresent, or ignore "God is love". If someone says God loves good little children but He cannot love naughty little children. That is as much a violation of the law of God as to say that we are gods. The law of God stands not on written instructions on how to live and what not to do, but upon the very nature of God Himself.

Many in our churches today will say that the 10 commandments are a transcript of God’s character. I pity anyone who reads the 10 commandments as God’s character. What a distorted view they must have of God. He would be seen as someone demanding human worship, punishing those who reject Him and showing mercy to only those who obey Him. Not a particularly loving God, rather one who loves you only after you first love and obey Him. This is not to disparage the 10 commandments, there is nothing wrong with them, they are good. However they must be viewed in the context derived from the entire Bible, that is that "God is love". They are instructions on how to live toward God and man. They point to the one law, "God is love". They do not provide anyone with salvation, rather they instruct the reader as to how to live in harmony with the supreme law of God. They are as Paul says, our school master teaching us of our need to return to God.

Abraham acting out of a relationship with God, and guided by the Law of God, followed God’s instructions to offer up Isaac. Realizing that God’s actions are out of love, Abraham trusted that whatever was going to happen would be for his own families good. And true to the law of God the ending was good just as he expected. When a person comes to this point in their lives, that is, they know that "God is love" they are meeting all the requirements of Gods law. No other laws are needed in their lives.. Because this one law is the summation of all others. Their faith is counted as righteousness. This is why Paul could say: Col 2:14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. (NIV) Because the Law of God’s love was so completely revealed to us through Christ’s life death and resurrection, the written code is no longer the best method of bring us back to repentance. Gods kindness is shown so perfectly through Jesus Christ that He is now the central point of the gospel message. If there remains any reason to teach the law, let it be the law of Love.

[from http://newprotestants.com/GODSLAW.htm This is posted here to help satisfy those critics of mine who complain that I never offer enough devotional material here. ]

A response to Chris Lewis interview

Earlier today I replied with a comment on the Spectrum blog of Jared Wright's review of The Character of God Controversy. This book is supposed to deal with some type of movement in Adventism which purports that God does not kill. My comment was as follows:

I have read discussions where some people have submitted the idea that God never kills but I don't know the names of any particular Adventist pastors or leaders or scholars who hold to that view. Maybe it is my own lack of knowledge but I would be interested in knowing who this book is really addressing.

The Character of God is a big issue in A. Graham Maxwell's theology but I have never heard him or read that he says God never kills. Does this book express who believes the God never kills concept? As you only have to produce one instance to prove the position false I just don't think there is sufficient acceptance of this view in Adventism. I think it is a method used to try and discount the more Moral Influence views that are held by many Adventists. Such as Maxwell's "larger view". But those are not based upon God never kills. They are based upon the idea that God did not kill His Son (God does not kill God) so that the death paid the penalty for humans sins.

There are many examples where in life it is not unjust to kill, to assume that such is not the case for God is not too credible in my opinion.

Jared answered that he was about to put up an interview with one of the authors of the book. True to his word he posted the article How the Book was Inspired. It appears my assessment was accurate. The book is actually an attempt at shoring up the Penal Atonement theory under the guise that those not holding Penal Atonement views hold the idea the God never kills. I will interline in red some comments, the question is in bold black and Dr. Chris Lewis statement is in green:

Question: It is evident from reading that both you and Steve Wohlberg care about how God is depicted. What misperceptions about God do you hope the book will help in clearing up?

Answer: It appears to me that many people do not understand how a loving God could still be loving and yet punish or destroy. How can a life-giving God take life?

Unfortunately, these issues are too often handled by “reasoning” from our sometimes inaccurate understanding of things like sin and wrath - using analogies to understand these issues instead of simply taking God at His Word and then trying to study more deeply to understand the “why” behind what He says. If an author or speaker uses an analogy that “makes sense” to us, should we base our definition or understanding of sin or wrath on that analogy instead of basing it on how God defines these ideas in His Word?

Another of these reasoning is wrong arguments; you can tell this will not go well. What is interesting is that reasoning is the only thing we really have words on a page do nothing for us, they must be interpreted and applied and that can’t be done without reasoning. Secondly analogies are the primary method of communicating that the Bible writers used. I could exhaust you by giving examples of Bible analogies so I won’t do that but it is something that is too obvious to be contradicted intelligently. Thirdly the Bible is not God’s Word. At best it contains some of God’s words. When people say they simply take God at His word what they really mean is that they interpret something from the Bible in a fundamentalist way. To study more deeply they mean to accept the fundamentalist view and try to explain the fundamentalist view; that is the why. In other words they start with a particular presupposition and all study is designed to affirm that presupposition.

One truth that is taught throughout the Bible but that is denied in the theory in question is the truth of the atonement of Christ. It gets at the reason of why Jesus came to earth and died.

Here he introduces the real reason for this book.

My children have a series of musical CDs with Scripture set to music, and my daughter’s favorite is Isaiah 53. She has the chapter memorized. Whenever she has the CD playing or when I hear her singing the chapter while she plays, I am struck by how simple and plain God is in His Word on the subject of the atonement.

Unfortunately Isaiah 53 is at best a foreshadowing of some Atonement ideas. It was not written about the atonement nor is most of it used in the New Testament to speak about the atonement. Surely you would expect the New Testament the part of the Bible given the name “New Testament” because it speaks of the atonement and a new and better way to use those Old Testament sections from Isaiah 53…but they do not.

Central to this topic is the concept that God’s law simply cannot be set aside. A part of that law is the decree “The wages of sin is death.” Paul was quoting God when he wrote Romans 6:23. Notice this clear statement from Review & Herald, May 7, 1901:

The fiat has gone forth, "The wages of sin is death." The sinner must feel his guiltiness, else he will never repent. He has broken the law, and in so doing has placed himself under its condemnation. The law has no power to pardon the transgressor, but it points him to Christ Jesus, who says to him, I will take your sin and bear it myself, if you will accept me as your substitute and surety. Return to your allegiance, and I will impute to you my righteousness. You will be made complete in me.

Here he takes Ellen White as the authority and interpreter of the Bible and specifically the sentence fragment so typically used. “The wages of sin is death”, why people use only the first phrase and ignore the second I cannot understand but the second shows that “the gift of God is eternal life” So it is not saying that you sin therefore you die or someone has to die for you. It is saying that sin has results and they are death but God gives a gift and that gift is eternal life. The idea that a law cannot be put aside is also a problem. Who creates a law that has more power then the one who created the law? The Bible stories are filled with miracles which are clearly breaking the laws of the natural world. I suppose that is why these people so often take only the fragment of Romans 6:23, without doing that they have nothing to make God subservient to His own laws. So they take that part of the verse and remove it from the context and say that we are all condemned to death by God’s law. However in context you are only condemned to death if you reject the gift of life that God offers for then you are only left with the consequences of sin which is death.

It is so very simple. None of God’s law can be set aside if the universe is to be kept safe. It is the way it has to be, whether we understand why or not.

It is so simple that you don’t even need to understand it. It matters not that it makes no sense. How can anyone say that none of God’s laws can be set aside when we have texts such as:

(2 Cor 5:19 NIV) that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

All those stories about forgiveness in both the old and the New Testament, forgiveness is not about punishment first, take a look at the stories, clearly forgiveness is based upon the idea that one does not hold the wrong done by someone against them.

Now read Isaiah 53 through again from start to finish. Don’t skip any verses. Why did it please the Lord to bruise Him? Because He knew that by God in human flesh dying, He could justly forgive sinners.

Well, no you don’t really find that God could forgive sinners because God bruised Christ. That would not be forgiveness by the Biblical definition nor is that what Isaiah 53 reveals.

“(Isa 53:10 NIV) Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.”

Nowhere do you find that text repeated in the New Testament. In fact 5 times in the New Testament it says that men caused Christ death. Not once does it say that God caused His death. Not once does it say that God bruised Christ, crushed Christ or even that Christ paid a penalty. When the New Testament does quote Isaiah it refers to His suffering but not the suffering that was God caused:

(1 Pet 2:24 NIV) He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

(1 Pet 2:25 NIV) For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Does anyone really believe that the flogging of Christ heals us because God caused the whip to fall? No we are healed by seeing the character of God revealed in the life of Christ and we are moved to return to God. This is not written as penal atonement theory. That has to be created by taking Old Testament foreshadowing and carrying it to a conclusion that the New Testament writers did not use. Entirely understandable in Old Testament times when everything was caused by God, both good and evil but the Bible writers did progress in understanding and in their knowledge of God. So why go back to the more primitive concept of God?

Why was Jesus “satisfied?” Because by faith He saw the millions who would be in heaven because He was put to death for their sins. God showed that the law cannot be set aside in order to pardon sinners. The penalty must be carried out. That is justice. No one, including Satan, the accuser of the brethren, can accuse God of not being just, because God took the full justice of the law upon Himself in the form of the Son.

This is kind of silly as there is literally no place which holds to substitution of the innocent for the guilty as an appropriate form of justice. Even the Old Testament forbids punishing the innocent. But this fits the fundamentalist presupposition. The idea that God punished Himself to pay the penalty that He required instead of simply forgiving makes God less then reasonable. But then again reasoning is looked at poorly as the author stated in the second paragraph of his answer. In essence he is saying God can’t forgive unless He punishes and since He can’t punish the guilty or they would all be killed He must punish Himself. Is there any wonder that Christianity is the butt of so many jokes about unthinking people?

But God is also merciful. Where the mercy comes in is where God says, in essence, “For the safety of the universe, I cannot set aside My law, but what I will do is take the penalty Myself so that I can extend pardon to the guilty.” The plan formed by the Godhead was for the Son to die the death required by the law, for us. If we will accept that death in our place, by faith, it is ours. It is as though we had received that death sentence, yet lived to tell about it.

Hmmm wouldn’t it be easier for God to forgive as He instructs us to forgive? Or is mercy not abundant in forgiveness?

The bottom line is that only One equal with the law, i.e., the Lawgiver, could pay the penalty and satisfy the justice of the law for us. Some say this shows God to be barbaric. I believe that it instead reveals a God that is just, and [yet] and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

Oh my, the Law is equal to the Lawgiver. How could that possible be that a written set of ideas is equal to the creator of the ideas. Never. Now is God barbaric to punish Himself and rewrite His law about punishing the innocent? I would not call that barbaric I would call it irrational. Using the authors terms instead of saying God is barbaric I would say that the author has painted God as a berserker.

The reason we don’t understand that this truth shows us how loving God is, rather than describing a barbaric God, is that we also misunderstand the law. To the degree that we misperceive how bad sin is, we also misperceive how good the law is. Sin and the law are opposites, for sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).

I have to agree with him a little here. He does not have a clue when it comes to understanding the law. I doubt he understands sin either.

I am glad Jared was able to read the book he reviewed I doubt I could stomach the nonsense that they have produced. And yet it will be published by Adventist publishing houses and sold at the Adventist bookstores to the gullible because frankly it follows the fundamentalist line of thinking and that has once again found prominence in the Adventist church, sadly.