Politics seems to color everything Adventist Today publishes

 

By Ron Corson

Once again we see Adventist Today wallowing in their political leftists views.  They really should change the name of the site to Leftist Thoughts for Adventists. The latest article from Jack Hoehn entitled ComeAndReason.com Seems Unreasonable on COVID  The article’s third paragraph reads:

Anti-vaccination Views

That is why his political views now infusing health issues are so distressing. In the past he has come out in support of the twice-impeached past American president’s policies both on his Christian website and in an article published on the Spectrum website February 3, 2020.

That is interesting how the political left has forgotten that it was the Trump Administration that fast tracked the vaccine creation and production.  But now Trump is just that twice-impeached President, even though he was never convicted of any offense by the Senate which is needed to really complete an impeachment of a president. But now to the left Trump is synonymous with Anti-vaccination views. Interestingly Donald Trump had the COVID-19 virus and who was also vaccinated. Facts that in the world of insinuation have no place it appears.

The next paragraph is equally as silly:

Now Jennings focuses on masks, vaccines, and what he considers the threat of “mandates.” He calls the most-studied vaccines in the long history of vaccination “experimental injections,” as if this were some sort of isolated lab study instead of a crisis response to a death-dealing pandemic.

Let’s begin with the clearly false statement that the COVID-19 vaccines are the most studied vaccines in history.  It has not even been out for 2 years, we have no studies on the long-term effect or even the 5-year effect of the vaccines. It is impossible to believe anyone thinks it is the most studied vaccine in history but you see that is what Dr. Hoehn who was actually at one time a doctor thinks!

Why Hoehn is not equally concerned with mandates is peculiar since even President Biden and his Spokesperson have said that they would never do mandates. Kind of something that anyone with any regard for our Republic should be concerned with.  Of course, there is a fear side to a lot of leftists who feel that individual rights have no place when the world is in a pandemic condition even though the case fatality rates is pretty much less than 1% for those below 60 and does not rise to above 4% until the age of 70. So yes it is a death-dealing disease just like every other disease in the world. See the chart at https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#interpreting-the-case-fatality-rate

I will not bother to argue support or data against Dr. Hoehn’s position or Dr. Jennings position as that much more complex a subject and really there is nothing to Dr. Hoehn’s position he simply implies that Dr. Jennings is wrong by appealing to organizations. That, by the way, is not really how science works and that appears to be one of the key points to Dr. Jennings argument, pretending that science is a consensus business instead of a questioning endeavor.

Toward the end Hoehn states:

Only the last three on the list are not dangerous with possible serious side effects, and all have proven to be largely ineffective in preventing death or long-term disability from COVID-19. All have had their proponents, Petri dish or theoretical suggestions, and all have been tested in real life. There are now very few politically unmotivated supporters of any of those drugs. Dr. Jennings denies political motivation, but when you are agreeing mostly with QAnon conspiracists and irrational pillow salesmen, one gets a bit anxious.

Here we see again that Hoehn feels this is all political and indeed it is to him. I am sure that Jennings article mentions nothing about QAnon or Michael J. Lindell is the inventor and CEO of My Pillow, Inc. famously a supporter of Donald Trump. He is also a well-known Christian whose testimony from drug addict to successful businessman seems to make him one of the enemies of the political left. We can look at Dr. Jennings article here, something that Hoehn did not link to in his article or really even quote Dr. Jennings. Funny how that works isn’t it, a electronic publication that can’t even link to the article it is criticizing. That is a good indication that you are not dealing with an honest journalistic endeavor.

That is the saddest point in all this. I don’t really care that people have different views on the vaccine or masks. I care a lot more that the Adventist Church is becoming the playground of political progressives who have no interest in even dealing with other views and actively removes those who disagree with them from their pages.  I care most about people who are ignoring government over-reach by the state and Federal government claiming an emergency. No doubt the next emergency will be climate change which will likely be far more over-reaching than this pandemic but if there is no push back against government mandates now it will be far harder in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ellen White believed and taught Penal Substitution atonement

I often listen to some of the Sabbath School studies on the internet that are generally opposed to the Penal Substitutionary view of the Atonement (I also disagree with the substitutionary view of atonement.) There are three in particular that I listen to. ComeandReason.com usually led by Dr. Tim Jennings. Ken Hart and Friends TV and The lesson study offered by PineKnoll. 

All three of these groups use a lot of Ellen White quotes. All three seem to cherry pick Ellen White statements so that they downplay her Penal Substitutionary views. Today 10/28/2017 on the ComeandReason lesson study lead this week by Lori Atkins, noted and tried to explain away an Ellen White quote that was used in the lesson study guide. You can listen or view here. Here is the lesson study quote which caused her to email Tim Jennings for guidance on how to deal with it (starting at about minute 36):

“Righteousness is obedience to the law. The law demands righteousness, and this the sinner owes to the law; but he is incapable of rendering it. The only way in which he can attain to righteousness is through faith. By faith he can bring to God the merits of Christ, and the Lord places the obedience of His Son to the sinner’s account. Christ’s righteousness is accepted in place of man’s failure, and God receives, pardons, justifies, the repentant, believing soul, treats him as though he were righteous, and loves him as He loves His Son.” —Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 367 lesson study guide for Oct 23

Their answer was to read some of the previous paragraphs and interpret them in the light of a more non-penal view. Apparently thinking that the Penal view theorists could not equally read those other paragraphs within the Penal view. In other words, she acted as if she had solved the problem but really did not even deal with the main paragraph problem. Their answer was to fall back to the levels of understanding and thinking that Ellen White was using the words of Penal Substitution to lead them out of Penal Substitution. Which might have some merit if after using the Penal terms than showing a different or better way of looking at things, which of course Ellen White does not do. It should be noted that most all Penal Substitution proponents incorporated the moral influence view with the penal view. Because when the Bible says it is His kindness that leads us to repentance it is pretty hard to ignore that so most all of the atonement views will include the moral influence view but it is not their major component as it is with moral influence theory.

It is to my reading very obvious that Ellen White was a Penal Theorists when it comes to the atonement. I always wonder how these groups can use her so much and not realize this. Several years ago I compiled Ellen White quotes where she states her substitutionary view. Ellen White's quotes on Substitution.

Today I came upon a good dissertation on the subject A Comparative Study of the Concept of Atonement in the Writings of John R. W. Stott and Ellen G. White Lawrence O. Oladini Andrews University The Dissertation I think is pretty clear as it compares the Penal Atonement views of Stott and White.

Summary of Images of Atonement
Though she employs different images to present her understanding of the atonement, nevertheless, it is the penal-substitution theory that seemed to predominate in the writings of White on atonement. In her thought, this view is closely related to the satisfaction theory. Christ is the sinner‘s substitute who bore the penalty in order to satisfy the holy requirements of God‘s justice. It is usually in the context of penal substitution that she discusses the theme of justification by faith. Essentially her position is that God can justify sinners because Jesus has satisfied God‘s just requirement by both His perfect obedience to the law and by bearing the penalty of the broken law as the sinner‘s substitute.395 In this regard, White has written:

 Christ bore the penalty that would have fallen upon the transgressor; and through faith the helpless, hopeless sinner becomes a partaker of the divine nature, escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust. . . . Christ rendered perfect obedience to the law, and man could not possibly obey the holy precepts had it not been for the provision that was made for the salvation of the fallen sons and daughters of Adam.396 

 Christ‘s substitutionary atonement originates in God‘s love for us. White argues that ―the atonement of Christ was not made in order to induce God to love those whom he otherwise hated; it was not made to produce a love that was not in existence; but it was made as a manifestation of the love that was already in God‘s heart.‖397 In her classic on the life of Christ, Desire of Ages, White has written on what Christ‘s substitutionary atonement involves. She writes, ―Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His.‖398 Therefore, the atonement originates from the love of God; God does not love us because of the atonement provided on the cross. 

 In light of her argument presented above, it is clear that White employs the different images of atonement (theories) in mutually complementary, but not contradictory, ways. Nevertheless, one must point out that the heart of her atonement thought centers in the concepts of penalty, substitution, and satisfaction. For the believer, the concepts of penalty, substitution, and satisfaction become the foundation of all significant victory over sin and sinfulness.399 Whidden concludes that ―the heart of her atonement thought revolved around the dialectic of law and grace, justice and mercy and the demonstration of this right relationship in the life of Christ—and ultimately—in the believer.‖400 In this way, the death of Christ becomes the basis of a universal vindication of God. The dialectic of justice and mercy permeates all that God does in the process of atonement.

This Dissertation also contains a good listing of the various atonement theories Similar to my old article (why did Jesus have to die) but more detailed.

Collegedale church controversy actually is good for us

-->

There is an interesting story unfolding at Collegedale Seventh-day Adventist Church on the campus of Southern Adventist University reported on Spectrum Magazine online. Not really the part about  a pastor fainting but about the controversy between Dr. Tim Jennings and his Sabbath School Class and the Pastor’s sermon to refute a rather trivial part of Jennings teachings. Jennings has a website and Pastor Nixon has his sermon posted as audio and in written form.

Just so you know I don’t agree with either of them. Jennings misuses Ellen White and is logically flawed and Nixon is stuck in the Penal theory of atonement and the idea that punishment has to be meted out. I don’t believe an end time judgment of God is about punishment but about giving people what they want, to be with God as their savior and friend or to reject God. God being the source of life to reject God is to reject life and God ceases to sustain their lives. I would also like to thank Pastor Nixon for posting his written sermon if only more Pastors would do that we would all be better off as we could go to what they actually said rather then trying to remember a sermon, but then I covered that subject on a previous blog.

As Spectrum reports:

Nixon began his "Wrath of the Lamb" sermon by stating,
"There is a conflict of doctrinal teaching going on in our church, and it has become contentious. Some among us, under the guise of 'unique truth,' are promoting error concerning the character of God and the teaching is very subtle."
Nixon went on to say that he would rather discuss a less controversial topic, but said that "the stakes are too high. One misconception about who God really is leads us down a path fraught with danger, and I cannot stand silently by."
Nixon staked out what he called "the biblical teaching on this topic."
The controversial subject at hand is whether God's wrath includes "active" punishment of sin (i.e. God destroys the wicked) or "passive" punishment of sin (i.e. God withdraws protection, allowing the unrepentant to reap the natural consequences of sin). For Nixon, divine justice demands that God destroy the wicked for the sake of the weak and vulnerable.
Dr. Timothy Jennings, a psychiatrist and creator of ComeAndReason.com, sees things differently. His website advances the idea that if it is unremedied, sin, not God ultimately destroys human beings.
Jennings teaches a popular Sabbath School class that was recently moved from the Collegedale Church to Ackerman Auditorium on Southern's campus across the street. Jennings also authored two books: The Healing of the Mind, and Could it Be This Simple?
Debating God's Character
Without naming Jennings, Nixon in his sermon categorically and emphatically rejected any teaching that does not make room for God's active punishment of evil. Scripture reveals God as the God of mercy and justice, the God of life and death, the God of giving and of taking away, Nixon said.

What seems to be unfolding is that the two sides are attempting to define the character of God not by what He has done or even is doing now but by what each side expects God to do in the future. That would seem to be a fools errand being either way it is tied upon how one interprets a rather symbolic portion of the Bible. It calls for predictions based upon our interpretation and then those predictions dictate to us what the character of God is. Which to put it mildly is a pretty backwards method of doing anything. In this case the ultimate argument is does God kill the wicked actively by what God does or does God kill the wicked passively because they can’t live in the presence of God. If your like me you say big deal the result is the same and neither one says anything about the Character of God.
The real story to me is the controversy between the two. Where a Pastor gives a sermon to deal with what he thinks is a wrong view being taught in their church. I almost said his church but Pastors are not and should not be in charge of churches they are the member’s churches and Pastors should not be the ones to tell everyone what to believe or not believe. The Pastor should give his sermon on the topic and present his best case and then he should open up the same pulpit to his opponent and he should be able to give his best case. In fact I would then like to see at least a third presentation moderated by a neutral party who could open up the subject to questions from the church membership.
Controversies are not bad they are opportunities to dig deeper then people normally would. We have to get away from this idea that there is someone in the church who is there to decide for us what is orthodox and heterodox and act as the gate keeper who stops anything he does not accept from being heard in his church. (I use the pronoun he because it is still predominately a male pastor thing in the SDA church).
I like this example because it is really such a trivial issue but it has overtones which are important to consider. Which is pretty much true of any theological controversy yet in this case it is not something that would split a church…at least not this portion of the topic. But this controversy would be a perfect reason to try a new method of relaying information in the church. Most Christians are too afraid to try anything new or different and thus we end up with irrelevant sermons which try to be as bland and boring and generally worthless as possible as the Pastor seeks to work by dealing with the lowest common denominator.
We as the Adventist church need to get past the idea that there are not other possibilities besides what we have traditionally believed. But our Pastors work as gate keepers to keep new ideas away from the members of the church. They work to keep the church static and wonder why their churches and their denomination do not grow.
So let the Pastor have his say and Jennings have his say and maybe a few other views on the subject and then some congregation involvement. What is the worst that can happen some people will think for themselves and some will object to their traditional ideas being questioned and some will find church service interesting for a change. If we as a denomination can’t compete inside the denomination’s own marketplace of ideas how can we ever deal with the larger marketplace of ideas outside our churches…you know the places we are supposed to go with the good news.

Lessons from Tim Jennings blog

I just read Tim Jennings blog and I wanted to point out the selective nature of people like Dr. Jennings. Their tendency to pull Ellen White quotes to make it appear she thought differently then the reality of what she wrote. He begin well by pointing out the idea that the Lesson study guide promotes as truth some rather nasty ideas about God. Here are some excerpts of his article.

Jesus - Angry Executioner or Baby of Bethlehem?

Friday, December 25 2009 11:25

Last weekend our class started the Lesson Guide for the New Year, The Fruit of the Spirit. I was so shocked by one paragraph from Thursday, December 31 that I had to blog about it. Here is the paragraph: Between 1730 and 1745 the American colonies from Maine to Georgia experienced a religious revival known as the Great Awakening. Jonathan Edwards was a leader in this movement of spiritual renewal. In July of 1741 he preached a sermon entitled, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which for some has become a symbol of the bleak, cruel, and hell-bent outlook of many Christians. However polemical, this sermon did express the truth about the awful weight of sin, the attitude of an infinitely holy God toward sin, and the surety of the day of judgment. [emphasis mine]. In case you are not familiar with the specific sermon cited above, here is an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards Sermon preached July 8, 1741: [cut some of the Edward's quote] It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Do you find this sermon presents the “truth about the awful weight of sin, the attitude of an infinitely holy God toward sin, and the surety of a day of judgment”? Let’s consider another Christian writer and speaker who came about 100 years after Jonathan Edwards. Below is Ellen White’s perspective on sin and God and judgment: We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {1SM 235.2} [emphasis mine] Does this sound like the same God that Jonathan Edwards was describing? Jonathan Edwards describes a universe in which God is angry, wrathful, without mercy or pity and inflicts pain and immeasurable suffering upon His creatures. It is absolutely mind boggling that our Study Guide would quote such a grossly distorted representation of God as a “source of truth” about Him. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and sin, if unremedied results in death (Romans 6:23, James 1:15). But Jonathan Edwards describes an existence in which God is the source of death, the cause of suffering, the inflictor of torment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Satan is the father of lies and his primary lies are about God. If we believe Satan’s lies about God then we distrust God, fear Him and remain separated from Him.

While Jennings is correct in taking to task the lesson study guide he is in error with his use of Ellen White. Ellen White’s quote is not about end time judgment it is in fact talking about the consequences of sin in this life not in the Judgment after life which is what Edwards is talking about. Ellen White is writing about the 10 commandments. In context the Selected Messages quote says:

The law of ten commandments is not to be looked upon as much from the prohibitory side, as from the mercy side. Its prohibitions are the sure guarantee of happiness in obedience. As received in Christ, it works in us the purity of character that will bring joy to us through eternal ages. To the obedient it is a wall of protection. We behold in it the goodness of God, who by revealing to men the immutable principles of righteousness, seeks to shield them from the evils that result from transgression. {1SM 235.1}

We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {1SM 235.2}

The law is an expression of God's idea. When we receive it in Christ, it becomes our idea. It lifts us above the power of natural desires and tendencies, above temptations that lead to sin. "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them" (Ps. 119: 165)-- cause them to stumble. {1SM 235.3}

There is no peace in unrighteousness; the wicked are at war with God. But he who receives the righteousness of the law in Christ is in harmony with heaven. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other" (Ps. 85: 10).--Letter 96, 1896. {1SM 235.4}

To properly compare Ellen White to Edwards on the subject of torment after judgment Jennings should have used statements which address that subject.

“Then I saw thrones, and Jesus and the redeemed saints sat upon them; and the saints reigned as kings [ 291 ] and priests unto God. Christ, in union with His people, judged the wicked dead, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Word of God, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then they meted out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer, according to their works; and it was written against their names in the book of death. Satan also and his angels were judged by Jesus and the saints. Satan's punishment was to be far greater than that of those whom he had deceived. His suffering would so far exceed theirs as to bear no comparison with it. After all those whom he had deceived had perished, Satan was still to live and suffer on much longer. {Early Writings 290.3}

“Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {Early Writings 294.1}

There is certainly still a considerable difference between Edwards and White here. A difference in duration of the torture but does either one of them present an intelligent view of God? Edwards make little sense with God tormenting people for all eternity, a truly miraculous event but to what purpose? Then Ellen White presents a view of a shortened torture but again for what purpose? I am going to hurt you and then kill you, will that teach you a lesson or will that act as simple revenge? It won’t teach a lesson because you are going to be dead and if God is in the business of revenge then saying He is love would be false.