The Great Controversy Project

There is a in some sectors of the Adventist Church a movement to freely distribute the Great Controversy. Their website states:

This is an exciting project and, while is still in its infancy, the results are nothing short of amazing; even more so because of your involvement! Already, well over one-hundred requests come in monthly for studies given through the Amazing Facts Ministries. Their study request cards are bound into the middle of the book making it easy for the reader to sign up for Bible or other studies. Almost 1 million homes have received The Great Controversy in the mail. Many have read it and accept the truth contained within. Many seek answers to the perplexing questions of our day and those events which are impacting our daily life. This book will awaken the masses to the approaching storm as it sheds much needed light on the impending conflict that lurks just over the horizon.

  We are living in the most solemn period of this world's history. The destiny earth's teeming multitudes is about to be decided. Our own future well-being and also the salvation of others depend upon the course which we now pursue. Time is running out! Congress passed the hate crime bill (HR1913) and President Obama signed it into law October of 2009. This bill contains language that could very well make it a federal offense to publish and distribute this book (even though it mostly historical and can be verified at the local library) as it will be classified as hate propaganda by some special interest groups or individuals. Please join us in getting this book and its urgent message out to the masses...”

As many Adventist know the Ellen White book The Great Controversy was written in multiple versions and was revised in 1911 to acknowledge the numerous portions copied from other works. Those more familiar with history will also know that the history outlined in the book is questionable on many points regarding it's accuracy. Ellen White used many religious writers rather like Alexander Hislop did selecting writers that agreed with his assumptions but as with Hislop many of the sources were not reliable. For the Great Controversy Project to continue to propagate certain areas of misinformation a hundred years later is not a terribly wise course. (see below for a few examples of some of the material and problems from the proceeding link)

As you read the above quote you will notice that like the book itself they are hoping to capitalize on sensationalism. For instance the hate crime bill would have nothing at all to do with the publishing or distribution of the book. Hate crimes are the additional penalties placed upon violent crimes to add additional penalties. As the OpenCongress summary states:

This bill, previously introduced in Congress in 2007, seeks to expand upon the 1969 US federal hate-crime law by extending hate crime protections to bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the current protections for bodily crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, and national origin. It would also codify and expand the funding and investigative capabilities of federal officials for aiding their local counterparts.

You can read the text of the bill and see that it does not deal with the publication of books. Perhaps if someone dumped a truck load of the books upon the body of some person then it would have some application but short of that the bill has nothing to do with limiting the publication or distribution of the book whether it was truly offensive or not.
The book apparently has an invitation to visit a website which starts off by saying this:

For your interest in learning why you received this book, "The Great Controversy"

You may be asking, "Who sent it", "Will I receive a bill?", "Who is the author?", "What can I learn from reading this book?"

This book was not written or sent to condemn anyone but to warn everyone about the deception used by powers to take away our liberties. It was no accident that you have received this free book and you will not receive a bill. It was sent by someone who cares for you. They want you to know about the coming storm and the challenges everyone is going to face. It is always best to love our neighbors above ourselves. Without the exercise of this love, the highest profession of faith is mere hypocrisy. The goal is only to enlighten people of a major storm that is brewing and the serious developments taking place. The wails of sorrow are heard from all around us. Take courage, for this book will help answer your life's questions.

When you continue to the next page where you would assume they would answer the question of who is the author you find information about how many pages the author wrote but not the name of the author. In fact you don't even find the name of the denomination that has sent out this book. Of course with the Internet it would be easy to find out the name of the author but the question is why the subterfuge and why not be up front with both the name of the author, the denomination and the fact that the denomination thinks this author is viewed as a Prophet by the denomination.

In fact Ellen White did want the widest exposure to the Great Controversy as the Great Controversy Project page says. But her views are certainly dated and the idea of a Roman Catholic resurgence of Medieval power is not very credible in a world now threatened by and even more immediate threat found in radical Islam. That does not mean that the final eschatological events will revolve around Muslim power any more then those in the 19^th century in America were so fearful of Roman Catholics. What it does do however is point us to the fact that what we think at any one time may not actually be an end time event at all.

Adventism and Christianity have to move past the desire to tell others what is going to happen, we have had no history of accuracy in predictions and Christianity has never been agreement in the various denominations about what the eschatology beliefs are. Each group thinking they are correct and each without any way to verify their views or prove the alternative views incorrect. Just become someone claims to be sharing the truth does not make it the truth and we have to recognize that beliefs without evidence is not truth. The philosophy of Christianity is far more important then eschatology and the focus of Adventism must shift to the heart of Christianity and away from sectarian predictions.

*
A few examples of the type of material  that makes up a good deal of the Great Controversy book:

Chapter 21,  A Warning Rejected, All Except SDAs Become Babylon, 375-390

Chapter 20 ends with the Adventist disappointment that Christ did not return to earth in the spring of 1844. [Again, the first (1843) date taught by Miller for 25 years is totally ignored in The Great Controversy.] Chapter 21 covers the period between spring 1844 and the next disappointment when Christ failed to return in autumn 1844. Chapter 21 introduces the phrase from Revelation 14:8, “Babylon is fallen.”

GC373-374: God designed to prove His people. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods. Adventists did not discover the error, nor was it discovered by the most learned of their opponents.

GC389: The second angel’s message of Revelation 14 was first preached in the summer of 1844 ... The churches then experienced a moral fall, in consequence of their refusal of the light of the advent message; but that fall was not complete.

GC398: It was not the proclamation of the second advent that caused fanaticism and division. These appeared in the summer of 1844, when Adventists were in a state of doubt and perplexity concerning their real position. The preaching of the first angel’s message and of the “midnight cry” tended directly to repress fanaticism and dissension.

GC401: Of all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles, none have been more free from human imperfection and the wiles of Satan than was that of the autumn of 1844.

GC420: By the offering of blood the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law.

GC420: Placing his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people.

ERROR 104: The Bible does not say “thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat.” EGW said that! Atoned sins never made it past the doorway! And the high priest certainly did not carry “sins” inside the sanctuary because he would have been defiled and unclean! He presented a visual demonstration to Israel that their sins were forever removed. “All these sins” refers, not to previously confessed and atoned sin, but to the general sinfulness of Israel. See Lev 16:16-20, 30.

For more see this article

----

While the book may have many good and accurate observations it has many many problems with history and interpretation and is really not the best introduction one could have into Adventism unless of course by Adventism one is restricted to 19th century Adventism.

Update: April 23, 2011

When dealing with the the Book the Great Controversy I really should include some of the things written by General Conference leaders at the 1919 Bible Conference. The originals are finally available on the SDA Archives site but the easier to read versions are available here. (Pay particular attention toward the end of the quote below how W.W. Prescott became orthodox in his interpretation of "Babylon" after the 1911 revision of the 1888 Great Controversy)

A. G. Daniells: I think Brother Benson's question on historical and theological matters has not been dealt with yet, and I do not know that I am able to give any light. Perhaps some of you may know to what extent Sister White has revised some of her statements and references or quotations from historical writings. Have you ever gone through and made a list of them?
W. W. Prescott: I gave nearly an hour to that the other day, taking the old edition of "Great Controversy" and reading it and then reading the revised edition. But that did not cover all the ground.


A. G. Daniells: We did not create that difficulty, did we? We General Conference men did not create it, for we did not make the revision. We did not take any part in it. We had nothing whatever to do with it. It was all done under her supervision. If there is a difficulty there, she created it, did she not?
F. M. Wilcox: She assumed the whole responsibility for it.
M. F. Kern: But we have to meet it.
A. G. Daniells: Well, now, which statement shall we take, the original or the revised?
B. L. House: My real difficulty is just here: Sister White did not write either the old edition or the revised, as I understand it.
A. G. Daniells: What do you mean by saying that she did not write either edition?
B. L. House: As I understand it, Elder J. N. Anderson prepared those historical quotations for the old edition, and Brother Robinson and Brother Crisler, Professor Prescott and others furnished the quotations for the new edition. Did she write the historical quotations in there?
A. G. Daniells: No.
B. L. House: Then there is a difference between the Testimonies and those books.
W. W. Prescott: Changes have been made in what was not historical extract at all.
A. G. Daniells: Shall we not confine ourselves just now to this question of Brother Benson's and lead our way up to the real difficulty, and then deal with it? Do you have a clear conception of the way the difficulty arose? -- that in making the first edition of "Great Controversy" those who helped her prepare the copy were allowed to bring forward historical quotations that seemed to fit the case. She may have asked, "Now, what good history do you have for that?" I do not know just how she brought it in, but she never would allow us to claim anything for her as a historian. She did not put herself up as a corrector of history, -- not only did not do that, but protested against it. Just how they dealt in bringing the history along, I could not say, but I suspect that she referred to this as she went along, and then allowed them to gather the very best historical statements they could and submit them to her, and she approved of them.
C. L. Benson: This is my query, and it underlies all of her writings: How did she determine upon the philosophy of history? If she endorsed our interpretation of history, without any details, do we dare to set that aside? I understand she never studied medical science; but she has laid down certain fundamental principles; and that she has done the same with education and organization.
A. G. Daniells: Sister White never has written anything on the philosophy of history.
C. L. Benson: No, but she has endorsed our 2300 day proposition, from 538 to 1798.
A. G. Daniells: You understand she did that by placing that in her writings?
C. L. Benson: Yes.
A. G. Daniells: Yes, I suppose she did.
C. A. Shull: I think the book "Education" contains something along the line of the philosophy of history.
W. E. Howell: Yes, she outlines general principles.
C. M. Sorenson: Nobody has ever questioned Sister White's philosophy of history, so far as I know, -- and I presume I have heard most of the questions raised about it, -- along the line of the hand of God in human affairs and the way the hand of God has been manifested. The only question anybody has raised has been about minor details. Take this question as to whether 533 has some significance taken in connection with 538. She never set 533, but if there is a significance attached to it in human affairs, it certainly would not shut us out from using it, and that would not affect the 1260 years. Some people say antichrist is yet to come, and is to last for three and one-half literal years. If you change those positions, you will change the philosophy.
W. W. Prescott: Do I understand Brother Benson's view is that such a statement as that in "Great Controversy," that the 1260 years began in 538 and ended in 1798, settles the matter infallibly?
C. L. Benson: No, only on the preaching of doctrines in general. If she endorses the prophetic part of our interpretation, irrespective of details, then she endorses it.
W. W. Prescott: Then that settles it as being a part of that philosophy.
C. L. Benson: Yes, in this way: I do not see how we can do anything else but set up our individual judgment if we say we will discount that, because we have something else that we think is better evidence. It is the same with education and the medical science.
W. W. Prescott: You are touching exactly the experience through which I went, personally, because you all know that I contributed something toward the revision of "Great Controversy." I furnished considerable material bearing upon that question.
A. G. Daniells: By request.
W. W. Prescott: Yes, I was asked to do it, and at first I said, "No, I will not do it. I know what it means." But I was urged into it. When I had gone over it with W. C. White, then I said, "Here is my difficulty. I have gone over this and suggested changes that ought to be made in order to correct statements. These changes have been accepted. My personal difficulty will be to retain faith on those things that I can not deal with on that basis." But I did not throw up the spirit of prophecy, and have not yet; but I have had to adjust my view of things. I will say to you, as a matter of fact, that the relation of those writings to this movement and to our work, is clearer and more consistent in my mind than it was then. But still you know what I am charged with. I have gone through the personal experience myself over that very thing that you speak of. If we correct it here and correct it there, how are we going to stand with it in the other places?
F. M. Wilcox: Those things do not involve the general philosophy of the book.
W. W. Prescott: No, but they did involve quite large details. For instance, before "Great Controversy" was revised, I was unorthodox on a certain point, but after it was revised, I was perfectly orthodox.
C. M. Sorenson: On what point?
W. W. Prescott: My interpretation was, (and I taught it for years in The Protestant Magazine) that Babylon stood for the great apostasy against God, which headed up in the papacy, but which included all minor forms, and that before we come to the end, they would all come under one. That was not the teaching of "Great Controversy." "Great Controversy" said that Babylon could not mean the romish church, and I had made it mean that largely and primarily. After the book was revised, although the whole argument remained the same, it said that it could not mean the Roman Church alone, just that one word added.
F. M. Wilcox: That helped you out.
W. W. Prescott: Yes, but I told W. C. White I did not think anybody had any right to do that. And I did not believe anybody had any right to use it against me before or afterward. I simply went right on with my teaching.
J. W. Anderson: Would you not claim other portions of the book as on the same basis?
W. W. Prescott: No, I would refuse to do that. I had to deal with A. R. Henry over that question. He was determined to crush those men that took a wrong course concerning him. I spent hours with that man trying to help him. We were intimate in our work, and I used to go to his house and spend hours with him. He brought up this question about the authority of the spirit of prophecy and wanted me to draw the line between what was authoritative and what was not. I said, "Brother Henry, I will not attempt to do it, and I advise you not to do it. There is an authority in that gift here, and we must recognize it."
I have tried to maintain personal confidence in this gift in the church, and I use it and use it. I have gotten great help from those books, but I will tell you frankly that I held to that position on the question of Babylon for years when I knew it was exactly contrary to "Great Controversy," but I went on, and in due time I became orthodox. I did not enjoy that experience at all, and I hope you will not have to go through it. It means something.

A Myth of Sola Scriptura

Wikipedia defines Sola Scriptura as:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

That however is not the myth to which I refer, the myth is when the Bible is used without out using valid logical deduction and valid deductive reasoning; the Bible only without the aid of reasoning and logic, as one of the comments on my last blog said “taking the Bible as it reads”. What does that mean, as it reads? The myth is that you don’t have to take the time and effort to logically interpret the Bible, the myth is that knowledge from outside the Bible is not needed for the interpretation of the Bible.


The Bible in fact does not define itself, just as with any other document of any language the Bible requires both fields of study known as Lower and Higher Criticism. And both of those fields require knowledge of humanity found outside the Bible. The information from outside the Bible is used to understand the culture the times and the language of the material in the Bible. A simply example is the Chiasm, now the Bible does not define what a Chiasm is but it uses them. Our understanding of poetry from the poetry of other ancient literature is used when we see poetry in the Bible. We don’t have to simply claim the Bible tells us everything we need to know about poetry. Poetry frequently is not literal and may cause people to come to wrong interpretations when something is poetic and it is assumed to be literal. One can say that is the way it reads but unless the reader is informed of the poetic characteristics they take the text in ways it was never meant to be taken. For example the book of Job says the stars sang together, if not view poetically people I have seen come up with ideas like the stars are beings from other planets. Despite the poetic nature and despite the context there are probably hundreds of such off the wall interpretations to some simple piece of poetry. 
 
Poetry is just one of the problems in interpretation; another is the assumption that past knowledge when used makes that knowledge used appear to be religious truth. As we saw in my recent article, Bibliotatry, about Jesus taunting the Pharisees when they asked him to make the people stop praising him and he stated if the people stopped the rocks would cry out. Another similar example is when Jesus said that a seed had to die before it could grow and produce more seeds.

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (John 12:24 NIV)

We know that the seed does not actually die, this is figurative it seems like it is dead and buried but with modern techniques we can actually prove that a seed carries on respiration, those that don’t are truly dead and they won’t germinate. For example the Tetrazolium test or as the simple test when I planted my edible pod peas from my crop last season some seeds floating at the top of the cup of water, those are not going to grow. Dead seeds don’t grow! But we understand the meaning of a new life a fresh start from the context and the figurative language of Jesus but what we know is because of our cultural and scientific and often our own experiential knowledge. There is little doubt that the Bible writers expected people to read with those ideas from outside their writing. We would hardly expect God in His inspiration process to expect differently. But it is the tradition of the Fundamentalist that says the Bible interprets itself. It does not and neither does any other written work because authors expect their readers to use some reasoning skills. Even with symbols the Bible does not necessarily interpret itself because it will often use multiple symbols and the context is needed to recognize just which symbol is meant for which idea in reality.

Does this mean that human beings have to interpret the Bible with human reason? The answer is yes, you can’t get there any other way, it is not a magic book  with writing that absorbs into the mind without the mind thinking, reacting and yes interpreting data. God has given us minds to use and we should be using them and all the tools that the mind can come up with that aid the process of understanding. The book of Isaiah writes:

…Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (Isa 1:17-18 NIV)

The Lord says to reason together and learn to do right, you can’t get there without reasoning and thinking and learning that is what our minds are for and we need to use them to understand the Bible and see what it says in context and does the context fit our situations and acknowledge the progressive revelation about God and man that we see in the Bible itself as well as how what we have learned in the thousands of years since the Bible’s individual books were written.

So don’t let the fundamentalist tell you that you are using human reason to understand the Bible, it is simply a cheap and deceitful trick they use to make you think that their certainty is somehow superior. After all it is a truism that the more you know the more you find that you don’t know. If the more you know makes you see even less…then maybe what you think you know is not really knowledge let alone truth.

 

 

The fiction of Imputed Righteousness

In light of the lessons study for this week here is a more Biblical view then offered by our Lesson Study Guide which seems to think tradition is more important then a logical view of what the Bible actually says.

Forgiveness; The Robe of Christ's Righteousness

Christ's Death a Necessity. For a loving God to maintain His justice and righteousness, the atoning death of Jesus Christ became "a moral and legal necessity." God's "Justice requires that sin be carried to judgment. God must therefore execute judgment on sin and thus on the sinner. In this execution the Son of God took our place, the sinner's place, according to God's will. The atonement was necessary because man stood under the righteous wrath of God. Herein lies the heart of the gospel of forgiveness of sin and the mystery of the cross of Christ: Christ's perfect righteousness adequately satisfied divine justice, and God is willing to accept Christ's self-sacrifice in place of man's death." 5 (Seventh-day Adventists Believe...A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines Review and Herald Pub Assn. 1988.p.111
Footnote 5 refers to Hans K. LaRondelle, Christ Our Salvation Mountain View, CA; Pacific Press, 1980 pp.25, 26)

...We are covered with His garment of righteousness. When God looks at the believing, penitent sinner He sees, not the nakedness or deformity of sin, but the robe of righteousness formed by Christ's perfect obedience to the law. 12 None can be truly righteous unless covered by this robe. (P.114 footnote 12 refers to White, Christ's Object Lessons. p.312)

 One of the interesting tenets of those who hold to the substitutionary atonement is the idea that Christ's Righteousness can be imputed into the Christian. One of the methods or illustrations, which is commonly used within the SDA community, is the idea that Christ covers our sinfulness with his righteousness. Using the parable of the wedding feast they determine that the robe the guest puts on is Christ's Righteousness.

The parable found in Matt 22:1-14

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. 4 "Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.' 5 "But they paid no attention and went off-- one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.12 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen." (NIV)

To this the following verse is often related: Rev 3:18

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. (NIV)

And Isa 61:10

I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NIV)

 It should be noted that the term Christ's Righteousness or even the Righteousness of Christ are not terms the Bible ever uses. Is the idea, common among SDA's that by accepting the Robe of Christ's Righteousness when God looks at the person He sees Christ, actually what the Bible teaches?

Some in theology call this a legal fiction; the answer however may be far simpler then many of the Theologians of the past 500 years have envisioned.

The Bible in several places speaks of those clothed in White, (Rev 3:4-5, 6:11,7:9,7:13-14,) unfortunately too many people are missing the clear picture of the Bible in order to create a complex legal fiction.

Let us try for a moment to look at these verses used above in a slightly different light. The light of forgiveness.

Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (NIV)

 The following is information on Forgiveness from _The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ pages 306-7 should help us see how these concepts work together. I have added the Strong's number in front of the words.

Forgiveness. In the O.T. several Hebrew roots contain the concept of "forgive". The verb 5545 calach (saw-lakh') a primitive root; to forgive: signifies literally "forgive, pardon" (Lev. 4:20, 26: I Kings 8:30, 34: Ps. 86:5: 103:3: Jer. 31:34). The root 3722 kaphar (kaw-far') (cover) which is used to express the idea of atonement or propitiation, in some cases means "forgive" (Ps. 65:3; 78:38;79:9; Isa. 6:7; 22:14; Jer. 18:23; Ezek. 16:63). The root 4229 machah (maw-khaw') signifies that sins may be wiped or blotted out (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 51:1; 109:14; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Jer. 18:23). The verb 3680 kacah (kaw-saw') suggests that sins may be covered or concealed (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 32:1; 85:3). The root 5375 nasa' (naw-saw')

(lift up, take away) may also mean "forgive" (Gen. 50:17;Ex. 10:17; 32:32; 34:7; Ps. 32:5; 85:3). God forgives sin, but this presupposes repentance and prayer on the part of the sinner (Ps.51:1-17).

Forgiveness is the covering, the concealment, the blotting out or removal of sins. Think about how well the concept of forgiveness fits with those clothed in White, and those at the wedding feast. "The connection with the O.T. is evident when forgiveness is presented in the language of sacrifice (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:11-28). It is God's gracious pardon to sinful men and is effected through Christ and through faith in him (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18: Eph. 4:32; col. 1:9-14). In divine forgiveness the guilt and debt of sin are canceled, and repentant man is received back into fellowship with the Father. " (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ pages 306-7)

We who were enemies of God are offered forgiveness and acceptance back into a relationship with God,a God we can trust to accept and forgive us because He offers the acceptance and forgiveness to us first.

Col 1:21-23

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. (NIV)

Christ who while enduring physical torture on the cross loving offered them His forgiveness. Showing all who are willing to see that God is in fact loving, forgiving, and accepting the return of his prodigal sons. The author of life killed by His creation, though He was rejected He continues to offer reconciliation, and forgiveness.

Acts 3:14-16 

You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. (NIV)

It is the Righteousness of God, the grace, the love which offers us the "garments of salvation" the forgiveness which is offered to all who are willing to accept His gift. A gift at present we can only see by faith based upon the evidence which Christ brought to us by His life death and resurrection. A faith in the character of our God.

I John 3:2-5

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (NIV)

The following quote from a nineteenth century shows how misleading the doctrine of the Robe of Christ's Righteousness can become.

The Lord Jesus Christ has prepared a covering, the robe of his own righteousness, that he will put on every repenting, believing soul who by faith will receive it. Said John, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Sin is the transgression of the law; but Christ died to make it possible for every man to have his sins taken away. A fig-leaf apron will never cover our nakedness. Sin must be taken away, the garment of Christ's righteousness must cover the transgressor of God's law. Then when the Lord looks upon the believing sinner, he sees, not the fig-leaves covering him, but his own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah.

The legal fiction of a God who needs to pretend that the Christian is perfectly obedient to the Laws. Instead of a God who sees our imperfections yet offers us forgiveness and reconciliation out of His love.No games, no legal maneuvers are necessary for God to forgive and accept us back from our wanderings in a far country. Just love.

From the CD The Robe by Wes King (1993) Words by Wes King music by Phil Naish
The Robe
"Come as you are and He will cleanse you. You are guilty; your pardon is of God" --Charles H. Spurgeon
Anyone whose heart is cold and lonely/ Anyone who can't believe/ Anyone whose hands are worn and empty/ Come as you are
Anyone whose feet are tired of walking/ And even lost their will to run/ There is a place of rest for your aching soul/ Come as you are
Chorus: For the robe is of God/ that will clothe your nakedness/ And the robe is His grace/ It's all you all you need/ Come as you are
Anyone who feels that they're unworthy/ Anyone who's just afraid/ Come sinner, come and receive His mercy/ Come as you are.

Also found on NewProtestants.com

Bibliotatry

The Oxford Dictionaries define bibliolatry as:

1. an excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Sometimes people misspell it as Bibleolatry but we want to use the official English word here. As Wikipedia points out the word is used as a pejorative, it is not that there really are Christians that literally worship the Bible. It is just the impression one gets from the way they use the Bible. A couple of examples from my wandering across the Internet.

Over on HeavenlySanctuary.com a person by the name of David begins a post by saying:

in Luke 19 "if they are quiet the rocks will cry out''. Truth? egw in DA p573 says
“That scene of triumph was of Gods own appointing. It had been fortold by the prophet, and man was POWERLESS TO TURN IT ASIDE. Had men failed to carry out His plan, He would have GIVEN A VOICE TO INANIMATE STONES, and they would have hailed His Son with ACCLAMATIONS of praise."

God does not want the praise or worship of robots (weve talked about this many times here). Would the rocks have been robots 'acclaiming paise' ? would that have made Jesus happy? forcing rocks to praise Hiim?

The post goes on into some more questionable thoughts but to this point it is pretty clever. It shows a very good example of bibliolatry in Ellen Whites writing's. It is the tendency to take something that could easily simply be hyperbole into something that is meant to be taken literally. Jesus speaks the following in Luke's gospel account:

Luke 19:37-41NIV When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" ⁿ "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!""I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it”

It is easy to see this as a jab at the Pharisees who wanted to quiet the crowd, it is more difficult to see this as a possibility of God causing stones to speak human language, after all stones don't say much most of the time and they are not thought to be all that smart or connected to spiritual things. Why would God want to make stones praise God...that would be pretty cheap praise. If God forces you, or an inanimate object to praise Him is it really praise at all?

In this case we have a combination of bibliolatry and Ellenolatry, though that last one is not currently a real English word and I hope it never becomes one. But it is sort of the idolatry that the Whiteites do exhibit. Whiteites is a term I do hope becomes a legitimate English word for those who uncritically accept Ellen White as prophetic spiritual authority who is without theological, historical or scientific error.

Let's look at another frequent example of bibliolatry, this one from Sherman Cox II on his blog Sabbath Pulpit. Speaking about the 2011 Japanese Earthquake and some Adventist responses he writes:

Now there is the whole “God is trying to tell God’s true church something” bit. Ok it is possible to read this as “God killing of thousands of innocent lives just to tell the church something.” I don’t know, but I don’t think that is Boonstra’s interpretation. I would guess that Boonstra would mean that “God is withdrawing God’s hand of protection and thus the evil one is allowed to do more and more of these things. Thus it is a signal to us that the end is near.” Certainly folks may disagree with that due to having a different theology, but is it really an insidious attack on God’s goodness.

Last week in my Sabbath School class I encountered this very similar idea that God is withdrawing His hand of protection, it is an idea based upon the following verse in Revelation:

Revelation 6:16-7:4 NIV They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: "Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God." Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

This is another of those intersections between the Whiteites and bibliolatry, like the person in my class they did not seem to realize that their quote from Revelation about the four winds is very subject to interpretation, to the Adventist traditionalist when they point to that verse their minds actually refer to the following Ellen White quote:

The restraining Spirit of God is even now being withdrawn from the world. Hurricanes, storms, tempests, fire and flood, disasters by sea and land, follow each other in quick succession. Science seeks to explain all these. The signs thickening around us, telling of the near approach of the Son of God, are attributed to any other than the true cause. Men cannot discern the sentinel angels restraining the four winds that they shall not blow until the servants of God are sealed; but when God shall bid His angels loose the winds, there will be such a scene of strife as no pen can picture. (Testimonies to the Church Vol 6 page 408)

Now there is no real Bible teaching that God restrains His Spirit but the belief in the authoritative prophet with the aid of subsequent tradition, the interpretation of a specific Bible text though vague becomes an infallible truth. It then becomes bibliolatry.

At its heart bibliolatry is never really about what the Bible says it is about what the chosen interpretation is. The one particular interpretation is the truth regardless of the other options involved. So the people don't even come close to worshiping the Bible as much as their respect is limited to their particular interpretation. If you don't agree with that interpretation then you reject the Bible and if you reject their interpretation of the Bible you are rejecting God. It reminds me of the text I found when looking at the only other Bible text where stones cry out

Habakkuk 2:11-12 NIV The stones of the wall will cry out, and the beams of the woodwork will echo it."Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and establishes a town by crime!

After that bit of poetic language the prophet moves on to another subject and we read:

Habakkuk 2:18 NIV "Of what value is an idol, since a man has carved it? Or an image that teaches lies? For he who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak.

When the Bible text interpretation becomes an object of the human creator it becomes an idol, it can then speak lies, the text speak what the idol maker wants them to say because the trust is now in the idol (assigned meaning to the text by the idol maker). This is most easily done with vague and obscure texts such as the Latter Day Saints do with baptism for the dead or the reference to the Time of Jacobs Trouble or the four winds etc. Apocalyptic literature is ideal for this technique. Bibliolatry is a growing problem in Adventism. Next week. The myth of solo scriptura.

Ellen White as Lesser Light intentional confusion?

Recently I was looking up some material and I happened upon this quote:

To put it simply, one of the main reasons I believe in Ellen White is that she never puts her writings above the Bible. Think about it: There are churches and denominations today whose teachings and beliefs depend on their founder or prophet, not on the Bible. That’s not the way it is in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Ellen White always made it clear that she was the lesser light leading to the greater light of God’s Word. I can see in her writings that she was only seeking to bring people to God and did not want to lift herself up above the Bible or call attention to herself. {AC 104.1} A Call To Stand Apart Selections from Ellen G. White A Paraphrase Chapter 17 Chapter 17—Authority Of Scripture A Young Adult’s Encounter with Ellen White ... on the Authority of Scripture

To what do we owe this particular teaching that Ellen White saw herself as a lesser light and that this was made clear to this particular young adult? After all as the young person said “Ellen White always made it clear that she was the lesser light leading to the greater light of God’s Word.” So where do we first find this quote from Ellen White? Maybe the question should be where do most of us first encounter this quote? I took some time to look it up and here are the results:

--1953 compilation book called Colporteur Ministry, we read: (you can find these books at http://egwwritings.org/ )

Sell Books That Give Light—The Lord has sent His people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. Oh, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth. {CM 125.2}

You can also find it in the other compilations Evangelism and Selected Messages. The White Estates new search engine lists the Evangelism quote as from the 1946 book:

--The Greater and Lesser Lights—Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.—The Colporteur Evangelist, 37. (1902) {Ev 257.1}

As I was looking at these references they all seemed to be only found in compilations. And so far I could not find anything older then the 1946 quote in Evangelism. But there it said that the reference was from “The Colporteur Evangelist” Looking through both White Estate search engines and my own EGW material which is supposed to have everything that she had published and some other collections I could find no book or periodical or pamphlet by that title. Searching the web I found a version on PDF which indicates that the Colporteur Evangelist is in fact another compilation, though the one I found is dated 1950.

So that left me with a search for the quote and finding it in three compilations 1. Colporteur Ministries 2. Evangelism 3. Selected Messages and a distant 4. Colporter Evangelist which is not all that readily available unless you know it is out there hiding. Not a single one of these compilations listed the actual first quote where Ellen White sets herself as the lesser light. It is no wonder none of the other Adventist writers of her time referred to her in that way.

It turns out that the quote came from The Review and Herald, January 20, 1903:

Many more of our larger books might have been sold if church members had been awake to the importance of the truths these books contain, and had realized their responsibility to circulate them. My brethren and sisters, will you not now make an effort to circulate these books? and will you not bring into this effort the enthusiasm that you brought into the effort to sell "Christ's Object Lessons"? In selling this book many have learned how to handle the larger books. They have obtained an experience that has prepared them to enter the canvassing field.

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in his hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take his loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth.

My brethren and sisters, work earnestly to circulate these books. Put your hearts into this work, and the blessing of God will be with you. Go forth in faith, praying that God will prepare hearts to receive the light. Be pleasant and courteous. Show by a consistent course that you are true Christians. Walk and work in the light of heaven, and your path will be as the path of the just, shining more and more unto the perfect day.

Two things we can learn from this. First the compilers are not too particular about accuracy and pointing to the original source material in compilations, for whatever reasons. The second is that when you read it in context you see that the lesser light is a reference not to Ellen White as lesser to the Bible but that she is acting as the reflector of the light she is given by God. Which fits in with her earlier statements such as:

Christ makes no apology when he declares, "I am the Light of the world." He was, in life and teaching, the gospel, the foundation of all pure doctrine. Just as the sun compares with the lesser lights in the heavens, so did Christ, the source of all light, compare with the teachers of his day. He was before them all; and shining with the brightness of the sun, he diffused his penetrating, gladdening rays throughout the world. (Youth Instructor.1897-09-16.004)

God the greater light gave Sister White the light in the material she wrote. Thus compared to God the source of all light she is a lesser light. She did not mean that she was a lesser light to the Bible, after all in her own statement she misuses the Bible using the Isaiah quotation which derides those who take line upon line precept upon precept, even if the King James Version were correctly translated the context makes it clear it is not a description of how to arrive at truth.*. She asserts that her material leads to people who read her work with eager expectation to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, the books making the gospel plain. 

I suppose that is why the compilation did not actually give the original quote reference, after all if the goal is to carry forward a myth as the young adult in the first quote stated Ellen White leading to God's Word, which is in itself interesting because God's Word while traditionally (though inaccurately) used as a reference to the Bible would certainly not be restricted to the Bible would it? I am not saying this is a conspiracy of the Adventist church, rather it is a manipulation of the Adventist church and a very effective one.

* Isaiah 28:8-13 NIV:

All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. "Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule ⁿ; a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen. So then, the word of the LORD to them will become: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there-- so that they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured.

Expositor's Bible Commentary:

9-10 As the prophet declared the word of God in this drink-dominated setting, his hearers made their response. The NIV is probably right in treating both these verses as a quotation of the words of the drunkards. They felt insulted. Were they not themselves spiritual leaders, well able to teach others? What right had this man to place them in the classroom and teach them the spiritual ABC's? There is some thing ironic about the reference to milk (v. 9) in such a context.

Many commentators have been puzzled by v. 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol -impregnated atmosphere that surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that might just as well have been a foreign language.

Expositor's Bible Footnotes

10 The interpretation given above is now widely held, for it is difficult to derive proper sense from the Hebrew as it stands. The NIV text is about as near as the translator can get. There seem to be echoes of the Hebrew of v. 8, which suggests that the interpretation in terms of broken syllables mouthed by their recipients is correct. G. Fohrer (Das Buch Jesaya, in loc.) suggests that the syllables actually used are those a Hebrew mother would use to teach her child the alphabet. This is possible.

11 Paul quoted this verse at 1 Cor 14:21, where he seems to be implying that uninterpreted--and therefore meaningless--glossolalia will simply confirm the unbelieving hearer in his sin and therefore anticipate his judgment. Whether in Isaiah's day, Paul's, or ours, it is meaningful utterance a message from God addressed to the understanding--that humans need to bring them to the sure foundation of faith.

The solution for Adventists

There is a wide gulf between Progressive Adventists and Traditional Adventists but there has been very little written about a solution to the problem. If it is a problem that is. Perhaps that is the problem there is in fact no desire to unify one side with the other.

One of the leaders in the Traditional Adventists camp is Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, PhD, in his article Going Forward, Not Backwards A Reflection on the 2010 Atlanta General Conference Session

Dr. Pipim writes:

One writer on a particular “Progressive” website described the message as a call to “Retrograde Adventism,” a call “backwards” to the 1950s or 60s (to which I will respond: If a call back to our Bible-based teachings and lifestyle practices is a call “backwards,” then it is the best kind of going back. I only wish the call would not end in the ’50s or ’60s, but would go all the way back to the first century--some 2,000 years ago--when Christ founded His Church).

Another “Progressive Adventist” friend of mine caught up with me in one of the hallways of the GC Session and remarked that the sermon was “a declaration of war” (to which I quickly responded: “No, it is not a declaration of war; the war had been raging for decades. The only thing that has changed is that the Church has found a courageous captain, who is not afraid to publicly state what our message and mission are.”).

The reaction of the critics are shrill voices of an influential minority who have largely repudiated our distinctive Adventist identity and mission, and who for years have been calling for an “open tent” Church in which theological error should be embraced as an option. I am encouraged that their views do not represent the longstanding or present position of the Church. I’m equally heartened by the fact that an overwhelming majority of young people today--the real future of the church--do not share the views of backslidden Adventism that masquerades today as “Progressive.” Cooped up in their parochial orbit, they are totally out of touch with where the real Seventh-day Adventist Church is.

I would agree with his first paragraph of his article quotation the church should go back to a more reasoned religion well before Ellen White and the face saving device known as the Investigative Judgment, back when the Spirit of Prophecy was a reference to the Spirit of God and not a 19^th century woman. I have often used C.S. Lewis' quote in this regard:

“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. . .There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), Book I, Chap. 5, p. 22.

The second paragraph above I would also agree with. There has been for decades a war between Progressive and Traditional Adventists. I would even agree with the idea that Ted Wilson is a courageous captain for Traditional Adventists. After all in wars a captain does not have to be right just able to lead for his cause. People can go down in history for their courageous opposition such as Dominican theologian Sylvester Mazzolini who drafted a heresy case against Luther, they may not be right but being a leader does not mean the person is leading in the right direction.

It is the third paragraph above that really shows the attitude of the Traditional Adventists toward Progressive Adventists. Progressive Adventists are masquerading as Adventists, they are backsliders or apostate Adventists in their limited orbit of theological error out of touch with real Seventh-day Adventists. So how would we expect the Traditional Adventists to want to reach out to theological error prone falsely called Adventists?

Over on the Adventist Today blog there was an article by Preston Foster entitled Liberal and Conservative Work Avoidance. His point is that Traditional and Progressive Adventists have been avoiding the work of the mission of the the Adventist church. His concluding paragraph reads:

The energy of EGW supporters is, many times, expended more on defending her writings than in lifting up the Bible. The energy of her detractors is often spent more on proving her errors rather than on pointing to Jesus. The energy expended by both sides looks like important work. What is important is not the same as what is vital.

The distraction is an enticing focal point. For some, it is an occupation. However we, as a group, have work to do. That is, to lift up Christ and prepare ourselves and others to meet Him. We are all busy working. However, activity is no substitute for accomplishment.

He is close to being right, but what is the work we are called to do (spreading the gospel), to each side of the Adventist fence? In an earlier blog article Preston told us that our mission as Adventist was not to spread the gospel but to spread the 3 angel's messages of Revelation 14, he writes in his article Have We Lost Sight of Our Mission?

Commitment to a mission creates a sense of urgency and expectation: a reason for self-sacrifice.  A clear mission provides a focal point for everything an organization does.  A clear mission gives a private direction, even when the captain provides no specific orders.

Think about it: when was the last time you heard a sermon on the essential teaching of Adventism: the Third Angel's Message?  If you were not Adventist and visited and Adventist church only one time, would you leave with a clear understanding of the link between the last day events and the Sabbath?  We've even changed our logo from three angels sounding their trumpets to a more vague, not threatening flame.

If the Christian Gospel is not the mission of Traditional Adventists should Progressive Adventists really want to work with the Traditional Adventists. I suppose many people do not fully realize what Adventists mean when they use the term three angel's messages or third angel's message. These are code words for Adventist distinctive beliefs. Such as the Seventh day Sabbath to be a final end time test (those who observe receive the seal of God and those who do not receive the mark of the beast by rejecting God's commandment), the Investigative Judgment begun in 1844 and of course Ellen White as the Spirit of Prophecy so that with her the Adventist church can be the remnant church of Revelation. The Christian Gospel...the Gospel we see in the New Testament is not the gospel that the Traditional Adventists hold dear. Oh it is to their credit something that should be included in the reason for their Traditional Adventism but the gospel is not enough.

Mission emphasis is one thing but what if the gospel that the Traditional Adventists espouse is not even good news, what if it is a distorted view of God? With the Japanese earthquake so recent I saw this post on Facebook from a Traditional Adventist relative, a quote from Ellen White under the title If Heaven’s Warnings Go Unheeded:

I am bidden to declare the message that cities full of transgression, and sinful in the extreme, will be destroyed by earthquakes, by fire, by flood. All the world will be warned that there is a God who will display His authority as God. His unseen agencies will cause destruction, devastation, and death. All the accumulated riches will be as nothingness....

Calamities will come—calamities most awful, most unexpected; and these destructions will follow one after another. If there will be a heeding of the warnings that God has given, and if churches will repent, returning to their allegiance, then other cities may be spared for a time. But if men who have been deceived continue in the same way in which they have been walking, disregarding the law of God and presenting falsehoods before the people, God allows them to suffer calamity, that their senses may be awakened....

The Lord will not suddenly cast off all transgressors or destroy entire nations; but He will punish cities and places where men have given themselves up to the possession of Satanic agencies. Strictly will the cities of the nations be dealt with, and yet they will not be visited in the extreme of God’s indignation, because some souls will yet break away from the delusions of the enemy, and will repent and be converted, while the mass will be treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath.— Evangelism, p. 27.

Is that the gospel, is that the way a God of love would act? As if a disaster says anything, you may attribute it to a god but which god will it be? When your God says love me or I will kill you, you have a serious problem. When He talks by causing disasters you don't really know anything about what or who He is you only know what somebody else is claiming, can you imagine doing that to your child?

There still is a solution but I don't think many Adventists will like it. That is take to the time to see God in a reasonable way. Think about what you believe and what your beliefs say about God. Are we presenting a God that seeks to draw people to Himself or a vindictive cruel and unreasonable God. Do our doctrines make sense, do they help us understand God and appreciate Him. Because that is really the gospel. The good news is that God is not mean and vindictive, that He is loving and kind and seeks the best for you even when you make poor choices. God offers you something better then threats and punishment, poor choices and decisions almost universally lead to disaster none of us needs God to punish us for our mistakes whether it is building on a fault line or rejecting the offer of healing. When Adventists can agree on the simple gospel maybe we can finally get along.

Then the Ants Sat in Judgment of the Man, God on trial?

A couple of years ago I posted an article entitled Is God on Trial? Recently Marco Belmont on HeavenlySanctuary.com posted a nice piece of continuing Adventist mythology entitled Judging the Judge.

He begins with a story which he later tells us is a parable about God, Satan, humans and angels. The key piece to interpreting his parable is supplied when he explains:

“...I'd like to submit that the judgment never needs to be the source of anxious panic because guess what? We aren't the ones who are on trial. We human beings aren't the ones being judged. The crazy thing about the judgment is that The One who is being judged is none other than Almighty God Himself. We human beings – and doesn't this just blow the mind – we humans have been assigned jury duty. When this Great Cosmic Battle between good and evil comes to a close, the question isn't “what does God think about us?” - because that question has already been answered in the person of Jesus Christ. God loves even those who hate His guts. Rather, the real question that each of us will be asked when Jesus Christ appears at the close of time will be, “What do YOU think about God?” Is He guilty of being a harsh taskmaster who enslaves His intelligent creatures by using power and might as a way of keeping them in fearful submission? That's what the reptilian con-artist Mr. Satanic Snake has suggested. Or, is God a compassionate and kind Father who loves and forgives people even when they murder Him? That's the testimony of Christ. Right now, respectfully, we are going to judge the Judge of the Judgment.”

The idea that human beings are going to judge God is such an incredible logical fallacy that it amazes me people believe it. In fact toward the end of his rather long article he destroys his whole thesis by showing that human beings are not qualified to judge God. He writes:

“...If a jury knew a person was innocent and convicted that person as guilty despite knowing the truth, that jury just judged itself as being unfit for jury duty. Likewise, when people of God – and notice I'm not directing this towards non-Christians – who claim the name of Christ but spread any sort of theology that makes God look guilty as charged – no matter how precious the words seem to sound – there is no excuse for lack of investigation and pushing our old cherished beliefs out the window – we simply announce to the entire universe that we have become unfit to make truth – specifically the truth about God's character – our standard. Even worse, our absence from the jury box is not just a loss for God, but another vote in favor of Satan and his methods. Are we guilty of saying, “God is love” and yet warn people of Christ's 2nd coming? Why would we warn people about God? You warn people when an enemy is coming, not a friend. Do we claim there is freedom in serving Christ and yet enslave our youth with exacting rules that come from gross misinterpretation of the scriptures? Do we say God accepts everyone unconditionally but turn around and suggest that He couldn't do it unless Christ first shed His blood thus taking the true message of Christ and replacing it with hedonistic paganism? Have we substituted honesty, open mindedness, and willingness with symbolism, religious rhetoric and euphemisms? Do we keep preaching the soon return of Christ somehow subconsciously implying that Christ isn't available right this second as He stands within our midst at this very moment? Have we preached on prophecy and the signs of the times so much that we've forgotten about The God of prophecy and The God of signs and The God of time? Have we Christians become so enamored with God's law hanging up in some municipal or judicial building – worrying about politics and who will represent our cherished views in parliament or senates across the globe - all the while the law of love and freedom is strangely missing from the barren wall that now encases our hearts as God begs for a group of people to free Him from the shackles of the courtroom and announce with tongues of fire, “In the case of Christ vs. Satan, we find the defendant not guilty on all accounts.” If we have answered yes to any of these questions, we have judged ourselves unfit to judge God. Thus, we have no need to worry about The Judgment, because we won't ever experience that glorious moment when one group of people will turn to our good Good and say, “we are sorry, Father, that you were wrongly accused and that an innocent God ever had to prove His goodness in the first place.”'

To simplify this rather elaborate long section of material. If you believe God is good and just, you are capable of being on the Jury that Judges God. If you don't think God is good and just, you are not suitable for the jury and therefore you won't be seated on the totally biased jury pool and only those on that jury pool are rewarded with heaven. If you ever misrepresented God in any of the numerous ways listed as questions by Marco, then you are unfit to serve on the jury...sinners need not apply could be the title of that little section.

The fact is the judgment in the Bible is not about humans judging God after all, we can judge God now to the best of our abilities, we all have to go through life making judgments all the time who to trust and who not to trust, we apply the data and make the choices, in that respect we certainly do judge but it is restricted to our judgment about things. It is not some kind of legal all encompassing judgment of the ultimate truth or reality of a superhuman creature who dwells in the supernatural while we are restricted to the natural. Even if there was a judgment after this life of God, we would be dependent upon God for the information anyway and if you did not trust His information what are you going to do about it? So in such a vast judgment case in the sky scenario there is no point to man being the jury, no need for the finite to judge the infinite. These remnants of the old Investigative Judgment concepts must really go away as they are just as weak as the original Adventist Investigative Judgment. You cannot redefine a poor theology based upon complete misrepresented texts, that leads only to confusion the only answer is found in going back to the original presuppositions and discarding the faulty ones and rebuilding on a firmer and more logical foundation.