Defining and Redefining Present Truth

Definition
Present Truth is a frequent term used in the Adventist community. It’s most popular definition is that Present Truth is progressive truth. That is that truth in particular for a particular time or situation. What many Adventists probably don’t know is that the term is used outside of Adventism as well. In fact Charles Spurgeon published a selection of his sermons under the title Present Truth. The Website Heaven Dwellers gives a reasonable definition of Present Truth by saying:

“In each of God's ages and dispensations there has been truth generated from God that was peculiar and particular to that age or dispensation to which it pertained. By that we mean that in each age God made known a truth which related directly to the calling that then stood before God. It has ever been the responsibility of God's people in each age and dispensation to distinguish Present Truth…”

 Adventist Church historian George R. Knight says in A search for identity: the development of Seventh-Day Adventist beliefs:

“…To adequately understand Adventism’s doctrinal development we need to examine three concepts espoused by the earliest Seventh-day Adventists thought leaders: (1) Their dynamic conception of “present truth,” (2) their attitude toward creedal statements of Christian belief, and (3) their view of the pathway to progressive understanding.” (page 18)

Is it Present Truth because we say so?
I would submit that Present Truth is in reality a euphemism for Adventist beliefs. If we (or the Adventists pioneers) believe it, it was or is called present truth. The idea that it is a progressive revelation of truth is not really that compatible with how the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church used the term. It would be nice if it meant progressive revelation of truth but the usage in history only tangentially touches that idea.

George Knight notes that the term was not unique to the Seventh-day Adventists, that the Millerites earlier employed it in reference to the soon return of Jesus, then to the idea that the second advent would occur on Oct. 22 of 1844. To this Knight finds that the Millerites “find a progressive dynamic in understanding” Knight references the quote from James White’s book Life Incidents page 298-291 where James White says:

"The storm is coming.  War, famine and pestilence are already in the field of slaughter.  Now is the time, the only time to seek a shelter in the truth of the living God.  In Peter's time there was present truth, or truth applicable to that present time.  The church have ever had a present truth.  The present truth now, is that which shows present duty, and the right position for us who are about to witness the time of trouble such as never was.  Present truth must be oft repeated, even to those who are established in it.  This was needful in the apostles' day, and it certainly is no less important for us, who are living just before the close of time.

            "For months I have felt burdened with the duty of writing and publishing the present truth for the scattered flock; but the way has not been opened for me to commence the work until now.  I tremble at the word of the Lord, and the importance of this time.  What is done to spread the truth must be done quickly.  The four angels are holding the angry nations in check but a few days, until the saints are sealed; then the nations will rush, like the rushing of many waters.  Then it will be too late to spread before precious souls the present, saving, living truths of the Holy Bible.  My spirit is drawn out after the scattered remnant.  May God help them to receive the truth, and be established in it."

Knight also references this quote from Ellen White:

“Special truths have been adapted to the conditions of the generations as they have existed. The present truth, which is a test to the people of this generation, was not a test to the people of generations far back. If the light which now shines upon us in regard to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment had been given to the generations in the past, God would have held them accountable for that light.

When the temple of God was opened in heaven, John saw in holy vision a class of people whose attention was arrested and who were looking with reverential awe at the ark, which contained the law of God. The special test upon the fourth commandment did not come until after the temple of God was opened in heaven.”  (Testimonies to the Church Vol. 2 Page 693)

An overused term
Once you read Ellen White, who uses the term over a thousand times you begin to realize that it is not so much a term of dynamic progressive understanding but a shorthand code-word for Adventist doctrine. What the Adventists were teaching was Present Truth. The special understanding that the Adventist had given to the Sabbath was Present Truth. When the Seventh day Baptists taught it a hundred years prior it was not Present Truth.  Note in the above quote Ellen White says that in regard to the Sabbath if generations in the past had known they would be held accountable. But Ellen White elsewhere says that there was almost a continual line of Sabbath Keepers throughout history. (Which is something that the Seventh Day Baptists also said. *See the end of this article an for article excerpt on the Seventh Day Baptists.) But to Ellen White the Sabbath took on special significance because Seventh-day Adventists had determined that they lived in the time after 1844 when the temple of God was opened in heaven.

In Volume 1 of the Testimonies we find good confirmation that the Present Truth is shorthand for Adventist doctrines when it is used with another Adventist shorthand code word, “Thrid angel’s message”:

“Those ministers who have come out from the different denominations to embrace the third angel's message often wish to teach when they should be learners. Some have a great share of their former teaching to unlearn before they can fully learn the principles of present truth. Ministers will injure the cause of God by going forth to labor for others when there is as great a work to be done for them to fit them for their labors as they may wish to do for unbelievers. If they are unqualified for the work, it will require the labor of two or three faithful ministers to follow after and correct their wrong influence. In the end it would be cheaper for the cause of God to give such ministers a good support to remain at home and do no injury in the field.” (Testimonies Vol 1 page 444)

It appears that those ministers from other denominations did not possess the knowledge of the complete doctrines of the Adventists and they had to learn those doctrines otherwise they were going to cause injury. The funny thing about the term Present Truth is that in effect it is quite meaningless. It has no practical definition aside from the claims made by whomever feels they have Present Truth. In the historical context we see that it is the Adventist understanding of the Seventh-day Sabbath, 1844 and the opening of the temple in heaven and the Third angel’s message. We might be able to find a few other distinctive Adventists ideas connected such as health reform, but there is really nothing concrete that is presented as being Present Truth by Ellen White. If the Adventist church actually had something concrete to call Present Truth it would certainly have made the writing of the fundamental doctrines much easier.

As George Knight says:

“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to agree to the denomination’s “27 fundamental Beliefs”. (page 17)

He goes on to say they would disagree with the Trinity as an unscriptural doctrine, that they would have trouble with the idea that Jesus is both eternal and truly God. They would not only deny the Trinity and eternity of the Son but also deny that the Holy Spirit was a person like the Father and Son. Present Truth for them was simply what they believed as Adventists. It was not Present Truth because it was really true it was Present Truth because they were the remnant, they were the true followers of God and their distinctive beliefs were believed to be true. Here is where they tangentially touch upon progressive revelation of truth. Because they thought they were gifted with the prophetic guidance of Ellen White as the miss appropriated term “Spirit of Prophecy” they had a new revelation of truth that others did not have. In that sense their ideas endorsed by Ellen White could possibly be seen as progressive revelations, but only by those who accepted the prophet role of Ellen White.

Redefining Present Truth

Progressive Adventism has taken the term Present Truth and attempted to separate it from it’s historical use as Traditional distinctive Adventist doctrines into a concept that we should seek to learn how and when it is necessary to reinterpret our doctrines and ideas. It then sounds to the traditional Adventists who hear Present Truth as Adventists distinctives that the Progressive Adventists are talking the same language. The problem of course besides meaning different things is that we get the idea that our incorrect doctrines were at one time referred to as Present Truth. It is difficult to progress past something that we have declared to be the truth especially if it was called Present Truth, a truth of necessity because we were living so near the end of the world. Consider what Joseph Bates said in his pamplet An Explanation of the Typical and Anti-Typical Sanctuary, By the Scriptures. With A Chart Revelation III:

“Why this third angel's loud cry about the commandments of God, because the fourth one, which had been trodden down for many generations, is to be restored and kept as the commandment requires.  The second angel's message and voice from heaven required God's people to leave the churches.  The seventh-day Sabbath could not, nor can not now be restored there.  It is to be done in the Philadelphia state of the church, and no where else.  This is the present truth in the commandments in the Ark of his Testimony.  The present truth in this is: That the master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and now stands beside the Ark containing the commandments.  The "Present Truth," then, of this third angel's message is, T H E  S A B B A T H  A N D  S H U T  D O O R. See the picture on the Chart.”

Not too many Adventists still believe in the Shut Door theory even if at one time it was thought to be Present Truth. But then again most think that Present Truth is their accepted Adventist distinctive beliefs and not someone else’s distinctive belief even if it is that of an Adventist church founder. The danger here is found in the idea that we have to align Present Truth with past Present Truth. Here is what the article dealing with Progressive revelation says:

“New light will not manifest itself in a form that is altogether different from the light the church already possesses. It will take the form of a further advancement of present truth. It is a fuller, clearer, and brighter unfolding of the old truth. There will be harmony with the theological landmarks, the Spirit of Prophecy, and historicist principles of Bible interpretation. Thus it will not replace, substitute, radically change, or tear down the foundations of Adventist faith and practice.” (Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines and Progressive Revelation © P. Gerard Damsteegt Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 2/1 (1991): 77-92)

Time to abandon the term
Thus the theologian has closed the circle of Present Truth. It is always what we believe and it will always be what we believe. Present Truth is an illusion, a piece of propaganda to make the uncertain feel certain. It is a term I will no longer use and I hope that the Adventist church will also abandon the deception of Present Truth for a more reasoned truth that is subject to changing interpretations and even dare I say it…acknowledging that some things we thought were true were not.  Because that is really the only way progressive revelation will work for anyone.

* I found this interesting so I thought I would append it here as referenced above.:

 “Thus far we have endeavored to show, and think we have done so, that Christianity was planted in the islands of Great Britain in the apostolic age; that it was Sabbath-keeping in character; that for some six centuries, at least, the Sabbath prevailed in these islands, and that, on down to the Reformation, Sabbath advocates and adherents abounded in unbroken and persistent succession.
We now come to the subject of organized Seventh-Day Baptist Churches.
A.D. 1558.
Chambers' Cyclopedia states that "many conscientious and independent thinkers in the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603)advocated the seventh-day."
A.D. 1552.
The Sabbath Recorder of June 11, 1868, says:- "In 1552 many in England were known as Sabbatarians.
A.D. 1545.
Dr. Samuel Kohn, chief Rabbi of Budapest, Hungary, in a recent work ( Sabbatarians in Transylvania, 1894, pp. 8,9) says:- In Bohemia Sabbatarians sprung up as early as 1530. Such Sabbatarians, or similar sects, we meet about 1545 among the Quakers in England. Several leaders and preachers of the Puritans have re-transferred the rest day from Sunday to Saturday; and the Christian Jews who arose in England and in 1661 partly emigrated to Germany, and settled near Heidelberg, believed, indeed, in Jesus, but they also celebrated the Sabbath and regarded the Jewish laws in reference to meats and drinks."

The Psychology of Adam and Eve, a tough question

Not long ago I was thinking about one of the problems that exist when we hold to a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account. We normally think of these as the physical problem with the creation account, such as what was light on the first day, or how could it be that the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day. Those are of course large problems for a literal view of the Genesis creation account but there is another science which comes into play in the story. A somewhat softer science but still a very important consideration; that is the psychology of the first humans.

We have for quite some time now as a culture realized that human beings need time to develop reasoning skills. It is of course not just time that is needed it is experience and knowledge of life that take up that time till a human being is thought of as a responsible person. We have in America set that time frame as 18 years and then the person is classed as an adult. Some countries my have less, some more. The Jews have a tradition of a boy moving into manhood at age 12. The different ages for the acceptance of the age of reason my vary and they may be somewhat arbitrary but they have a good number of years of life experience and learning in common before the person is classed among those called of the age of reason or adults or independently  responsible individuals.

Now back to the creation story. Man, Adam and Eve in the story were created. What was their psychological level of maturity? Those years of experiences that humans go through to reach the age of reason were not there for Adam and Eve. Yet the greatest test of their loyalty was placed upon their inexperienced shoulders. But of course we don’t know what level of experience they had perhaps experiences were implanted in their minds. Surely they were not created as adult sized infants. After all the in the story they seem to be able to walk and talk and carry on conversations, something that normally requires years of training and experience before the average child becomes proficient.

But that is a problem when we are about to test someone…because if God is going to test them and God is the one that gave them the knowledge or artificial experience He is not really testing them but testing the information He implanted into them. Now of course if God did not give them any knowledge or experiences then they were in no ways capable of understanding their world at all and their lives for at least a few years would be filled with learning the very basics of life. Perhaps God would have been their instructor during these first years of life but we really have no idea because the story does not say anything about the origins of their knowledge and experiences. But most anyway you look at it if you delve into their psychology they were either on their own and very immature and inexperienced or they were implanted with knowledge and experience or they were trained by God.

If they were trained by God or God implanted the knowledge into them then the fault lies as much or more with God as with Adam or Eve if they fail the test God lays out for them. If they were simply unknowledgeable and inexperienced then the fault lies entirely with God for placing them in a situation that they could not hope to function as individually responsible people. The idea of God plunging the entire world into sin because of the choices of two totally inadequately knowledgeable people would make God out to be entirely insensitive and cruel. 

It seems to me that just on the psychology of the situation it is entirely impossible to accept the story as literal. Because it would destroy the whole idea of God before it even builds up the idea of God. At least to the modern mind, though to the ancients it seems that they had no real need for their gods to behave properly or intelligently or fairly even, just read the stories of the gods of the nations around Israel to see that for yourself. The question we have to ask is; do we have to ignore what we know to accept and ancient story or does the story have uses or interpretations that work beyond the realm of ancient understandings. If we believe in progressive revelation of God then we don’t have to accept the literal story and we don’t have to pretend that what does not make sense makes perfect sense. Instead we can apply what our knowledge and experience adds to the understanding and the methods we use to interpret the Biblical texts.

But if you choose not to go there, and choose to believe in the literal story, do you have an answer for the psychological development of Adam and Eve? I would love to hear some conjectures on that idea.

Doing honest science at an Adventist School

 Yesterday I attended the PACIFIC NORTHWEST ADVENTIST FORUM meeting which featured the guest speaker Benjamin Clausen, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda California.

Here is a portion from the Announcement:

Title: Doing Honest Science at an Adventist School?

 "As I teach and do research in geology, I am continually confronted with
questions of how to be honest with the science, yet faithful to the
Seventh-day Adventist church. What do I say to my students and science
colleagues that fairly represents the geology data, while being supportive
of the Bible and an encouragement to faith? This lecture will present some
anecdotal experiences and ideas that have been developing, rather than a
final answer. It will suggest: (1) teaching the standard scientific paradigm
along with the merits and problems of various alternatives, all within the
bigger perspective of the philosophical issues; (2) developing an attitude
that values modern science while recognizing its limits, rather than an
attitude that attacks modern science and sets up some parallel scientific
paradigm; (3) some areas of Scriptural certainty, along with many areas that
may be beyond finite human understanding.”

This was probably the best attended Forum meeting I have attended, about 120 people. It was also practically worthless. That announcement excerpt probably said more than the lecture. Fortunately the question and answer period was a little better. Most of his lecture was citing the process of meetings that the Adventist church has held in the last couple of  decades. Process is his big issue, it seems to be what he has placed his hopes in though if one looks at the process and what the church leadership has determined to be the results such as the organizing committee's statement for the Faith and Science conferences which appear to only restate the Adventist churches leadership desires rather than represent what the conference actually did, one is hard pressed to see much hope for the process.

The lecture presented no anecdotes about how to teach science in the Adventist classroom, how to be true to scientific principles while holding to the Adventist leadership's endorsement of young earth beliefs. He did note that in his area of Plate Tectonics it does not work within the young earth perspective. Basically I found his presentation to be so worthless because not only did it not fulfill its stated objectives but it was almost entirely politically shrouded as to not upset the Adventist Leadership in their campaign to say that the Adventist church must believe in a literal six contiguous days of 24 hour of creation in the recent past. How that works with the science or how we can explain in our Adventist schools was entirely ignored. Because it appears it cannot be done so let's just ignore that and hope it goes away.

Obviously it will not go away. Actually what I hoped was that the Adventist scientific community would stand up to the Adventist leadership and tell them that Adventist leadership's insistence upon six literal days of creation does not work with the science and that we cannot pretend it does and produce scientifically successful students and professionals. But ignoring the issues to let the folks over at EducateTruth.com have their way they insure that the Adventist church will simply lose their Science professionals and youth because the reality does not match well with the churches beliefs.

As with most issues in the Adventist church we are limited because we have to act as though the 19th century views of Adventism must rule us forever. It is these "Whiteites" that will not allow science to be taught because it disagrees with their prophet Ellen G. White. The same prophet who said that volcanoes* were caused by burning coal and limestone is given the credibility as the messenger of God even on scientific issues. Most of them will resort when questioned on this that she was so right on health reform that she is correct on science. Ignoring that her teachings on health reform were the common knowledge of the health reformers that proceeded her.

Hopefully the educated portion of Adventism will stand up before it is too late. But the fear of losing the denominational employment  is most likely muting their voices. Which if that continues will lead to the complete regression of Adventism into a fringe group which will severely limit our Adventist health care system and professionals.

*Ellen White on Volcanoes in Patriarch and Prophets page 108-9:

"At this time immense forests were buried. These have since been changed to coal, forming the extensive coal beds that now exist, and also yielding large quantities of oil. The coal and oil frequently ignite and burn beneath the surface of the earth. Thus rocks are heated, limestone is burned, and iron ore melted. The action of the water upon the lime adds fury to the intense heat, and causes earthquakes, volcanoes, and fiery issues. As the fire and water come in contact with ledges of rock and ore, there are heavy explosions underground, which sound like muffled thunder. The air is hot and suffocating. Volcanic eruptions follow; and these often failing to give sufficient vent to the heated elements, the earth itself is convulsed, the ground heaves and swells like the waves of the sea, great fissures appear, and sometimes cities, villages, and burning mountains are swallowed up. These wonderful manifestations will be more and more frequent and terrible just before the second coming of Christ and the end of the world, as signs of its speedy destruction.

Ascend the Hill

There is a new band I heard about a year ago and I really liked them. They are Ascend the Hill When you go to the Myspace link you can hear some of their songs but if you look down below the player you see a link to "Download our new Record FREE!!!!!  (view more)" Hopefully you will enjoy it as much as I do.

Eisgetical sermons

One thing that I have consistently noticed is that when I listen to sermons there is inevitably something theological horrendous being expressed. Not that they are purposely trying to teach human garbage as if it is facts about God but almost invariably it is there in their sermons. There is, as in almost any sermon, some good material something, uplifting and intelligent. It is just often overwhelmed with the foolishness that pretends to pass as enlightened expositional preaching. I often think that most of this is simply accepted by the congregations…for what reason, I guess it is simply because they don’t want to think about what was just said. The Pastor is a good man he must be giving a good message leading them to accept the message. Perhaps it is why Barack Obama could attend 20 years of Jeremiah Wright’s church and think he never heard any of the terrible things Jeremiah Wright was saying. (If one were to assume that Barack Obama really did not know what Wright was saying.) We acknowledge that the people in the pews listen and are influenced yet don’t connect enough to analyze the material they are hearing. Yet there is little doubt that it does affect people. That it will color their accepted theology.

Following this article is a transcription of a recent sermon segment offered a few weeks ago by the former pastor of the church I attend. Granted I attend less and less frequently and sermons even less frequently because not only are they long (this sermon was  probably an hour and a half) poorly reasoned and boring but because they are a poor method of communication and usually destructive to a reasoned faith.

In the segment of the sermon I transcribed I would say as a description of sermons styles an eisgetical sermon where he starts with an assumption and attempts to find Bible texts to support his assumptions (I looked it up eisgetical is really a word). Thus the Bible texts are used as pretexts to support a questionable beginning assumption. If we were to fit the sermon into a category of sermons we would have to say that it is a Textual sermon. Here the text he begins with is:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Mat 28:18 NIV)

Pastor Decker then stated: “Why does He have all authority? And I would say that a lot of it is well I would say that it is because He resurrected.” Thus Decker is asserting that Christ’s authority comes from the fact of the resurrection rather than the fact that Jesus Christ is God who has authority because He is God. Something that the book of Matthew set out to demonstrate fairly early on with such verses as:

(Mat 7:29 NIV)  because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

(Mat 9:6 NIV)  But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."

(Mat 10:1 NIV)  He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.

To indicate further Decker’s misunderstanding he ignores further that Jesus Christ was/is God by indicating that Jesus was raised from the dead by God the Father.  “… So there and a dozen other places it is saying that God the Father raised Jesus Christ from the dead.” In fact there is not even one text that says “God the Father” raised Jesus, only that God raised Jesus from the dead. The closest verse to that idea also includes Jesus Christ saying:

(Gal 1:1 NIV)  Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--

 But Jesus is also God and Jesus had in the Gospel of John said that He would raise Himself from the dead.

(John 10:17-18 NIV)  The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again.  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

(John 2:19-21 NIV)  Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

Interestingly enough in some email conversation with Pastor Decker through a friend Pastor Decker supplied his texts to prove that Jesus was raised by God the Father his list being:

Acts 2:24, Mark 16:19, Rom 4:24, Rom 10:9, Heb 13:20, Acts 13:34, Gal. 1:1, 1 Cor. 15:15

That list of texts uses nothing from the Gospels or the quotes of Jesus in the book of John. Though it includes the questionable text in Mark chapter 16 but that texts says nothing about the resurrection. Mark 16:19:

 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. (NIV)

How one thinks they can talk about the resurrection and not even use the quotes that John gives of Christ about the resurrection is strange unless one remembers that the purpose here in the sermon is not attempting to see what the Bible says but to make it say what the assumption of the Pastor wants the Bible to say.

When we look at what the New Testament actually says we see that all three aspects of God are credited with raising Jesus from the dead. We have seen that Jesus said He would raise Himself. The Pastor has supplied us with some texts where it says God raised Jesus from the dead and there is another verse in Roman’s 8 where the Spirit is cited as raising Jesus from the dead:

(Rom 8:11 NIV)  And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

The sermon makes us wonder after all who does Pastor Decker think Jesus Christ is? Is He God or not, did He only have authority after His resurrection as Tom claimed that then all power and authority was given Him. That would come as a surprise to the writer of the gospel of John.  Jesus said He would lay down His life and He would take it up again. God and the Holy Spirit are also declared as being the power behind the resurrection. Rather like the creation of the world references where in various places in the Bible all three are given credit for creation. Because these three are the aspects of God that are we may refer to as the modes of operation of the one God. Pastor Decker’s sermon has confused the issue of who God is, fitting more closely with Arian or Semi-Arian view points. This confusion is carried further as the sermon continues but I won’t deal with the part about Jesus either dying for His sins or humanities sins and not understanding Himself what He was dying for, as he does not even try to justify his fanciful speculations, suffice it to say the New Testament account makes no such indications. Though we all know how the Psalms 22 quote Christ used is assumed to mean all kinds of things to some people.

As Pastor Decker continues we see he does not understand the sacrifice of Christ either. This is perhaps the root of most of his confusion because when one accepts the penal Substitutionary view of atonement they often forget that God presented the sacrifice so it was not a sacrifice to God it was a sacrifice of God. Pastor Decker says:

“So everything stalled in terms of salvation for those three days while Christ sat in the tomb. Is He going to resurrect, is He going to come back to life? If He resurrects if He comes back to life what does that say? It says that God the Father accepted the sacrifice. If He stays in the grave It says that God the Father said no it was not a pure unblemished lamb that was sacrificed He was marred He had sinned. He has to die for His own sins. And Remember God the Father is defending this to the universe to the angels to all who would come and ask. So God the Father resurrects Jesus, when He resurrects Jesus what is He doing? He’s saying I accept the sacrifice…”

(Rom 3:25 NIV)  God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

(John 3:17 NIV)  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

The sacrifice is not to God, the sacrifice is offered by God.

(John 1:1-4 NIV)  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

Unfortunately Christianity has made an idol out of the penal atonement theory. That theory being that God had to punish somebody for sin so that when they read a verse like Hebrews 9:14:

(Heb 9:14 NIV)  How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

They will interpret as if God demanded the blood rather then through the voluntary acceptance of the plan of salvation of God and the successful completion of that plan as Jesus Christ offered Himself to the submission of death, not to satisfy God’s demands that someone has to die but to cleanse our consciences so that we may be persuaded to serve God. After all He is God, and even in this verse we see the three aspects of God working together of one purpose and that purpose is to help us not to satisfy God’s demand that someone pay a penalty. After all this is God the God who freely forgives how can we then say that such a God demands punishment? It is illogical it is counter productive, yet it is the traditional Adventist view, the traditional Christian view. It is the codification of tradition treated as the gospel. It is not the gospel it is a distortion of the gospel. And if fills our sermons and destroys the gospel and prevents us from truly progressing in our knowledge of God.

I like Pastor Tom, I simply wish he could open himself to the real gospel. Though I realize the Christian world no longer accepts Christian philosophy not of its particular tradition. Teaching a Christian religion like the following sermon segment, reading into the Bible their presuppositions which make God foolish and arbitrary and vengeful all the while saying He is a God of love. It is no wonder Christianity is dying in the Western World. Christians have been killing it for hundreds of years.

Tom Decker’s Sermon “Go” segment transcription:

After noting that Jesus has all authority and that Jesus is with you always Pastor Decker in his sermon stated the following (I will cut out Umms and such time fillers.)

-----

The other question I have to ask in here is why does He have all authority? Where does that come from? He has all authority in Heaven and on earth we sometimes don’t feel like He has all authority do we? But He has all authority He claims to. Why does He have all authority? And I would say that a lot of it is well I would say that it is because He resurrected. Who resurrected Jesus? I remember getting in a fight with Linda about this, do you remember us talking about this? And she had one assertion and we argued about it for a while and made me study it a lot deeper and I went and started looking at passages and you can look and see a half dozen or 10-12 passages that reaffirm that God the Father resurrected Jesus. Let’s look at Romans 4 OK. Just flip over to Romans 4 not very far. OK after the Gospels Mathew Mark Luke John Acts and than Romans. Romans 4 verse 24; But also for us to whom God will credit righteousness for us who believe in Him who raised our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins he was raised to life for our justification. But also for us to whom God will credit righteousness for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. So there and a dozen other places it is saying that God the Father raised Jesus Christ from the dead.

Why is that important? What does that do to give Jesus Christ authority? How does that affect me? How does that impact my life? You see the crucifixion of Jesus was Jesus dying for sin. If He didn’t have to die for sin He would have lived His three score and ten or He would have never come here Okay, but Jesus had to die for sin. When Jesus died He died for one of two things. He either died for His own sin if He had sinned or He died for the sin of humanity. Which is what scripture claims. It seems by some of what Jesus said that He wasn’t even so sure Himself which of those two reasons He had died for when He went to the cross. He felt very far from God and He did not understand it, had a very hard time coping with that. If Jesus had died for His own sin it was because He was sinned He would have died and in that state He would have stayed in the ground. God had no right to resurrect Him. If He had died sinless had died not for his own sin but for the sin of us then He would have died a legitimate sacrificial death. And in dying that death God would have been empowered to resurrect Him afterwards.

So everything stalled in terms of salvation for those three days while Christ sat in the tomb. Is He going to resurrect, is He going to come back to life? If He resurrects if He comes back to life what does that say? It says that God the Father accepted the sacrifice. If He stays in the grave it says that God the Father said no it was not a pure unblemished lamb that was sacrificed He was marred He had sinned. He has to die for His own sins. And Remember God the Father is defending this to the universe to the angels to all who would come and ask. So God the Father resurrects Jesus, when He resurrects Jesus what is He doing? He’s saying I accept the sacrifice. Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven all authority in earth and He is the King of Kings the Lord of Lords. That is the foundation the resurrection is the solid foundation of our assurance of justification our assurance of salvation and our entry point into sanctification and eventually the glorification where we are able to join God in heaven. The resurrection validates the sacrifice until the resurrection we don’t know if the sacrifice is valid. When God the Father resurrected Jesus He told the universe the sacrifice is valid salvation is a reality. You can count on it you can bank on it. Therefore because I have resurrected, because I have all authority in heaven and earth Jesus turns to His disciples and says all authority in heaven and earth has been given me therefore go.

 

Roy Adam’s When All Else Fails Attack

In the most recent edition of the Adventist World Roy Adams has a “special feature” in which he recounts his experiences after writing his first article on William Paul Young’s book “The Shack” First he tells us how his fellow church leaders loved his article. “It was a classic” one tells him and how others wrote in to support Roy Adam’s article. He then leads on to three letters that were against his article.

The first thing we should remember is that letters to the editor are not laid out as articles themselves they are generally simply emotional statements of people for or against something or perhaps small corrections. They are not position papers and thus they are not formulated to be as persuasive and encompassing as an actual article which is intended for publication.

So Roy Adams in effect goes after the by standers in the controversy rather than dealing with the numerous articles which actually were written as counterpoint to his own article. It is perhaps the way of the weak argument to behave by going after the less well armed but in a world of propaganda which is what most of the Adventist Review has become it is one sure way to win the propaganda war. Responding to a few letters rather than to more complex arguments such as my own: See Review of William Young’s The Shack

The Shack and the Adventist Review Article.  

What is striking early on after seeing how Mr. Adams has to shore up his support from the Ministry Magazine editor who termed Adams piece a classic (which if you think about it says a lot about that editor if he thinks that article is a classic, unless he was being sarcastic) how Adams does not even realize the implication of what he wrote in his first article. For example in letter 2 he quotes the following letter and writes:

2. Reader B: “Mr. Adams begins his article by criticizing the beautiful music of Ave Maria…. [I did no such thing!]

 In fact he calls the work improper and unbiblical. He writes in his first article:

But notwithstanding the song’s valid scriptural elements (based on Luke 1), what we have here is essentially a prayer to Mary, disguised to most of us because of its Latin rendition. Would I be as moved by the piece if its words were simultaneously translated as its beautiful melody sounds in my ears? The lyrics end, as follows:

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, 

pray for us sinners now 

and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

If I allow my love for the music to blind me to the inappropriateness of its lyrics, then that would be sheer emotionalism on my part. Praying to the dead is improper and unbiblical.

At least he did note that the song has valid scriptural elements. But it certainly appears to be a criticism and to pretend he has not criticized something when clearly he has shows something wrong in his own mental processes. Beauty does not prevent the need for valid criticism of the content. But don’t pretend that no criticism was intended when it was and people can tell what you intended. Or worse yet parse your ideas to say well hey I criticized the lyrics not the music, but simply making a declaration “I did no such thing!” is disingenuous.

He then goes on to say that what he found in the three letters, again ignoring the other responses that were published throughout the Adventist network of people, Anger, embarrassment of our belief and a simplistic naïveté. Actually that is my normal feeling when reading the Adventist Review. The foolishness of articles like Adams in the Review will also foster anger and embarrassment at Adventist doctrine and leaders. For example here is how Adam’s concludes his article:

…If we’re after making solid Christians, we’d better be completely honest with our audience and not sugarcoat the evidence. To raise The Shack, de facto, to the level of sacred text is silly and naive. Imaginative fiction, however well-meaning, can never trump the Word of God. 

Not one letter writer or any article writer writing to counter Adam’s view suggested raising The Shack to the level of sacred text. So where does that idea come from? It is merely a rhetorical technique, a piece of propaganda to help him sustain his position as a wise expositor of Christian teachings. Certainly he is being naïve; he is also misrepresenting the letter writers which he has set himself against. It is deceptive and manipulative and ultimately since he avoids the real issues he is an obscurantist. But I can say it is a fitting follow up to his first article, poorly reasoned and generally worthless.

There is one final note which I will reflect on; Adam’s criticizes the unbiblical and improper lyrics of the Ave Maria. But there is an equally unbiblical and improper statement made in the Adventist World issue. It is carried on “The People’s Place” Quote of the Month. It reads:

“Eve fell because she thought there was something better. Adam fell because he thought there was no one better.”

There is nothing in the Genesis story or anywhere else in the Bible to imply that Adam fell because he thought there was no one better, i.e. Eve. What that quote does is take an Ellen White idea and raise it to a tradition read into the story and then praised to the World Adventist church. Is that really any different than what the Ave Maria does with Catholic tradition?

One thing I don’t expect to see is that the Adventist Review or World Edition will begin to start thinking critically, and that is the saddest part of all.

Fooish Bloggers

Adventist Today has a link to a blog critical of Adventist Today. Atoday says:

Kenneth R. Lytle, author of the conservative Adventist blog "21st Century Adventism," is a critic of liberal and progressive Adventism. In a recent blog, entitled "Is the magazine, Adventist Today, truly Adventist?" he urges his readership to write a "kind/loving" letter to the General Conference and "ask them to review the current work of the [Adventist Today] publication."

 When you click on the link and read the article by this conservative blogger, and I guess we have to call him a blogger even though he removes any comments that go against his conservative articles, we read the following:

“Adventist Today” has gone a little too far this time. Even though Mission Catalyst has some good mission ideas and educational material, they should never be allowed to publish their anti-Adventist views in an “Adventist” publication. Publishing the Open Letter by Ron Gladden is like stabbing your brother in the back.

Think about it… “Adventist Today” is endorsing Mission Catalyst’s invitation to leave the Adventist denomination by publishing the Open Letter. Ron Gladden says, “If your frustration tempts you to walk away from your church, please don’t give up on the message. Pray about launching a Mission Catalyst church in your city. Help us with your giving.” Read the letter for yourself.

Here is what the open letter from Mission catalyst actually said:

Here is our advice: If you are happy with the Seventh-day Adventist church, do your best to build it up and make it effective. If God is calling you to give and serve in your local church, do it with all your heart. Mission Catalyst has always prayed for the success of the denomination. We share the mission and message, and we wish God's blessings upon it.

If, on the other hand, you feel like the Church is moving in a direction you cannot support, don't badmouth your church. Don't stir up a ruckus in an effort to change it. And please don't bail out on the message. If you are frustrated with whatever it might be, do not abandon the things you believe. Consider that God may urge you to join Mission Catalyst on a Spirit-led journey to create grace-filled, Bible-based communities of faith that make Jesus first and reach people far from God.

Then the closing paragraph contains the line which the conservative blogger took out of context for his blog article."

Allow me to repeat myself. If you are happy in your church, build it up in every way you can. We are sincerely praying for you. If your frustration tempts you to walk away from your church, please don't give up on the message. Pray about launching a Mission Catalyst church in your city. Help us with your giving. Sponsor a salary for a city. Re-embrace the vision of a healthy, happy church that reaches people for the kingdom.

I posted a comment on the conservative blogger's site where I told him that good writing calls for the use of ellipses when one takes a portion of a paragraph so that the reader knows that there was other things written in direct connection to  sentence lifted from the original context. That when you lift something out of context you end up making yourself as an author look less credible. The blogger in question then removed my comment as I am sure he removed other comments from his article linked to at Atoday. Adventist Today should have set up the link in its regular article form so that people could comment on the Atoday website. But they probably did not realize the censorship the blogger in question uses.

We are constantly reminded that this is the kind of mindset we fight against in the Adventist Church. People who believe themselves to be in the right yet are incapable of dealing with those who oppose their thinking or who simply try to correct their errors and biases. You will notice I did not link to the blog, (you can find it through the Atoday link above however) that is on purpose as it is not worth giving that blog the increased exposure it would get by linking from my blog. I would have if they accepted comments but since they don't it is just another narrow minded person spouting propaganda by taking words out of context.

Creation Confusion

I recently received a fund raising letter from a group called Reasons to Believe. In it the author Hugh Ross, who I actually had formerly thought was intelligent reflected on a conversation he had with an apologetics professor who noted that he got himself into trouble when his students brought up Genesis 1 with disputes over creation days 1 and 4.

“The professor listened intently as I pointed out how other biblical creation accounts, including Job 38-39, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8 amplify the Genesis story of God’s activities on the six creation days. Since God inspired all of these accounts, the best interpretation of Genesis 1 will be one that yields an appropriately literal and consistent reading of all these relevant Scripture passages.”

“This integrative approach reveals that God created light when He created the physical universe before rather than on day 1. He also formed the Sun, Moon, and the stars before rather than on day 4 (even before day 1). His work on day 1 involved transforming Earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent, allowing light to penetrate Earth’s initially thick, dark cloud cover. His work on day 4 brought about transformation of this translucent (permanently overcast) atmosphere to a frequently transparent one, allowing the Sun, Moon, and stars to become clearly visible objects for the first time.”

“Not only does this approach to the Bible’s creation accounts resolve textural incongruities but it also removes apparent contradictions between what Genesis 1 teaches about cosmic history and what the book of nature—God’s other “book” of revelation—tells us about the Universe, Earth, and Earth’s life.”

It is surprising to me that Hugh Ross or the apologetics professor would think that this application of wisdom literature would clear anything up. Apparently though, the belief that something is inspired means that the inspiration is meant to only reveal literal, historical facts. That in itself is a huge problem but what about the idea that before day 1 of creation there was on Earth an “initially thick, dark cloud cover”. Would not that assumption cause a problem with Day 2

Gen. 1:6  And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7  So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8  God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

Apparently working on the atmosphere was a two day job, calling it light on day 1 because He made the dark heavy clouds transparent and then on day 2 separating the mass of water into water and sky. Of course you still have the problem of day 4 with the creation of the Sun, moon and stars so maybe the atmosphere clearing was a 4 day process and it did not really clear up noticeably until day 4 when the inhabitants, none of whom existed yet, could actually see the Sun, moon and stars.

Of course this is, as per the letter, based upon the book of Job which clearly was not trying to set out the order of creation. Such passages as this:

 (Job 38:5-12 NIV)  Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-- while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'? "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Does that really sound like we are meant to take it literally? The poetry of Psalms and Proverbs won’t really supply much to the problem either. What they do is provide ways that one can read whatever ideas they want into the poetry. Naturally since they are all inspired they must also all be saying the same thing and since inspired they must be telling us the literal historical truth about creation. They are in fact in agreement. But that agreement is on the creation and the Creator, not at all about the process. Christians that try to explain the process fail in the logic of agreement even between Genesis chapter one, not to mention the differences between Genesis chapter one and chapter two. We can never get past the reality of our universe and our planet in the universe. Surely God knew that man would some day understand space and planets and distant suns and galaxies and He would have meant that His inspiration would not be held to literal understandings which were used to reveal God to a primitive people. Inspiration is not meant to indicate literalness of the account but the import of the account: the establishment of God as the first cause, not how the First Cause worked. Thus the Genesis account reveals a world just like the world we see around us, it does not and cannot tell us about a world that the author or we don’t know or understand. We are here but we don’t see God, He has chosen to reveal Himself slowly over time in a step by step process that culminated in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, inaugurating the reconciliation between God and man, the now and not yet of the Kingdom of God which will never end.

As I recall Hugh Ross is not a young earth creationist, he understands the evidence is too much against that idea but he has not realized the limitations of inspiration that is meant to relate to all people for all time. That just because at one time people believed inspiration said the earth was created in 6 days and inspiration listed genealogies that could only go back a few thousand years (Ussher’s 4004 BC date) that we must continually believe what those people believed because they lacked the scientific knowledge which would have led them to different interpretations had they had the knowledge we have. In other words they have accepted the traditions as inspiration rather than allowing the inspiration to work with us were we are today.

Without realizing how it is tradition rather than inspiration that has created the confusion of creation even someone who is not strictly trying to read the Bible as a literal document gets into trouble: making poetry behave as if it is literal by just picking and choosing choice bits of the imagery. It however does not work, the Christian religion has no need to embrace scientific materialism but it also does not need to accept tradition simply because we, like the scientific materialists, can’t explain origins. Somewhere there is a middle ground and we never get to the middle ground as long as we refuse to move from the ground we hold now. We are in a time when knowledge increases so quickly that it is hard to remember a time when we had to use a coin operated pay phone. All those phone books now sit wasting space because it is faster to look up the local business or address on the internet. We can’t live in the past in a world that advances so rapidly and we only hurt ourselves when we try to live in the past.

We need to realize that we don’t have all the answers and that some of our answers were simply wrong before and move on.

Graham Maxwell's Great Controversy view

A Response To Graham Maxwell's Great Controversy View

One of the bright lights of the Seventh-day Adventist church is A. Graham Maxwell. Anyone who has heard him speak realizes that he is a gracious individual and a very intelligent Christian man. This response is not meant in any way to attack Graham Maxwell but to explain areas of his Great Controversy views which are difficult for people like me who are Progressive SDA's to accept. One of the things true of most Progressive SDA's is a desire to develop all doctrines based upon the scriptures. By scriptures I mean the Holy Bible, therefore extra Biblical information however authoritative some in the SDA church may feel it to be is not acceptable for doctrines. The short excerpts quoted here are found at the following Internet address http://www.pineknoll.org/graham/wdjhtd.html "WHY DID JESUS HAVE TO DIE?" Graham Maxwell interviewed by Jonathan Gallagher.



My arguments against Maxwell's views are not really directed against his reasoning as to why Jesus had to die. Largely I am in agreement with him. So those who may believe in a vicarious substitutionary death will not find this article to their liking. As will also be the case for those who like to look to Ellen White for their theology. I will note for those who do view Ellen White as authoritative that she is indeed substitutionary in her view of the atonement. There is little doubt about that fact even though you will likely not hear much of it from Maxwell, even though he frequently praises the writing of Ellen White and as can be seen from the this article he is greatly indebted to her for many of his theological suppositions.


What would be ideal is if there was a short statement of what is meant by "the Great Controversy". A phrase so often used in the SDA church and rarely adequately defined. It appears that the Great Controversy theme is begun with the idea that there was a literal war in heaven where Satan and his angels were cast down to earth. This is a common view in the Christian religion although the timing of this war is very uncertain. In Maxwell's Great Controversy it is believed that the war spoken of in Revelation 12 occurred before the Creation of Adam and Eve. Drawing from Ellen White Maxwell presents the idea that God told Adam and Eve all about this war in heaven and of Satan. Also drawing from tradition and Ellen White Maxwell presents that Satan caused one third of the heavenly angels to fall with him. Intrinsic to this Great Controversy view is the idea that angels are heavily involved, with a great need for answers to their questions and confusion.




If one were to go to Maxwell's class it is likely they would hear that the Great Controversy is over the character and government of God. I would not argue with that thought, nor would most Christians, we all must come to our conclusions whether we believe God is really God, and if we can trust Him or believe what He says. This is part and parcel of our acknowledgment of the Bible as being a communication from God or not. Certainly the Bible does not offer up the idea that God is anything but righteous. Even if we may look at something as questionably righteous or not, the writers of the Bible seem to have little difficulty with His righteousness. So as the Bible shapes our view of God it is also what presents us with information about Satan. If Satan were to critique the Bible he would likely not think he was presented well. With hardly a mention in the Old Testament save the book of Job, he is detailed mainly as an enemy who lies and kills in the New Testament. A force that will arise to attack the people of God.


Back to Maxwell's Great Controversy view, Maxwell often speaks of Lucifer and his fall. As with most people who believe the Lucifer myth they read the verses in Ezekiel and Isaiah which refer to the leaders of the nations of Tyre and Babylon respectively and transfer them to Satan. While it is an interesting study to see how this type of tradition began in the early church with Origin and Tertullian, as most any decent commentary will tell you these verses are not about Satan. They were never viewed as being about Satan by the Jews or by the New Testament. Again Maxwell must turn to Ellen White as his authority to color in the information he needs to explain Satan's fall. When this is added to the war in heaven concept it causes him to say: "I believe that just as the war began in the sanctuary, so the war ends in the sanctuary..." Does the Bible tell us that war began in the sanctuary? Maybe if you believe that all of heaven is the sanctuary, but since he had earlier said that war began in the heavenly sanctuary it seems that he is once again bringing in information that he has not obtained in the Bible. Likewise the Bible does not give us an indication that Holy angels at any time are questioning God as to His character and government or that as he often expresses a "crisis in heaven" for the angels. If you read the above article (WHY DID JESUS HAVE TO DIE?) you see that Maxwell does tend to paint angels as a bit bloodthirsty. Pleased when God destroys the earth with a flood and wanting Him to do it again.


Certain verses in Ephesians and Colossians are favorites of Dr. Maxwell to back up his assertions that angels also need to be taught. These being:

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. (Col 1:20-21 NIV)

And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment-- to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. (Eph 1:9-10 NIV)

For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men. (1 Cor 4:9 NIV)

The first two are simply about reconciliation between the things of God and the things of earth, namely rebellious people. The verses work wonderfully well without the intrusion of proving to angels that God is good. The third verse shows that we are spectacles to others, which it would seem to include God's angels who are about His business and would therefore in certain cases be present as we testify about God, or fail to testify. To the ancient mind the universe was not thought to be populated by other unfallen beings, nor does the Bible supply such an idea. That is another Ellen White concept that has crept into Maxwell's theology. What angels see or don't see is thoroughly speculation, it may be fun to do, but in the end it is of little consequence unless doctrines become based upon speculations, in which case truth is the first victim.


The fundamental principle to Maxwell's larger view lies in his often-repeated question of what did this or that teach the angels. Or what did the angels think of such and such. The speculation is often encountered that angels could not believe or understand something. The simple fact is we do not know what the loyal angels think, question, or understand. We do know that the Bible is very humanity-centric, however. The larger view is not what do creatures we know little about think, but what do people like you and me think of God and what He has done or will do. As the Bible tells us it was not for Holy angels that Christ came to earth but for mankind:

For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Heb 2:16-18 NIV)

The article mentioned above asks Dr. Maxwell the following:

"In the trust-healing model, there was no other way. It exalts the cross.

As a lesson, as a demonstration in providing answers?

Yes. Now those who call it Moral Influence Theory have no Great Controversy, or at best a limited one. So all they see in what we've been saying is "How very loving of God to do this, and it wins us to love him. That's really trivializing this way of understanding things, but that is usually said by someone who stresses Reformation theology, has been especially influenced by Luther, and who de-emphasizes the issues in the Great Controversy--so all he sees is the demonstration of God's love: Abelard. But we're talking about three other things that were never mentioned by Abelard: the questions that divided the Universe. These are of enormous consequence, these are of vast significance. If these questions are not answered, there is no peace and security in the Universe, and Paul says so. Why is Colossians 1--and Ephesians 1 and 3--why are they not included at the heart of the argument? "He shed his blood to bring peace in heavenly places."'

It is very true that "they" have no Great Controversy as Maxwell explains it. But actually that is to their credit as they work within the Biblical context. They do not use Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1 in the same way since it has historically never been used the way Maxwell has asserted. The Holy angels were not alienated from God, Maxwell's use ignores the context. Neither does Luther de-emphasize the Great Controversy. As we have seen above the Great Controversy Maxwell speaks of is not found in the Bible, even the idea of the war in heaven has various interpretations, not to mention that no time indication is given in Revelation 12. Luther was not neglecting something that the Christian church knew for it never knew the Great Controversy, as Maxwell believes it. The Christians did however see the war between good and evil as well as necessity to understand and trust God.


If Maxwell were to say that the Great Controversy were about who do we trust, do we follow the instruction given by God or accept doubts about God as the serpent represents in the beginning of Genesis. He would present a "Great Controversy" that all Christians could eagerly accept. One that is not dependent upon extra Biblical authority. What has the larger view really added but speculation and a call to accept as a prophet one who few Christians outside the SDA church would accept as a prophet. Overall Maxwell's teaching against vicarious substitution are good and something the Christian world needs desperately. However it is also important to draw our doctrines from the Bible, and if we cannot, they do not deserve to be Christian doctrines.

What is Wrong with the Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement

Andrews study Bible now published

The New Andrews Study Bible has been made available for purchase. In a recent Spectrum article there is an interview with General Editor Dr. Jon Dybdahl. Some of his statements deserve comment so here are some of his quotes with my comments:

RD (Rachel Davies): So what makes your Bible different from the NIV Study Bible? What is “Adventist” about it?

JD (Jon Dybdahl): The theme index at the back definitely has an Adventist slant, highlighting parts of the Bible that Adventists have always seen as important. All the contributors are Adventists, so obviously you can see the influence of that particular lens on the themes that are emphasized and in the notes. But this was not an effort to be sectarian. Adventists need to look at the Bible as it is, just like everyone else. 

Here Jon Dybdahl notes the Adventist slant to the study Bible comments. It has an Adventist slant and all contributors are Adventists so it sees things through the Adventist lens but it is not sectarian? What does he think sectarian means, he has pretty much defined the work as sectarian and then says it is not sectarian.

The American Heritage dictonary defines the adjective sectarian as: 

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
3. Narrow-minded; parochial. 

Pretty clearly despite Dybdahl's contradiction the work is sectarian after all that is the stated purpose of the Andrews Study Bible.

Another of the questions and answers:

RD: People who hear that a new “Adventist Bible” has come out will naturally think back to The Clear Word. Recently, the NKJV Remnant Study Bible was also released by Remnant Publications. How does the Andrew’s Study Bible compare to these works?

JD: We’re really quite a bit different from those two Bibles. The Clear Word is like a new paraphrase or translation of the Bible text itself. We have notes down below referring to the text, but that’s quite a bit different. We have not touched the text at all.

The unique feature of the Remnant Study Bible is that it highlights Ellen G. White quotes in connection with various biblical texts. Ellen White is not mentioned in the Andrews Study Bible so that people can use it evangelistically while studying with others.

It seems to me a very poor practice to use any sectarian Bible in studying with others. They may not be using Ellen White quotes but Ellen White as a co-founder of Adventism and someone who heavily influenced Adventist doctrinal views, someone who is considered an authority by the Adventist church is naturally going to be a component of the comments of a fully Adventist commentary by only Adventists who view the Bible through the Adventist lens.

In other words this would be a poor Bible because of its sectarian views to use to study with others. For personal study if you don't want to consider ideas outside of Adventism it would be perfectly appropriate. Why anyone would only want to consider Adventist commentary I am not too sure. It strikes me as upholding the incorrect idea that the Adventist church is the remnant and that the church holds all the truth so that we only need to study what other Adventists have said.

The final question and answer I will deal with is:

RD: How would you respond to those uncomfortable with the idea of putting out any kind of “Adventist” Bible? 

JD: The committee deliberately chose the title Andrews Study Bible instead of the "Adventist Study Bible" because they were sensitive to that issue. I suppose some people will start to call it the "Adventist Study Bible," but we were very intentional about not calling it that simply because we didn’t want to have that confusion. As I mentioned before we wanted to be faithful to the text but honest about our Adventist perspective.

As I noted this is a reaffirmation that this is a sectarian commentary but it also notes that the choice of a name which is often an indication of the ideology of the commentary. They don't say Andrews University Study Bible which may make some wonder what Andrews is referred to; is it J.N. Andrews, is it similar to say a Darby Study Bible? Is it some other person by the name of Andrews? I suppose at some place in the introductory pages there is an explanation which I would love to see but I have not seen the Andrews Study Bible yet and there are not preview pages on the Andrews site where you can purchase the Bible. I would love to review the commentary but I don't suppose that will happen any too soon. As I probably won't buy the Bible since I don't particularly like the New King James version in the first place. Though with the sectarian nature of the Bible and certain peculiar Adventist interpretation I understand why they would choose a King James based version.

The State Of Adventism Today?

In the August 2010 Issue of the North Pacific Union Conference Gleaner there is a reminder of the fanatical side of Adventism. In the issue are two letters directed to the Gleaner and a specific writer for the Gleaner which are quite upset with the following quote which began the Let's Talk article of June 2010:

"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door. You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to."— Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings

"Beyond the allegorical pages of Tolkien's ode to the victory of good over evil, the spirit of adventure is the eager, boisterous wind upon which progress is borne. I sit within the comfort of home because those with trailblazing urgency trekked weary and courageous miles over a winding track to settle the Oregon Territory. I join with an apocalyptic movement whose pioneers, few in number, stepped out in faith to answer the call of an end-time message. I am a debtor to these and many others."

 Here are a couple of excerpts from the upset readers, unfortunately their website does not have the August issue on line yet:

In the article "The Next Step" by Steve Vistaunet (Let's Talk, June 2010), the author quotes from the The Lord of the Rings. This was quite unsettling to me and my husband. We don't believe that our church should be dealing with books such as this, especially not in official publications, but also in any other capacity...

In second letter excerpt:

"The first and last paragraphs of your article make reference to a trilogy : The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. The books and movies of the same title are classic science fiction works of the great adversary of Christ..."

It is sad to watch the narrow minded views of the SDA traditionalists as they attempt to take control of the Adventist church. No doubt with recent GC session results they are greatly encouraged at the prospects of their return to dominance in the church. Fortunately the Gleaner did respond with a plea to tolerance, in part writing:

"Along with music and diet, where some see black and white and others see gray, perhaps this is an area in which we can extend to each other a generous helping of Christian grace..."

The issue will of course remain for with the new leadership in the Adventist church and an emphasis upon Ellen White as an authority for Adventism more than devotional we will have to learn how to deal with the traditionalists who freely quote Ellen White and her abhorrence of fiction. She is pretty black and white though she did tolerate Pilgrims Progress. But Ellen White as authority and Ellen White as proponent of principles are two widely separate ideas. For in reality principles are often the product of the reader and thus are far grayer area. While literalism takes far less intellectual effort, maybe the church will do it for them with books describing the historical and personal details to give context to Ellen White's published words. But then even if that happens the traditionalists will still use the quotes regardless, it is part of our proof texting tradition, a part that needs serious overhauling.