It’s Not About Us – An article on the Judgment – Part 2
by Dan Appel
by Dan M. Appel, September 30, 2014
In my last post, we started looking at the subject that has traditionally been viewed by Adventists as their defining contribution to theology. The judgment was there as a central topic from the moment we as a church were birthed. It has been the source of considerable criticism from those outside of our church and the fountainhead of considerable controversy within.
Maybe we got the subject right, but have missed the boat on some of the details – things which would have made us even more persuasive as we shared God’s view of this very important topic.
Pivotal to this Whole Subject Is, Who Really Is on Trial in the Judgment?
The answer to that question lies in the most exciting chapter of the Bible. It is the most complete and thorough discussion of the judgment that exists in Scripture. It was written by the prime minister of two of the greatest nations to ever exist on this earth. You will find his description in Daniel 7. We do not have the space to parse this chapter line by line – instead, let’s look at the larger picture for a few moments.
Daniel begins by taking us on a roller coaster ride through human history from his day to the end of the world.
There would be a series of four great nations who rule the world, he tells us, followed by ten other kingdoms who exist and rule concurrently, before our globe comes under the sway of an all-powerful religious power who will terrorize and persecute all true followers of God. In the midst of this, God will take His place on His official throne and the last judgment will begin. Note the sequence of events from that point onward, as described by Daniel.
1. God’s court sits in judgment.1
2 God renders judgment “in favor of the saints.”2
3. The kingdom of this earth is taken away from Satan, the ruler of the earth up until this time.3
4. It is given to Jesus, the Lamb.4
5. Jesus restores it to His people.5
2 God renders judgment “in favor of the saints.”2
3. The kingdom of this earth is taken away from Satan, the ruler of the earth up until this time.3
4. It is given to Jesus, the Lamb.4
5. Jesus restores it to His people.5
There is a pivotal difference between a civil trial and a criminal one in most judicial systems. In a criminal trial the judge or jury weighs the evidence against a party then renders a verdict. This verdict can be appealed. Then, when the appeals are exhausted, the sentence is carried out. In a civil case, on the other hand, two parties appear before the bar of justice in adversarial roles. After hearing the evidence presented, the judge or jury decides against one and for the other.
Daniel 7, and the rest of the Bible when it is read through the lens of the insights found in this chapter, portrays God’s judgment as a civil case where Jesus sues for the restoration of what was lost to Him and His people at Adam and Eve’s fall. In this trial, Jesus represents His saints and, in a very real sense, the whole Trinity in their quest to reclaim what has been taken from them by Satan. That is why Daniel speaks of the judgment in terms of “vindication” in Daniel 7. Jesus’ claim rests on two premises: He created the world in the beginning,6 and He won the right to recreate and restore it by His death on Calvary.
After the evidence is presented, God proclaims, as He did on the wall of Belshazzar’s banquet hall, “Your kingdom has been weighed in the balances and found wanting!” With the concurrence of the whole universe, the earth is then taken away from Satan and restored to Jesus and His people.
The judgment message is Good News because it is an announcement that Satan’s awful rule on this earth is finally coming to an end. There will be no more tears or death or mourning or pain ever again.7 The rule of the evil prince, the ruler of the powers of the air, and all of his black minions will end forever. Their reign of terror will be over. No more orphans and broken hearts and promises; no more divorce and pornography and incest; no more teenagers dying on the streets and young parents selling their bodies and souls for a chemical high; no more wars and rumors of war and stock market crashes and crop failures; no more famine and flood and volcanic eruptions. It will all be over!
What Satan has worked so hard to cover up is that we are not on trial in heaven’s judgment; he is. By changing the focus, he has made God look exceedingly bad and turned what God designs to be Good News into bad news.
One question remains. How about those texts in Scripture that talk about us facing our life’s record in the judgment? If we are not on trial in heaven’s court, what do these passages mean?
While we are not the focus of the last judgment, we do have a part to play. You will recall that the earth is to be finally restored to God’s people. At some point, God has to determine who is, and who is not, one of His saints – and He has to be able to defend His decision to the whole universe. That decision has to stand up to the appeals process which will occur during the 1,000 years of the Millennium.
The Bible says that profession is not sufficient to be classified as a follower of God. Our lives must bear evidence that we have made Jesus our Lord as well as our Savior. But, that is a very minor part of what happens in God’s judgment. Our part is the heavenly equivalent of a driver’s license check at a traffic stop or a passport check at airport security. The real focus is on God’s actions vis-a-vis his arch enemy Satan and the final annihilation of his kingdom. The concentration of the Bible’s witness on the judgment is on God’s final triumph over evil.
Suddenly, instead of being bad news, the judgment is fantastically good news for anyone who groans under the weight of sin and its effects.
The Good News of Revelation 14
No passage in scripture makes this clearer than Revelation 14:6-12 – a passage very near and dear to Seventh-day Adventists. To really understand this passage, you have to read it within the larger context of this whole section of the Revelation.
When we come to Revelation 12, God’s people are at the apparent nadir of their existence. Their spiritual and temporal enemies have conspired to eliminate them. The dragon, the devil, defeated by the Lamb and thrown down to this earth with his followers has recruited “the beast” and its confederates to help him wipe out God’s true followers on earth – once and for all. Every human on earth is finally marked either as a follower of God or a follower of Satan the Dragon – as a citizen of the Kingdom of Darkness or the Kingdom of Light. Together, the unholy confederacy controls the whole world and sets out to eliminate all of God’s loyal friends and subjects. And, from every human perspective it looks as if they are going to be successful.
In the face of that satanic final solution, God sends a message of hope to His people. “Have faith and endure,”8 He calls, “Satan will be defeated in the end!” That Good News from the Commander-in-Chief is delivered by three angels who are pictured flying across the sky from one horizon to the other shouting their messages to every nation and cultural and language and ethnic group on earth.
“Give God the respect and admiration He deserves,” the first angel calls. “Worship the Creator of heaven and earth. Satan’s Kingdom of Darkness has been weighed in the balances and found wanting and is about to be taken away from him and returned to Jesus and His people.”9
A second angel now streaks across the sky calling: “Fell! Fell! Babylon the Great who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion fell!”
The traditional translation of Revelation 14:8 is “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great nation who made all men drink the wine of her impure passion.“ While this translation is technically correct, the ambivalent language chosen by generations of translators leaves a very wrong impression of the sense of the original and of the story upon which it is based. It is not an isolated statement with no context. It refers back to another time, and we will only understand it’s meaning when we know the story of what happened then.
Over 1,000 years before John wrote the Revelation, God’s people were in captivity in the land of another Babylon – literal Babylon in Mesopotamia. From any human point of view there was absolutely no hope or prospect for the future. The most powerful nation on earth had razed their cities, including Jerusalem, had destroyed the temple so completely that there was not a single stone left standing, and all of the people except for a very few farmers and tradesmen in the whole nation had been deported and pressed into servitude. There was no hope!
Then a prophet began to speak. His message was almost too good to be true for those slaves in Babylon. We can read his messages in Jeremiah 50 and 51. “Babylon will fall!” he cried. Don’t lose heart! Hang in there! The God of Israel will come through for you. Babylon will fall! Babylon will fall!”
To put this message in context, it is as if the nation of Tonga or Fiji had been completely overrun by the combined forces of the old Russia, China and the United States, and all of its people sold into slavery. Then a prophet arises and says, “They will fall! They will be destroyed! Don’t give up, there is still hope! You will shortly be freed and vindicated.” Babylon ruled the then known world. They were the superpower. They were invincible, and it appeared that they would rule the world forever. Jeremiah’s messages must have seemed ludicrous and naive at the time.
But history tells us that Babylon did fall. The impossible occurred. The miracle happened. God’s people were freed and vindicated.
That series of events provides the point of reference for Revelation 14:8. You can only understand what God and John are saying in the context of what happened back then. The English word “fallen” can either denote something that exists in a state of moral decay, which is the way we have traditionally viewed those words, or it can mean that something fell over and remains fallen. The Greek word used for “fallen” in Revelation 14:8 is “epesen.” It is a simple aorist – something happened at a point of time in the past and the effects remain. The best translation of this verse is “Fell! Fell! Babylon the great, who made all nations drink of the wine of her impure passion.” In other words, “It’s happened before! It may have looked impossible then, but Babylon fell! So, have hope; it will happen again!”
Which brings us to the message of the third angelic messenger who streaks across the sky. This angel cries with a loud voice, in other words he shouts, yells, “Not only will spiritual Babylon fall from power; it will be totally eradicated forever! Anyone who worships the Beast, Satan, and his reflection and is marked as loyal to them will drink the wine of God’s wrath mixed with His righteous anger. The Beast is about to be destroyed by the nuclear brightness of God’s presence with all protection removed. The smoke of their destruction will drift forever throughout the whole universe! 10 There will be no respite for anyone who serves Satan and reflects his image and is loyal to his Kingdom of Darkness until it is finished once and for all.”
In that darkest of hours, the messages of the Three Angels arrive as dispatches of hope from the ruler of the universe.. In essence God is saying, “Hold out just a little longer. The cavalry is on the way.” So, John concludes, in words reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s in Britain’s darkest hour, “Hold on; Hold on! Never, never, never give up! Help is on its way.”
Conclusion
The judgment message Seventh-day Adventists have been called to carry to the whole world is good news to everyone on earth except Satan and his loyal subjects. The good news of the Judgment we have been called to take the world is about the triumph of God in His Great Controversy with Satan! It is a message of hope and comfort and optimism for anyone who lives under the oppressive rule of the devil. It is a positive message charged with triumph for slaves groaning under the weight of their servitude to the prince of darkness. It is a promise of rescue to anyone drowning in a sea of sin. It is a message of hope for the hopeless and relief for the weary. It is a message of victory when it seems the battle is lost and a message of support when we feel that we are all alone.
Unfortunately that message has not had the impact that God designed for it to have because we turned it into a message of doom and gloom. By making the judgment all about us, we have thought way too small, and in the process we have missed the whole point and misrepresented God and turned off and away most of the people God most wanted to impact with the messages of the Three Angels of Revelation.
Maybe it’s time we restored the message of the last judgment to what God intends it to be and get on with finishing the work He called us into existence to do.
1Daniel 7:10
2Daniel 7:22; Revelation 18:20
3Daniel 7:26
4Daniel 7:14
5Daniel 7:27
6John 1:2; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2
7Revelation 21:4
8Revelation 13:10; 14:12
9The judgment referred to in this passage is the final judgment on Satan and His dark kingdom. The angels that follow expand on that announcement and the rest of the chapter
10Just as sin infected this whole universe, so the smoke of God’s enemies will drift from one end to the other. The Second Law of Thermodynamics appears to be in effect universe-wide in this universe. Simply stated, all things decay in our universe. Whatever unfallen worlds exist must exist in the parallel universes demanded by Quantum Theory. Sin and its effects appear to be isolated to our own.
Dan,
If the judgement is the defining contribution of Adventism to Christianity, then we're looking for leaks in the boards at the bottom of the lifeboat instead of looking around and seeing what a magnificent lifeboat we're in. There is far more to the Gospel than the judgement. We've micro-examined it for so long that discussions such as you have presented are nothing more than an addition of energy to the never-ending arguments in the Adventist echo chamber.
The judgement is meaningless to people who don't know need to know that God loves them. Continuing to discuss topics like the judgement just illustrates how little we have experienced of God's love and how powerless we have become to share that love in ways that changes lives. It shouts about how we're limping toward the Second Coming and wondering why no one is listening and why our children are leaving the church faster than in any other denomination. How I wish you and others posting blogs and columns would focus on more practical topics that show you have actual experience with God instead of just theology and head knowledge. It is experience with God that empowers us to touch others with His love.
Please! Stop adding energy to the echo chamber! Start sharing about your experience with the power of God.
William,
Rather than entering into the peeing contest (figured I'd vegetarianize that a bit) that so often seems to be the norm on this and other sites, I try not to respond much to people's critiques of what I have written – but instead have chosen to let the discussion flow. But, there are a few things I would like to weigh in on and rather than going down the page and responding to each, I hope that you will forgive me for including them all in this post.
I am convinced that the whole subject of judgment in the Bible is not meaningless and is one that is what traditionally in Adventism has been termed "present truth." Every religion that has ever existed has been concerned with life after this one and how to ensure that the god(s) placed you, after judging you, in paradise of one type or form or another. Most post-modern thought has returned to a search for the supernatural and have turned to all kinds of religious experience to satisfy their longings for something positive beyond the grave. And, it has been my experience that most rabid atheists, when they approach the moment of their death become increasingly concerned with God's judgment and how to face it.
Talking about a God who loves us is easiest in the context of the judgment and all God has done and is willing to do for us in the face of judgment. And, it makes the most sense Biblically!
Any one who knows me is aware that I don't spend much time trying to gloss over the leaks and weak boards in the lifeboat we are in. As much as I am able to do so, I try to see it with neither rose or dark colored glasses. Having said that, it is my conviction that our defining contribution to Christianity could, and should, have been our defining contribution to the world's larger understanding of the Gospel. Instead, we chose to make it all about us rather than God's work to once and for all bring Satan's rebellion to a close. I would take issue with your assertion that we have micro-examined the subject at all. We have not examined and re-examined the subject but have rather expended huge amounts of time and energy and money trying to defend what was largely indefensible. It was not the subject, which pervades and permeates the Bible from beginning to end, but our attempts to somehow convince anyone outside of our church family and a growing and increasingly frustrated group of people within our church that our traditional understanding of the judgment, and specifically the 1844 portion of that understanding, of its truth and veracity.
I talk about the judgment as I have precisely because I have experienced God's love and I continue to discover how powerful a message it can be. People not only listen, they want to hear it. Our children are surprised and delighted to hear the message of the judgment talked about in positive terms. Anyone who listens to my sermons online will tell you that I am focused to the point of obsession on personal, intimate, ongoing personal relationship with God. And, I am excited to know and share that my friend and Father are preparing to bring Satan's Kingdom of Darkness to an end and that I will never have to preach another funeral or counsel another broken person.
In one very fair and reasonable sense, Larry Boshell is correct in his assertion that we have often lived in a state of self-delusion, more intent on proclaiming our own self-importance than in introducing people to Jesus. And, we often give credibility, particularly in our evangelistic methodologh, to Einstein's statement that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results." Around the world we can observe people frantically doing their very best with increasingly vapid results. But, that is often because we have turned the "pecular" (read unique) message God gave us to take to the world and made it anything but good news.
I have no problem with Larry's assertions concerning my motives – I guess in a back-handed sort of fashion I will take the compliment that my argument was ingeniously crafted. I would like to ask, though, that before he writes the approach I have suggested off as irrelevant and lacking appeal, that he tries it. It's easy to opine that something is powerless with no basis for saying so other than your own a priori opinions. As he stated, "Nothing is confirmed or invalidated by belief, regardless of the size or source of the mountain of conjured evidence. (No matter which side of an issue you are on.) Belief has no future, is nullified by death, the great equalizer. In other words a conception of proper religious belief and practice has to wait until death to be validated or invalidated." I would add, or modify, to say, "has to wait until death to be validated or invalidated" to read "death or the end of the world."
I concur with Larry when he says that "For a person to think he has somehow stumbled into truth at the exclusion of everyone else is nothing more than self-pride." That has often been the case in the life of our Adventist Church. But, that does not negate the fact that God has always called specific groups of people to bring specific messages and emphasis to the church at large – Martin Luther and Justification by faith; Charles and John Wesley and holiness; the Azusa Street Revival and a return to an emphasis on the Holy Spirit; the Jewish people in the Old Testament. God calling a people to focus attention on his work in the judgment is not without precedent in the history of the church, nor is it an outgrowth of our egos need to be special. Rather it should humble us and create in us, not the attitude of lords but the heart of a servant.
The problem with the Church I love and serve is that instead of humility it has all too often engendered pride and exclusiveness and has led many to react as we see evidenced here. The reaction we see in most of Christiandom is against our attitudes and exclusivism, not our message. We have gone around punching them in their spiritual noses than have wondered why they are not interested in what we have to say. We have used gifts like the Sabbath as levers to pry people out of their churches and in to ours rather than offering people the gift of closer relationship through Sabbath that God promises in Isaiah 58. And, by using the judgment as a club to condemn everyone but ourselves rather than the good news of God's triumph we have miserably failed to have the impact we could have had.
If this sounds like a diatribe – I apologize! Neither is it a rant against any individual – rather it is a heart-felt desire that we become what God called us to be – something I can get emotional about.
VERY well stated. No apologies necessary.
Moose,
I do not wish to imply that the Judgement is meaningless. Far from it. The problem I highlight is that some have allowed endless discussion and argument about it to become such an overwhelming issue that they have little or no room in their spiritual concepts for anything else like ministering God's love to others as Jesus told His followers to do. They have spent so much time arguing that they have become like people who think they are mining for gold but who are instead dumping truckloads of dirt atop the nuggets they claim to be seeking.
The beauty of the judgement is in the simplicity of the message that God rules in favor of those who love and obey Him. That is all a person really needs to know. They can study more deeply if they wish, but that is the essential part. In contrast with that, as the Adventist Church has strayed into the legalism and deification of Ellen White that has happened over the past century, that simple message has become so deeply buried under so many truckloads of argument that it is nearly impossible for a person to see that God rules in favor of those who love and obey Him.
Jesus summed the Law of God in two commandments: Love God supremely and love your neighbor as yourself. Continual argument about the judgement makes it more difficult to love either God or our neighbor because it consumes time that we could be spending loving them. You probably know a lot of people who say they love God and do to some degree. How many of them are so in love with God that they can't wait to spend time with Him and they can't wait to spend time doing things that minister God's life-improving love with their neighbors? Unfortunately, you probably don't need all the fingers on one hand for that count.
The Kingdom of God would be far better served if we spent more time actually ministering God's love to our neighbors than arguing about the Judgement. Unfortunately, as a church we've got that paradigm inverted and argument is far more important to far too many.
William,
Sounds like we're reading the same Bible! (<;
I couldn't agree more.
Adventism apparently enjoys living in a sound proof chamber with ceilings painted with clouds and a blue sky as a form of self-delusion. No one outside can hear its proclamations of self-importance. Nor do they care.
Adventism has never had an attractive message, evangelists media machinations to the contrary. It isn't helped by intense, long winded interpretations of obscure scriptures. How, if this is applied to an outreach-invitation to the public, does this appeal to anyone?
Adventism is a survivor, and that is good. But it is time for it to let the sleeping dogs of its bizarre doctrines lie, and move on to promoting a loving God who never fails to "stand at the heart door and knock."
To remodel Adventism, start with the Sabbath. Forget the Old Testament version. Drop the requirements, including the sunset to sunset thing. Promote the benefits of Saturday worship services as fun alternative to Sunday services. Drop the rules for its observation. Saturday service removes problems of missing NFL football on Sunday mornings, as an example. Find out why many other churches, including Catholic, now have good attendance at Saturday afternoon services. Compete with them. Those who like their current version of Sabbath observance can trundle on (with horrified astonishment, of course). But new-comers could be taught to pat them on their backs in appreciation, but allowed a new way of enjoying Sabbath.
One of the reasons I left Adventism was a realization that religious rules are self-imposed, edging on masochism. A loving God is not about rules or obedience. Love is about experience and response.
I have never lost my appreciation for the Adventist people, who at heart are as sincere, loving, generous, kind, as any group can be. They represent a reservoir of good intentions that just might blossom into an attractive flower if given the chance to encounter a God of Love. And the church might find interested parties approaching its doors without embarrassing bait and switch enticements.
(This critique is not intended as a personal attack on Mr. Appel, just an alternative view.)
Adventism is a survivor, and that is good.
How so, Larry? What good do you find in Adventism other than perhaps the Darwinian view that survival itself is the highest good? And why are you interested in the survival of a movement that you yourself have long since abandoned and now deride?
But it is time for it to let the sleeping dogs of its bizarre doctrines lie, and move on to promoting a loving God who never fails to "stand at the heart door and knock."
So maybe Adventism has survived only so you can rejoice when it blends into the Christian background? Or the post-Christian background?
Is this God who stands at the heart door an knocks, your Love Guy or something else? Sounds rather personal for a Love Guy to be intentionally and particularly knocking at my personal heart's door. Or is this just an analogy for the collective "heart" of humanity in the aggregate?
Your reply to my post has elements of "do you still beat your wife?" a trap I will side-step by not addressing the rhetorical zingers you flip at me!
Jim, I peeked through a porthole of the Adventist soundproof chamber and saw your lips moving. Read them, too. You said, "I like it here and I'm not leaving." Wasn't the least surprised. I mouthed my words back as follows: "I like Adventism because it appeals to my sense of incredulity that cloistering is still fashionable, and I wasn't joking about my opinion of the fine character of most Adventist people."
Mr. Appels article, as I see it, is about affirming a specific body of belief with ingeniously crafted arguments with his version of Scriptural support. It pleases a tiny handful of sycophants but has no universal appeal. More than that, it is intended as an ego support, a morale booster, for the occupants of the "sound proof chamber," the house that Ellen built that has slid into inanity.
Nothing is confirmed or invalidated by belief, regardless of the size or source of the mountain of conjured evidence. Belief has no future, is nullified by death, the great equalizer. In other words a conception of proper religious belief and practice has to wait until death to be validated or invalidated. In the event after-death expectations are invalid, one won't know the difference. If your professed beliefs are exactly correct and all the others are incorrect, they/we won't know the difference. The problem you have is that there are thousands, probably tens or hundreds of thousands, of beliefs, divergent opinions supported by analysis of religious literature and traditions. None can be validated, including yours (until THE END, of course). At this juncture one is as good as another.
Jim, it's ego that reigns supreme in truth proclamations by believers. Nothing more. For a person to think he has somehow stumbled into truth at the exclusion of everyone else is nothing more than self-pride. For one to believe his evaluation of an obscure little company of "Believers," as the "remnant" guardians of ultimate, final, THE TRUTH elevates his self-evaluation abilities to totally smart, wise, and, yes, lucky.
Egos threatened are egos elevated. A creed torpedoed creates the most defensive, loudest cry from the most devoted. I see that verified in the endless attempts to defend, and even salvage, bizarre doctrines.
Well Larry, you must have been reading the lips of my body double 8-). I never left the cloister because I never entered it. I never took a vow of silence or a vow of poverty or a vow of subservience to any human. (Even in our wedding vows my wife and I did not promise to obey each other, though we did promise to love and serve each other which is not the same thing.)
What I have prviously written is that having literally traveled all over the world and worked with and made friends with people from all over the world, I have not found a better place to be than the family I grew-up in. And not for lack of looking because I am very well aware of and have personally suffered from, the various forms of dysfunction within my own spiritual family. I understand that you and others who write here have chosen to distance yourself from your original spiritual family, and that is a choice you and only you can make. However I do note that you have not gone so far away that you no longer wish your voices to be heard 8-).
I on the other hand have chosen to embrace my fellow dysfunctional believers, to try to "brighten the corner where I am". And also to speak-back across the divide that separates me from my many friends who have left. (Talking-back has always been one of my bad habits.)
To each his own. Would you prefer that I reply when we disagree or would you prefer to simply be ignored?
promoting a loving God who never fails to "stand at the heart door and knock."
I think this statement drives right to the heart of the matter. I do believe in a loving God that stands at the heart and knocks. And whose love never fails.
Is a God that politely knocks at the heart's door, yet never intervenes to curtail all of the horrors that occur in this world, really a loving God? Or an indifferent and impotent God sort of like Santa who offers us nice presents but never helps us clean-up our messes? And make no mistake that we humans have some AWFULLY BIG MESSES.
A God of love and mercy must also be a God of action. The whole point of Divine judgement in the Bible is that God will eventually put an END to all of the messes that sin has caused in the universe.
Most of the few billion people on earth who believe in God, believe that He is Santa who smiles and hands us presents and pats us on the head, but ultimately is unwilling or incapable of actually fixing things that are broken in this world. Of couse this Santa's biggest promise is that we will all get the BIG PRESENT when we graduate from this life to the life to come. Many also believe in a God who will eternally torment those who dare to flout His authority.
In neither view of God does sin and suffering ever end. We merely excape to a better place when we die. And in the latter view those less fortunate are trapped in a worse place when they die. Two variations on this theme are that we can escape from torment to paradise after we die (purgatory) or that we can escape by coming back to this world again (reincarnation).
Adventists are indeed among a small minority of Christians who believe that God will lovingly and mercifully put an end to sin and suffering, both for the saved and for the lost.
Bravo Larry, i couldn't have phrased it better.
Wow! I think I just may have to read this a few more times. Not that it was hard to read, or in some way difficult to understand; but because it makes too much sense.
Thanks for this coherent, liberating perspective Dan!
William, Larry and Earl,
The majority of the world's population indeed do not know enough about God and Jesus to have any opinion or even any concern about whether or how there is/are divine judgement(s).
However within the 1 Billion-plus world-wide community of the Christian faith there is much confusion on this subject, including within Adventism. So for the minority of people who have seriously distorted views of God and of His justice, this article is entirely appropriate.
And Larry, I know you have abandoned any pretext of believing in a personal God or of divine judgement. "Say it ain't so" is certainly one way of answering these questions. Your "Love Guy" wouldn't judge anybody because he/she/it is a nobody.
Dan has given an excellent presentation regarding Daniel in the context of the OT model of jurisprudence, which is the context where Daniel wrote. Paul in the context of Roman jurisprudence and described divine justice rather differently. Debating which analogies are correct has been a hallmark of Adventism almost since its inception. Who was right? Milton or Calvin or Luther or Wesley or Miller?
Jesus described divine jurisprudence in yet a different way which did not rely upon any secular models of jurisprudence. He said that we judge ourselves by how we respond to Him. Something to think about.
Jim,
As always, your comments go to the heart of the matter. However, I think your observation about the history of debate in the SDA Church stopped a step or two early. First, Ellen White condemned debating and trying to argue people into the church by debating their beliefs instead of just relying on the Word of God. The "debate" that produced much of our theology was enegetic but was focused on learning instead of trying to prove others wrong or pridefully strut how much knowledge an individual had. Perhaps it would be better to describe it as an energetic exploration of scripture, as compared to the battling of opinions that is so typical today.
Your last observation is one I wish more would heed. That statement by Jesus really hit me between the eyes a few years back and was part of a spiritual revolution in my life. How does He want us to respond to Him? There are many ways and the greatest of them is to allow the Holy Spirit to empower and guide us in personal ministry that creates new believers. Doing that has been an amazing experience for me and one that I despaired for many years of ever seeing after the traditional methods of evangelism I had been taught utterly failed. The first time I tasted the sweetness of the blessing God gave me for just doing what the Holy Spirit wante me to do, I was hooked and I have never looked back.
William,
Of course I could have made my list a lot longer but I thought I had given enough examples to make my point 8-).
The teachings of Jesus regarding judgement in the Gospel of John hit me between the eyes while I was in college. Yet very few sermons are preached on this topic and even fewer books are written. Too simple and too clear for the professional preachers and theologians. Since college I have evaluated all other preachings and teachings on the subject of judgement by the plain and simple words of Christ.
Jim,
"Too simple and too clear for the professional preachers and theologians." That is so hard on-target that it hurts just to read! How much better we would be with fewer theologians (both degreed and self-appointed) who know about God and more people who actually knew God.
William,
Are you daring to suggest that it does no good to talk about the love of God if we do not actually demonstrate the love of God in our lives?
Or perhaps the even more raidcal notion that we demonstrate what kind of God(s) we serve by what kind of lives we live?
Jim,
Let me answer that with a little story. Several weeks ago a man at church handed me a post-it note with contact information for a co-worker who is a single mother and who needs help with growing home problems that are the result of her having no money to do even simple maintenance. We played phone tag for three weeks but finally on Tuesday evening we were able to visit and do an appraisal of her need. The e-mail that I sent to the church announcing an Oct. 12 work bee at her house listed a dozen projects for us to begin working on and there were several more that I did not list. Last evening we met at a funeral and he shared that she has asked to come to our church. He and his wife will be picking-up the mother and daughter and bringing them because her car is broken-down. What made her want to come? The fact that I actually came to her house and spent an hour both looking at things and talking with her.
“Your last observation is one I wish more would heed. That statement by Jesus really hit me between the eyes a few years back and was part of a spiritual revolution in my life.”
William, I am curious; would you mind sharing with us specifically what “statement by Jesus really hit [you] between the eyes a few years back and was part of a spiritual revolution in [your] life”? I’m not asking for a big, long explanation; actually, just citing/quoting the text will suffice.
Jesus described divine jurisprudence in yet a different way which did not rely upon any secular models of jurisprudence. He said that we judge ourselves by how we respond to Him. Something to think about.
Could it be this concise summary of John 3:18-21 (as well as other passages in John)?
Many years ago I had the privilege of walking and talking with one of the deeper thinkers of Adventist theology of his day. Discussing this whole question of legalism and judgement, he said to me in conclusion that Adventist properly understood embodies a Relational Tehology rather than a Forensic Theology.
One example is Mark 16:16-18, which says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Those acts are the work of the Holy Spirit ministering through those who believe. So, if you're not doing such things that demonstrate the power of God, Jesus is saying you're not a believer and you are condemned.
Another example is the parable of the sheep and the goats found in Matthew 25:32-46. The people for whom doing God's work is such a natural behavior that it is neither an outstanding or significant event are the ones God will save where the others are condemned.
God's message to me was that I needed to be doing things the way He directed instead of the failed ways people were claiming we should be working.
Of course, Mark 16:16-18 needs to be juxtaposed, if not balanced, with Matthew 7:22. In other words, there will be “many” who may have deceived themselves—and certainly others—by doing some of these things under the assumption that these acts constituted/represented ”the will of [the] Father which is in heaven” (verse 21); but it didn’t.
Thankfully we are saved by God’s grace; because if we were not, undoubtedly no one would be saved—since very few of us are casting out demons, speaking with new tongues, surviving poisonous snake bites, or consuming deadly poison on a regular (and “many” of those who are will be out of luck in any case).
Thankfully William, it is not about us!
So long as you are more afraid of being deceived than willing to let God empower you, then you make it obvious you are among those Jesus declared are condemned because they refuse to believe. Why be condemned when you can be empowered by the Holy Spirit and have all your doubts wiped-away?
This needn't have become personal. Thankfully dear brother, we are not each other’s judge. (Besides, it is not about us anyway.) Blessings on you for a Happy Sabbath!
I merely remind you of the words of Jesus. The God who is seeking to redeem us is not a god of fear, but of hope, joy, power, peace and good. He is the god of absolute trust and confidence because He is pure and supremely powerful. He is the light who has promised to drive all doubt and fear from your heart. Psalm 34:8 tells us to "Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him." You cannot take refuge in God unless you trust Him and let Him take away your fear. So long as you let your doubts be more powerful in your heart than the power of God, you are condemned because you do not trust Him.
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.
Although I am not in general a proponent of the Documentary Hypothesis, I think there is strong evidence that the original Gospel of Mark did not contain these verses. They do not appear in the earliest known manuscripts. They were almost certainly added later by some well-intentioned scribe, who may well have drawn upon some oral tradition about the gospels or this promise.
There are some other popular NT passages whose provenance is suspect, but this one is probably at the top of the list. Read the footnotes in any formal Bible translation for specifics.
Somewhere in my childhood I acquired a penchant for reading footnotes (I first remember doing this in second grade). This has gotten me in trouble but it has also been very enlightening. Sometimes there is better information buried in the footnotes than in the body of the writing. Sometimes I read the footnotes first before deciding what else to read.
Slippery slope? Yes, Jimbo, you are slip-slidin away!
Well I guess I will have to ask Jesus to hold my hand a bit more firmly 8-).
OK, let's see what excuses you might find to dismiss the command of Jesus to His followers in Matthew 10:8 to "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy and drive out demons." Or Luke 9:2 "…he sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick."
The reality is that modern Christianity has become impotent because it has become reliant on human powers of persuasion in preaching instead of utterly and completely dependant on the power of the Holy Spirit. There is precious little evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit in any Christian church, Seventh-day Adventists included. In fact, it is in the SDA church that you will find some of the most institutionalized denials of the power of the Holy Spirit. God truly has a miracle to work among the people who claim to be His followers!
No excuses offered. I do not doubt the veracity of these passages.
The one at the end of Mark is at the top of a very short list of passages in the NT with dubious provenance. I am sorry if the evidence offends someone, but I only report here what I have learnt.
William, Paul gives us a list of fruits of the Spirit. Helping is certainly on the list, and yes I did help someone last week. But there are also others on the list. And at the top of the list is love. Love not just for those we like or dislike, who can help or or who need our help, but also for those who dare to disagree with us.
Jim,
Please don't confuse the fruits of the spirit with the gifts of the spirit. The fruits are the results God grows in us as he works through us to minister His power and love to others.
There are many gifts of the Holy Spirit and where the Holy Spirit is seen there are many ministries. I celebrate what I see God using me to do in the hope that others will find hope to begin discovering that same Holy Spirit power and the ministry God has for them. Resistance to the concept of gift-based ministry runs deep in the SDA Church and appears in two directions. First is we've developed such a limited concept of "ministry" that if it isn't preaching or giving Bible studies, we classify it as not a ministry. That is directly contrary to the ministry of Jesus, who first healed the sick, fed the hungry, raised the dead, cast-out demons and cleansed the lepers before he taught them anything scriptural. But far worse than that is that we've been so focused for so long on exposing Satan's falsehoods that we have not allowed for any possibility that the Holy Spirit might actually be real and true and powerful and wanting to work through us. Those two concepts were very difficult for me to overcome. But I praise God that He is powerful and has overcome those misconceptions in me.
William,
It seems as though you’ve glossed over (as in dismissed or ignored) Jim’s statement that love— not just for those we like, or those who may need our help (thus perhaps empowering us?), and for those who dare disagree with us—is the indispensible fruit of the spirit.
Paul indicates elsewhere that if we don’t have love, we don’t have anything—despite the other great things we do and the spiritual gifts we may seem to possess. Is it probable that the “many” who Jesus refers to in Matthew 7:22-23 are among those who disregard 1 Corinthians 13, or who interpret “charity” as ‘works’?
Your statement is so confused that I have no idea what you were trying to say.
My apologies for not being absolutely clear. Let me reword my statement a little. It seems as though you’ve glossed over (as in dismissed or ignored) Jim’s statement that love—not only for those we like, or those who may need our help; but even also for those who have the temerity to disagree with us—is the indispensible fruit of the spirit.
Paul indicates elsewhere that if we don’t have love, we don’t have anything—despite the other great things we do and the spiritual gifts we may seem to possess. Is it plausible that the “many” who Jesus refers to in Matthew 7:22-23 are among those who've disregarded 1 Corinthians 13, or who've interpreted “charity” (the word in the KJV that is also translated in other versions/translations as “love”) as ‘works’?
Your question is in the same spirit as the rhetorical questions the Pharisees and others posed to Jesus with the objective of trapping Him. How did He answer them? Did he say, "Oh, you poor, misguided souls! Here, let me multiply some loaves and fishes so you may eat"? NO! He heaped scorn on them because of their ignorance of God. He called them "a brood of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs."
How is it that you, a person who publicly denies the essentiality of the Holy Spirit in the life of true followers of Jesus, presumes to know anything about spiritual gifts and the fruits of the spirit when you cannot give us any reason to even wildly imagine He might be in you? First get some actual experience with the Holy Spirit. Then we can talk about the realities of God instead of debating your rhetorical sophistries.
Jim your mind numbing jurisprudence thing demonstrates the inanity I referenced above. Maybe someone in the chamber will shout out to the other prisoners, "Now I understand why I am here! I'm saved! Hallelujah!" 🙂
" He [Jesus] said that we judge ourselves by how we respond to Him." Sounds like you are starting to tilt a bit toward Love Guy, hope this isn't just a temporary infatuation!
As Paul said to the Athenians regarding the Temple to the Unknown God, we Christians know Whom we worship whereas you do not. You seem to have missed the most important theology lessons in your school days. Maybe you should forget everything you think you know and read the entire Gospel of John one (or several) more time(s). Your Love Guy is either God Incarnate or he/she/it is nothing but a vaguely nice idea. Still I am glad you believe in Love Guy because that tells me someday you might meet-up with Him, in this life or the life to come.
I am not infatuated with Love Guy. I am after many decades still trying to comprehend why and how Jesus Christ could love me. I know it is true but it still stretches my imagination beyond human limits. The question is not so much about my love which is deeply flawed, but about His love which is beyond measure.
Jim,
The beauty of God's love is that he doesn't ask us to understand how He does it, just to accept that He does love us. That makes the topic a lot easier to deal with. We can wrestle with the theology of how and why, or we can immerse ourselves in the empowering and liberating reality that He does. Yes, it can be pretty overwhelming.
No, like you, I'm not infatuated with the "love guy" that has been postulated. God is far too marvelous to merely be "love guy."
Paul wrote in the context of Roman jurisprudence
Even the "vaguely nice idea" of Love is God, rather than God is Love, is not terribly unappealing. After all, it seems like it was the concept of God as judge/arbitrator (if not also, executioner), that led to the need for the concept of the incarnate intercessor. Choosing the Love side of things, rather than the Hate side seems like an important choice.
Joe, sure the ‘love is God’ theology isn’t unappealing; but God (really) is love. There wasn’t a need for the concept of an incarnate intercessor but rather an incarnate redeemer, who proved worthy to intercede. That concept originated before the foundation of the world and wasn’t necessitated to counter “a Hate side” of a loving God. I believe the sanctuary concept in the Old Testament typified this perpetual intercessory function. It didn’t come about for public relations.
Something tells me Joe that you’ve interpreted the Old Testament as God having it in for humanity from the very beginning; as in something from which to run. It would be easy to eventually believe that such a God does not exist; which of course happens to be true.
Joe,
Even worse than that, the majority of modern Christian churches teach that God will condemn those who do not believe to the flames of an eternally-burning hell. That image is not a God who loves, but a God who is looking for a reason to condemn instead of to save.
William,
You have given us an excellent example of why we need to be clear about the nature of judgement, in our witness to the Christian world (and also to the Muslim world who hold similar views).
~~When I prefer the writings of Daniel, Paul and St. Anselm, to name but three among several, I tend to circumvent the trust/healing/salvic/revelatory ministry of Jesus Christ. When I don't undergird my theology with Cosmic Warfare, I fail to grasp the fact that the one who has been on trial within the courts of heaven and the entire universe is none other than God the Father. It's the only premise that makes sense when considering Christ's condescension. Ellen White wrote, paraphrasing, the only way God could set and keep us right was to come and reveal the truth about himself. What a beautiful revelation it was. It is the Good News. It's the gospel according to Jesus Christ.
Gregory Boyd wrote, "Through a close and sophisticated reading of both Old and New Testaments, [I argue] that God has been in an age long (but not eternal) battle against Satan and that this conflict "is a major dimension of the ultimate canvas against which everything within the biblical narrative, from creation to the eschaton, is to be painted and therefore understood."
Satan, through various means, has been successful in developing a counterfeit theology which inculcates a self-centered focus; one that's centered on me. It has been said that a legalist is one that is preoccupied with his own legal standing. The satanic preoccupation has been doctrinal for me from childhood through older adulthood. But is "it" rally about me? I no longer think for one minute that it is.
“Satan, through various means, has been successful in developing a counterfeit theology which inculcates a self-centered focus; one that's centered on me. It has been said that a legalist is one that is preoccupied with his own legal standing.”
Very well stated Edwin; this is apparently why legalism and its twin, works orientation, are so “me/us” focused (or focused on “me/us”);” for example, the sins “I/we” don’t commit any longer and/or what good things that “I/we” do.
Really? All the theology I am aware of is desgined by mankind. Poor devil gets blamed for everything!
Jesus' death on the cross was not designed by mankind. If it was, then which man has claimed this was of his own devising. The bible says in John 3:16 that God sent Jesus to die.
The devil on the other hand devised disobedience which resulted in sin.
God devised the plan of salvation: not mankind.
Stephen, please tell me, do you believe the Bible to be totally falible and literal. In both the OT and NT??
Earl,
Since fallible, infallible, inerrant, unerring, etc. mean slightly different things to different people, allow me to attempt to answer your question by saying that I don’t believe the Bible to contain any false information; but I do believe there to be symbolic references in the Bible that are not to be construed or interpreted literally.
I do not believe that the six days of creation time frame is symbolic. I do believe that was God speaking in Exodus 20:11—and He meant literally.
Belief is an exercise of ultimate egoism. Or simply a delightful indulgence in delusion. Either way, no laws are broken (at least in the Western World). Freedom of egoism and delusion is protected in the Constitution.
So Bugs, it is your belief that “belief is an exercise of ultimate egoism.” Do you really believe that, or not? Or does this belief of yours only apply to belief that’s religious in nature?
One believes something because he "likes" it. It pleases himself, ergo ultimate ego satisfaction. And especially that which is religious in nature. Is this statement contradicted in your experience?
Bugs,
I see your point—ironically, in reverse. In my own experience I resisted and argued against the great controversy theme and the Biblical explanation for everything primarily because I did not like it; however my reasons for now believing it have nothing to do with me liking it.
I believe it because my experience reveals it to be true (not just credible or plausible, but true); and, because of experience, it makes perfect sense to me.
Again I ask, are your beliefs “an exercise of ultimate egoism” or “ego satisfaction”?
"So Bugs, it is your belief that “belief is an exercise of ultimate egoism.” Yes.
"Or does this belief of yours only apply to belief that’s religious in nature?" No, not exclusive to religion, but religious belief is exclusively ego based.
Belief is based on a decision one makes. By its nature, religious belief employs metaphysical criteria for decision making, in effect opinion. Opinions, mental constructs, by their nature, are ego based. Circling around my assertion mountain, one opts for the belief one "likes." Ergo, ego investment, a perceived defensible position for the "believer."
My beliefs suffer the same ego affliction as yours and everyone else. In my cranial department where my ego thrives, I enjoy thinking I am right, correct. Where I differ from you and your buddies whom I collectively label "true believers" is that I am willing to transfer my ego investment to an acceptance account when faced with contradicting scientific or other realistic criteria. As an example, I am satisfied there is no creation "week," so I don't suffer the embarrassing buffoonery of manipulating facts to fit my belief. I willingly move from an opinion construct to a factual one, at the expense of dogma.
I believe in the birth, birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the principles ascribed to him. I don't know if He ever really existed, said the things he said, or went to heaven absenting his grave. You don't either. I don't care. It is a metaphor that I like. That is my ego massaged by my preference. It makes "perfect sense to me."
My beliefs are an exercise of my ultimate egoism. My use of the word "like" has a large parameter. You could apply the word "prefer" to your selection of the troublesome (by your definition) Great Controversy as part of your belief. My point is, arguments buttressing belief is opinion. Your referral to your "experience" as a validator for your belief represents only a private testimony, without demonstrating the actuality of such an event. There is no universal application. I can't in any way disprove and you can't demonstrate outside of belief that there is a royal battle in heaven with a scripted outcome. I don't adopt that belief because I don't "like" it.
I think I differ from you and your buds on two main points. One is that I am willing to vacate the ego satisfaction of belief when it collides with reality, that is, science. And, second, I don't pretend my belief is fact based.
I suppose you had to try Bugs (because you knew I would keep asking).
Let’s put it this way, there is no science that confirms or reveals what happened millions or billions of years ago. So if you believe what a consensus of scientists have speculated happened millions or billions of years ago to be factual, your belief is no different than mine.
You guys crack me up in thinking that your faith is on a higher and/or more sophisticated plane than Christian belief. But then everyone is entitled to some/such beliefs; or if you prefer, some/such opinions. What you’ve just admitted here Bugs is that you believe that reality is what science indicates—until scientists change their minds. Again, I applaud your candor at least.
Would it make you feel better if I admit that my beliefs are opinions? My beliefs are indistinguishable from my opinions. Everyone’s beliefs—even scientists’—are indistinguishable from their opinions, be they individual or consensus.
(Believe it or not, there have been atheistic scientific evolutionists who have become Biblical creationists. Their opinions about scientific opinion changed. So it is not a one-way street.)
Then, in terms of “ego satisfaction,” or whatever you say about beliefs, it’s universal. (Maybe we’ve found some common ground Bugs!)
Now verified. By you!
Me: "I think I differ from you and your buds on two main points. One is that I am willing to vacate the ego satisfaction of belief when it collides with reality, that is, science. And, second, I don't pretend my belief is fact based."
Bugs: “Where I differ from you and your buddies whom I collectively label "true believers" is that I am willing to transfer my ego investment to an acceptance account when faced with contradicting scientific or other realistic criteria…I willingly move from an opinion construct to a factual one, at the expense of dogma.”
Bugs: “I think I differ from you and your buds on two main points. One is that I am willing to vacate the ego satisfaction of belief when it collides with reality, that is, science. And, second, I don't pretend my belief is fact based.”
The underlined were both written by you within the same post, and are contradictory. If I had better sense I’d rest. You are one hilarious dude, my brother. Thankfully, another one of those things “[you] don’t pretend” is taking this/yourself too seriously!
My religious belief is not fact based.
Huh?! What religious belief? Haven’t you been arguing long and loud against religious belief? Let me get this straight (if possible), you have issues with both faith based religious belief, and fact based religious belief; or any combination of both, either, thereof.
Of course I am saying that even your ‘non-religious’ belief, especially your perception or acceptance of “reality,” is based on faith. Faith is based on opinion and opinions are based on faith; common ground Bugs.
I simply maintain that at various points God provides us all with sufficient individual evidentiary experience to have faith in Him…and that Jesus’ self-sacrificing love/life represented ultimate reality.
Trvor,
First of all, I have never read Des Ford's book on Daniel.
Second, I have never stated or said that the concept of a pre-advent judgment is indefensible. As will be noted in my next essay, which I will be happy to read your response to when it is published, the 1844 date aspect of the judgment is largely indefensible. In spite of millions of dollars spent on commissions and studies and the countless hours of the time of Adventist scholars and writers, it is, the 1844 date which is something that no credible, conservative, non-Adventist scholar accepts. While deciding on the veracity of our beliefs by what others say is a risky proposition – it would seem that in over 170 years we could at least show one credible scholar who believes in the Historical-Grammatical method of Bible study who agress with our interpretation of the date, not the actual judgment
I think that I have offered an alternative in my last two posts that respects the Bible and the pre-advent judgment that is defensible and makes sense.
I have not departed from following Jesus, appreciating and loving the Adventist Church and am, as far as I can tell, converted. While I think that it would be accurate to say that we all have a priori assumptions which can affect or distort our understanding, including yourself, quite frankly, I am not interested in either cultural bias or secular thought, but am passionate about letting Jesus determine what I believe and do.
As I stated early in the responses to my essay, I don't spend a lot of time responding to the give and take that follows many of the essays in AToday. People have a right to believe what they wish and I am increasingly bored and tired of all of the yammering. I only choose to respond to your critical and judgmental post because I beleive you are sincere. I also appreciate the choice by people like William Noel who might or might not see things the same, or differently, from me to be able to discuss ideas without resorting to name calling. You might consider taking a lesson from him.
Well let me not presume to speak for Dan but only for myself.
After personally listening to Dr Ford and also to the apologists for Litch, Fitch, Himes, Edson et al (sounds sort of like the name of a law firm 8-), I determined that neither camp had a really good explanation for their beliefs. So I resolved to study these prophecies for myself, using the Bible as my primary source, and see what I could learn from my studies.
I do not claim to have all knowledge nor to understand all mysteries. Nevertheless by diligent comparison of the parallel prophecies in Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation I have gained a lot of respect for Miller's reckoning of time and his conclusion that the 2300 days and the 1335 days of Daniel would conclude in or about 1843. To try to determine a specific year or day for these things is fraught with peril and cannot be readily shown from the Bible, but only from an extended chain of inferences, reasoning by analogies with the Jewish liturgical calendar. And let it be noted that in the time of Miller there were in fact multiple different Jewish liturgical calendars being promulgated by different groups of rabbis. And that from the Bible alone one cannot show which was correct since the sounding of the First Trumpet was to be determined by the High Priest observing the new moon in Jerusalem (unfortunately there was no High Priest in Jerusalem in 1843 or 1844).
Again from these parallel passages it now seems clear to me that in or about 1843 commenced the filfillment of the prophecies of the Seventh Trumpet or Call to Judgment or Time of the End (choose your metaphor).
I have also found evidence in the OT as well as the NT for three separate "judgments" or "judicial reviews" by three separate panels of judges (or juries to use a modern judicial analogy).
What I cannot demonstrate from the Bible is that the first of these commenced in or about 1843, except by chains of indirect analogies and inferences, though I cannot say this did not happen (it being extremely difficult to prove the absence of a supernatural event). I doubt there are more than a handful of Adventist scholars and preachers and administrators who could explain in a coherent manner how their sipritual forebears arrived at the precise date of October 22, 1844 (or any of the other dates that were set before or after) from the Bible alone, or how to justify which dating of the Decree of Artaxerxes was correct, or which dating of Yom Kippur in 1843 or 1844 was correct. Or demonstrate from the Bible alone that there remains a (literal or symbolic) veil in heaven after the death of Christ, etc etc. Everyone else simply assumes that these claculations are correct, by appeals to tradition or to extra-Biblical authority.
For this reason I totally agree with Dan that if, after 170 years of diligent effort, Adventist apologists have only managed to put together a very indistinct and indirect rationale for this conclusion, much less tying it to a specific year and day, then it is not worth the energy we have already expended to continue to press this particular point nor continue to make it a test of fellowship.
Better to simply say that as part of the fulfillment of these time prophecies God raised-up a movement to restore the Apostolic faith and more fully explain the character of God as it relates to judgment. The two salient points being that on the one hand God will put a final end to sin and suffering, and on the other this final end will be swift and merciful for both the saved and the lost.
Unfortunately regarding the latter point, some Adventist theologians still struggle with the notion that the demise of the lost should be swift and merciful, preferring rather to think that God will prolong their suffering until they have "paid" for their wrong choices an amount of suffering to be determined (or ratified) by the saved.
Withotu the two aforementioned salient points we stand in a similar position in the eyes of the watching world, with the Baha'is and the Latter Day Saints who also claim to have arisen around the same time in fulfillment of these same time prophecies.
(And I will likely be pilloried by both liberals and conservatives for plainly stating what I have learned from my own studies 😎
~~The reality of an Investigative Judgment is clearly taught by Jesus. John Chapter Five:
22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. The New King James Version. (1982). (Jn 5:22–29).
Familiarity with the Prophecies in Daniel helps us to hear the opening words of Chapter 12 in Jesus statements here:
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt. The New King James Version. (1982). (Da 12:1–3).
Clearly Verse 24 bases the Judgment in whether we have given our heart to God and believed or not in God. Such shall NOT come into judgment, but have already passed from death to life.
Dan,
The Three Angels' message is surely John's prophecy of good news. Thanks for bringing us back to the core of Seventh-day Adventistism.
The heart of the Three Angels Message, it seems, is the Gospel which once and for all time trumps any need to make decisions, take personal action, and become ready to face the judgement. If so, that puts an end to evangelism altar calls. If that were indeed so, what a relief that would be. Speaking as one, I always feel them as manipulative.
The First Angel declares the Gospel and speaks of the God of the Gospel as worthy of worship. We only worship that which we have no part in, or so it seems.
The Second Angel seems to be reporting on the fall of Babylon in light of the Gospel destroying Babylon's ability to sustain its declaration that people have to save themselves and should feel a great relief in doing whatever Babylon has declared will save them, namely allegiance to Babylon's promise to reward their good works on Babylon's behalf.
The Third Angel seems to be reporting on the plight of those who remain deluded (the mark in their forehead) by Babylon's (the Beast's) claims that they can save themselves by taking the right action (the mark in their hand).
The Judgement foretold by the First Angel is the Judgement of God. God is declaring Himself both Gracious and Righteousness, it seems. I'm wondering if God proves His Graciousness by using the judgement to confirm that only people who do not deserve being saved are saved. And I wonder if God proves His Righteousness by saving His whole creation, attesting to John's declaration that God loves the World He created and therefore sent Jesus His Son to personally confirm His perpetual love for the World, and that through Jesus the World will be saved, and not condemned.
Just as in 1888, the church came face to face with salvation not being the result of law keeping, so revisiting the Three Angels' message may well bring us face to face with salvation not being dependent on aligning with a church. And if so, Seventh-day Adventist evangelism will, once again, be revolutionized. Is it possible that the First Angel really really is about putting an end to altar calls? It it heresy to hope for a, Yes, to that question?
Bill, I see the value of the reinterpretation of the three angels as an attempt at an ongoing validation of the SDA church based on its historical proclamations. But it appears to me to apply only to those inside what I have previously called the sound proof chamber with the blue ceiling, Adventism.
There is nothing within Adventism remotely attractive to seekers of hope. I'm not optimistic that the church will ever present a message of God as love. It will remain what it is, the cocoon chamber for the glorious guardians of the past. The troublesome truth is that it can't be anything else. The multiple, termite riddled timbers of its decaying dogmas reveal a history of works that cannot be rehabbed. For decades it has described itself as the bearer of an important message for the earth during its last days. Its attachment to the Prophetess who supervised the construction of a host of bizarre doctrines (my admittedly inflammatory term) is unbreakable. Doom, gloom, guilt, fear, depression, imperfection were/are the building materials of time of trouble, close of probation, remnant, Sunday laws, Papacy, Armageddon, 144000, Sabbath, and most other unique Adventist doctrines.
There will always be a "remnant" who enjoy the masochism of cloistering. And there is always the hopeful, optimistic, long suffering, adherents that feel compensated in other ways for their loyalty. That is where you appear to fit.
Evangelists deserve some credit for doing their best (bait and switch though it is) to paint a pretty face on a shady lady.
The church is a survivor, but not an attractive one.
Bugs,
The fallacy in your critique of Adventism is that you can’t acknowledge that all of these doctrines are from the Bible. You should be criticizing the Bible and any individual who takes interpreting it seriously.
The Three Angels’ Messages are scriptural. Adventists didn’t write them or concoct them. The Sabbath, the 144,000, Armageddon, the remnant (of a people), a time of trouble are all Biblical concepts, first and foremost. The papacy does exist, and the interpretation of certain passages and symbolic references as representative of the papacy is from the Protestant Reformation. Adventist didn’t devise those interpretations. And the time of trouble is often referred to in many evangelical Protestant denominations’ eschatology as the (time of) great tribulation. Sunday (blue) laws have been (and remain on the books) in many American jurisdictions; in other words Adventists didn’t invent them.
You know this is all indisputable fact; or at least as an ex-Adventist preacher you should know this. But I get it Bugs, you’ve got a special bee (bug?) in your bonnet, or stone in your shoe for Seventh-day Adventism. You’re not the first one with one, and you certainly won’t be the last; for sure.
Tell us Bugs, would you consider any iteration of Christian eschatology “bizarre” as well? Or would those to which a numerical majority subscribes somehow escape that particular description/distinction?
Finally, my man, if you would prefer that some entity not survive, of course you would not consider that entity attractive if indeed it nonetheless continued/continues to survive.
Did you just interject into my conversation with Bill? Oh well.
Of course, Stephen, and this may shock you, but I acknowledge the teachings you site are from the Bible. So what?
Meaning miners in two thousand years have developed scads, probably thousands or tens of thousands, of doctrines from the Bible. I don't like most of them (you don't either, I'm certain) so I call them bizarre.
Eschatology is a particularly rich open pit mine, with "gems" easily discovered by even the most hapless searchers. That includes Isaac Newton, one of the most intelligent to have ever lived based on his intellectual contributions. He spent many years studying Daniel and Revelation as well as an intense study of Solomon's temple (learned Hebrew to better peruse documents), its measurements, etc., to predict the date of Christ's return (2060).
You can rightly preen your ego by picking and choosing, holding fast to concepts taken from the scriptures.
My distress, (bee in my bonnet?) with Adventism is that I see it as congenitally unable to represent the God of love. The teachings it holds dear have petrified and are incompatible with the God that Jesus revealed. Period. The major in minors it exercises is a thousand dams in the way of the encounter of love.
Gleaning meaning from Scriptures has no limits, is open to everyone, has no enforceable rules, contradictory, and is an endless source of entertainment for millions.
How tough it must be for one to live life by a set of interpretations only to discover at the end, they chose the wrong ones? (How does one know the right ones?)
Does the word “petrified” connote some trauma? I would say that it certainly does—but of course doesn’t apply to you.
The only interpretation that ultimately matters is whether or not we believe that God loves us and came to save us from the penalty and power of sin. Adventists have been teaching that all along. Those traumatized by extremist mores and folkways have trouble internalizing/reconciling that simple, profound reality. I’m certainly not denying that there are extremist elements that have traumatized various individuals. You’ll recall that I’m the guy who suspected that you were among the traumatized.
Dude, you are chock full of contradictions. After lamenting what a tragedy it would be to discover that one has been living by wrong/erroneous Biblical interpretations, how do you then ask how one can know if they have chosen the right interpretations.
Bugs, if one cannot know if they’ve chosen the right ones, how can one discover that they’ve chosen the wrong ones?
You've subscribed to the right ones? How do you know for sure? If you are wrong, sure hope you discover it before the second coming/resurrection.
Bugs,
Thanks for the engaging response re the Three Angels' Message and the potential value for its reinterpretation. I appreciate your sharp illumination of what Ellen White terms 'the feebleness of the church' when you explain, "Doom, gloom, guilt, fear, depression, imperfection were/are the building materials of time of trouble, close of probation, remnant, Sunday laws, Papacy, Armageddon, 144000, Sabbath, and most other unique Adventist doctrines."
Where I would like to add to the illumination, perhaps, is to suggest that surprisingly, I'm finding, your statement here may be overreaching: "Its attachment to the Prophetess who supervised the construction of a host of bizarre doctrines (my admittedly inflammatory term) is unbreakable. "
My sense is that our current attachement to the Prophetess is not because she supervised the construction of a host of bizarre doctrines, but because we are looking for God in all the wrong places. Odd as it seems from this distance, the Prophetess apparently did not supervise doctrinal construction. Indeed, she advised against getting caught up in that enterprise in her often overlooked Review and Herald article of July 26, 1892, in which she calls for the church to return the state of the church 'forty years ago.' That would be 1852, when the church was in its Genesis 1 stage, without form and void.
http://www.gilead.net/egw/books/misc/Counsels_to_Writers_and_Editors/index.htm?http&url=www.gilead.net/egw/books/misc/Counsels_to_Writers_and_Editors/6_Attitude_to_New_Light.htm
She puts everything on the table for review, revision, and even removal, just as was the state of the church in 1852. What an aspiration she brings before the church well into its fourth decade of existence. Do read the lengthy quote from her article. Feel free to be inspired.
It seems that already by the time the 18-year-old young visionary looking to the sky the night of October 22, 1844, has become a 65-year-old, the church has already turned on her as the validation of God's presence in their community of faith, banishing her to Austrailia from where she wrote her piece for the Review and Herald. Perhpas it took that vantage poiont for her to see the church as it was at the time. In any event, the church expected she would all too soon be dead. And with her death where would the church be when it came to claiming God's presence in a uniquely Seventh-day Adventist way? The die was being cast, and she could see it. The future was taking shape. The claims were being anchored. The church was becoming as you so vividly describe it, "Doom, gloom, guilt, fear, depression, imperfection were/are the building materials of time of trouble, close of probation, remnant, Sunday laws, Papacy, Armageddon, 144000, Sabbath, and most other unique Adventist doctrines."
And she would have none of it.
Rather, she urged the church to return to the primitive community of faith where God's presence was sustained by determinedly rejecting formalizing common beliefs in statements of doctrinal finality.
In any event, here you are, Bugs. Hanging out with us. Cheering us on in so many ways. Somehow believing that together we are better than either of us might be alone. I think you are an 1852 Seventh-day Adventist true and real. Thanks for the inspiration you bring, the presence of God you evidence, and the affirmation we feel to be cared about by you!
I accept the enlightenment you provide in regard to Ellen's meager role in doctrinal formation.
My critique of her, provided in an earlier post, is aimed more at the transformation she suffered over the decades from a spiritual lady to a Prophet by dogmatists searching for affirmation. She may "have had none of it." However, she was by default, the captain of the Adventist ship during a major part of its formative years. During those years the leaders of the church succeeded in doing what an organization needs to do, that Is, identify itself as unique. Concentration on the "soon" return of Christ was the spawning ground for much of the doom and gloom tenets and gave the church, along with the Sabbath, its raison d'etre. But Christ hasn't shown up. Crying "wolf" for so long has reduced the cheerless, unique, scare tactics to irrelevance, bringing into question the foundational narrative of Adventism.
You are most generous in your assertion my " hanging around" is "Cheering us up in so many ways!" No, I am not an 1852 Adventist. I'm not going back, I'm tossing my future in the ring with Isaac Newton. He was right about gravity! When I pop up from my grave, I will do a 360 and proclaim, yep it is 2060. Finally, somebody got it right!
i tend to agree here with Larry. In my 30 years inside SDA, i don't recall a single "altar call", after a powerful sermon on the love of Christ and Him crucified for all mankind (as was the constant theme by Billy Graham). The SDA theme of "correct interpretations, and rote learnings of peculiar do's and don'ts", re: music, dance, jewelry, dress codes, hairstyles, movies, what books and activities not to read or be involved with, "did you study your SS lesson every day", insinuating not to be involved with those ouside of SDA, etc. Those outside SDA, but know of their formal legal positions, are thought to be "working their way to heaven, legalists, and are cultish, and hard to approach because of their dogmatism and unyielding positions on some unusual doctrines that other Christian groups find hard to understand from Scripture.
Earl,
In one sense, I agree with you. But I am of the view that altar calls are a weak substitute for the real soul-winning that should be taking place one-to-one and happening everywhere. That we would rely on them as an essential part of growing the Kingdom of God is an indictment of the generalized failure of God's people to let God empower them so they will naturally be drawing people to Him.
Well I have seen plenty of 'altar calls" both good and bad in the Adventist church.
Most recently last Sabbath after a baptism in an "Anglo" style church and the week before in an "Afro" style church at the end of a well thought-out and very practical hour-long sermon. We were guests in both churches.
In both cases it ws not a request to come walk the aisle or even to stand, only to silently raise your hand if you wished to affirm what was being asked of you. Less peer pressure in that approach – no "is there yet one more?" And yes there were affirmative responses.
“In my 30 years inside SDA, i don't recall a single "altar call", after a powerful sermon on the love of Christ and Him crucified for all mankind (as was the constant theme by Billy Graham).”
I must say that if Earl’s experience is not atypical with white folks in North America, I understand how the church among white people is on life support; and I feel sorry for all of you. I realize that sounds somewhat patronizing, but Earl’s statement is absolutely shocking.
On behalf of my tribe of pale-faces, let me invite you to attend some "Anglo" churches and decide for yourself 8-).
I too am quite shocked to hear Mr Calahan's statement regarding not witnessing an alter call being made in a Seventh-day Adventist church, after a sermon on the love of Christ and his death on the cross, for such a long period of time. Thirty years? To be quite honest I find this hard to believe, even if this was just used as hyperbole to make a point. Was this at Loma Linda? (Just kidding!). Seriously though, if this is the case, then there seems to be a terrible crisis in the Adventist circles that Mr Calahan is a part of. When I previously mentioned on these boards that the cross of Christ is our greatest need as sinners, I was told by a high ranking AToday inner circle member that I should stop bashing people with the cross. That would at least shed some light on Mr. Calahan's predicament somewhat. Lastly, if this is actually the case then some Shepherd heads may need to roll.
This is not the case in most of the churches that I have attended in North America.
It is more been my experience that most pastors have a hard time avoiding altar calls, almost to the point where I have felt they were about to pop them at funerals (NOT appropriate in my opinion).
Although different churches do have different worship styles and that affects how they do their appeals for a response.
Do they do "altar calls" at the Arlington, TX, church? I hear it is thriving as a "liberal" SDA island. Just wondering.
The God of love (altar) calls me often every day. When my wife says she loves me, my puppy licks my face, I see a daddy playing with his giggling child in the aisle at Walmart, the evening desert sky is canopied in flaming red, my granddaughters sing happy birthday to me over the phone, a motorist stops and waves me across as I ride my recumbent trike, my neighbor joshes me about my long hair, I watch sunrise over the Superstition Mountains to the east, I see a Red Tail hawk soaring over my home, I hear Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony on my ear phone, I watch a half dollar spot on my arm amazingly heal after a cancer removed, to name a few.
These daily experiences fill me with a sense of awe and love. I feel an attraction, a joy, a contentment that all is well, that my unanswerable, ultimate questions are positively answered outside of me and that in the light of this Attraction, I don't need to know them. I am reassured that ultimately all is well in the world and universe, that there is an "intentionality" (Wayne Dyers term) for ultimate good that I view in the metaphor of Christ's life.
I respond to these continual exposures to Love by being loving. I escort my dog for lizard patrol in the back yard, buy flowers for my wife for no reason, photograph scenes and share them on Facebook, wait with patience for pedestrians, to scratch the surface.
The God of love is always knocking on my heart-door and I just can't quit responding. Life is good.
Brother Larry, we are all blessed, encouraged by the joy of observation of everyday scenes of beauty, and sharing with family and friends. Simplicityof daily life without fear. Although our personal freedoms in the USA are being threatened, we are still free to walk our walk, unlike much of the world outside our borders.
I like Larry's view of an array of opportunities to show and receive love that are pervasive in our real lives–something goes far beyond the evangelistic alter call. This discussion led me to reflect on my experiences with alter calls and calls to communion as an SDA and in other contexts.
The earliest memories I have of alter calls were in mostly white SDA churches and (especially) evangelistic efforts. As I recall, the first SDA evangelist I ever hear scared the hell out of me. He looked like a devilishly handsome movie star and preached sort of like Elmer Gantry. I felt forced to go to the alter–and a little bit violated. Other experiences were more positive, in camp meetings, mostly black churches, etc., in which the invitation seemed more welcoming and less forced.
In attending Baptist churches and revivals, an alter call invariably occurred in every service. It seemed to have the character of just renewing a relationship with Jesus, and a little less of a "what would people think if I didn't go" than was part of my SDA experience. Less of a "go for show" experience. When I responded at a Youth for Christ rally to a call by Billy Graham, he warmly grasped my hand and spoke to me in a way that seemed personal and genuine–he seemed to have a talent for making people feel that he was facilitating a warm and loving connection with God. That also seemed true of people like HMS Richards and Graham Maxwell and Morris Venden, all of whom I was fortunate to get to know a bit.
There were times when I took communion in Anglican, Catholic, or non-denominational services. Those also seemed quite genuine affirmations of a connection with the God of Love, and the presiding pastors/priests seemed warm enough, and far more genuine than the Elvis-like soothsayer I did not respond well to at an Assemblies of God revival service–he reminded me too much of my first SDA evangelism experience.
Even so, the kinds of everyday opportunities to love and be loved in return that Larry mentions do seem to me far more natural, effortless, and fulfilling than all the alter calls I have experienced in my life. But, my road has been a rather easy one compared with that of many people I've known. To me, "life is good" sums it up pretty well. Larry, I share your enthusiasm with life well-lived–an abundant life.