The Role Of Belief in the Christian/Adventist Gospel
by Don Watson
We, as Christians, have a lot of difficulty believing the fact,
(1) That we are loved unconditionally by God,
(2) That we are accepted exactly as we are, and
(3) Have already been forgiven by God for any sins we have committed, are committing, or will commit. Believing these three things – three things that are the essence of the Gospel – is essential if we are to have peace with God, assurance of our salvation, assurance of His favor, and power in our lives.
At the very root of our difficulty is the idea, widely accepted by traditional Christianity, that it is what WE do that makes us saved, rather than what Jesus did. We believe we must
(1) repent,
(2) pray the sinner’s prayer,
(3) confess our sins to God,
(4) believe in Jesus Christ, and
(5) accept Him as our personal Savior, if we are to be saved.
Consequently, our picture of God at the very beginning is one that produces fear. We are condemned to the fires of hell, unless we turn away from our sin, unless we seek Him, unless we accept Him. What we do appeases His wrath and results in our salvation. We are not drawn to God out of love because He has saved us, but out of fear so He will not destroy us. Think about it: We declare that in order to be saved a person must believe. MUST? Or what? We will die, right? We will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20). We don’t believe that His death actually redeemed us, rescued us, or ransomed us. It only made it possible for us to be redeemed, rescued, or ransomed. Forget the song that says, “I’ve been redeemed, by the blood of the Lamb” or “Redeemed, how I love to proclaim it, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.” Traditional Christianity certainly looks at what Jesus did as the act that makes it possible for me to be saved, but it is what we do that actually saves us. Before my act of belief or acceptance, I am lost and will not go to heaven, but after my act of belief or acceptance, I am saved and I will go to heaven. This is the traditional Christian/Adventist view of the Gospel.*
This concept of salvation (that it requires our acceptance, repentance, etc) causes significant problems in our relationships with God and our fellowman. Let me illustrate: A non-Christian asks me to explain why he is lost and I am saved. I reply, “It’s simple. I have done something that you have not done: I have repented of my sins and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior (etc. etc.). Therefore, I am saved. You have not done those things and therefore, you are lost.” Beside the arrogance of our position that condemns such a large percentage of the human race, there remains the obvious question: “Where is grace in this scenario of salvation?” According to Romans 5:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 the purpose of the death of Jesus was not primarily to give us a ticket to heaven, for which we qualify by an act of our faith, but to reconcile us to God – an act completely undeserved. Only if we are reconciled to God will we allow Jesus entrance into our hearts and lives to live His perfect, resurrected life IN US! Yet the traditional view of salvation destroys the idea that God reconciled (Past Tense) us by the death of Christ and suggests instead that we reconciled God to us by our act of belief, repentance, etc. The real Gospel declares the Good News that the Divine Trinity in Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins when He died on the Cross of Calvary. That act saved us. It would be tragic for you to misunderstand what I am saying. Repentance, Confession, Belief, and Acceptance of Jesus Christ as our personal Savior are critical to our relationship with Jesus, and we will talk about that more in a minute, but these acts of ours did not save us. Jesus saved us – His act of dying on the cross saved us. That is the pivotal event of history that brought us deliverance from death – not our act of belief! But one last point before we go on: The purpose of the cross was not our salvation from death, although it was certainly that! It was our reconciliation! (Read it again! Romans 5:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-19)
Now, I understand that there are numerous texts on both sides of this question, but it seems we are hell bent (pardon the pun) to believe the worst about God. Ephesians 1:7 declares that we were redeemed (past tense) by the blood [death] of Jesus, and that redemption, which took place 2000 years ago, IS the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus HAS already died, we HAVE already BEEN redeemed, therefore we ARE forgiven! That's why Paul said in Romans 5:9 that we WERE justified or forgiven by the blood of Jesus. When Jesus died, all of us – the whole human race – WAS forgiven by that death. Why will we not believe that? Jesus told Nicodemus that if we WOULD just believe that, we would not perish (John 3:16)! Why would I ever leave God if I absolutely knew I was never condemned? Now I understand a lot of Christians think that this is only talking to Christians, but that could not be further from the truth! Romans 5:6-8 says Jesus died FOR all of us WHILE we were powerless, ungodly sinners. Jesus redeemed us and saved us in our sinful condition!
We shouldn’t be surprised that salvation is like this. That's just the way God is. Isn't that the way you are with your children? You forgive them not merely before they ask, you forgive them even before they fall! Is God not even as good as we are?
We who are good parents, welcome our newborn sons and daughters into this world totally accepted and unconditionally loved. But how about God? Are we accepted and saved from the moment of our birth, or are we lost, damned, and going to hell, UNTIL we do something that MAKES us saved – like pray "the Sinner's Prayer," confess our sins, repent, or accept Jesus as our personal Savior and "get saved." Why are we so accepting of our fussy, messy, self-centered little infants, yet think that we are under God's condemnation until we do whatever our churches or denominations tell us we have to do in order to get saved and escape the fires of hell. Are we better than God?
I know a lot of people probably think babies are saved because they are so innocent. But is our salvation dependent upon on how innocent we are? Surely not! Are we not lost because we are sons and daughters of the fallen Adam with sinful natures just like his? We are not lost because we sin, we are lost because we were born! Notice this quote from Oswald Chambers: “When our Lord faced either people with all the forces of evil in them, or people who were clean-living, moral, and upright, He paid no attention to the moral degradation of one, nor any attention to the moral attainment of the other. He looked at something we do not see, namely, the nature of man (John 2:25) … It is through the Cross of Christ that God redeemed the entire human race from … damnation through the heredity of sin. God nowhere holds a person responsible for having the heredity of sin, and does not condemn anyone because of it. Condemnation comes when I realize that Jesus Christ came to deliver me from this heredity of sin and yet I refuse to let Him do so.” (Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest, October 5) The scriptures have always been clear: “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22)
Suppose your 2nd grader comes home from school crying because one of his/her classmates was not being nice. What are you going to do? Teach him how to shoot your rifle? Are you going to instruct your 2nd grader how to get even, or plot revenge? Certainly not, right? You're going to teach him/her how to forgive like God forgives? Forgive their enemies – while they're enemies – even if they seem powerless and unable to change. I suppose I can't even imagine that anyone would say, "Now, Johnny, I want you to forgive anybody who might hurt you, but not unless they first ask for forgiveness and become your friend!” I don't believe very many Christian parents would say something like that to their child – we want them to forgive their enemies like Jesus said, but that's not what we think about God. We think He doesn't forgive us or save us, UNTIL we ask for forgiveness and receive Jesus as our friend and Savior. Are we more accepting and forgiving of our children than God is of His? Are we better than God?
Of course we're not. God is millions upon millions of times more loving, accepting, and forgiving than we could ever be. In fact, Paul declares in Romans 5:7-8 that it is God's love and forgiveness of His enemies that distinguishes His love and forgiveness as superior to ours. "Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners (Powerless, ungodly sinners – Vs. 6), Christ died for us." That means He paid the price of death for us when He died, so when we are born we are already saved. It is this powerful, good news that the Holy Spirit uses all of our lives to draw us to God. (See Romans 2:4)
So what is the Bible talking about when it seems to indicate that "belief" is required in order to be saved? Salvation is like a coin that has two sides. The first side is this: Jesus, by His death, saved us 2000 years ago, He forgave us and took away our condemnation. This act of Jesus reconciled us! But at birth none of us know that, we think we're God's enemies – that He's going to kill us in order to get rid of sin – So the other side of the Salvation Coin is this: God not only wants us to BE saved, He wants us to know we are saved – to experience it! It’s already true! – God simply wants us to BELIEVE it. That belief doesn’t make us actually saved – legally saved, but it makes us saved in our heads, our minds, our hearts and it gives us peace with God. (See Romans 5:1) In fact compare Romans 5:1 with verse 9: Verse 9 says we’re justified or saved by Jesus’ blood (His death – something HE did!) While verse 1 says we are justified or saved by faith (Something WE do) suggests the two passages seem contradictory, but they are far from that. They are simply two different sides to the same coin. God not only wants us really, truly saved, reconciled – everything’s ok from His side of the desk, He also wants us saved in our minds. He wants us to truly believe it in our hearts, because as He goes on to say in verse 1, the results of being justified by faith, or by believing it, is peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, He wants us to know that there is now no condemnation! (Romans 8:1)
Our belief doesn't MAKE it true, it is already true, but without belief we will never enjoy the peace of God's acceptance. God HAS already accepted us, but we all too often refuse to belief that truth. Now, even that doesn't make us lost, but without the assurance that we are saved, accepted, and forgiven, we will continue to believe God is our enemy instead of our friend and we will drift further and further away from Him till we ultimately reject Him! So while belief does not save us, it is so vital and critical. Without it, we WILL finally reject God's salvation and be lost. A word of caution to those of us who revel in judgment. Never presume to know when someone is lost. Our job is to constantly bring people back into reconciliation like Jesus did when He died.
Another thing: The Gospel also purifies our motives. Jerry had left God while he was a teenager. Later in life he contracted cancer and wanted to come back to God before he died, but felt his motives were probably impure – he figured he felt the need to come back to God just so he wouldn’t be lost. Interestingly enough, out of integrity he didn't come back to God. If He could have just believed the Gospel – that He WAS saved already, he could have come back just because he was grateful to God. The Gospel purifies our motives. Because all of us are already saved, we can repent, turn back to God, [Not to be saved or because we are afraid of hell] but simply because we have discovered a God who accepted us as we were – like Mary, like Zachaeus – Sinners who rejoiced in His salvation, His acceptance, and His unconditional love.
Traditionally, we think a person is not forgiven of their sins until they repent of them, confess them, and ask God to forgive them. We quote 1 John 1:9 as "proof" of this fact. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." This leads us to conclude that unless we have asked God to forgive us of our sins, we are not forgiven and therefore not saved, and if we died, we would not go to heaven. But this text is focusing on the 2nd side of the coin. God not only wants us to BE forgiven [Which Jesus did when He died], He wants us to experience it. Our speaking out the truth and honesty of our sins is the way we specifically identify the thing, the sin, that is hurting us and would kill us according to Romans 6:23 and James 1:15. It is that confession that gives Him permission to "forgive us" in our heads [rxperience forgiveness], take away our feelings of guilt and shame, and then, "Cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
There are texts where someone asks what they have to do to be saved. The answers that are given in these kinds of instances do not reflect the legal side of the coin, but how a person experiences salvation and reconciliation. And it is that experience that gives us our security and assurance so that we never need “perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) I would like to suggest that the woman caught in the very act of adultery was already forgiven (Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world – Revelation 13) but Jesus’s assurance of that forgiveness is what would give her the desire and power to “go and sin no more.” Just like this woman, and Zachaeus, and Mary Jesus forgave us all at the cross, but if we are going to experience that forgiveness, we must confess it, reveal it, uncover it. "Not confessing it" does not mean that we are not forgiven, but we are not experiencing forgiveness. We ARE forgiven, and God invites us to believe the truth that we are. Believing and confessing that truth frees God up and gives Him permission to work on our behalf and set us free from all the damage sin does to us.
This is why Paul said that the Gospel is the "Power of God unto salvation." The good news that we are accepted, saved, forgiven, and no longer under God's condemnation reconciles us back to God – we no longer have any reason not to be His friend – and in that reconciled condition, God has the power and permission to put within us the actual, perfect, resurrected life of Jesus. He will speak and act and be righteousness on our behalf. He will live in us and for us (See Colossians 1:17). God lost us in the Garden, but He got us back at the cross. He reconciled us – took care of it all, so, “be ye reconciled to God” – 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 I know there have been so many times that I have become discouraged because of my sins and repeated failings. If I hadn’t had the Gospel – the good news that I AM accepted as I am, I would have given up. But the Gospel lets me know that I never need despair. The words of the Divine Trinity are written in the blood of Jesus – “I will never leave you or forsake you.” (Hebrews 13:5)
* This is the view defended by the Biblical Research Institute of Seventh-day Adventist (Personal interview by the Author), and About.com Internet search for Southern Baptist Beliefs .
I've been trying to write an article similar on this topic for over for a year now, without success. Now, I am glad that I failed. Thanks for this thoughtful and brilliantly simple (in the very best sense) article, Don.
Over the last few years, my Bible studies have drawn me to this conclusion: FAITH. It is the work that God requires (John 6:29). It is the critical path: grace through faith.
I pray that everyone reads and digests this important article. Thank you.
Silly question though Preston. Is 'faith' still a type of 'work' that we humans have to do to be saved?
I sometimes wonder if we have it all backwards. That there is a default setting that we are saved – not unsaved. It is certainly possible that some will not be saved, but that requires we positively and actively opt-out of salvation.
Thus, babies or anyone who does not have capacity has not ability to opt-out of salvation. To be damned, we must make that conscious effort to reject the Holy Spirit, as an act of 'un-faith', which is why it alone is unpardonable.
Just a thought – I'm not dogmatic about it or anything.
Yes, Stephen, I believe faith is the work — the only work required by God of us, according to Christ Himself. Works of the law cannot save us. Grace can — and does. Grace through faith. The grace that saved us (provided by His Blood sacrifice) is accessed by faith.
The Bible says we are pre-destinated to be saved (Ephesians 1:5,11). The fix is in. We can only lose if we don't believe Him and in Him.
It is such good news.
So what of someone who never has the opportunity to hear about Jesus, and thus never had an opportunity to believe or not believe?
Stephen,
The question, "What is the work that God requires?" was posed by Christ's disciples — those who knew Him. I believe that faith is required of those who know or had the opportunity to know Him. For others? I don't know.
I guess we have faith that He is just and gracious to all.
Here is an answer from one of our favorite sources:
Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. {DA 638.2}
We will all be saved–eventually. Instead of the scenario where the wicked finally see God revealed
and realize the cost of their choices–a monstrous picture of a loving God–it will be that everyone will be given a chance to "see" what they were unable to see before, often discolored and misrepresented, and then accept salvation, seen its reality. Heaven was never intended for a select few.
If God is not willing that any should perish, He will save everyone who should be saved, regardless of belief. To believe otherwise is to condemn millions who have never heard the Christian message. Most people are inherently good; but some because of circumstances far beyond their control (think of the children in Africa in "the Lord's Army" who are taught to murder and kill before they are teens). Multiply that by a gazillion and heaven will be big enough for everyone.
Otherwise, one must accept that there will be a hell for millions.
Yes exactly – it is an accident of birth that some have heard of Christ and some haven't. If I can see the injustice in that, and God is far more merciful than me a mere evil human, then how must God really judge.
Correction: ". . . an article SIMILAR TO THIS ON THIS topic . . ."
Don,
Thank you. I really appreciated that review. It was like icing on the cake of a blessing God gave me earlier today. The first was a reminder of God's power to save. You reminded me of how He saves.
The first came on my way home from work when I stopped at a local rehab center to visit an older woman our church found several years ago in probably the worse living situation I have seen in decades. In our conversation she was celebrating the love that she has found in God and how much her life has improved since we met. When we met her she felt worthless and unloveable. She began enjoying our growing friendship and had accepted that scripture said God loved her, but still couldn't let it touch her heart. She was that way until the day I stopped at her apartment to check on her, found her nearly comatose and called for an ambulance. She credits me with saving her life that day and that act as the demonstration of love that broke down the last of her resistance to fully accepting God's love.
So tonight I am reveling in a double dose of the great love God has showered on us.
'Now, I understand that there are numerous texts on both sides of this question, but it seems we are hell bent (pardon the pun) to believe the worst about God.'
Amen! I believe God honours our free choice, which includes the free choice of some to reject His gift of eternal life. However, I believe God would do everything possible, make any exception He can think of, to save as many people as possible. And yet we Christians today do the opposite, act as if God has an exclusive list, trying to do anything to keep people out of the Kingdom!
'That belief doesn’t make us actually saved – legally saved, but it makes us saved in our heads, our minds, our hearts and it gives us peace with God.'
Yes, another deep insight. I personally believe that the Gospel is not the good news that you can be saved, but the good news that we have been saved! We don't spread the word to get more people into heaven per se, because I am sure heaven will be full of people who through an accident of birth have never heard of Jesus Christ. Rather as you say, it is to give us peace and comfort in our minds that despite the horrors of this world, we have a saviour and He is coming for us.
Is this telling us that Romans 10:9, 13 and Acts 16:31 are actually true?!
Absolutely! The belief being described in those texts is far more than just the mental agreement to a fact that modern Christianity teaches. It is a declaration of complete and total life allegiance to God and absolute life-or-death dependance on Him to do what He has promised.
I think is even simpler than that. “…a declaration of complete and total life allegiance to God…” implies something we do; however “…absolute life-or-death dependence on Him to do what He has promised…” implies that it’s not anything that we actually do—other than have faith in the Savior. (The second part of what you said activates/produces/yields the first part, in my opinion.)
I’ll stick with what the Bible says. It is easier for me to comprehend.
We have no issue about what the Bible said. I was drawing a contrast between the Biblical and modern concepts of belief where the former involves total life allegiance and the latter mere assent to a fact without allegiance.
I have no idea what you’re saying. Perhaps we should leave it that way. This is getting more complicated, not less.
"Before my act of belief or acceptance, I am lost and will not go to heaven, but after my act of belief or acceptance, I am saved and I will go to heaven. This is the traditional Christian/Adventist view of the Gospel.*"
Allegedly the view of the BRI. For those who have the opportunity I subscribe to what BRI allegedly preaches. For those who don't know Christ and have not had the opportunity I personally believe Good will do what is right. Some details are not revealed and certainly His grace is beyond human ken.
Maranatha
I am pleased to read Don's blog on this subject of salvation. If the church preached such good news widely, many would be converted. I am also pleased that someone put EGWs comment in about the salvation of "heathen." If it were not for this quote, many SDAs would believe as do other conservative Christians–that they are lost. What a travesty of God's love, which I totally believe is more wonderful than any can imagine. He knows the mind and heart and character.
However, this is not as good as it gets. I relate to returned missionaries Wieland and Short and others who know the Bible intimately and believe it is harder to be lost than to be saved. ALL are born saved unless or until they totally reject Christ's love (as the Holy Spirit teaches them). Of course, those who know Christ can enjoy a more fulfilling life and have a big advantage over evil; but are more responsible in this life. I think everyone is born with their name in the heavenly "Book of Life." Only by giving themselves over to evil will it be blotted out.
This salvation is retroactive to the "foundations of the world" and to all who ever lived. All are saved by Christ; his sacrifice reconciled them to God. There are numerous texts for this truth that I believe outweigh those "belief" statements. They would have been for those who had the knowledge of an abundant life presented to them by Christ then or His disciples down through the ages. I think it is possible to hear a twisted gospel and reject it and not forfeit eternal life as well. A lot of secular but caring people fall into this category.
Ella,
I certainly agree that no one will be lost unless he asks for it, wants it. Heaven will be big enough for everyone. Why have so many made it so difficult that only 144,000 will be saved? What an exclusive heaven, denying that God has saved the whole world!
Dear Don:
You have raised a question I have studied for many years, and have written and preached extensively about. This idea that all humanity has been forgiven as a result of Calvary, prior to individual conversion and repentance, was one I first encountered in the teachings of Desmond Ford in the late 1970s. I was constrained to study it in even greater depth when this concept began to be promoted by the 1888 Message Study Committee in general and Jack Sequeira in particular—the latter's book Beyond Belief being one of this doctrine's principal sources.
For anyone interested, I have an article titled "More Than A Shade of Difference," published in Our Firm Foundation magazine back in January 1997, which addresses this concept at length. The section in the article titled, "The Meaning of the Cross," is the one which specifically considers the claims of the theory you seem to be presenting here. You can find the article, "More Than A Shade of Difference," by Googling both the title and the author, Kevin D. Paulson.
I have no problem with God's unconditional love. John 3:16 declares quite plainly that "God so loved the world." It doesn't, however, say He actually saved the world. Nor do any of the other passages you have cited, when considered both on the basis of the language they use and in light of their immediate and larger Biblical context.
When you speak of God accepting us "just as we are," this requires a bit more definition for the word "acceptance." If this is being used as a synonym for love, we can agree. But if acceptance here is synonymous with salvation, we have a problem with too many passages in Scripture. The apostle Peter makes it clear on what basis we are accepted with God: "But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him" (Acts 10:35).
God's reverence for free will is at the heart of this discussion. So is the fact that God's forgiveness is not like man's forgiveness. When you and I forgive someone, it means we have chosen to let go of a grudge. God, by contrast, never has a grudge to start with. When God forgives, according to the Bible, this involves more than just the legal cancellation of a sinful record. The word for "forgiveness" in the New Testament is the same as the word for deliverance (see Luke 4:18; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Which means God actually removes the sin from our hearts when the sin is forgiven (see Psalm 51:10). And because God honors our liberty, He isn't going to take what I choose to keep.
This is why Scripture contains such clear passages as the following regarding the conditions necessary in order for God to forgive our sins:
"If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and heal their land" (II Chron. 7:14).
"He that covereth his sins shall not propser, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Prov. 28:13).
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon" (Isa. 55:7).
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:14-15).
Certainly we can agree that the cross demonstrates God's desire and provision for the forgiveness of us all. But for God to cancel the record of anyone's sin would mean He would also remove the sin from the heart of the individual, which God cannot do apart from our free choice. This is why, in the Old Testament ritual, sin was not forgiven till the sinner confessed his sin over the head of the sacrificial victim, after which the victim was slain and the blood taken into the sanctuary (Lev. 4,5). The same is true in the New Testament: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).
Romans 5:12-19, often used to prove that the whole world has already been justified at Calvary, does not in fact teach this. All this passage is teaching is that Adam led the world into sin, and Christ has offered to lead us out of it. All have chosen to follow Adam's example in sin (verse 12), but because of Calvary we have the possibility of "receiving abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness" (verse 17). This involves free choice. It is not something God has already accomplished, without our choice. Verse 19 is clear that the many being made righteous, promised in this passage as a result of Christ's obedience, is still in the future, not an accomplished fact of history.
Your reference to II Corinthians 5 also merits mention. Verse 19 does not say Christ has already reconciled the whole world to Himself. It uses the term "reconciling," which means it is a continuous process. This becomes clear when the verse goes on to say, "Not imputing their trespasses unto them." Elsewhere in the Bible it is clear this can only happen when the sinner confesses and forsakes sin. Psalm 32:2, quoted by Paul in his discussion of the imputation of righteousness in Romans 4:8, makes this clear: "Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." A guileless spirit, in other words, is God's condition for not imputing our iniquities to us. This obviously doesn't apply to the whole wicked world, though all through God's grace are invited to meet the prescribed conditions.
Paul's invitation in II Corinthians 5:20 to "be ye reconciled to God," makes it clear the process of reconciliation was not finished on the cross. This is identical language to what Paul states in Romans 5:10, when he says "we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." In other words, the "we" of Romans 5:10 is not a reference to all humanity, only to those—like Paul and his fellow laborers—who have availaed themselves of Calvary's conditions. Which is why in II Corinthians 5:20 he invites those who have not experienced this reconciliation to in fact do so. Colossians 1:20-23 likewise makes it clear that those who make peace through the blood of Jesus' cross and are reconciled to Him are those who were once alienated from Him by wicked works, and have now given up those works through convesion, repentance, and sanctification.
Romans 8:1 does not teach that the whole world is exempt from condemnation because of Calvary. The verse in fact says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Even if one doesn't have a King James Version, which includes the latter part of the sentence which other versions do not include, we have other Bible passages which make it clear what it means ot be "in Christ." This is not some forensic decree accomplished apart from transformation and obedience. Paul writes, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold all things are become new" (II Cor. 5:17). The apostle John makes the same statement regarding what "in Christ" means. He declares, "And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him" (I John 3:24). So the absence of condemantion, according to the New Testament, depends on the surrender and conquest of evil through the power of God's enabling grace.
To give people the "good news" that they are already saved because of Calvary, whether they like it or not, would be like me—as a single man—going to a single woman and announcing to her that she and I are already married, whether she likes it or not! Now she might be free to go down to the courthouse and file for divorce if she likes, but unless she does this—in the above scenario—I tell her she is legally my wife. "So," I might say, "Why not get your bags packed for the Caribbean and off we go?"
Somehow I don't think too many single women of my acquintance would respond with a heart overflowing with love upon hearing these "glad tidings"! More than likely, a couple men in blue would soon informi me of my right to remain silent!
A fascinating discussion. But I have found the Biblical evidence to quite clearly militate against the notion of unconditional forgiveness at the cross. Unconditional forgiveness and acceptance may dovetail well with postmodern notions of open-ended tolerance, but the Bible does not teach this. God still honors our free will in the saving process, and nothing in Scripture—including the ancient sanctuary service and its fulfillment in the death and mediation of Christ—suggests God can legally forgive anyone who has not confessed and relinquished sin. The cross does not annul free choice. It gives us the choice to be pardoned and to escape evil. But no actual pardon can exist unless the divinely-ordained conditions for receiving that pardon are met.
Elaine, no one believes only 144,000 will be saved! The 144,000 only refer to those translated to heaven at Jesus' coming without seeing death (Rev. 14:1-5). No one to my knowledge has ever taught, certainly not in Adventism, that only the 144,000—whether the number is literal or symbolic—constitute the totality of the saved of all ages.
But some do believe that is the total number of being saved since 1844, with there being a mini-special resurrection as possibly suggested in Dan 12:1-3, as well as noting Christ's comment that the High Priest will seen the Son of Man return. However, I personally believe the number wholly symbolic.
Steve, I too believe this number is wholly symbolic. Perhaps it will also include those raised in the special resurrection mentioned by Ellen White in GC 637. These are interesting points over which differences are possible without conflict. What matters to me is Ellen White's exhortation: "Let us strive with all the power that God has given us to be among the 144,000" (7BC 970). Literal or figurative, I just want to be one of them!
Kevin,
If you describe the 144,000 as the only "be translated" wihout seeing death, does that infer that all those who will be saved will die, leaving only 144,000 at the end? Will the millions of future inhabitants of heaven at the end, all suddenly die, leaving a paltry 144,000?
Please explain how this would be. Also, when are numbers, especially in predictive prophecy, to be taken as symbolic and when as literal?
Dear Elaine:
All we know from Scripture is that the 144,000 are those who will be "redeemed from the earth" at the second coming of Christ (Rev. 14:3-5). The resurrected multitudes are a separate group. I believe the evidence of Scripture is that the 144,000 is symbolic, simply because the tribes of Israel in the same context are also symbolic. Israel in the New Testament is now comprised of those who follow Christ and are thus "heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). So it makes sense, at least from my perspective, to believe that if the tribes in Revelation 7 are symbolic, the numbers are as well.
It is the immediate context and the overall Biblical consensus which enables us to define the difference between literal and symbolic meaning. Both types of prophecy can be found in Scripture. Context and the inspired consensus enable us to tell the difference.
Can you explain "inspired consensus"? How does someone determine inspiration?
When, in such symbolic language as John uses, can it be absolutely determined when something is symbolic and when literal? Is the "firey lake" symbolic or literal? Are the thousand years of Satan's captivity days or years? How much of apocalyptic literature can be determined literally? There have been so many intepretations of Revelations since it was written that who can dare to be assured which one is right? Is that where "inspired consensus" makes such determinations? Which comes first: determining who is in the "inspired consensus" group, and then, is their determination the one and only correct one?
Dear Elaine:
I doubt, from all I have read of your posts in the past few years, that you and I would agree on what is and is not inspired. I happen to take the 66 books of the Bible as inspired, and the writings of Ellen White as well. The former is the foundation, the latter elaboration.
Because I believe the Bible to be its own interpreter, that is the basis on which I approach the symbols of the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation. Some symbols are explained quite openly, such as the great red dragon representing Satan (Rev. 12:8; 20:2), or the ram and he-goat of Daniel 8 representing Medo-Persia and Greece (Dan. 8:20,21) Other symbols require a bit more checking. When, for example, I see two women in Revelation—one dressed in white, the other in scarlet—one must look at other Bible passages which define what a woman repreesents (e.g. Isa. 1:21; Jer. 6:2), and what the colors white and scarlet also represent (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 19:8).
You ask about the lake of fire, whether it is symbolic or literal. Since elsewhere in the Bible, in very non-symbolic passages, this fire that destroys the wicked at the end of time is described as something quite literal (e.g. Mal. 4:1,3; Matt. 3:12; 13:41-42,49-50; Jude 7), it is difficult to read the references to the lake of fire in Revelation as something metaphorical. Especially is this true with Jesus' explanation of His parables in Matthew 13, in which He is asked by His disciples to explain the symbols of the parables. His interpretation of these parabolic symbols includes the fire that will destroy the wicked at the end (Matt. 13:41-42,49-50). It wouldn't make much sense for Him to explain one symbol with another symbol, especially since what He says about all the other symbols sounds very literal.
It helps to remember that for most of Christian history, arguments about theology and behavior have had much less to do with quarrels over the meaning of Bible texts than over efforts to mingle the teachings of these texts with the premises of various cultures and the traditions of various groups. The fact that Roman Catholicism, for example, frankly acknowledges that such teachings as the change of the Sabbath and clerical celibacy have their basis in tradition and not Scripture, offers evidence that Biblical teachings taken by themselves gravitate clearly in one direction as opposed to another. Former Catholic priest James Carroll, in his 2001 book Constantine's Sword (on the history of the church's relationship with Judaism), candidly notes that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is "a Greek idea foreign to the Biblical tradition" (p. 118).
None can argue that legitimate disputes exist regarding some of the prophetic symbols. The literal-versus-figurative debate regarding the 144,000 is one such example. But this doesn't mean other symbols cannot be understood clearly, in the light of what Scripture says as well as the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy.
One additional point, Elaine:
Speaking as a lifelong Adventist who has been immersed from birth in the culture and teachings of the church, who in later life saw family members leave the denomination, and who has read uncounted testimonies by former Adventists, I'm not sure I know of a single documented case of a person's spiritual journey away from Adventism getting started through frustration over the meaning of Biblical prophetic symbols. In all candor, I'm not sure I know of anyone whose departure from the church began with truly unresolvable doubt over the ability of Scripture to explain itself in the manner held to be true by classic Adventism.
In nearly every case of people leaving the church with which I am familiar, including those I know best, the pilgrimage away from Adventism began, not with unresolved conflict in someone's mind over the credibility of Biblical support for the church's teachings, but rather, with unresolved conflicts in one's personal experience over the moral and spiritual demands of the Adventist faith—such conflict often resulting less over the precise teachings of Scripture or Ellen White than with the attempt to blend these teachings with cultural hang-ups, social taboos, and even more the intemperate exercise of authority by persons applying these teachings to those under their jurisdiction. In most of the experiences I have observed and/or read about, it is usually a bouquet of unsettled personal issues and life traumas—often dramatic ones such as marital failure, bad personal choices, the inability to wisely choose one's battles (particularly with chilren), and unexpected tragedies—which leave such persons vulnerable to major changes in their spiritual paradigm to which they would not otherwise have been open. Once these negative circumstances leave such a one vulnerable and a new spiritual paradigm is introduced, it is then that alleged faults—Biblical and otherwise— begin to be discovered in the church's doctrinal structure and moral imperatives.
Perhaps cases can be found when the reverse order has been true, but by far the majority of departure incidents familiar to me fit the above model. It is one among a variety of reasons why the doubts commonly raised concerning key Adventist doctrines and standards fail to persuade me, as these doubts tend to arise—usually by their own admission—more from an experiential matrix than from a clean-hands study of the inspired documents.
That was as an accurate, balanced, and comprehensive assessment of admittedly anecdotal information, Kevin.
I seriously doubt that most people who have had a long association with SDAs will disagree; though some may wish to ‘just because.’ In other words, they know what you’re saying is true; but they may not want to readily admit it.
Kevin,
Like you, I grew up in the church and my observations about why people leave the church have been very similar. Though in recent years my conclusions about the cause factors have changed a bit. I now attribute those departures primarily to one outstanding factor: hypocrisy seen in the great contrast between the teachings about the power of God and the absence of that power seen in so many churches. People attend church to connect with God and when they don't find any power to connect with and energize them, they leave.
Kevin, et al,
You say, I'm not sure I know of a single documented case of a person's spiritual journey away from Adventism getting started through frustration over the meaning of Biblical prophetic symbols.
Well brother, you do now. I was born and raised in Adventism, I have a degree in Adventist theology from Avondale, I served as a minister in several churches until early 1981 when the post-Glacier View hubris of the administrators saw them return to Australia intent to 'weed out' Ford sympathisers. I accepted their invitation to seek other emplyoment because I could no longer reconcile my increasing understanding of a consistent interpretation of the prophetic symbols, especially in Revelation, with the standard SDA teaching.
And I thank God He led me out! My spiritual experience since then has grown beyond imagining. He has given me insight into the 'mystery' of Christ far more than possible had I remained within the literalistic confines of accepted Adventism.
I challenge you all to do one thing: Read slowly and carefully through the book of Revelation. Decide what you find to be best understood as symbol, or as 'literal.' Then write down the principle by which you differentiated. God bless.
Kevin,
Here is another lifelong Adventist who made the decision to rescind membership because not only did the SDA interpretation of prophecy make sense to me, but many of the other SDA doctrines. Once I realized that I could not accept them, there was no reason to be labeled an Adventist. Never have I regretted that decision. In fact, increasingly, it has proved to be one of the best and most important decisions of my life.
In truth, there are as many reasons for leaving as there are people who have left. Why not ask them instead of speculating and assuming all the wrong reasons? It's so easy to cast blame but not take the time to LISTEN.
I knew Kevin's parents nearly 30 years ago and know quite well why they left. But it was surely not any one reason that can be given but many. Sadly, many have left and will continue to leave when faced with the arbitrary and perfectionism that is expressed by pastors here. How can one be an effective minister to people, perhaps questioning why they should be or continue as Adventists when the severity of expectations is most often preached. Correct doctrine never saved anyone, but love can win.
Why is so important than members all believe exactly the same? There are many, even ministers when asked, that they could not, in all honesty, swear to believe all the 28FBs as written.
Elaine, i agree. Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Love is the answer. Pure unadulterated Christlike love.
28 FB'S, some of which refuse entry into the inner circle of exclusivity of SD Adventism. And if need be, cast out some of those already on the inside, because of the need to preserve the purity of the club of SDA correctness.
"We are the Remnant". No sinners here please, we are perfect, we work hard every day to keep the Commandments, even though they condemn us. The NEW COVENANT, what's that?
The OT first covenant is good. Accept our terms or be ye removed from the Body of Christ. We have
spoken. We'll just shake the dust off as you leave.
Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the KINGDOM OF GOD. LOVE LIFTED ME, when nothing else would, LOVE LIFTED ME. COME, COME ONE AND ALL, COME YE BLESSED OF MY FATHER,INHERIT THE KINGDOM PREPARED FORYOU FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. COME
The big problem with those who focus on help for the hurting and the needy while simultaneously devaluing the importance of sound doctrine, is that without sound doctrine, even the best altruism will cease to be fashionable once culture and society get tired of being unselfish. If a transcendent authority is not the foundation for all our conduct, including how we care for the least of our Lord's brethren, it will simply be another cultural or religious fad, which in time will fall by the wayside in the inexorable course of unavoidable change.
I fully believe the church has failed at times to show true love to the erring. I have seen it. (And by the way, "Love Lifted Me" has always been one of my favorite hymns.) But open-ended acceptance of any and all beliefs and lifestyle choices will not satisfy the heart, as such an approach only unfetters the proclivities of the unconverted self. The history of those Christian denominations that have exalted some amorphous understanding of "love" at the expense of Biblical clarity regarding faith and practice, have long been in decline for this very reason. Once the church makes itself indistinguishable from the world, the world quickly loses interest.
This notion of the all-inclusive, pluralistic Jesus is one I have the hardest time finding in Scripture. It was Jesus who told the rich young ruler that Spirit-empowered commandment-keeping was the condition of salvation (Matt. 19:16-26). It would be hard to interpret Jesus' answer to this young man's question regarding the conditions of eternal life as anything today's church growth "experts" would describe as "user-friendly." And as I've noted on other threads on this site, it was Jesus who declared in His Sermon on the Mount, "Narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:14).
kevin. Not suggesting that one not recognize sound doctrine. Jesus, in saying to a sinner "go and sin no
more", that is the message to all sinners. The Bible is not of private interpretation, so there should be
space for all in the BODY of CHRIST, as most of us interpret parts of the Bible differently. We are each responsible for our Faith in Jesus. The SDA Church, being the "remnant", if it is, can't save a single soul. The GC does not have a sole hold on the Holy Spirit. He abides with every soul that invites Him in. i submit that many who leave the church do so because of the holier than thou condescending attitudes of some of the church top leaders, yes men, and some pastors. The lack of business acumen and refusal to accept sound advice by knowledgeable stewards. Of chicanary in high places, that lose many millions of $$ through fraud & ignorance. And when caught, instead of being removed from leadership, are transferred to another office where sometimes the bad business is repeated.
By not loving people to the church you put up 28 beliefs some of which, without indocrination, scare
off potential new comers, as well as cause many young people and older members head for the doors.
And the prevailing attitude? good, we knew the "shaking" was coming. If you take 8000-9000 words to state a reason to justify just one belief, you've lost the prospect.
Just tell them they are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ; their Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, Saviour, Lord. That the sinner has the abiding Holy Spirit to lead them to repentance, knowledge, understanding, truth & wisdom, and to the eternal inheritance. And please, let there be some tolerance to those who have some differences in interpretations, otherwise the church in North America will continue to lose many souls that God loves.
Agree Earl, except for the last part. The church will lose them, but they will not be lost to God. 'My sheep hear My voice.'
Yes, Serge, that is my belief. Never lost to the Shepard, but to SDA membership.
As I see it the exegesis offered by Paulson is tenable while the big tent theory by which all can bask in their sins and still be saved is fallacious. One *must* accept God's saving grace once he is aware of it. That is something we must do and is reprehensible to the big tenters since we must do something.
Maranatha
It would be interesting to know reliably why people leave the church. How much is because of disagreement with doctrine; how much because of indifference; how much because of the alleged chicanery of the leaders; how much because of lack of friendliness, etc.
I can only surmise that too many fall out because of lack of friendliness. One can move to another area and be welcomed into the church but when he leaves the church building he is essentially alone. As I see it that is much too prevalent.
All our alms are as nothing, I believe, if we forsake those who are of the houshold of faith.
Maranatha
Some of the loneliness is because the church has long taught that members should not associate with "outsiders" and those who were born into the church (the largest majority here in the U.S.) have never really had friends who were not also Adventists. When they leave, for whatever reason, they are often
rejected by their former SDA "friends" who also were taught to have only SDA friends. It becomes a vicious circle.
How can an SDA born into the church, educated K-12 or 16 years only in SDA schools, ever have good non-SDA friends when most people form lifelong friendships in school, especially high school and college? Isolation breeds rejection of "others" who are only to be saved and converted before becoming acceptable friends. This becomes a Mobius strip; very difficult to break away.
Into what kind of Adventism did you grow up in the '30’s and '40’s? We were taught to befriend, and be friendly to, people who are not SDA.
I didn’t go to SDA schools until 10th grade, but I’ve never heard anyone, ever, teach that we should not associate with ‘outsiders;’” and I’m ‘fourth generation’ on one side and ‘third’ on the other. (Until academy, practically the only Adventist kids I played with were at summer camp.)
I’m curious, have other white Adventists been taught the same thing that Elaine was?
I can only relate my personal experience. You say you didn't have the background of elementary SDA education, and undoubtedly must have had friends from your non-SDA school. I recall in the many churches I've attended that the children who did not attend church school were never fully integrated with the other kids of their age–probably because either one never got acquainted. Children are not good at learning how to make friends until they are older.
I fully appreciate the reality that you can only relate your personal experience Elaine. I just wish you would preface or temper some of your remarks with the disclaimer that they only reflect your personal experience and not what “Adventists are taught.”
Elaine, many of those here on this blog, find friendship & pleasure of association, so also many of the young people who left, are communicating with their friends who also left. Thats true with one of my daughters.
Both my daughters have many non-SDA friends, as well as classmates from years gone by. My son's friends are nearly all from his former classmates. Girls are often more sociable at making new friends, perhaps.
Elaine,
While it is surely a distinction worth making, taking a step to acknowledge you do not subscribe to beliefs held in common by some in the Seventh-day Adventist church, you remain solidly and growing ever more so, a Seventh-day Adventist. As your grand parents used to say, you can take the boy out of the farm, but you can't take the farm out of the boy. It is great being a Seventh-day Adventist with you!
Kevin,
Doctrine has impounded your heart, it seems. It is not easy being as stark raving brilliant as you are, though this has been from time to time a blessing for me, for which I send my thanks. Seriously.
As the saying goes, Theology is the enterprise of explaining one's faith. I take it that faith preceeds theology. It seems to for me, too. For everyone, actually. Even if we come to dabble in theology we all let go of theology as we pull the covers up at night and live by faith. And if we are truley blessed, when the morning comes, we lay aside the scripture and live the whole day by faith. And it is the sharing of one's faith with regard to God's love by personal testimony of God's love for one that God loves the one who hears the testimony.
There is no pamphlet, no sermon, not treatis, not church vote, no church membership that can possible play any role in God loving one, because God loves one only through another one. I realize I have engaged my imagination here.
I'm not aware of where doctrine fits into this exchange.
Doctrine is a figment of a religion. Religion, I think you'll likely agree, has over the centures been proven to be incapable of being a channel of God's love. That is reserved for you and for me, as persons loved by God.
There has never yet been a theologian who can explain or "give" someone faith. Theologians dissect and analyze doctrines, but they really have no place in establishing faith, only to give encouragement of having the right doctrine for those that need that asurance. But it plays no part in faith.
“We, as Christians, have a lot of difficulty believing the fact,
(1) That we are loved unconditionally by God,
(2) That we are accepted exactly as we are, and
(3) Have already been forgiven by God for any sins we have committed, are committing, or will commit. Believing these three things – three things that are the essence of the Gospel – is essential if we are to have peace with God, assurance of our salvation, assurance of His favor, and power in our lives.”
Actually it is very easy to believe that and the parable of the prodigal son should be changed to “ … when the father searched and found his departed son in the arms of harlots, he embraced him and together with an entourage of servants bestowed upon him the prepared fatted calf, fine linens and a pot of gold. And he left his son with the admonition, ‘no need to come back to me, I will come to you to fulfill your every need and wishes for I will always accept you the way you are.’ ”
Even Santa Claus requires good behavior but the father surpasses even Santa Claus. It surely was reassuring love.
“We, as Christians, have a lot of difficulty believing the fact,
(1) That we are loved unconditionally by God,
(2) That we are accepted exactly as we are, and
(3) Have already been forgiven by God for any sins we have committed, are committing, or will commit. Believing these three things – three things that are the essence of the Gospel – is essential if we are to have peace with God, assurance of our salvation, assurance of His favor, and power in our lives.”
Actually it is very easy to believe that and the parable of the prodigal son should be changed to “ … when the father searched and found his departed son in the arms of harlots, he embraced him and together with an entourage of servants bestowed upon him the prepared fatted calf, fine linens and a pot of gold. And he left his son with the admonition, ‘no need to come back to me, I will come to you to fulfill your every need and wishes for I will always accept you the way you are.’ ”
Even Santa Claus requires good behavior but the father surpasses even Santa Claus. It surely was reassuring love.
Philip,
Your story is straight from the NT, which is my premise: this NT parable, told by Jesus, describes a love that is quite foreign in much of the OT. This is why it is difficult for many to believe God is love from reading the OT. God is presented far differently than Jesus, yet the Trinitarian doctrine states that they are One. With two distinctly different personalities?
A reader of the Torah cannot see someone like Jesus in those books; which is why the Jews were totally incapable of believing that Jesus was God's representative. But then it was much later that the merging of God and Jesus became a doctrine constructed by man.
"Jesus loves me" is the song; not "God loves me," that children sing. They must be older before explaining the incongruous theory that they are one and the same, only by contrived explanations that are totally irrational.
Jesus and God are the same because Jesus is God. The difference between justice and mercy is a balance that is in God as well as in us. God has a moral compulsion for true justice and a moral compulsion for true love. In fact you can not have one without the other. I am quoting myself from another blog. We, as well as God attempt to strike the correct balance–"Mercy and truth are met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Ps. 85:10
The Gospel Story illustrates this on a personal and cosmic level–The Father The Justice and The Son The Mercy. But ontologically we must remember they are the same Being. (Phil 2 and Heb 1 )
The Cross is the solution for the resolution of the two moral imperitives. Could The God of Love, who is Love not punish evil? He must! Could God also Save at the same time? He Must! How to be Just and to Justify, that is the question.
Paul explains the event of the Cross as "showing God's righteousness at this present time, that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:26
But when did Jesus become God? The apostles never addressed him as God, nor did the NT writers.
Why did Jesus pray to God as his father? It is a Christian belief without scriptural explanation as Jesus is always referred to as the "Son" or "God's Son" and "the Father is greater than the Son." There would be no reason to refer to Jesus as ths Son, if he were God the Father?
The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the Bible. Which is why it was argued for hundreds of years before being finally adopted by the Bishops.