| Author | Message | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 127 Registered: 4-2005 |
I met someone who doesn't believe that Christ needed to have died to save us. I had not talked to anyone who believed that before--help--I am not sure what their reasoning is--I had to leave before we really finished the conversation--it is to be continued. Any suggestions welcome!! I know it is busy now later is fine, but I do need help. Thanks, Peggy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4982 Registered: 12-2003  |
Peggy, there is a school of thought within Adventism and also among some others that says this: God is forgiving because He is a forgiving God. He didn't need Jesus to die in order to forgive us; He allowed Him to die in order to let us see how much He loved us and to show us what sin we were capable of committing. Jesus' death, in this school of thought, is an example, not a substitute. The problem, however, is that the Bible is clear that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Heberws 9:22). The belief that Jesus didn't have to die is heresy. Further, Jesus' death was the plan of the Triune God before the creation of the world. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. Many people don't like the blood, however, because it makes them feel "beholden" and guilty. In fact, without Jesus' blood they ARE guiltyóbut accepting Jesus' blood means giving up the thought that one can work out one's own salvation. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 138 Registered: 9-2006 |
I believe this is termed the ěmoral example theoryî. Belief: Christ came to show people how to live so that they would turn to him in love. His death was not required and has no atoning value. It serves only as a moral example for people to follow. Adherents: Abelard (1079-1142) Liberals. An alternate name for it is: Exemplarism , subjective view. I suspect most Adventist hold to this view although it might be hard to pin them down in a theological debate, they would just jump too EGW and of course in doing so, abandons Gods word for mans word. Their main points: 1. God does not need to be satisfied. 2. God does not need a sacrifice in order to forgive. 3. The greatest virtue is one who forgives without any basis except love. 4. Man needs to recognize Gods love for him and turn to him. 5. The cross demonstrates this love more that anything else. This theory undermines the seriousness of sin and negates Gods absolute righteousness and justice. Colleen is absolutely right, it is a heresy. The absolute necessity of Christ death on the cross is the King pin on which our theology stands or falls. Listen to our Lord as he prays (Mat 26:39 KJV) And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. But it was not possible, there was no other way and so we again behold our Jesus, the lamb without spot or blemish as Gods wrath is poured out on him because of our sin and again I stand in awe and with deep gratitude too the risen savior this morning. He paid a debt he did now owe; I owed a debt I could not pay. Praise the Lamb of God. Forgive me for preaching but if I did not I would probably blow up like a frog in a huffing contest and since my desk is horse shoe shaped I might get stuck in it and my wife would have to come in and let the air out. River | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 129 Registered: 4-2005 |
Thank you, Colleen and River for the explanations. River i am glad you "preached" your message--it is heresy and I pray the Holy Spirit will give me the words I need to say when we meet again. Some times people latch onto a "theory" and feel so strongly about it it doesn't seem to matter what the Bible teaches. Again my thanks. Peggy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2308 Registered: 3-2005 |
Actually, it is the cult of AG Maxwell that got this kind of theology going in Adventism. They pick and choose elements of Ellen that they believe teaches it and then they ignore passages where Ellen White clearly teaches substitution. They also don't believe in any literal lake of fire, and there is a forum dedicated to this theology which I post on occasionally www.heavenlysanctuary.com and they got really upset with me when I showed them the quote from Great Controversy where Ellen White teaches literal suffering in a literal lake of fire. They totally deny that of Ellen White they don't like, and pick and choose what they do, but if someone tries to attack Ellen White in any way, then you are treated in a very unfriendly way. But this theology of subjective atonement is not unique to Adventism. It is gaining more widespread acceptance even in evangelical circles. There was a story about inventing God in your own image posted on the locked thread about Bart Campolo. These liberal views of God we are seeing spreading today comes from the Socinian heresy as well, and some of these folks say that the death of Christ as taught by us traditionalists is cosmic child abuse--John Piper did a great story on this and I will have to find it. RC Sproul has also addressed this at the recent Ligonier's convention that some of us on here attended. Desmond Ford fought hard against Maxwell's false atonement theory. But the irony is that Ford is the orthodox theologian who got kicked out of the ministry, whereas Maxwell, Provonsha, Dan Smith, and many others are allowed to perpetuate these heretical liberal doctrines that are being taught across the land at liberal theological seminaries. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4983 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great point, Stan, about Ford being silenced while the purveyors of the heretical Moral Influence theory are allowed to continue. It shows the truth about the essence of Adentism. Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4988 Registered: 12-2003 |
By the way, the idea that Jesus did not have to be crucified actually comes from Ellen White within Adventism. I cannot find the exact quote right nowóJeremy or someone else?óbut she said in the Desire of Ages, I believe, that Jesus could have died in Gethsemane and would not have had to go to the cross. Further, she says that after his ordeal praying in Gethsemane, "The storm had in nowise abated, but He who was its object was strengthened to meet its fury. He came forth calm and serene. A heavenly peace rested upon His bloodstained face. He had borne that which no human being could ever bear; for He had tasted the sufferings of death for every man." (DA 694, par 1) Jesus did not bear the sins of humanity and taste death for every man in Gethsemane. Nothing could have replaced the cross. The idea that God could or would have forgiven mankind apart from the cross is completely unbiblical. In fact, the OT foretold that Jesus would die on the cross. For example, when the bronze snake was lifted up in the wilderness when Israel was attacked by vipers, that snake represented Jesus becoming a curse and becoming our sin. Those Israelites merely had to look at that serpent, and they were healed. Jesus said that when He would be lifted up He would draw all men to Himself. Ellen's commentary on Jesus' suffering and death is full of implications and statements that deny Scripture. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 572 Registered: 10-2002  |
An interesting side note was something that I read about the Greek word Jesus spoke in the garden when He said something like, "I am exceedingly sorrowful, even to the point of death." Essentially, the word "death" isn't the word for natural death, but rather for punishment death. The commentator believed that it was here that Christ's suffering truly began in earnest, when His sweat was like (or was) drops of blood. Here, the commentator believed, Christ's anguish increased manifold as He began to take the weight of our sins on Himself. The commentator, however, did not say the cross was unnecessary. That really is a wild notion out of the blue.  | ||
| Cforrester Registered user Username: Cforrester Post Number: 35 Registered: 7-2004 |
The Moral Influence Theory has gained a foothold among the more "mainstream" Adventists. Historic Adventists associate it with the Omega of apostasy (along with everything else they don't like) and tend to link it with Graham Maxwell, Loma Linda, Andrews. Stan, your observation on who remains influential in Adventism is keen. I've always said you can believe all sorts of heresy as long as you don't upset the Adventist apple cart. Here are some more links: http://www.soundofgrace.com/apr98/page6.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Moral_influence_view) http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2323 Registered: 3-2005 |
Cforrester, Thanks for your valuable contribution of those links above. www.soundofgrace.com is my favorite link on New Covenant theology, as John Reisinger is right on with regard to the Sabbath, Reformed theology, and is clearly not antinomian the way he presents New Covenant Theology. Reisinger also has valuable contributions on much else. That moral influence theory article is also excellent, so again a hearty endorsement of the sound of grace website. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 647 Registered: 7-2004  |
It isn't surprising the cross is absent from nearly every SDA sanctuary, stained glass and church exterior. It is basically absent from SDA theology. Based on the symbology found in SDA churches one would almost have to conclude that they worshipped angels (three to be exact). | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 582 Registered: 10-2002 |
Ric, that is interesting! The most striking thing I noticed in Adventist stained glass was at Central SDA in Phoenix -- the Ten Commandments. I've heard Camelback has the same. At most Christian churches you'll find the cross, or the dove of the Holy Spirit. At Catholic churches, Mary, Christ, the crucifixion or nativity. But what is the thing Adventism puts front and center, showing that it is the thing most held dear? | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 325 Registered: 6-2006  |
Ric and Ramone, that's so interesting! Just last week my pastor mentioned that at church Sunday. He studies Mormonism and JW's and said that most cults don't put the cross up in their churches because they don't "need it". The Mormon's have their statue of Moroni, and I've seen three angels statues outside of the SDA southeastern conference building in Riverside, CA. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 183 Registered: 7-2005  |
Peggy, the way I would answer you friend would go something like this: God is the perfect balance between justice and mercy. If He were not just, we could criticize him for not punishing sin. But He does demand justice and punishment for sin. We are grateful that He does, especially when we think of the Hitlers, the Husseins, and the child abusers in this world. However, God is also merciful. If He were not merciful, we could criticize Him for being too harsh and not taking into account whatever factors may have caused someone to sin. We are grateful that He is merciful, especially when we think of all the times we have treated others unkindly or have broken the law. The only way God could perfectly balance these two attributes...justice and mercy...was to be the One who administers the justice, but ALSO be the One who administers the mercy. The death of Christ on the cross is the perfect resolution of the tension between God's justice and His mercy. God is BOTH perfectly just and perfectly merciful...in CHRIST. Honestwitness | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 708 Registered: 8-2004  |
 About the crosses thing, in the Adventist world I grew up in (mostly in the South East US) I was taught that crosses were pagan symbols of torture and therefore should not be used in churches because we might be tempted to worship the cross instead of the Savior who had been hung on the cross. . . and that besides that it was Catholic. This was also the reason given me against 'cross' jewelry when as a small child I suggested that at least crosses might be appropriate to wear for Christians. Blessings, Mary | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 336 Registered: 4-2006  |
Ric_b, I laughed while reading your article, its tragic comic though. | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 130 Registered: 4-2005 |
Honest Witness: Thanks for the suggestions. I didn't get very far with justice and mercy in our earlier discussion--it is pretty much all mercy--to my firend. I need to find out where she stands on the Bible--she hasn't really given any Bible verses to explain her belief--only what she believes. She did work and has a masters from Loma Linda--so I suspect she took pretty seriously the Bible teaching there. She had not been exposed to much religion at all before that- I'll know more after our next visit. I talked her into going to BSF and studying Romans, and she sailed through the first part about Gods wrath without blinking an eye--but apparently she doesn't believe any of it! I'll know more after our visit Monday night. Peggy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1623 Registered: 10-2004  |
Colleen, I don't know if I'd heard about that Gethsemane stuff that EGW wrote. That sounds like the Mormon teaching that part of the atonement occurred in Gethsemane (of course, we know that SDA theology has the atonement after the Cross!). EGW did say that Jesus did not need to die at all. In fact, historical Adventism taught that there was no atonement on the Cross (including Uriah Smith's book which EGW said that an angel guided his hand when he wrote it). So "liberal Adventism" is basically just historical Adventism. Here are a couple of quotes from EGW herself, saying that Christ did not need to die:
Jeremy | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 188 Registered: 7-2005 |
Jeremy quotes EGW: "He lived in obedience to God, that not only by word of mouth, but by His every action, He might honor the law. By so doing, He not only declared that we ought to obey, but showed us how to obey." My response: What intrigues me is that Jesus repeatedly disobeyed the Sabbath commandment. Thanks to my reading of Ratzlaff's "Sabbath in Christ," I now understand why He did this. It was to wrench the Jew's focus from the law and get it onto Himself as the Messiah. One might say his strategy backfired, but actually it didn't. In the book of Numbers, just after the Israelites had been told about the Sabbath law, the man was found picking up sticks on the Sabbath day and was sentenced to death. Why was the death penalty administered for such a seemingly minor infraction? I believe God orchestrated that entire sequence of events and ordered that extreme penalty, because He foreknew that one day His Son would be found "guilty" of an equivalent infraction (John 5) and be put to death for it. This understanding of the purpose of Sabbath law completely wipes away all thought from my mind that Christ came to set an example for us as to how we should obey the law. His intention, from the foundation of the world, was to FULFILL the law and be the propitiation for our sins. I love Him ever so much more when I look at Him as my Savior, rather than as my example. Honestwitness | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 189 Registered: 7-2005 |
One more strong refutation of the idea the Christ need not have died is this quote from Hebrews 9:16-17... "For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. "For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." Honestwitness | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 340 Registered: 4-2006 |
"In the book of Numbers, just after the Israelites had been told about the Sabbath law, the man was found picking up sticks on the Sabbath day and was sentenced to death. Why was the death penalty administered for such a seemingly minor infraction? I believe God orchestrated that entire sequence of events and ordered that extreme penalty, because He foreknew that one day His Son would be found "guilty" of an equivalent infraction (John 5) and be put to death for it." Honestwitness Interesting, very interesting. In Christ |
