| THE DENIAL OF JUSTICE
"Justice and mercy are the foundation of the law and government of God" (GC 503). Since Satan declared that mercy destroyed justice (DA 762), it should not be surprising to find the denial of justice as the central pin in popular theories of the atonement. We investigate these theories.
"A formidable attack was made on the doctrine of the Reformers by Socinus. He began with an attempt to remove the very foundation on which it was based, namely, the idea of justice in God as understood by Anselm and the Reformers. He denied the presence of any such justice in God 'as requires absolutely and inexorably that sin be punished.' "...He also holds that, since guilt is personal, substitution in penal matters is impossible; and that, even if it were allowable, it cannot be said that Christ bore the exact penalty of the law, since this would mean that He died as many eternal deaths as there are sinners. And yet He did not even suffer one endless death... "Socinus never tires of saying that the forgiveness of sins is an act of pure mercy, simply on the basis of repentance and obedience. The only conditions are sorrow for sin and an earnest desire to obey the law. ...This theory establishes no direct connection between the death of Christ and the salvation of sinners. The death of Christ did not atone for our sin. ...The forgiveness of sins depends exclusively on the mercy of God. But because Christ received the power to bestow eternal life on believers immediately after His death, Socinus considers it possible to maintain that this death expiated our sins" [0].
"The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the avenger of justice, which is the habitation and foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law, He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude and justice and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen." 7BC 951.
"God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made. Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint." 1BC 1082.
If God pardoned sin without satisfaction being made to the moral principles of divine justice, it would mean that the violation of His law was no evil, seeing that sin could easily be passed over. If God had failed to pass a righteous judgment on sin, would not God's creatures conclude that God approved of sin or made unreasonable demands? [1]. The Socinian doctrine is really nothing but a concoction of several heresies condemned by the early Church: a revival of ancient Pelagianism with its belief in the inherent goodness and spiritual ability of man, among other heresies, and the "moral influence theory of the atonement" with its emphasis on the exemplary life of Christ. It is thoroughly rationalistic, a mere abstract play of human logic that fails altogether to do justice to the facts revealed in the Word of God and to that which is experienced in the lives of the redeemed [2].
"The moral influence theory (m.i.th) has its roots in the teaching of Abelard (d. 1142), one of the keenest medieval minds. According to this view, the purpose of Christ's death was in no way a substitution to meet the proper demands of a righteous God for judgment on sin but solely a demonstration to provide such a moving expression of God's love that it would melt the sinner's enmity against God, awaken responsive love in his heart, promote true repentance, and thus pave the way for forgiveness of sin. Reconciliation, in this theory, means only the setting aside of man's hostility toward God" [3]. Hereafter, we repeatedly use the abbreviation "m.i.th" for "moral influence theory". I pronounce it 'myth' for short. A-m.i.th stands for "Adventist m.i.th." I denounce it as 'A-myth.'
How was God's love displayed in the supreme and overpowering agonies of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane and in the awful and unspeakable horrors of the crucifixion? Let me ask again. Exactly how was the love of God demonstrated in Christ suffering inexpressible anguish and piercing agony on a cross, in keenly sensing God's own displeasure, in bearing insulting derision and vulgar mockery, in feeling the withdrawal of the divine presence, in overwhelming despair pressing its crushing weight of darkness upon the sinless Son of God, in the complete separation from His loving Father an experience so terrible that it forced from His pale and quivering lips the bitter cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34, Ps 22:1). Please read 2T pp. 200-215 and DA pp. 685-697, 741-757. The crucifixion satisfied the depraved hearts of the terribly wicked but why is love kindled in your heart as you fathom the event? If a moving demonstration of God's love was all that was needed to save mankind in this "demonstration only theology", would it not have been more productive if Christ had simply come to earth, continued to live all these long millenniums, loving, healing, and performing miracles in all the nations of the world, rather than ending His brief stay on earth on a cross? Christ pleaded for an option other than death! (Mark 14:33-36). Why did the Father not grant His Son's thrice-repeated request? A demonstration can benefit only those who have lived this side of the cross. What about all those who lived and died before Christ's first advent? If there was sufficient faith in God for salvation before the cross, why the necessity for Christ to suffer needlessly in some obscure demonstration later on? Knowing that sin would arise in His universe, and being fully aware of all its horrible consequences, why then didn't God simply demonstrate His love in the death of His Son before the fall? If God failed to exhibit His love as a safeguard against sin at the opportune time, then how loving can God really be? If Christ could have affirmed that His convictions against sin were true by deliberately ending His own life, why then did He not do so before things got out of control? If it was impossible for a revelation of God's love to save the universe from sin before the fall, by moral influence, why is it possible now? If there was insufficient evidence of God's love or an insufficient understanding of sin before the fall, why then is God not responsible for sin?
The m.i.th supposes that Christ saves us by revealing the love of God AS IF THE PROBLEM WITH THE HUMAN RACE IS IGNORANCE AND NOT GUILT. Christ does not save us by revealing God's love. It goes the other way around. Christ reveals God's love BY SAVING US! "God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Ro 5:8). "...God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ" (Eph 2:4,5). "God is love; and His love was disclosed to us in this, that He sent His one and only Son into the world that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:9,10). "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn 3:16).
In recent years, m.i.th has been relabeled and somewhat embellished by a small number of well meaning Seventh-day Adventists. They take strong exception to their "healing trust model" of the plan of salvation being classified as m.i.th saying their view of the atonement is much larger in scope. This is correct. In Adventist-m.i.th, much more knowledge is revealed about God in Christ's death. Even the size of the audience that is being morally influenced is greater: It includes heavenly beings. It is still a "demonstration only theology." Those who proclaim "the larger view" do not easily recognize the striking similarity to Abelard's m.i.th. And even fewer are aware that their criticisms of the substitutionary nature of the Atonement are, word for word, those of Socinus. Why then do the more knowledgeable expositors of the larger myth give no credit to the originators of the basic theory? The evidence suggests a simple answer: They think they are light-years beyond the original m.i.th. This is very likely correct. After all, they are ever explaining why most of Scripture is primitive theology and are ever reinterpreting the prophetic insights of Ellen G. White so as to develop a more consistent theory. So the "healing model", advanced as it is because it does not condescend to simple minds, has very ancient roots: Whenever proponents of the theory read something in the Bible they don't like, they simply dismiss it by saying, "this is God speaking to men on their own primitive level." When the writings of Ellen White conflict with their view, the answer is, (as one highly respected semi-Socinian moral influence theorist put it): "this is where Ellen White was struggling with traditional thought." In purposely discarding all Ellen White statements that support the Biblical view of reconciliation, imputation, justification, and vicarious substitution, they make their bias fully known. It is all too clear that the main task of this group is to judge which concepts are primitive and which are lofty and closer to real truth. Reason alone is their all sufficient guide. The "healing trust model" is rightfully called m.i.th: Key similarities to the standard m.i.th are retained: (a) Sin is rebellion against a grossly misapprehended God but the cross reveals God's love and trustworthiness so as to remove from man's heart the enmity which motivates that rebellion. (b) The declaration that God somehow dealt with the sin of the world at the cross, that the proper demands of a righteous God was satisfied by Christ's death, and that mercy and justice came together then, is a primitive view of God. (c) There is no real connection between the forgiveness of sins and the death of Christ. (d) God can easily forgive the transgressor of His law so (e) The forgiveness of sins is not the real issue. (f) The problem with the world is ignorance and not guilt. (g) Salvation is through "understanding" that God is love. (h) The "true gospel" is that God is harmless and is worthy of our trust. (i) [The Adventist contribution to m.i.th contains a truly unique concept of some merit but it is hopelessly corrupted via its imbalanced emphasis on moral influence, and in its silence on human sinfulness, and in its denial of imputed righteousness].
There was a war in heaven involving brilliant angels and an adversary seeking to undermine trust in God. It all began with Satan's desire to exalt himself above the position God had given him. God refused to make him equal with Himself, so he accused God of being a harsh and exacting dictator, a selfish tyrant who is arbitrary, vengeful, unforgiving, and severe. Many in the universe of God thought Satan's accusations might be true. This was a great crisis. Issues were raised that were effecting the peace and security of the entire universe. So Christ died to settle doubts (but not any debts). In this, the whole universe received explanation, demonstration and clarification. Christ showed by His life and death how loving and non-threatening and harmless God really is. He answered all of Satan's charges in the great controversy. He answered earth shaking, universe-wide splitting questions that lay behind the war up in heaven. "And Jesus went up to heaven; and He went in before the angels and He asked them, 'Did you get the message?' And the book of Revelation says they never cease to celebrate the answers to their questions."
THE REFUTATION 1. "Sin is rebellion against a grossly misapprehended God but the cross reveals God's love and trustworthiness so as to remove from man's heart the enmity which motivates that rebellion." There are two distinct ways in which the problem of evil is dealt with. Here, sin ceases to be sin. It is tactfully redefined as a breakdown of trust between us and God. No one is responsible: Sin is a flaw in the divine government! Sin is ignorance! Hence, condemnation, guilt, and the breaking of a divine and inflexible law are rendered meaningless. The Bible clearly tells us what sin is. " 'Sin is the transgression of the law.' This is the only definition of sin. Without the law there can be no transgression. 'By the law is the knowledge of sin.' " 7BC 951. "The commandments of God are comprehensive and far reaching; in a few words they unfold the whole duty of man. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strength.... Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself' (Mk 12: 30,31)." "In these words the length and breadth, the depth and height, of the law of God is comprehended; for Paul declares, 'Love is the fulfilling of the law' (Ro 13:10)." "The only definition we find in the Bible for sin is that 'sin is the transgression of the law' (1 John 3:4)." 1SM 320. Scripture says: "Every one who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4 N.A.S.B). So, in Adventist moral influence theory, the definition of sin is law-less-ness because it does away with the law! "By the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). "It is through the law that men are convicted of sin; and they must feel themselves sinners, exposed to the wrath of God, before they will realize their need of a Saviour. Satan is continually at work to lessen man's estimate of the grievous character of sin. And those who trample the law of God under their feet are doing the work of the great deceiver; for they are rejecting the only rule by which they can define sin, and bring it home to the conscience of the transgressor." 1SM 219. 2. Speaking of a cup of wine, Jesus said: "for this is My blood of the covenant which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:28). Evidently Christ died so that sins may be forgiven. Paul said: "One died for all, therefore all died" (2 Cor 5:14). The notion of substitution is unmistakably plain [4]. All are reckoned to have died. Is everything incomprehensible automatically false? If we can't explain every mystery of God, then should we put trust in our doubts or in God's written revelation? Why reject the Word of God and its claim that Christ's substitutionary death was a payment for our sins if great men of faith could easily accept concepts far more difficult to fathom? We are interested in just one example: Paul said: "Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Ro 5:7,8). 3. The entire Jewish sacrificial system comes to a focus in Holy Writ on Christ Jesus as our substitute. Laying hands with confession of sin upon the head of an innocent lamb was fulfilled when Christ took upon Himself the guilt of the world and the wrath of God. Substitution is here plainly taught. How does one construe this fact into a proof that Jesus did not pay a penalty for our sins? Throughout the centuries, it was substitution that was indicated and continually brought to mind. In m.i.th, this fact is continually denied. Why is that? 4. The m.i.th says that the death of Christ did not atone for our sins. There is much twisting of Scripture here. If God could have just forgiven us our sins, then it can't be said that Jesus died for our sins unless it is meant that Jesus died for nothing. To say that the atonement only puts an end to sin is not enough. It's just a half-truth. Christ's death also deals with the sins of the past. "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3). "For Christ also died for sins once for all" (1 Pe 3:18). "Christ ...put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb 9:26). 5. The myth says: "Jesus died for angels who never sinned. They needed no adjustment of their legal standing. So we've misunderstood why we need the cross. We need what the loyal angels needed. What the loyal angels needed to confirm them in their trust, for they had stayed by loyally, is precisely what we need to win us back to trust." [5]. I think there is a big difference between the pure and sinless angels and sinful sorrowful humanity. We're just back to the old Pelagian heresy. It may be explained simply. Consider these words from the book Great Controversy by Ellen G. White: " 'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.' Psalm 19:7. Without the law, men have no just conception of the purity and holiness of God or of their own guilt and uncleanness. They have no true conviction of sin and feel no need of repentance. Not seeing their lost condition as violators of God's law, they do not realize their need of the atoning blood of Christ." GC 468. 6. There is an all absorbing preoccupation with the question, "Is God worthy of our trust?" The demands of the law are purposely ignored; the problem of sin is never addressed; the worthiness of man is never questioned. There is never the slightest hint of a knowledge of sin or of a judgment to come. The silence is deafening. The intended meaning seems clear: Is it a Socinian denial of the sinfulness of man? [*]. The greatest possible attainment in Laodicean ignorance certainly comes across! (Rev 3:14-22). * "Socinianism represents a reaction against the doctrine of the Reformation, and in the doctrines of sin and grace it is simply a revival of the old Pelagian heresy. ...Men are even now by nature like Adam in that they have no proneness or tendency to sin, but are placed in somewhat more unfavorable circumstances because of the examples of sin which they see and of which they hear. While this increases their chances of falling into sin, they can avoid sin altogether, and some of them actually do. And even if they do fall in sin and are thus guilty of transgression, they do not therefore incur the divine wrath. God is a kind and merciful Father, who knows their frailty and is quite ready to forgive them when they come to him with penitent hearts. They need no Saviour nor any extraordinary interposition of God to secure their salvation. No change in their moral nature is required, and no provision for effecting such a change was made. However, the teachings and example of Christ are helpful in leading them in the right direction" [6].
In a classic text, The Doctrine of Justification, pp. 164-165, Buchanan has noted the extremes in which Socinian theology tended to advance in his day (The early 1800s). His characterization is strikingly similar to present day S.D.A. Semi-Socinian theory. These are his words: "The Socinian doctrine, originally confined to Italy and Poland, soon spread over the continent, thence made its way into England, and at a later period, into America. It has since undergone several changes... In the one case, Socinianism was either Deistic, and then it had no other doctrine of Justification than that of pardon on repentance and reformation; or it was Pantheistic, and then it had no room even for pardon or repentance, since it had no knowledge of sin, except perhaps as a disease, and none of punishment, properly so called, although it admitted suffering as the natural consequence of certain dispositions and habits."
a) No room for pardon or repentance: "We only need what the loyal angels needed." b) Sin is only a disease; it is not a crime that must be punished that's why they call it "the healing model." c) There is no retributive punishment: "We are only subject to the natural consequences of sin." "God does not kill." It's not at all surprising, therefore, why the leading exponent of SDA-semi-Socinian m.i.th avoids stating, and spends so much time denying, the moral influence part of his own theory: This part of the theory deals with the sinfulness of man [7]. 8. The moral influence enthusiasts have tainted the truth of the great controversy with their insidious errors and Socinian denials. If Christ's death was to settle doubts but not debts, if it was only to answer questions and Satan's accusations, then sin is no longer sin! It becomes excusable ignorance. God's command to Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit is one illustration of this. The event has been equated with a loving parent warning his children not to touch a hot stove. "And what kind of a God would kill his children for touching a hot stove?" [8].
Another View "The death of Christ was to be the convincing everlasting argument that the law of God is as unchangeable as His throne. The agonies of the garden of Gethsemane, the insult, the mockery, the abuse heaped upon God's dear Son, the horrors and ignominy of the crucifixion, furnish sufficient and thrilling demonstration that God's justice, when it punishes, does the work thoroughly. The fact that His own Son, the Surety for man, was not spared, is an argument that will stand to all eternity before saint and sinner, before the universe of God, to testify that He will not excuse the transgressor of His law." QOD 675. "Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his [Adam's] case? Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself and to make an atonement for the fallen race." 1BC 1082. 9. God needed to prove to the whole universe that He is righteous in all His ways. "There were questions, information was needed." God therefore came to earth to suffer and die, in the person of His Son, to prove that He is worthy of our trust. Says a leading exponent of this view: "So the essence of it is, trust, can God be trusted? That's why I wrote that little book, Can God Be Trusted? " And He never tires of saying it over and over again. We favor the "primitive" Biblical view: Sin is inexcusable and exceedingly sinful and willful sin has separated the sinner from God. Reconciliation in Paul's theology is a reconciliation of the sinner to God, not of God to the sinner. Nowhere does Paul expressly speak of God reconciling Himself to man. It is man who is reconciled [9]. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor 5:19). 10. Advocates of the insidious myth scoff at the idea that man is in any kind of legal trouble with God's broken law. It is God, they say, who is in legal trouble. Even Revelation 14:7 which says: "The hour of His judgment has come" is perverted to mean that God is on trial.
Only Scripture makes sense of it all: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezk 18:20). "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law" (Gal 3:10). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23 cf. 3:9-18). And the Good News: Christ came "to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons" (Gal 4:5 cf. Ro 8:23).
Jesus said: "My blood ...is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:28). Christ "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). He "released us from our sins by His blood" (Rev 1:5). He "redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal 3:13). Ellen G. White adds: "Those only who acknowledge the binding claim of the moral law can explain the nature of the atonement." 1SM 229. "Those only who have a just regard for the law of God can rightly estimate the atonement of Christ which was made necessary by the violation of the Father's Law." 1SM 232. Question: If Christ did not satisfy the demands of the law and the Scriptures are wrong, then how is it that God's trustworthiness was demonstrated? 12. The declaration that God somehow dealt with the sin of the world at the cross, that the proper demands of a righteous God for judgment on sin was satisfied by Christ's death, and that mercy and justice came together then, is a primitive view of God. Ellen G. White would have disagreed. To her, the coming together of justice and mercy is the most profound thought in all the universe. Consider her words: "In the temple in heaven, the dwelling place of God, His throne is established in righteousness and judgment. In the most holy place is His law, the great rule of right by which all mankind are tested. The ark that enshrines the tables of the law is covered with the mercy seat, before which Christ pleads His blood in the sinner's behalf. Thus is represented the union of justice and mercy in the plan of human redemption. ...It is a union that fills all heaven with wonder and adoration. ...This is the mystery of mercy into which angels desire to look that God can be just while He justifies the repenting sinner"... GC 415.
|