Here is a mini-view of the chart. (The PDF version is much larger, designed to print on 11 x 17 inch paper.)

As you can see, the top section — everything above the green line — describes the actual, literal festivals in the Jewish calendar. The bottom section repeats the same festivals, but shows how they met their fulfillment in the various events of the Gospels and Acts. The chart includes Bible references for each event.

The autumn feast section of the chart is presented from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. The October 22, 1844, date seen in the chart is derived from the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. Perhaps I will include that information in a future version of the chart. The names mentioned as “trumpeters” are probably unfamiliar to most Christians, but would be familiar to those who have read the history of the Second Advent Movement, especially as described in the book The Great Controversy.

Adventists, like most Christians, believe the antitypical events associated with the dates of the spring feasts fell on the exact days of those feasts. However, with respect to the autumn feasts, we believe the order of events is important, but not the exact, literal days.

Church conflicts — whether over doctrines, matters of lifestyle, or policies — are often described as conflicts between “conservatives” and “liberals.” Given the Bible’s call to unity, this factioning of the church should be cause for concern.

The factioning of the church into conservative and liberal camps is a fascinating process. To the casual observer, it may seem that the many specific points of contention between the two camps are over unrelated issues. For example, what does a theological position on the human nature of Christ have to do with the length of women’s dresses? Though both are conservative positions, a studious observer would find little direct relationship between the points. Indeed, there are many who freely hold to only one or the other of those two points, and see no contradiction in doing so. Yet despite widespread exceptions over specific points, there is a noticeable polarization. Something draws church members towards either of these two groups, each representing a collection of diverse issues. In the end, people tend to adopt a collection of related ideas and practices, which could be classed as either liberal or conservative. Put another way, people who hold doctrinal views deemed conservative also tend to adopt conservative lifestyle choices and policies. Those who favor liberal church policies tend toward liberal theological and lifestyle stances. Of course, individually people tend to take various exceptions to their party platform.

Somehow all this gathering into factions occurs without a formal platform on either side dictating what is offically a conservative or liberal position. Evidently there are forces at work — whether attitudes, cultures, or other influences — that beneath the surface affect how we evaluate a wide range of important decisions. We may be unaware of these forces, yet their influence is there.

The purpose of this article is to explore what these forces are, in the hope that it will help us find common ground with those on the other side of the fence, whichever side that might be.

Disclaimer

Because the words “conservative” and “liberal” are relative, it is impossible to attach any absolute merit to one approach or the other. We cannot say something is right or wrong merely because it reflects a conservative or liberal approach.

An additional caution is that we must distinguish between the more general uses of these terms, and their special usage regarding differing viewpoints in the church. For instance, someone who is theologically conservative may be quite liberal (financially) in supporting mission projects — statistically, that is often true. Being generous does not make a person liberal in the sense that we are talking about here. For another example, someone who enjoys liberal worship styles may be quite conservative (emotionally) in their personality. Being quiet by nature does not make a person a conservative member of the church. In a sense we are detaching the words “liberal” and “conservative” from their broad meanings, and using them somewhat abstractly to represent opposite poles in a multi-dimensional space that represents the church. (This is not to suggest the terms have no significance in themselves; however, for now it is best to simply think of them as two opposing points on a spectrum.)

Probably no one fits neatly into one stereotype conservative or liberal position. Humans are complex creatures. Life is complex. Individual may be so conditioned to a certain way of life in one area that they cannot part from it, even though it may contradict their overall course of thought and action in other areas. Thus a liberal may retain some conservative qualities, and vice versa.

The factions within the church are not two distinct camps. Rather, they form a broad space between two poles. These poles seem to magnetically pull people one direction or the other, yet there are other forces of attraction and repulsion at play as well. Many church members consider themselves “moderates” — neither liberal nor conservative. We will look at this position later.

Agents of change

What influences cause people to see things so differently? Why are most of our major differences within the church usually described (or argued) as two-sided, instead of being split among three, five, or a dozen competing groups?

Culture. Culture is blamed for much of our church strife. Indeed, the church today is composed of many diverse cultures. By definition, people from different cultures will have differing expectations, traditions, customs, and manners. The ways they socialize, conduct business, and evangelize are different.

However, upon closer scrutiny, culture does not completely answer the question. Within just about every culture we can find the same liberal-conservative split. Historically, time seems more significant than culture. That is to say, churches within our relatively liberal First World cultures (such as the United States) were closer spiritually in the past (such as the 1700s and 1800s) to the more conservative Third World nations today, even though culturally the people of those respective nations were further apart at those points in time.

To say it another way, liberals and conservatives across cultures do not have so much cultural similarities as they do doctrinal and lifestyle similarities. There seems to be a force that transcends culture.

Tradition. Tradition is also frequently put to blame for causing liberal-conservative rifts. It is obvious enough that many doctrinal and lifestyle issues can become traditions. Examples would include Sabbath-keeping practices, methods of presenting Bible truths, and what church-goers wear.

Yet tradition is also an incomplete answer. For example, conservatives are the ones usually decried as traditionalists. In this usage it implies stuck in a rut, hardened in formalism, and so on. But the facts bear out that many conservatives are anything but traditional. Many are new believers who have broken from other religious faiths (or nonbelief) that have no relationship to church culture or traditions. For those believers, their conservativism is radical, not traditional. And liberal believers can be just as guilty of traditionalism as their conservative brethren — which is why many conservatives think liberal worship styles “are all alike.”

In short, there is no direct relationship between conservative values and traditionalism, nor liberal values and radical or free thinking.

Extremes. Both factions tend to think that the other group is extreme. Conservatives tend to look at liberals as compromising and worldly. Liberals tend to see conservatives as Pharisaical, fanatics, or just sadly uneducated. But is it really possible to say that one faction is more extreme than the other? On what basis do we judge extremes?

When we look at the history of God’s people, from the story of Adam and Eve all the way through New Testament times and beyond, it appears that following God has always been rather extreme. Few, if any, of the great believers of the Bible have lived “normal” lives. Jesus Himself often presented the Gospel call in a way that could easily be described as extreme: leave all, sell all, enter the narrow (unpopular) way, take up your cross, and so on.

Of course, both factions can claim that they offer God’s extremes. The liberals offer extreme mercy-grace: “Hey, don’t sweat anything, God loves you.” Conservatives offer extreme obedience-grace: “You can be perfect, today — and if you will please God, you must be.” Liberals have extreme celebrations and rallies; conservatives have extreme Bible studies and diets. On what basis do we decide which extremes are worthy?

Yet the Bible is clear that following God is “wisdom.” Wisdom means discernment, and implies that life cannot be navigated through simple polarized thinking. In that sense godliness is a very middle-of-the-road position. There are dangers on both sides. We cannot point to the existence of extremes as a reason for or against either position. When we realize that the Bible is the arbiter, or test, of wisdom, we have a basis to decide which extremes are God’s calling and which are man’s folly.

Spiritual qualities. This is the most heated type of explanation. “Liberals are worldly.” “Conservatives lack love and the Spirit.” It is also the most frivolous. While it is certainly true that members of both camps suffer from spiritual ills, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It is helpful to remember at this point that we are dealing with a spectrum, not two precise camps. There are worldly conservatives. There are happy, loving conservatives. Their are self-sacrificing liberals. There are bitter liberals. And many other variations exist than we could possibly name here.

Two ways of determining truth

As compared to the church as a whole, I am a conservative. You might say in some ways that I am very conservative. One day I was thinking through a particular issue. I realized that I knew of no direct Biblical or inspired counsel on the subject. Yet the principle seemed clear to me. While I had convinced myself, I knew the very suggestion of my application of this principle would sound ridiculous to liberals I know personally.

While I could envision in my mind how the conversation between myself and a liberal on that particular topic would go, it was not immediately obvious why we would see it so differently. Gradually this conclusion formed in my mind: Conservative thought and liberal thought ultimately distill down to two different ways of evaluating reality. The more I thought about it, the more obvious it seemed. Here in a nutshell is the sum of that day’s musings:

• Conservatives are idealists, who take the high road on principle; they stick to the tried and true.
• Liberals are realists and pragmatists; they tend to experiment.

Conservatives are people with high ideals, who also maintain a high regard for orthodoxy. As such, they have high standards, they attempt much, and they feel a strong burden to protect doctrinal pillars and foundations. Liberals in the church tend to look to the past as the time of darkness and ignorance, and are always pushing for freedom to explore new options. I feel there are points of merit in both views, but both can be carried to extremes.

Generally speaking, conservatives evaluate the merits of something based on the principles involved: “Is mustard known to irritate the stomach? Yes? Then I won’t eat it.” Liberals evaluate things based on effects that can be seen or experienced (a view known as pragmatism): “I’ve eaten mustard many times. Has it ever bothered me? No. Plus I like the taste. Pass the mustard, please.”

Liberals, of course, do not disdain all principles. But the question is whether they will accept a principle as an absolute guide, in itself, and especially on the word of a third party (by inspiration, for example). Liberals will generally accept the same principles that conservatives accept, when the significance of doing so is obvious and profound. For instance, nearly all church members oppose drugs, alcohol, adultery, and stealing. We can see the effects of these things. In many cases the damaging consequences are almost immediate.

But where effects are not immediate or obvious, but where the principles are known (or where in the Bible a rule is stated), strong differences of opinion exist. Conservatives will tend to see the principle or rule as a divine law; liberals will tend to find it hard to swallow and attempt to explain it away on one pretext or another.

Another food-oriented example: A conservative may hear that science through several studies has substantiated that chocolate contains substances known to impair judgment and adversely affect health. Since there is no compelling reason to eat chocolate, a conservative may find it obvious that it is best left alone. A liberal, on the other hand, may hear the same facts. But since there is little perceptible difference in the health, intelligence, or morality of an average chocolate-eater versus an average non-chocolate-eater, the liberal will tend to conclude that it does not really matter.

In this the conservative approach has advantages: It realizes the limitations of human perception, and accepts the divine principles as a wise guide. It also grasps the fact that synergy is a principle of evil as well as of good. Many little influences, inconsequential as they may seem, can add up over the course of a lifetime (or over the course of a nation’s or planet’s existence). Many interactions and reactions may exist of which we have no knowledge; therefore, if something is known to be a little bit bad, it may be very bad in ways we have not discovered yet. This applies not only to food, but to clothing, speech, lifestyle, and even matters of doctrine.

Of course, it could also be argued that the liberal approach has advantages, too, since it does not lead one to bind up himself with rules that lack a clear, compelling, rational basis. It does not make mountains out of molehills, or lead to perfectionism.

There are pitfalls on both sides. Personally I feel that liberals are wrong about doctrinal and lifestyle issues a larger percentage of the time. But conservatives can be cranks or cranky, and that’s not good. Still, there is a deep pragmatism in the view that, in a spiritually dangerous and conflicted world, there is wisdom in leaning to the safer, less licentious side.

Moderates in the church

From a very conservative standpoint, a self-proclaimed moderate is someone who knows the truth but has made some compromises. From a very liberal standpoint, a self-proclaimed moderate is a somewhat enlightened individual who is unfortunately bound by Pharisaism or tradition. However, these perceptions belong especially to those who have strongly gravitated to one end or the other of the church spectrum.

Moderates make up the largest percentage of church membership by definition. However, there is somewhat of a dichotomy in how individuals view themselves. Nearly everyone regards themselves as middle-of-the-road (which could be a definition of a moderate); on the other hand, many pride themselves on their conservatism or liberalism as compared to others (in that sense no one is a moderate). Individuals generally like to feel they have reached a higher sphere, but not that they have branched away from what is mainstream. Obviously there is a paradox in that.

Summary

My denomination, compared to others, is quite conservative. This explains the popularity of “conservative values” in certain circles of my church. But being in a church that hangs close to the conservative pole can be a dangerous crutch. We can become deceived in our own smugness. Conservative Christians cannot judge themselves by what other Christians believe or do; the Bible is our guide. We will never enter heaven because we were “less heathen than others.”

It is all too possible that our “conservative” denominations, and we along with them, have become quite liberal — or worldly, as the Old Guard Christians might have put it. The shifts in thinking and practice across centuries can leave us far away from what was once the conservative harbor, while we still congratulate ourselves that we are not as liberal as others. Today’s staunch conservative could be yesterday’s flaming liberal, or vice versa.

There is a danger in allowing ourselves to be drawn into political ways of thinking. If we find ourselves saying or thinking, “That is wrong, because that is just what a liberal (or conservative) would do,” then we know we’ve broken away from principle-based thinking and have slipped into political prejudice.

So I think it is important to apply the human mind to the Bible, to understand the principles involved. It is the bane of conservatives to get wrapped up in laws (applications of principles), rather than knowing and upholding the principles themselves. We can cite all kinds of verses to back up what we say, and point out the lack of verses to justify any other course — and still be wrong.

The Bible calls us to moderation (Philippians 4:5). But it also warns against “lukewarmness” (Revelation 3:15-19) and comparing ourselves with others (2 Corinthians 10:12). There is no safety in gauging our spirituality based on herd instincts. Only the wisdom of God, found in His Word, can lead us to the moderate, levelheaded position that is not ashamed or afraid to obey God’s extreme call.

Receiving the Word, by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

A thorough and convincing study on the nature of inspiration and the trustworthiness of the Bible. Shows the far-reaching implications of “higher criticism” in Bible study. Includes an eye-opening look at the challenges to our SDA beliefs posed by “progressive” Adventists in academic and theological circles, as well as answers to common objections and explanations of common “problem texts.” It deals directly with many of the so-called errors, contradictions, and discrepancies in the Bible that are used to justify unbiblical beliefs and practices today.

Besides dealing with the theological-philosophical issues of higher criticism and skepticism toward inspiration, the book also touches upon the following contemporary debates which hinge on our view of the authority of Scripture:

• Use of alcohol
• Homosexuality/lesbianism
• Origins (Darwinism)
• Integrity of our doctrinal foundations (prophecy, atonement, etc.)
• Dress and adornment
• Women’s roles in the home and in church
• and more

Dr. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim is a frequent and admired presenter at events like Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC), and is widely read or listened to within Adventist circles.

368 pages.

Available from Amazon.com and other outlets.

Although this doctrine seems egalitarian and scores high on political correctness, it fails the test of biblical accuracy. It is also an avenue through which unbiblical attitudes and policies are drawn into the church.

Why It Matters

The false claim that all sins are equal is one of the prime directives of those who oppose church discipline. It is one of the first objections offered to any move toward corrective action. It is virtually implied by those who advocate this error that either “everyone should be punished all the time,” or “no one should be punished at any time” — with a definite nod toward the latter. However, the obvious practical implications of this view are contrary to the obvious teachings of Scripture, which tell us that church discipline is not a human invention, but instead is a sacred responsibility.

A true understanding of the degrees of sin is also useful to our own self-discipline, when we think about our personal responsibilities and priorities.

What the Bible Says

The primary scriptural argument — often the only one cited — for the belief that all sins are equal is James 2:10–11: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”

At first glance, that verse could be understood to mean that all sins are equal. Indeed, it does teach that all sins are equal in principle: They are all violations of the same law.

Nevertheless, we do not build doctrines from a single verse. Neither James 2:10–11 nor any other passage tells us that all sins are equal in degree. Other verses plainly tell us that sins are not equal; sins are diverse in their punishments and consequences, and guilt for sins varies between individuals.

• During His trial, Jesus said to Pilate, “He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” John 19:11. Jesus did not say Pilate was guiltless; however, he said that the one responsible for his arrest had the “greater sin.” Thus Jesus Himself did not see all sins as equal.
• Jesus’ words to the Jewish leaders contain several examples of degrees of sin. In Matthew 23:13–33, we find expressions such as “therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation,” “ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves,” and “[ye] have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.” These phrases suggest degrees of guilt, degrees of sin, degrees of importance. Note: One might argue that degrees of punishment are tied only to the quantity of sin (the number of sins committed), but this is not consistent with what Jesus is saying in this passage. If you read the full passage, it is clear that the types of sins the Pharisees and scribes were committing was the reason for their greater guilt, not the number. This is especially clear from verse 14, where Jesus condemns the practices of “devouring widows’ houses” and pretentiously making long prayers; for these the Pharisees would receive “the greater damnation.”
• In Matthew 11:20–24, Jesus compares the judgment awaiting the Jewish nation of His day with that of various pagan cities of the past that were destroyed by judgments of God. His words imply that increased light means increased responsibility, which in turn carries greater guilt if neglected.
• The expression “great sin” occurs several times in the Old Testament. One example is Exodus 32:30–31, where Moses pleads for the Israelite’s sin of making the idol at Mt. Sinai. This usage (“great sin”) itself implies degrees of sin.
• In Leviticus 4, we find a detailed description of the sacrifices for various classes of people. If a priest or the whole community of people sinned, the sacrifice was to be “a young bullock” (the young of a cow or ox). See verses 3–21. If a ruler sinned, he was to offer a young male goat (verse 23). If “any one of the common people” sinned, he or she was to bring a young female goat (verse 28). In an agricultural society, each of these animals had a different value. This value was based on how much work the respective animal could do, its procreative ability (males were seen as more valuable), and how much meat was on its bones; and the animals are listed in order from highest value to lowest. The implication is that a sin of a priest was just as serious as a sin of the whole camp, and these sins required a costlier sacrifice. A secular ruler’s sin carried a lesser penalty, and a common person’s sin carried the least penalty.

Other Commentary

I think these two quotations provide a good summary:

• “God does not regard all sins as of equal magnitude; there are degrees of guilt in His estimation, as well as in that of man; but however trifling this or that wrong act may seem in the eyes of men, no sin is small in the sight of God. Man’s judgment is partial, imperfect; but God estimates all things as they really are. The drunkard is despised and is told that his sin will exclude him from heaven; while pride, selfishness, and covetousness too often go unrebuked. But these are sins that are especially offensive to God; for they are contrary to the benevolence of His character, to that unselfish love which is the very atmosphere of the unfallen universe. He who falls into some of the grosser sins may feel a sense of his shame and poverty and his need of the grace of Christ; but pride feels no need, and so it closes the heart against Christ and the infinite blessings He came to give.” Ellen White, Steps to Christ, 30.
• “[God] would assure sinners that sins of the greatest magnitude can be forgiven if the transgressor seeks for pardon, surrendering himself, body, soul, and spirit, to be transformed by the grace of God, and changed into His likeness.” Ellen White, Signs of the Times, October 10, 1900.

Conclusions

There are no “small” (insignificant) sins in God’s eyes. All sins are violations of the same principle of love — love to God, and love to our fellow humans.

But not all sins are of equal magnitude or degree. Factors in the degrees of sin include:

• how much knowledge/experience the sinner had in the truth and ways of God
• how much influence/responsibility the person had in the eyes of others
• their calling as pastor, teacher, priest, leader, king, etc.
• the actual effects of the sin (how much damage, hurt, and/or rebellion resulted)
• the sin’s effect of the sinner’s own spiritual nature

Many sins that we tend to regard as greater sins — prostitution, theft, etc. — are often only greater in terms of the immediate physical, psychological, and interpersonal consequences (as opposed to immediate or long-term spiritual consequences). From a spiritual standpoint, the greater sins are often the ones we think of as lesser offenses — pride, covetousness, hypocrisy. So while the Bible does not teach that all sins are equal, its valuation of sins may be the opposite of our intuition.

On the other hand, neither civil law nor church discipline is based on inner spiritual ills. It is only outward acts, with outward consequences, that must be dealt with. For example, pride is spiritually a great evil — but one doesn’t get pregnancy or syphilis from pride itself. Hate bottled up inside may be equal to the spirit of murder (1 John 3:15), but it’s the act of murder that will put someone in prison.

In both the Old and New Testament, people were never punished for inner feelings or hidden attitudes. The basis for punishment in the Old Testament theocracy, or for discipline in the New Testament church, was always behavior. Indeed, it should be obvious that this can be the only basis for punishment of any kind that is administered by human agencies, since no human can read the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Even when God was directly involved in the punishment or sentence, it was always on the basis of behavior. Very likely this was because the punishment had to make sense to third parties. The fact that behaviors are punished, and not mere attitudes, does not mean the behaviors are worse; it simply reflects the limitations of human judgment.

Despite the degree of the sin a person has done, no one should be treated in an unloving manner. “Treat others as you would want to be treated, if you were in their place,” remains the Golden Rule (although it requires a great deal of maturity to apply this rule in a disciplinary way). And remember that no sin is too big for God or man to forgive when it is confessed.

Finally, the more we know, the more accountable we are. And this subject also helps remind us that the “weightier matters” are not dress, music, and soy, but the spiritual virtues that should adorn the human life.

You can believe a man is committed to a cause when he is willing to lay down his life — literally, willing to die — for the cause’s sake. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran theologian who was martyred during World War II in Germany for the sake of Christianity and the German people. His story is movingly told in the video Hanged on a Twisted Cross. (There is also a dramatized version, Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace, which I have not seen yet.)

Bonhoeffer wrote a number of books. The one I’m reviewing here is The Cost of Discipleship, one of his best-loved classics.

Overview

At some point those of us who call ourselves Christians face the question of what being a Christian is all about. Is it living for ideas, doctrines, and theologies, and defending them against skeptics and other proselytizers? Is it understanding conspiracies, prophecies, and hidden knowledge? Is it feeling good about ourselves? Is it a moral, ethical, or holistic lifestyle? Is it ministering, witnessing, caring, or doing good deeds? Is it simply a ticket to heaven when we reach the end of the road? At times Christianity may take the form of any of these things, and sometimes it can be confusing to sort it all out. Is there a unifying view that brings it all together?

In The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer takes up the task of showing what Christianity really is at its foundation, and how that affects the various ways we live out our Christian lives.

In a nutshell, Bonhoeffer shows that Christianity is all about discipleship — and not merely the church or fellow Christians discipling one another, but being discipled by Jesus Christ Himself. It is a teacher–student (master–disciple) relationship between Christ and each believer. Of course, this idea may seem unsettling to some, perhaps a little too personal or ultra-spiritual. But if there’s one thing this book does, it is showing that true Christianity can be no less than that. Mere cultural Christianity is worthless, and better discarded sooner than later.

The book is divided into four sections:

1. Grace and Discipleship (five chapters)
2. The Sermon on the Mount (fifteen chapters)
3. The Messengers (six chapters)
4. The Church of Jesus Christ and the Life of Discipleship (six chapters)

The first section, “Grace and Discipleship,” deals with what it means to be a follower of Christ in the first place. Who is called, and how? And what does it mean to accept the call? This section is powerful and practical.

The second section is by far the longest, and it is very rich. Bonhoeffer takes on each section of the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew chapters 5–7, with practical insight. In his view, the Sermon on the Mount defines much of the day-to-day walk of a Christian-disciple’s life.

Part three, “The Messengers,” deals with the evangelistic aspect of discipleship. Bonhoeffer does not fear to tell his readers that spreading the Good News could be very costly — it might even cost their lives. Yet he reminds us that the reward of soul-winning is well worth the cost.

The final part deals with various miscellaneous questions of baptism, church order, and growing into the image of Christ.

Conclusions

This is one of my favorite Christian books.

I have not yet found a modern book with a better explanation of the interrelationship between grace, faith, works, and obedience. Perhaps you’ve heard the expression “cheap grace”; according to various sources, Bonhoeffer is the one who coined the term. In this book he presents the alternative to this counterfeit grace, which he calls “costly grace.” And this costly grace is what gives the book its title, The Cost of Discipleship. If you want clear statements about why obedience is necessary — even though we are saved by grace through faith — then Chapter 2, “The Call to Discipleship,” is worth the cost of the book. It is really that good. In fact, the whole first section is excellent.

I found the “Memoir” section at the front of the book, before the “Introduction,” to be a bit long and dry. However, being the kind of person who tries to read books cover-to-cover, I did read it. It has some interesting parts, but if you find yourself dozing off, you may want to skip it. (It does contain a few examples of Bonhoeffer’s sublime and evocative poetry.)

The book does have some difficult passages. In general, I found it clear and presented in laymen’s terms. However, Bonhoeffer does not hesitate to throw in some Greek here and there. There are sections that are not exactly light reading. But persistence pays off, and in the end the committed reader is rewarded.

I must say that as a Seventh-day Adventist, there were some doctrinal statements peculiar to Lutheranism that I disagreed with. But I do not consider them major problems, nor were they a significant part of the book.

Because so much of this book is about the Sermon on the Mount, I would recommend it as a good companion study book for Ellen White’s Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing.

I must confess that I do not feel I have reached the standard of Christianity described in this book; nevertheless, I feel it is an accurate and vivid picture of what Christian faith is meant to be.

Discipleship Journal named C. S. Lewis one of the most important Christian authors of the 1900s. Some credit him as being the single most popular Christian author of that century.

My first exposure to Lewis was reading his Chronicles of Narnia series when I was around age 11 or 12. I read every book of the series except A Horse and His Boy, and enjoyed them. I was very captivated by fantasy literature, and it was an intriguing, well-written collection. The stories uphold moral values (self-sacrifice, honor, integrity, courage, etc.), and there is a clear line drawn between good and evil. Of course, they also contain many magical and mythological elements.

Because of Lewis’ connection to this set of popular fiction, many conservative Christians shy away from reading his works. In my opinion, this is unfortunate.

Lewis’ other books include Mere Christianity (reviewed here), The Abolition of Man (why schools need to teach objective truth), The Problem of Pain (why pain exists in a universe created by a God of love), The Four Loves (examines four types of love: storge — affection, philia — friendship, eros — sexual or romantic love, and agape — selfless love), and many more.

Of these, so far I have read only Mere Christianity. Over the years I had read so many inspiring and challenging statements penned or spoken by Lewis’ that I really wanted to explore his writings. However, I initially had reservations about where the book might lead. I thought he might go off into wild philosophical speculations or branch into humanism or New Age-type beliefs — not because I had known him to do that elsewhere, but just because of the subject matter and what I know of his fictitious works. But in the end I fell in love with this book as a very practical and beautifully worded treatise on Christian faith.

Overview

This book is written in four sections, which Lewis calls “books.” These sections are as follows: “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,” five chapters; “What Christians Believe,” five chapters; “Christian Behaviour,” twelve chapters; and “Beyond Personality: or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity,” eleven chapters.

The first two sections are written to introduce atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions to Christianity (a class of writing known as apologetics). These chapters are intended to show that, even apart from belief in the Bible, Christianity is rational and in harmony with reality as we know it. If you do not care much about the reasons why Christianity makes sense at this level, you may want to skip these two sections. However, the last chapter of the second section, “The Practical Conclusion,” is well worth your time.

The last two sections were unquestionably my favorites. The chapters “The Great Sin” (pride), “Charity” (Christian love), the second of two chapters called “Faith” (dealing with the old faith-and-works issue), and all of the chapters in the last section are profound, beautiful, and very practical. Lewis handles many important topics with clarity and grace, including perfection, humility, what it means to be in Christ, Christian marriage, forgiveness, free will, being born again, and much more.

Content

There are a few things some Christians will dislike within this book: the author’s belief that moderate drinking is acceptable, that Christians need not be noncombatants, that full character perfection is merely an aim in this life (although a very important aim), the theory of evolution that is assumed true in the last chapter, and perhaps a few other odd items here and there. However, none of these are major points of the book, only side issues that can be easily “winked at” when one can see through to the valid points being made. Ironically, the chapter that began with talk of evolution actually proved to be one of the most inspiring and profound for me, once he got past that part.

Except for the character perfection issue mentioned above, Lewis comes out very strongly in defense of character perfection as something God wants from us. Christian morality is a very important theme in this book, and Lewis goes to great lengths to show it is not mere “niceness” or relative goodness that God is expecting from us, but the complete Christ-life in us, and death to self.

Those who are looking for theological or doctrinal support material will find some good stuff here: Lewis shows how free will is compatible with God’s omniscience, why evil exists, why God gave us free choice, what practical conclusions we can draw about the Three-Personal Godhead, and more.

Conclusion

One thing you will like about this book is that the chapters are short and easy to read. You could easily slip one chapter in right next to your regular devotional or other book reading with little effort. The thoughts are profound, though, and you may want to devote more time just to reflect on the vastness of what the author is saying.

All in all, I highly recommend this book. I give it five stars.

[Note: This review was written on January 27, 2001.]

• Joshua 24:15: “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” This verse is a plain example of a call to make a choice.
• Proverbs 1:28, 29: “Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD.” In this verse, God describes His response (not answering, not being found) as the result of the people’s past choices (they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of God). God’s response was conditional; human choice was the condition.
• Revelation 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” This is a conditional promise: Anyone who hears and opens the door to Christ will sup with Him. Again, the human choice is the condition.

There are many more verses that could be quoted (such as Deuteronomy 30:19; Proverbs 1:24–25; Acts 5:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Acts 17:27–30; John 3:16; Revelation 22:17); but these three are sufficient for the purpose of this article.

A careful reading of the Bible would lead one to believe that we are all given opportunity to serve God to the best of our knowledge, and by faith (as we have knowledge) to trust in His grace for salvation. The Bible also indicates that, despite this equal opportunity, most will choose the wrong path, while only a few will walk with God. Our decisions will result in either eternal death or eternal life.

In addition to this Biblical evidence, we also have our own experiences: times when we struggle over questions, and knowing what we can do and should do, nevertheless for selfish or fearful reasons choose to do something else. Knowing that we could have done differently is what causes us guilt.

All of this suggests that choice — free will — is very real.

Foreknowledge in the equation

The Bible presents God as one who is able to see the future. The many prophecies of the Old and New Testaments are examples of this, as are stories such as 1 Kings 22:8–38, and verses such as Isaiah 41:21–29 and 46:9–10 which describe God’s foreknowledge in contrast with false gods and false prophets. The term used to describe this ability is foreknowledge.

One argument made against free will is that it conflicts with the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge. The argument goes like this: “If God can see the end from the beginning, then the end is already determined. My destiny is fixed. Therefore I have no real choice.”

Two common reactions to this argument are: (1) Humans cannot really have free will. (2) God’s foreknowledge is not actual knowledge, it is more like plans or expectations. Allegedly, God can, with His vast intellect and knowledge of the past and present, guess what will happen, or can bend situations to make certain outcomes occur. But, some say, He cannot really see the future.

When I first heard this argument, I was momentarily stunned — it seemed logical. But for me that confusion was only momentary. The logic is not as solid as it first seemed.

As humans we are not accustomed to thinking outside the stream of time. For that reason I think we are prone to errors when thinking about time, and about cause and effect relationships  — especially at the more theoretical or hypothetical level. Seeing the error in the logic of the above two conclusions may not come easy for some. If in doubt, it is safe to believe the Bible even if we can’t work out the science.

Some counter logic

Since the above arguments are based on logic, rather than scripture per se, I am going to respond with counter logic.

First, I offer two important assertions:

• God’s foreknowledge does not exert any force or pressure on the will.
• God’s foreknowledge is not an influence.

Imagine a man is deciding whether or not to shoplift. Suppose he can choose freely to do it, or not. He will choose one way or the other. Now imagine that God can foresee the outcome of the choice. Even though God can see the outcome, God does nothing in the man’s mind to make him choose one way or the other. The man is just as free as if God knew nothing about it. As such, he has completely free will, despite God’s foreknowledge. If you can wrap your head around that one thought, you are well on your way to reconciling foreknowledge and free will.

Where people become confused is when they wonder, If God sees this outcome, then doesn’t that prove I cannot choose the other outcome? But this inquiry simply calls into question the accuracy of God’s foreknowledge. It’s not that you cannot choose other options, but that you will not. There is a big difference there. If you were to take another course, God would have seen that instead. In a sense, your destiny is fixed, but only by your own future choices. Thus predestination and free will are compatible.

Confronting fixed outcomes

For those who are logicians, it is easy to imagine all sorts of complicated scenarios. Suppose God were to show you your future. Would that mean that future is inevitable? that you have no option to avert your destiny? Perhaps this is why God does not show us our future. He couldn’t tell us we would do something if He knew that after He told us, we would decide to do something else. That would make Him dishonest; so, since God does not lie (Titus 1:2), He cannot offer us those revelations.

Nevertheless, there are times when God has revealed the future, but in such general terms that no one could really see it coming, or else the future was so overruled by Him that no one could do anything to stop it, or else it was expressed in terms of promises or threatenings that were based on conditions that could change. Some examples:

• General prophecies: some of the time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.
• Inevitable outcomes: Jesus’ death during the feast — the very men who were plotting to kill Jesus determined not to do it during the Passover feast, yet that’s how it happened anyway, in fulfillment of Jesus’ own prophecies (see Matthew 26:4–5; Luke 18:31–33).
• Conditional promises/threats: the story of Jonah, and many other prophecies from the latter Old Testament.

Summary

The Bible gives us abundant support for belief in free will and personal responsibility; it also presents God’s perfect foreknowledge through various stories and prophecies. Correctly understood, there is no reason to see conflict between the two.

[Note: This is not meant to be a study on free will versus predestination, or free will versus bondage of the will, or Calvinism versus Arminianism. That would require a more in-depth study than I have attempted to do here.]

I grew up in the church, and over the years I saw many pictures of the tabernacle of Moses, Solomon’s temple, and Herod’s temple. However, the first time I saw a scale diagram of the tabernacle and its courtyard, I was amazed. Here is a scale model:

Since I am a graphic designer, there are two points that stood out immediately to me: First, it is mostly empty space. Second, it is very geometric. This is what we will be exploring in a moment. But first, a few numbers and explanations.

The diagram is on a grid; each grid space represents 10 cubits. (Each grid square is 10×10 cubits, or 100 sq cubits. For the curious, a cubit was roughly 1.5 feet.)

The outer rectangle represents the courtyard. The entrance to the courtyard for those coming to offer sacrifices was through an opening in the middle of the right side, which was the east side. The small square on the right side of the courtyard is the altar of burnt offering. The rectangle on the left side is the tabernacle. That rectangle is further divided into the most holy place (the square part on the left), which contained the ark of the covenant; and holy place (the rectangular part on the right), which contained the altar of incense, the table of shewbread, and the candlesticks.

Here is a highly simplified 3D model. Note that it does not reflect the exact shape or height of the sanctuary once the covering curtains were added. The altar does not show the steps, and the brass basin and other objects in the courtyard have not been included. Also, the gate is the correct width and position, but the styling is merely a simplified aesthetic interpretation. A person has been added to show scale.

If you want extra credit, you can look these details up on your own. You can find the dimensions of the courtyard in Exodus 27:9–13. The courtyard is exactly 100 x 50 cubits. The other dimensions are given in Exodus 26; however, the verses are a bit confusing. The tabernacle is 30 x 10 cubits, and the altar 5 x 5 cubits. In 1 Kings 6:2, we find a somewhat clearer description of Solomon’s temple, which had exactly double the dimensions of Moses’ tabernacle (60 x 20 cubits).

If you want further support for this model, you can find a scale diagram of the sanctuary in the popular paperback edition of the book, The Sanctuary Service, by M. L. Andreasen, page 6. (Not all editions may have this diagram.)

Now, back to our story:

Right away I could see that many of the paintings and drawing of the tabernacle and its courtyard that I had seen as a child and young adult were poorly proportioned. What’s more, I could also see that there was an obvious geometrical arrangement to the sanctuary. Could there be some significance to that?

THE GEOMETRY

There are some easy observations one can make about the courtyard’s geometric arrangement.

If you divide the courtyard in half, forming two equal-sized squares, you will find that each square has at its center an important piece of furniture. To emphasize, you may wish to draw a large “X” through each square, and note where the lines of the “X” cross.

In the left square, you will find at the center the ark of the covenant:

In the right square, you will find the altar of burnt offering:

There are other geometric relationships, but those are for your own study.

That alone is quite fascinating, and we could stop here. But not long after I noticed these relationships, I was struck by some compelling relationships between the tabernacle and its courtyard, and another structure from the Old Testament: the Garden of Eden.

THE EDEN CONNECTION

What follows is not some deep knowledge that everyone needs to know, but it makes sense to me, and I think it adds something to the Bible story of salvation.

The first connection we can draw is this: The Garden of Eden was a sanctuary itself. The tabernacle and courtyard are called a sanctuary in the Bible. But the Garden of Eden was the first sanctuary, for it was there that God and humans first met. Furthermore, in 1 Kings 6:29 and Ezekiel 41:18, we find a description of the temple walls. These verses tell us that on the walls were images of palms, flowers, and cherubs. Don’t those images remind you of the original paradise?

In Genesis 2:9 and 3:3 we read of two trees located in the “midst” of the Garden of Eden: the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Notice they were both in the “midst” of the Garden. It is doubtful that these trees were side by side, considering the nature of the Tree of Knowledge and what God had said about it — that Adam and Eve were to stay away from it.

One possibility is that the two trees were at the centers of two ends of the Garden of Eden, not unlike the arrangement of the ark of the covenant and the altar of burnt offering within the courtyard. That may seem like an arbitrary point, but you’ll see why I think so as we go along.

When created, Adam and Eve were granted immortal life. As such, they could partake of the Tree of Life. But because they sinned, in eating of the forbidden tree, they were cast out, and a flaming sword guarded the gate to the Garden. Notice that the gate to the Garden was on the east side (Genesis 3:24).

In the sanctuary service, anyone who was a sinner — a fallen person like you and me — could enter through the east gate. At the altar of burnt offering, they received forgiveness of sins. Because of their sin offerings, they were able to participate in the Day of Atonement. On that day, the high priest entered the most holy place, and represented each person as he stood before God’s presence that rested above the ark of the covenant. Although only the high priest could enter the most holy place, he represented all the people. Through him, everyone could come in before God, symbolically.

Within the ark of the covenant were the tables of the Ten Commandments, representing the law of God. In this way the sanctuary showed that drawing close to God through forgiveness of sins also draws us close to His law of love.

So, to sum up the big picture of what we’ve seen so far, humanity moved from access to the Tree of Life to partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. In consequence, they were thrown out of the Garden by the east gate. Through the sanctuary, they could come in by the east gate, receive forgiveness at the altar, and find holiness in the most holy place. In doing so, they could ultimately be restored to the Tree of Life in heaven.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

So far, this may seem like a nice coincidence, and interesting devotional thought. But consider the following:

In what sense was the Tree of Knowledge a knowledge of both good and evil? We know the evil part very well: Eating that fruit brought sin and suffering into our world. But how did it bring a knowledge of good? Consider this: It was through the Fall that the universe came to understand the awesome love of God in a far deeper sense. Against the incredible ugliness of sin came an unprecedented and inexplicable demonstration of divine compassion. Jesus died for us. So yes, tasting of the Tree of Knowledge brought a knowledge of both good and evil.

Does the altar of burnt offering have a similar dual meaning, showing good and evil? We know that in the sacrifice of lambs on the altar, the death of Jesus for us was symbolized (see John 1:29, etc.). The altar represents the cross. Did the cross bring a knowledge of good and evil? Consider the words of Ellen White:

At the cross of Calvary, love and selfishness stood face to face. Here was their crowning manifestation. Christ had lived only to comfort and bless, and in putting Him to death, Satan manifested the malignity of his hatred against God. He made it evident that the real purpose of his rebellion was to dethrone God, and to destroy Him through whom the love of God was shown.

By the life and the death of Christ, the thoughts of men also are brought to view. From the manger to the cross, the life of Jesus was a call to self-surrender, and to fellowship in suffering. It unveiled the purposes of men. Jesus came with the truth of heaven, and all who were listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit were drawn to Him. The worshipers of self belonged to Satan’s kingdom. In their attitude toward Christ, all would show on which side they stood. And thus everyone passes judgment on himself.

Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, 57, 58 (emphasis mine)

Another clue is found in 1 Corinthians 1:23–30: The knowledge of the cross is “foolishness” to the world. It requires a flip in human thinking. Just as the Tree of Knowledge caused a flip in human nature, causing humanity to love evil and hate good, so the revelation of the cross reverses that flip, and causes us to see things in their true perspective.

So we see, then, that the cross was, like the Tree of Knowledge, both a revelation of good and evil. The cross was a demonstration of the most vile act of sin and the most marvelous love of God, the very knowledge represented by the forbidden tree. All of this was symbolized in the sacrifices of the altar of burnt offering, and by partaking of the fruit of the forbidden tree. The sin in eating the fruit brought all of this knowledge to us; the cross makes it all the more clear and sets it in its proper perspective.

So far we have two connections: Both the sanctuary and the garden had a gate on the east; and both had a “tree” (literal or figurative) that represented a knowledge of good and evil. The “tree of knowledge” in the sanctuary was the altar, representing the cross.

The entrance and altar are two of the main features of the courtyard. What about the tabernacle? Are they any correlations between the ark of the covenant and the tree of life? Consider the words of scripture:

“The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life.” Proverbs 11:30.

“Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding…. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.” Proverbs 3:13, 18.

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Revelation 22:14.

Obedience was the condition of maintaining eternal life in Eden. Obedience is the conditional of regaining eternal life in the earth made new.

“To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” Revelation 2:7.

So through the sanctuary we come full circle. Try drawing this diagram on a sheet of paper: the Garden of Eden in the top half of the sheet, with the Tree of Life in the left center, and the Tree of Knowledge in the right center, and the gate on the right (east) side. Then the sanctuary in the bottom half, with the ark in the left center, and the altar in the right center, and the gate on the right side. Draw a line from the Tree of Life, through the Tree of Knowledge, and out through the gate. Continue the line through the gate of the sanctuary, through the altar, and through the ark. From the ark, continue the line back to the Tree of Life. Then you should see clearly how it all fits together.

And finally:

“As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. But against these principles there is struggling an antagonistic power. The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man’s experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist.”

Ellen White, Education, p. 29.

The tree of life was designed to perpetuate immortality. Adam and Eve could eat of that tree, and enjoy its rich immortal fruit, until they transgressed the command of God. Death was then pronounced upon them, and all that should ever live upon the earth….

Then if you keep all the commandments of God, the Sabbath with the rest, you may through the merits of Christ, be brought back to the tree of life.

Ellen White, The Youth’s Instructor, August 1, 1852

“Through His humiliation and poverty Christ would identify Himself with the weaknesses of the fallen race, and by firm obedience show man how to redeem Adam’s disgraceful failure, that man by humble obedience might regain lost Eden.”

Ellen White, The Review and Herald, Volume 1, p. 140.

Any comments would be appreciated.

* * *

I didn’t include these two points in the main article, because they are more of a curiosity with me. But here they are for your consideration:

Interestingly, in the New Testament, the cross is called a “tree.” See Galatians 3:13. And Jesus describes Himself as fruit/food. See John 6:30–59; Matthew 6:26–29. Thus we could say, symbolically, that the cross was another tree, and from it came new food/fruit to eat.

Also, both “trees” had a serpent: In the Tree of Knowledge was a serpent, a medium of Satan, who spoke lies and whose words led to death. On the cross was One represented by a “serpent” (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4–9), whose sacrifice brought life.

The verses about “eternal fire” in the Bible (also called “everlasting fire,” etc.) have troubled annhilationists, such as myself, endlessly. The verses about eternal fire are viewed as a constant threat to our belief in soul sleep, conditional immortality, and the annihilation of sinners. After all, if there really is eternal fire, wouldn’t that also mean we must accept eternal torment?

I have found that nearly all of my fellow Seventh-day Adventists explain away the concept of eternal fire by referring to the “for ever” statements in the Old Testament. For instance, a servant who loved his master and the family given him, could choose to serve his master “for ever” (Exodus 21:6). The obvious meaning is that the servant was a servant until his death. There are other Old Testament verses illustrating the same usage. In the New Testament, Jude 7 is used as the ultimate illustration that eternal fire just ain’t so — Sodom and Gomorra, it says, were burned with eternal fire, but those cities are long gone. The conclusion of most Adventists is that “for ever” and “eternal” mean that something continues unabated “until the end.”

However, in doing this, I believe we are jeopardizing our position. In other words, I believe the Bible’s testimony regarding eternal fire is so emphatic that we cannot deny its existence. While “forever” clearly has a common usage that allows for an end, the word “eternal” does not. If we do not come to terms with this, people will see us as closing our eyes to the plain sense of God’s Word. True, Jude 7 and other verses have helped us put things in perspective (for example, eternal fire doesn’t mean eternal burning of the wicked). Also, it is true that the conventional Adventist line of reasoning has led many thousands to accept the truth.

I believe there is a better way, and a more consistent way, to explain eternal fire, that does not deny its eternalness.

No eternal torment

First of all, let’s be clear that none of the “eternal fire” statements in the Bible say the suffering of the wicked will be eternal. None of them say that the wicked will live forever. There are three verses that seem to say this:

1. Matthew 25:46: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Our question must be, what is the “punishment” spoken of here as “everlasting”? The suffering? Or the sentence of death? Again, scripture leads us to the conclusion that the destruction of the wicked — their annihilation — is what is everlasting. See 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (note the linking word “punish” in both verses). This conclusion is also implied by a careful reading of Matthew 25:46; if the righteous are given “life eternal,” then clearly the wicked do not have it, in hell or anywhere else.
2. Revelation 14:11: “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night.” But even in this case, the “for ever and ever” refers to their “smoke,” not the lives of the sinners themselves. It’s an unusual word picture, with a meaning that is not entirely clear; but it does not say the wicked live forever. When we compare scripture with scripture, we can see that anyone who reads eternal torment into this verse is making an assumption. Whatever may be the case with the smoke of the wicked, after the time of suffering the sinners themselves will be burned up. (See Isaiah 47:14, Matthew 10:28, etc.)
3. Revelation 20:10: “And the devil that deceived them [the nations] was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The first thing we can note about this verse is that it speaks only of three particular entities: the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. It does not say anything about people in general. Since every doctrine needs to be based on a clear, precise declaration, this verse alone cannot be used to teach the eternal torment of sinners in general. § Furthermore, the expression “for ever and ever” (KJV) is from a Greek expression that literally means “unto ages of ages.” It is a more emphatic form of expressions found in verses such as Matthew 21:19 (“for ever”), Luke 1:55 (“for ever”), Luke 1:33 (“for ever”), and elsewhere. Sometimes those related expressions mean “eternal,” and other times they mean “to the end of the age” or “to the end of its time”; the meaning is always contextual, and thus a matter of interpretation. § The expression used here is unusual and somewhat puzzling, but one possible explanation is this: The ordinary lifespan of a being suffering this punishment would be very short; thus the Greek expression normally expressed as “for ever” would suggest a quick death. However, the Bible says all sinners will be judged “according to their works” (Revelation 20:12–13). In the light of other verses such as Romans 12:19, this passage leads us to believe that punishment varies with the crimes. The more emphatic form of the Greek translated as “for ever and ever” suggests the punishment continues past the natural point of death, until the full punishment has been meted out. An amplified paraphrase would be, “and shall be tormented day and night, past the end of their natural existence, to the full end.”

The Bible is also clear that man is mortal. God alone has immortality. Only those who are saved are granted immortality. See Romans 2:7; 1 Timothy 6:15, 16; 2 Timothy 1:10, etc. There cannot be an immortal sinner, because eternal life is a special gift to those who are saved; therefore, there cannot be eternal suffering of sinners in hell.

But there is eternal fire

Having said this, let us admit that the Bible plainly speaks of eternal fire. “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.” Matthew 18:8. “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matthew 25:41. “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” Luke 3:17. And our Adventist favorite: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Jude 7.

My fellow Adventists typically dismiss these verses by explaining that “everlasting” really isn’t, well, everlasting. We take people through the “for ever” statements of the Old Testament. We have them think about Sodom and Gomorra. “Are they still burning today?” we ask. If we’re fortunate, the listeners are convinced. But is there a more consistent answer?

If we’re honest, we have to admit that there is a difference between “for ever” and these other expressions: “everlasting” and “eternal.” If I say I will keep a memento “forever,” that’s one thing. We know that means until I die. But if I claim that I will hold onto it for “eternity,” that is quite another. You would ask how I intend to take it with me to heaven. So it is not reasonable for me to explain away “eternal fire” as a figure of speech like “for ever” is. The words “eternal” and “everlasting” are emphatic; they are not like the generalization of “for ever.”

I really do believe that there is an eternal fire. The phrase is used in at least two different ways in Scripture:

1. “For our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29. God is a fire. God is eternal. Hence, eternal fire.
2. There is an “everlasting fire” that destroys the wicked (also called “hell fire”). As a facet of God’s presence, which is eternal, this fire is truly everlasting. It exists only in the immediate presence of God, but lashes out against sin. However, its function as hell fire is limited to the duration of sinners. It does not continue to burn the same matter perpetually. See 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8; Revelation 20:9; 2 Peter 3:10-13; Leviticus 10:2.

The everlasting fire that destroys the wicked is an aspect of the sin-consuming presence of God. “As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.” Psalm 68:2. Also note the phrase, “in the presence of the Lamb,” in Revelation 14:10, where the torment of the wicked is described.

Christians in eternal fire

A powerful verse about eternal fire — all but ignored by most Christians — is Isaiah 33:14, 15: “Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?” Notice the shocking answer: “He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil.” The righteous are the only ones who can stand in the fiery presence of God. There’s eternal fire, all right, but it will consume the wicked.

For further expansion on this idea, see the burning bush story (Exodus 3:2), and Revelation 15:2. Also, there are angels known as seraphs who minister in the presence of God (Isaiah 6); the word seraph can be translated “burning one”; compare with Hebrews 1:7.

Summary

In summary, eternal fire is Biblical. Eternal torment is not. The righteous can stand in the everlasting fire of God’s presence. The wicked will be completely consumed and destroyed.

I don’t recommend that my fellow Adventists go around telling everyone that they believe in eternal fire. It can be an interesting conversation starter, though, especially at Adventist dinner tables.

The importance of this understanding lies in its ability to build bridges. When someone comes to me who believes in eternal torment, I can treat their key verses with credibility. We don’t weasel our way out of the eternal fire statements. Instead, we show that the “annhilationist” view on the destruction of sinners is fully compatible with those key verses on eternal fire. We can accept their plain sense reading, while upholding the clear Biblical teaching that sin and sinners will be fully destroyed.

[This article was first emailed to friends some years ago, but never published online. In the meantime, I've heard others sharing views similar to my own, and so I decided to refine and post this to my blog. Perhaps it's a belief whose time has come.]

Over the years I’ve heard reports of problems in our school science departments, but had always assumed it was a single rogue teacher here and there. From all that I’ve personally seen, the church leadership and its official publications have remained firm on the traditional Adventist view of origins.

Recently the well-respected, young pastor-evangelist David Asscherick of ARISE dropped a bombshell when he wrote a letter to church leadership, drawing attention to the teaching of evolution at a particular SDA school, La Sierra University (LSU). Somehow the letter slipped from one of several people he had sent it to for review, into general circulation. It was forwarded as an “open letter,” and spread like wildfire.

Subsequently, the president of LSU responded with an open letter of his own. Unfortunately this letter did little to stop the rising tide of indignation. No doubt this is partially because he did not deny Asscherick’s basic accusation. His letter could be summarized like this: “We are not atheists. We are a Christian school, we do mission projects, we are engaged with the SDA church. Students get baptized here. We believe in diversity and not telling our students what to believe.” (My very loose paraphrase.) No word in defense of Genesis 1.

Shortly thereafter, others responded openly to the president’s letter, and noted its shortcomings in owning up to the alleged endorsement of the Darwinian worldview given by members of its biology and religion departments. A website, lasierrauniversity.net, sprang up to discuss the matter (not affiliated in any way with LSU — quite to the contrary!). [Update: LSU subsequently took ownership of the lasierrauniversity.net domain; the former website is now hosted at educatetruth.com.]

I was very surprised when the board of Adventist Laymen’s Services and Industries (ASI) decided to weigh in with a letter. ASI is the strongest network of officially recognized ministries and independent but supporting entities within the church. It’s a very influential and deeply respected organization within the church. Usually ASI seems to shy away from any controversial topics. But now they boldly called the church’s leadership to account over the drift of various unnamed educational institutions towards Darwinism.

On the heels of all this, while attending 3ABN’s Ten Commandments Weekend, I heard Nathan Renner pound a nail or two on this subject. He was talking about the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” and in his hour-long talk spent a few minutes saying explicitly that someone teaching evolution at an Adventist educational institution is stealing, in the same sense that an employee who promotes the interests of a competitor on his company’s dime is stealing from his employer. There was a hearty wave of “amens” in response, indicating that quite a number in the audience understood what he was getting at. Renner is a close friend of Asscherick.

I’m glad to say I have never personally heard a fellow Seventh-day Adventist advocate the view of evolution over millions of years. I attended Adventist schools all the way through college; but the high school and college I attended were private, “self-supporting” schools. I certainly heard about evolution, both in my classes and in other venues (popular TV, magazines, museums, etc.). Some of the biological aspects (heredity, genetic variation, survival of the fittest, etc.) were clearly taught as scientific facts in my classes. But these were always moderated by class instruction about the limitations of evolution to account for all the diversity in life, and about the weaknesses in data used to support the evolutionary paradigm (how we interpret carbon dating, rock strata, fossils, etc.), and about the Bible’s plain teaching on the subject. I firmly believe there is no way to blend Darwinism into the Adventist theological package — or with Christianity, for that matter.

It will be interesting to see how all this shakes down. To be honest, I cannot see any possible win-win outcome.

YouTube – John Wesley Sermon: Thoughts on War.

True hypocrisy does not consist of mistakes or inconsistencies. It is a willful pretending to be something that one has no intention of being. True hypocrisy is a serious sin, one that Jesus Himself denounced (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16; 23:1-33; etc.). But the so-called hypocrisy that the world loves to paint Christians with is defined in much broader terms.

Although the evil-hiding-under-good type of hypocrisy is bad and condemned in the Bible, there is another type of hypocrisy that is also condemned: We could call it the good-hiding-under-evil type. You will seldom see Hollywood vilify this kind.

This hypocrisy is when a person allows themselves to be seen as someone they are not, refusing to stand up and be counted. Often the motivation for this hypocrisy is fear, loneliness, or political jockeying. It may also represent an idolatry of human relationships, where the honor of God is held secondary to the feelings of family, friends, or others. It requires no special efforts, only sitting tight, standing with the right crowd, or keeping one’s mouth shut. You might say it is a passive form of dishonesty.

An example of this type of hypocrisy is when Peter yielded to the customs of the Judaizers in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter did not inwardly approve of the Jewish believers treating the Gentiles as lesser brethren. Prior to the Judaizers’ arrival he had freely mixed with the Gentiles. But his sin was that he allowed his influence to be for evil when he separated from the Gentile believers to associate with the Judaizers, a choice that showed a lack of resolute impartiality. The effect was so damaging to the Christian body that Paul “withstood [Peter] to the face,” rebuking him openly (verse 11).

In the Bible both types of hypocrisy are sometimes called “dissimulation” or “dissembling.” This word is from the same Greek sources that we get the word “hypocrisy.”

The Bible says, “Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.” These words especially address this other kind of hypocrisy, the passive kind. These words urge us to show our true colors. If someone is doing evil, it is wrong to act like we think it is okay. And if something is good, it is wrong to pretend to be unconcerned when the good is being attacked or ridiculed. The words “abhor” and “cleave” show the degree to which good and evil should be polarized in the Christian’s mind and in the Christian’s conduct.

We live in an age where wrong is accepted, even celebrated; and good is ignored, set aside, and slandered. If only our culture could be brought to see that these behaviors are also hypocrisy, how different might our world be. 

But what about mercy, compassion, forgiveness? If we want to know where to draw the line, the Biblical teaching on dissimulation shows us. It is important in showing compassion or reaching out to those in sin, that we refrain from suggesting a wrong behavior is okay. It is better to be frank and open regarding whatever evil may have been done. “It was wrong for you to murder your children. God hates that. But He still loves you, and so do I.” Or, in the words of Jesus, “Go, and sin no more.”

* * *

Prophets and Prospects 1:  The Curse of Meroz
April 9, 2003

“Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof;  because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” Judges 5:23.

The Curse of Meroz

1.  The Sin of Doing Nothing

What had Meroz done? Nothing. This was their sin. The curse of God came upon them for what they had not done. The man with a selfish, narrow mind is responsible for his niggardliness [stinginess], but those who have kindly affections, generous impulses, and a love for souls are laid under weighty responsibilities; for if they allow these talents to remain unemployed and to waste they are classed with unfaithful servants. The mere possession of these gifts is not enough. Those who have them should realize that their obligations and responsibilities are increased.  {2T 284}

Your wife might be a blessing if she would only take upon her the responsibility that it is her duty to take. But she has shunned responsibility all her life, and now is in danger of being influenced, instead of influencing you. Instead of having a softening, elevating influence upon you, there is danger of her thinking as you think, and acting as you act, without reaching down deep to be guided by principle in all her actions. You sympathize with each other, and, unfortunately, help each other to view matters incorrectly. She can exert an influence for good, but she possesses a spirit which savors of spiritual indolence and sloth. She is reluctant to engage in any good work if it is not pleasant and agreeable. What was the sin of Meroz? Doing nothing. It was not because of great crimes that they were condemned, but because they did not come up to the help of the Lord.  {2T 427}

2.  No Spirit of Mission

There is a class that are represented by Meroz. The missionary spirit has never taken hold of their souls. The calls of foreign missions have not stirred them to action. What account will those render to God, who are doing nothing in His cause,—nothing to win souls to Christ? Such will receive the denunciation, “Thou wicked and slothful servant.” {HS 290}

To every man is given his work—not merely work in his fields of corn and wheat, but earnest, persevering work for the salvation of souls. Every stone in God’s temple must be a living stone, a stone that shines, reflecting light to the world. Let the laymen do all that they can; and as they use the talents they already have, God will give them more grace and increased ability. Many of our missionary enterprises are crippled because there are so many who refuse to enter the doors of usefulness that are opened before them. Let all who believe the truth begin to work. Do the work that lies nearest you; do anything, however humble, rather than be, like the men of Meroz, do-nothings.  {8T 246}

3.  Efforts in the Wrong Places

…[L]ike Meroz, the curse of God rested upon them for what they had not done. They had loved that work which would bring the greatest profit in this life; and opposite their names in the ledger devoted to good works there was a mournful blank. {4T 386}

You are very much like Meroz. You are quite diligent when that which you do will bring some advantage to yourself, but there is no motive for special diligence unless you are to be benefited. You are decidedly a lazy man. You can eat your rations regularly, but you have no special love for physical labor. No man can fill his position as a minister unless he is industrious, diligent in business, and faithful in the performance of all the social and public duties of life. God has chosen us, as His servants, to His work, which requires persevering energy. We are not to become pets and shun toil, hardship, and conflicts.  {2T 550}

4.  Indifference and Failure to Help the Lord

I am alarmed at the indifference of our churches. Like Meroz, they have failed to come up to the help of the Lord. The laymen have been at ease. They have folded their hands, feeling that the responsibility rested upon the ministers. But to every man God has appointed his work; not work in his fields of corn and wheat, but earnest, persevering work for the salvation of souls. {5T 381}

Many times our efforts for others may be disregarded and apparently lost. But this should be no excuse for us to become weary in well-doing. How often has Jesus come to find fruit upon the plants of His care and found nothing but leaves! We may be disappointed as to the result of our best efforts, but this should not lead us to be indifferent to others’ woes and to do nothing. “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” How often is Christ disappointed in those who profess to be His children! He has given them unmistakable evidences of His love. He became poor, that through His poverty we might be made rich. He died for us, that we might not perish, but have eternal life. What if Christ had refused to bear our iniquity because He was rejected by many and because so few appreciated His love and the infinite blessings He came to bring them? We need to encourage patient, painstaking efforts. Courage is now wanted, not lazy despondency and fretful murmuring. We are in this world to do work for the Master and not to study our inclination and pleasure, to serve and glorify ourselves. Why, then, should we be inactive and discouraged because we do not see the immediate results we desire?  {3T 525-526}

5.  Hold Truth to be Inconvenient

You have not felt the necessity of heeding the light which God has given you, and arousing yourself to save your family, acquitting yourself as a father and priest of your household. You did not deny the light given, you did not rise up against it; but you neglected to carry it out because it was not convenient and agreeable to your feelings to do this. Therefore you were like Meroz. You came not up to the help of the Lord, although the matter was of so vital consequence as to affect the eternal interests of your children. You neglected your duty. In this respect you were a slothful servant. You have but little sense of how God regards the neglect of parents to discipline their children. Had you reformed here, you would have seen the necessity of the same effort to maintain discipline and order in the church. Your slackness in your family has been seen also in your labors in the church. You cannot build up the church until you are a transformed man.  {2T 626-627}

6.  Lukewarm Laodicea

Many of our people are lukewarm. They occupy the position of Meroz, neither for nor against, neither cold nor hot. They hear the words of Christ, but do them not. If they remain in this state, He will reject them with abhorrence. Many of those who have had great light, great opportunities, and every spiritual advantage praise Christ and the world with the same breath. They bow themselves before God and mammon. They make merry with the children of the world, and yet claim to be blessed with the children of God. They wish to have Christ as their Saviour, but will not bear the cross and wear His yoke. May the Lord have mercy upon you; for if you go on in this way, nothing but evil can be prophesied concerning you.  {5T 76-77}

They have committed no grievous, outbreaking sins, and they must, after all, be on the true foundation, and God will accept their works. They see no special sins to repent of, no sins which call for special humiliation, humble confession, and rending of heart. The delusion upon such is strong indeed when they mistake the form of godliness for the power thereof, and flatter themselves that they are rich and have need of nothing. The curse of Meroz rests upon them…. {2T 395-6}

It is important that all now come up to the work and act as though they were living men, laboring for the salvation of souls who are perishing. If all in the church would come up to the help of the Lord, we would see such a revival of His work as we have not hitherto witnessed. God requires this of you and of each member of the church. It is not left with you to decide whether it is best for you to obey the call of God. Obedience is required; and unless you obey you will stand on worse than neutral ground. Unless you are favored with the blessing of God you have His curse. He requires you to be willing and obedient, and says that you shall eat the good of the land. A bitter curse is pronounced on those who come not to the help of the Lord. “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” Satan and his angels are in the field to oppose every advance step that God’s people take, therefore the help of everyone is required. {2T 165}

Once upon a time Oscar Wilde was at a gathering. He spied a beautiful woman on the other side of the room, and approached her. After some small talk, he asked, “Would you be willing to sleep with me for a million dollars?”

After some deliberation, she replied, “I suppose.”

Then he inquired, “Would you be willing to sleep with me for ten dollars?”

With indignation, she replied, “Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?”

Not missing a beat, Wilde replied, “Madam, that has already been established; now we are merely determining the price.”

The world is in the business of establishing our price. If we can be bought or sold, it is only a matter of time before the price will be paid, or before the market will drive down our price to a more modest amount.

What are your negotiables? What are your nonnegotiables? Everything is up for bid that we do not choose to remove from the market.