The Teachings of Timothy Jennings
An Evaluation by Eugene Prewitt
Introduction
I first heard of Timothy Jennings in connection with the Good News Tour. This was not, in my mind, a positive association. But it was not until a friend of mine suggested that my students listen to a series of his lectures that I took a personal interest in his teachings.
I listened to six hour-long lectures by Dr. Jennings while taking copious notes. From these notes I wrote a brief paper for the administrative committee at Ouachita Hills College. This paper strongly recommended that we not assign our students to listen to Dr. Jennings’ lectures.
Several months later I had, in one week, two individuals call me and ask about Dr. Jennings’ teachings. After writing the second response (to the two individuals) I concluded that I should place my paper to the executive committee in the public domain. I posted it on my website.
About three weeks later I was surprised to receive a call from Dr. Jennings himself. He kindly informed me that I had misrepresented him in my paper and had not acted in harmony with Bible principles by placing that paper in the public domain without having first contacted him.
That phone call persuaded me that I had not in all respects well summarized his teachings. It did not, however, persuade me that Brother Jennings was safer than I had first indicated.
This paper will replace the original. I hope to improve on that paper by more accurately representing what Timothy Jennings really teaches, by giving him an opportunity to see the paper before it is in the public eye, and by clarifying statements that were ambiguous or easily misunderstood.
But first, let me address the reason that I do not believe I must confront false teachers before exposing them. A false teacher neither offends me nor sins against me. I do not pretend to know his character. He is not ashamed of his teachings (if indeed he places them in the public domain). I oppose his teachings, not his person. And for that reason Romans 16:17-18 rather than Matthew 18, applies to my situation.
Yet I will admit that it is generally a good thing to talk to someone about what they believe before telling someone else what they believe. Misunderstandings are common. In the case of Mr. Jennings I felt that I well understood his position before writing. And after talking with him, I feel that I was fundamentally correct regarding what he teaches.
Initial Summary
Dr. Jennings’ lectures are content rich and are profusely illustrated. And if I am correct, Dr. Jennings is in grave danger.
Like Dr. Kellogg of yesteryear, he has been used by God to uncover a great deal of truth in his professional studies. His teachings regarding the relation of the various faculties of the mind (will, appetites, passions, reason, conscience, emotions, imagination, etc.) are profound and incredibly consistent with EGW’s teaching on the same.
And like Dr. Kellogg of yesteryear, he has woven into his presentations a deadly net of falsehoods that destroy the most fundamental of Christian virtues – faith.[1] I do not mean that Dr. Jennings teaches any of the same errors taught by Dr. Kellogg. Rather, I mean that both doctors eventually became icons of a dangerous mixture of truth and error.
In short, Dr. Jennings believes that God takes no initiative in causing prolonged pain during the destruction of the wicked, and that to prolong or cause punitive suffering is torture and that such a view of God (that he would cause prolonged pain as part of punishment) destroys love and trust.
More than this view, which is explained thoroughly in two of the lectures given at the Forest Lake church in Florida, and is alluded to in two others, Dr. Jennings has espoused a theory of the atonement that mirrors in some fundamental ways the moral influence theory[2].
He does not, for example, believe in substitutionary atonement. He makes light of the idea that sins must be “paid” for.
Jenning’s epistemology is troubling. He argues, when defending the views above, that we must reject any doctrine that requires us not to reason. But he explains this in such a way that if we believe that God is loving, and that God burns people for rebelling, such a dichotomy is not reasonable and the some point of it must be rejected.
Thus he, in his recorded lectures, inadvertently sets individual reason above inspiration. When a man’s reason can not grasp the harmony of two ideas (as Satan could not perceive any harmony between justice and mercy, a similar perplexity to the one facing Jennings), the man concludes that at least one of the ideas must be flawed. This has always been the essence of unbelief.
Jennings also repudiates ideas associated with the investigative judgment. He thinks not that sins are blotted from a record in heaven during the judgment. He mocks the idea that the our personal sins will be forever forgotten.
These views, woven into such a collection of profound insights into human nature, make for an extremely cogent parallel to the book Living Temple with its incredible insights into physiology interwoven around a philosophy of life-is-God.
And like the book Living Temple, which was critically evaluated by Jones, Waggoner, and several other notable messengers of God, and was pronounced harmless by them all, the lectures of Dr. Jennings seem to have elicited no protest from the audience. (This I gather from the 30 minute question and answer period at the conclusion of the final lecture.)
I must conclude that it would be irresponsible to encourage anyone to listen to his lectures.
The Doctrine of Justice
I have written elsewhere regarding the doctrine of justice. See, for example, my article on the draft.
There are several Bible facts about justice that relate to this discussion.
First, the angels (who are in the know) believe God’s judgments are perfectly fair. These heavenly beings witness pain and suffering caused by the seven last plagues. These plagues are punitive rather than corrective. (That is, they occur after the close of human probation.) And the suffering is fair, it is just. God is “holy” who judges the wicked. That is obvious, “manifest”, according to the righteous ones in Rev 15.
. . . the rivers and fountains of waters . . . became blood. 5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, “Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. 6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.” 7 And I heard another out of the altar say, “Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.”
And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. 10 . . . and [some] gnawed their tongues for pain, 11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds. Re 16:4-11
And [the righteous] sing . . . saying, “Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. 4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.” Re 15:3-4.
Second, when brethren study the Bible and despite their best efforts to harmonize yet can not see eye-to-eye, God has ordained the gifts of the Spirit to serve as a protection. They keep us from being blown around by winds of doctrine. And on the question of God’s executive judgment, the prophetic gift speaks plainly.
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; . . . That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; Eph 4:11, 14.
In the Garden of Gethsemane Christ suffered in man’s stead, and the human nature of the Son of God staggered under the terrible horror of the guilt of sin, until from His pale and quivering lips was forced the agonizing cry, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”; but if there is no other way by which the salvation of fallen man may be accomplished, then “not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matthew 26:39). {TMK 64.2}
The power that inflicted retributive justice upon man’s substitute and surety, was the power that sustained and upheld the suffering One under the tremendous weight of wrath that would have fallen upon a sinful world. Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God’s law. It is a fearful thing for the unrepenting sinner to fall into the hands of the living God. This is proved by the history of the destruction of the old world by a flood, by the record of the fire which fell from heaven and destroyed the inhabitants of Sodom. But never was this proved to so great an extent as in the agony of Christ, . . . when He bore the wrath of God for a sinful world. . . . {TMK 64.3}
Man has not been made a sin-bearer, and he will never know the horror of the curse of sin which the Saviour bore. No sorrow can bear any comparison with the sorrow of Him upon whom the wrath of God fell with overwhelming force. Human nature can endure but a limited amount of test and trial. The finite can only endure the finite measure, and human nature succumbs; but the nature of Christ had a greater capacity for suffering; for the human existed in the divine nature, and created a capacity for suffering to endure that which resulted from the sins of a lost world. The agony which Christ endured, broadens, deepens, and gives a more extended conception of the character of sin, and the character of the retribution which God will bring upon those who continue in sin. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. {TMK 64.4}
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, “The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.” {EW 294.1}
The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They “shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.” Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished “according to their deeds.” The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch–Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}
Third, the idea that men receive a reward that is “according to their works” is a theme of scripture. The reward of the wicked includes “tribulation” and “wrath” and punishment more sore than dying without mercy under the law of Moses.
2Co 5:10 . . . that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
1Pe 1:17 . . . without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work.
2Co 11:15 . . . whose end shall be according to their works.
Re 20:12 . . . the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Re 20:13 . . . they were judged every man according to their works.
Re 2:23 . . . I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
2Ch 6:30 . . . and render unto every man according unto all his ways
Jer 17:10 . . . I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Ps 62:12 . . . for thou renderest to every man according to his work.
Isa 3:10 Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Isa 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.
Mt 16:27 . . . and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Ro 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Ro 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: Ro 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: Ro 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Ro 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, . . . For there is no respect of persons with God.
He 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Heb 10:28-31.
Fourth, Christ’s illustrations of the executive judgment harmonize well with the idea of a finite punishment that is painful and precisely just. And when Ezra prayed about God’s judgments on Israel (that included great suffering and horrible deaths inflicted by Babylon), he acknowledged that they had been punished “less” than they deserved.
Mt 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Ezra 9:13 Seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve.
Fifth, the danger of experiencing the wrath of God is part of the third angel’s message.
Re 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
In short the doctrine of justice is present truth and it is no surprise that the devil would oppose it.
Dethroning Reason
Now when I talked to Dr. Jennings on the phone (April 17, 2009) he referred me to a statement where Ellen White talks about the idea of God torturing sinners as being a falsehood that overthrows reason.
From listening to his lectures it seems to me that Dr. Jennings believes that the purposeful painful punishment of sinners is irrational if one believes in a loving God. Now to me it seems perfectly rational that a loving God would nevertheless be willing to be fair even if being so was painful to himself. To inflict pain on the man that ordered torture for a humble servant of Jesus seems only just. In fact, it is when the persecutors are already dead that the blood of the martyrs calls out for God to avenge “our blood” in Revelation 6. So painful punishment seems rational to me and irrational to Jennings.
But whether it seems rational to Tim Jennings or myself is not a very important question. God is wiser than man. We must assume that his ideas are higher than ours even when we can not attain to them. Nevertheless, reason is one of the ruling powers in the Christian mind. It, rather than the appetites, is to guide the will. And when reason is “dethroned”, it is not because a man chooses to believe God’s Word. Rather, it is because he has become either a lunatic or a slave of his passions.
The following is the statement to which Tim was referring. I hope you can see that it does in no way excuse a man for exalting his reason over the plain statements of scripture. See the last sentence where teachers are bidden to check their sources of authority.
“I have since thought that many inmates of the lunatic asylums were brought there by experiences similar to my own. Their tender consciences have been stricken with a sense of sin, and their trembling faith dared not claim the promised pardon of God. They have listened to descriptions of the orthodox hell until it has seemed to curdle the very blood in their veins, and burnt an impression upon the tablets of their memory. Waking or sleeping, the frightful picture has ever been before them, until reality has become lost in imagination, and they see only the wreathing flames of a fabulous hell and hear only the shrieking of the damned. Reason has become dethroned and the brain is filled with the wild phantasy of a terrible dream. Those who teach the doctrine of an eternal hell, would do well to look more closely after their authority for so cruel a belief. {LS80 153.3}
Ellen White does attack as contrary to our sense of justice the doctrine of eternal torment, or the doctrine that God enjoys punishing the wicked. But the very logic of the statements implies that a finite punishment would be a just yet unpleasant reality. See the second portion of the appendix.
The irony is that Satan, by teaching eternal torment, hoped to lead men to some of the very same conclusions that Tim Jennings has espoused. Men would conclude that God’s punishments must not be expected to be “literally” fulfilled.
Satan told his angels to make a special effort to spread the deception and lie first repeated to Eve in Eden, Thou shalt not surely die. And as the error was received by the people, and they believed that man was immortal, Satan led them still further to believe that the sinner would live in eternal misery. Then the way was prepared for Satan to work through his representatives, and hold up God before the people as a revengeful tyrant; that those who do not please him, he will plunge into hell, and cause them ever to feel his wrath; and that they will suffer unutterable anguish, while he will look down upon them with satisfaction, as they writhe in horrible sufferings and eternal flames. Satan knew that if this error should be received, God would be dreaded and hated by very many, instead of being loved and admired; and that many would be led to believe that the threatenings of God’s word would not be literally fulfilled; for it would be against his character of benevolence and love, to plunge beings whom he had created into eternal torments. {1SG 114.2}
Though Jennings has not gone as far down the road as the universalists (Ellen White mentions them in the context of the statement above), yet he has taken one key step in the same direction. The “threatenings,” some of them, have been explained as non-literal prophesies.
Still it is true that lost men, even while being consumed, will be bemoaning their sins. The thoughts of one such man are recorded by Solomon.
Pr 5:11 And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed, 12 And say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof; 13 And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me! 14 I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly.
While this essay is far from a thorough treatment of justice, and even further from a rounded treatment of atonement (see my article, “Atonement Cleansing”), yet it is sufficient I think to demonstrate why Jennings should not be followed as he travels down the road of being wise “above that which is written.”
Eze 33:20 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.
God’s ways are fair.
Appendix Part I – A Critique of the Six Lectures Given at Forest Lake Academy
Lecture One
In his first lecture Dr. Jennings sets the stage for what he will develop more thoroughly in lectures four and six. He begins to explain that “lies believed” destroy love and trust. Then he begins to hint that the audience may even believe lies. Then, to paraphrase (all statements in quotes are quotes from my notes, paraphrases only of Dr. Jennings) him from my notes,
“The most destructive lies we believe are lies about God himself. Some of you will be shocked by the evidence. I want you to look at the information and weigh it.”
This idea is important to him. He emphasizes repeatedly that:
“Trust broken makes fear and selfishness…as a natural consequence. This idea is known as survival of the fittest – the opposite of God’s principle of love.”
What comes clear later is that if one believes in the standard Adventist position on the executive judgment and the substitutionary atonement, one will not trust God, but will become selfish and self protecting from such a cruel Being.
The first lecture ends with six suggestions. Suggestion number two introduces an idea that will be repeated throughout the series,
“If you have seen me [Jesus], you have seen the Father.”
This Jennings develops into a hermeneutic such that if Jesus didn’t punish then the Father won’t, if Jesus could forgive men before dying, then the Father could forgive men without Jesus dying. But that comes in lectures 4 and 6, and the person listening doesn’t realize what the repetition of the “principle” is setting him up to experience.
Lecture 2
This is the lecture on the Law of Liberty. It is fascinating. The short of it is that if a husband, for example, threatens to beat his wife if she will not obey, the natural consequence of this will be that
“love is damaged, and eventually destroyed. A desire to rebel is instilled.”
“If the woman stays, she loses her individuality, she becomes a shadow person.”
The principle seems true and obvious as it relates to marriage. But Dr. Jennings has wider applications in mind, and he begins to make them in this lecture. If you believe that God threatens disobedience with punishment, “love is damaged” and see above for the rest. This places the cause for rebellion squarely at the feet of whoever inspired a prophet to threaten. Dr. Jennings indicates that he is very aware of the implications (though there is no evidence he is thinking of the implication just mentioned).
On a light note in a serious article, he says that the “stimulus package of Bush is a example of the law of love.” I don’t think this represents his best judgment.
In this lecture Jennings introduces one of what he calls “lies”, namely that:
“One of the lies is that the law of God brings death.”
He is saying that the law does not condemn men in such a way as to require their death.
He says:
“Does God have to use his power to kill? To inflict penalties?”
The implied answer is “no.”
There is an illustration that Jennings uses four or five times in his lecture series. Imagine, he says, a happily married couple. Someone approaches the wife with digitally altered photographs that falsely prove that her faithful husband has been having an affair. How will she react. Each time he uses the illustration he concludes:
“Lies believed lead to fear and selfishness.”
The problem with this illustration and conclusion is that it is one-sided. If the only kind of lie that could be told about God is that He is cruel, Jennings’ illustration would be more sensible. But there is an opposite type of lie, that God accepts you as you are. What does this lie lead to? Not “fear and selfishness” but self-confidence and selfishness. There are many lies and they produce a plethora of evil effects.
Lecture Three
In this lecture, on the family, Jennings begins to really advertise for his future lectures on the issues. He begins by making the case that lies about God are commonly believed and are the reason that people have problems with their relation to God. He urges people to come to the fourth lecture.
Like much in the first two lectures, this lecture is full of useful material on human-human interaction. But he makes one questionable point by suggesting a different translation of the proverb. I have not checked into this, but my gut reaction is that this is the wrong solution to the problem of well-raised lost children:
“Raise a child according to his way and when he is old he will not depart from it.”
Ironically, and interestingly, Dr. Jennings makes a good point about the damage done by threatening consequences to children and then not following through. He says the children will learn not to trust their parent. If only he had thought the implications of this through in relation to his theology regarding the judgment….
Lecture Four
“Our weapons are not spiritual, the battlefield is the mind, a war over ideas about what God is like. What happened in [a patient’s] mind when the preacher said what he did? She was hardened.”
This is the introduction to the primary lecture on what God is like.
The lecture boils down to “seven basic strategies” Satan uses, and defenses that “demolish Satan’s strongholds in our minds.”
1. “Lies about God.”
“That he is cruel, etc.”
Lies harden us, and we create schemes to be protected from God.
“God will examine our healthy brother Jesus in our place.”
This second of what Jennings calls “lies” about God examining Jesus, is very subtle. It is the first attack on the idea of substitutionary atonement in the lectures. It mocks, by illustration, the idea of the Father accepting the righteousness of Jesus in place of our life in the judgment.
And how do we escape the lies?
“Defense: Examine the facts about the Father through the lens of Jesus. Don’t read the Old Testament to see Jesus, but study Jesus to understand the Old Testament.”
He sets up this unreal dichotomy as a standard. Such a standard would allow one to reinterpret obvious OT examples of executive execution.
Satan’s next strategy:
“2. Antithetical beliefs. These turn off our brains.” Examples
“God is love.”
“Burn you in hell forever.”
“love and hell” are antithetical
“god is love” and “burn in hell” these “CANNOT BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME”
Jennings must sense that at this point some in the audience are feeling very uncomfortable. The last statement seemed to indicate that even a finite hell where God burns men can not be true if “God is love.”
“Someone says ‘I take God at faith, I just believe him.’ “you just turned off your brain.”
This is a direct exalting of human reason over inspiration. But he comes back and challenges:
“You think you have some verses, some inspired materials, that indicate that God will burn people? Bring them this afternoon, I would love to tell you what I believe about hell.”
He says that the idea that “God will inflict penalties” is antithetical to “God is love.”
He says “God does not use his power to inflict external penalties. All God has to do is let go and if he lets go, we will die.”
What is the defense against such so-called “lies” (that originate in Bible verses…)?
“Examine your beliefs in light of truth. Reject anything that requires you not to think.” And by this he seems to mean, anything that challenges your understanding, such as the harmony of justice and mercy.
Satan’s third strategy – to remove the meaning behind symbols.
He talks about how we sing about being cleansed “by the blood” as an example of an empty metaphor. He explains that “blood is life” and “the blood of Jesus is the life of Jesus.” “We are cleansed by the life of Jesus.”
But we are not cleansed, in the metaphor, by the blood in the lamb. We are cleansed by the blood spilled from the lamb. We are cleaned by the death, the shedding of the life, of Jesus. And this is an important point.
The fourth through seventh strategies are mostly well explained and harmless. But on the fifth… “Surrendering judgment to others.”
Here methinks that Dr. Jennings shows that he has read Graham Maxwell. He makes a point that we can not surrender our beliefs to the “28 beliefs” of the church and then launches into the “servants or friends” theme of Maxwell. But this is speculative on my part and he doesn’t make any applications here.
Lecture Five
Lecture 5 was on Depression. I didn’t take notes and was doing two things at once while listening to it.
Lecture Six
“Our Goal is to know God better, to develop trust and love and faith in God.”
Jennings begins with a list of myths about forgiveness.
One of these myths identified by Jennings is that “Forgiveness comes after the offender says ‘I’m sorry’”
His good point, that we should forgive before persons apologize, is extrapolated into a statement about forgiveness of sins: God has already forgiven us, even before we ask.
But while it is true that God loves us, gave all to save us, is not angry with us, yet the Bible places forgiveness as conditioned on confession and repentance.
“Myth three: Forgiveness requires payment.”
And this is the attack on substitutionary atonement.
“Anybody heard that forgiveness requires payment for our sins?”
“How many believe that Jesus died to pay our debt? That God forgives our debts as we forgive our debtors? If you collect the debt, can you forgive it? If you forgive it, can you collect it?”
Thus he confuses the issue of relationship and justice. I forgive my debtors as a response to God forgiving me. But I am not their Lawgiver. They sinned against God and hurt me. I forgive the hurt. The judgment deals with the sin. So God says “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I will repay.”
He observes that in 1 Cor 13, “Love keeps no record of wrong” and uses this to belittle the idea of a record being kept of our sins in heaven.
He says that our view of atonement is a “split in the godhead” and thus false.
“Did Jesus need appeasement? Where did this distortion come from?”
Thus he seeks to equate what really expresses the idea of justice with what he calls appeasement. And that is a great fault.
He addresses this apparent objection to his views: “Without shedding of blood is no remission” He 9:22.
And his answer is a modern tweaking of the moral influence theory. Jesus died to show us love and thus change us. It is one truth pitted against another in such a way as to make the second look like a lie.
“ ‘[You say] the Father applies Christ’s record to our record and declares us innocent when we accept him.’ In what universe will it ever be true that Adam never sinned? If we say God declares us innocent, we make God out to be a liar.”
“The records will last through all eternity.”
You will find an attack on the doctrine of the blotting out of sins; you will find an attack on the use of records in the judgment of consecrated persons; You will find that sins are blotted “not from a book” but from our character. You will find that the punishment for sin is the damage the sinner experiences in sinning.
You will find him answer an objection or two about God’s OT threatenings by saying that God was desperate and risked being misunderstood by rebels by communicating in a way they might listen – in other words, (my extrapolation, not his:) God didn’t mean what He said.
You will find in the Q and A, after the lecture, that a lady asked him more about “hell.”
His summary is that God is a fire that burns sin, not material things, so the people won’t be burned, but will die naturally from the brightness of God and the sin in them will be naturally consumed by the fire of God’s presence, so God will not actually do anything to destroy them.
And this flies entirely in the face of both scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.
You will find the strangest argument from the Greek word for sulfur in the third angel’s message.
Appendix Part II – Ellen White on an Eternally Burning Hell and the Sufferings of the Lost
How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief, earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live. Yet this doctrine has been widely taught, and is still embodied in many of the creeds of Christendom. Said a learned doctor of divinity: “The sight of hell-torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. When they see others who are of the same nature and born under the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, and they so distinguished, it will make them sensible of how happy they are.” Another used these words: “While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!” {GC88 535.1}
Where, in the pages of God’s Word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in Heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic, or the cruelty of the savage?—No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God. Those who present the views expressed in the quotations given above may be learned and even honest men; but they are deluded by the sophistry of Satan. He leads them to misconstrue strong expressions of Scripture, giving to the language the coloring of bitterness and malignity which pertains to himself, but not to our Creator. “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?” [Ezekiel 33:11.] {GC88 535.2}
What would be gained to God should we admit that he delights in witnessing unceasing tortures; that he is regaled with the groans and shrieks and imprecations of the suffering creatures whom he holds in the flames of hell? Can these horrid sounds be music in the ear of Infinite Love? It is urged that the infliction of endless misery upon the wicked would show God’s hatred of sin as an evil which is ruinous to the peace and order of the universe. Oh, dreadful blasphemy! As if God’s hatred of sin is the reason why he perpetuates sin. For, according to the teachings of these theologians, continued torture without hope of mercy maddens its wretched victims, and as they pour out their rage in curses and blasphemy, they are forever augmenting their load of guilt. God’s glory is not enhanced by thus perpetuating continually increasing sin through ceaseless ages. {GC88 536.1}
It is beyond the power of the human mind to estimate the evil which has been wrought by the heresy of eternal torment. The religion of the Bible, full of love and goodness, and abounding in compassion, is darkened by superstition and clothed with terror. When we consider in what false colors Satan has painted the character of God, can we wonder that our merciful Creator is feared, dreaded, and even hated? The appalling views of God which have spread over the world from the teachings of the pulpit have made thousands, yes, millions, of skeptics and infidels. {GC 536.2}
The theory of eternal torment is one of the false doctrines that constitute the wine of the abomination of Babylon, of which she makes all nations drink. Revelation 14:8; 17:2. That ministers of Christ should have accepted this heresy and proclaimed it from the sacred desk is indeed a mystery. They received it from Rome, as they received the false sabbath. True, it has been taught by great and good men; but the light on this subject had not come to them as it has come to us. They were responsible only for the light which shone in their time; we are accountable for that which shines in our day. If we turn from the testimony of God’s word, and accept false doctrines because our fathers taught them, we fall under the condemnation pronounced upon Babylon; we are drinking of the wine of her abomination. {GC 536.3}
A large class to whom the doctrine of eternal torment is revolting are driven to the opposite error. They see that the Scriptures represent God as a being of love and compassion, and they cannot believe that He will consign His creatures to the fires of an eternally burning hell. But holding that the soul is naturally immortal, they see no alternative but to conclude that all mankind will finally be saved. Many regard the threatenings of the Bible as designed merely to frighten men into obedience, and not to be literally fulfilled. Thus the sinner can live in selfish pleasure, disregarding the requirements of God, and yet expect to be finally received into His favor. Such a doctrine, presuming upon God’s mercy, but ignoring His justice, pleases the carnal heart and emboldens the wicked in their iniquity. {GC 537.1}
[1] Dr. Jennings does not acknowledge that he undermines faith by his teachings. He feels that I misrepresent him on this point. To this I counter that faith is simply living by and believing all that God says. Any one, then, who teaches that God’s plain statements cannot be understood literally, undermines faith. More on this later.
[2] Dr. Jennings distinguishes his belief from the moral influence theory on the basis that he believes Jesus did much more than simply make a demonstration. He accomplished, Jennings correctly teaches, a great deal that is essential to our salvation. He worked out a perfect character that is made available to us. Nevertheless, this sounds more like a refinement of the theory than a repudiation of it. Peter Abelard was seeking to get away from the very same ideas of penal justice that Dr. Jennings seeks to discredit.
For the Word Document, Click Here: Tomothy Jennings and God does Destroy
83 comments
Amy Briley
I have just finished reading 3 of TJ books, namely “Could it be this simple?”, “The God shaped heart”, and “The God shaped Brian”. I was very conflicted.
There was a lot of good that I read. His main efforts seemed to be in trying to solve the problem behind the thinking of legalism and the types of thinking that get you there. I also very much appreciated his treatment on God’s character. I was truly blessed by it. I do agree that the main fight in the GC is over the character of God and I can align in purpose with TJ on this.
His main premise is that God’s law functions according to nature like gravity (design law) and not “imposed” law like our laws of the land. I do agree that sin destroys our characters and that hurts us. I also think that a deformed character would be reason enough for it not to be safe to spend eternity in God’s universe. I also agree that a person who sins should be pitied because they are destroying themselves. But, TJ seems obsessed with the idea that there can be no legal element in the way God deals with us or else God’s character is now automatically assumed to be that of a tyrant. What God does legally as a judge and his feelings toward us aren’t necessarily the same. Any SDA doctrine that has a legal element seems to be altered by TJ to serve this one idea. To me, it seems like what EGW calls a one-idea-man. Everything else conforms to this one idea It might be better to cling to the idea that God’s character is exactly what He says it is despite if I understand the mystery of how mercy and justice go together.
Also, at one point he openly attacked SDA theology (among other denominations) in at least one of his books. I feel at this point he set himself against the church and his brethren and wasn’t moving with them. Too bad, I think some of the other things he teaches really could have been a help to the church. I’ll take the benefits of the read, but I can’t align myself with the errors.
eprewitt
I read it, sister. I agree that he teaches much good. I think not that it is safe to look for that good amid the dangerous material. Hence my article.
Tony Kimbley
When one reads 12MR No.963, “The Days of Noah”, it is abundantly clear that the God that destroyed the world by a flood, will indeed, destroy by fire. She also clearly warns those who judge Gods chosen punishments by human reasoning. I have to wonder if TJ has ever read this.
Helmuth Fritz
Thank you, Elder Prewitt, for sharing your faithful evaluation of deceptive teachings of Dr. Tim Jennings.
I first “smelled a rat” when in one of his weekly streamed Sabbath school classes near Southern Adventist University, Tim unequivocally rejected the Biblical and EGW teaching that sins of the repentant sinner BC were transfered in the blood of the slain offering by the ministering priest into the holy place thereby contaminating that compartment requiring a yearly cleansing. I emailed Tim asking how he reconciles his teaching with the Bible and clear statements by EGW. His answer told me all I needed to know. Tim simply stated that EGW had a lapse of logic when she wrote that.
Though many of Tim’s concepts seem quite enlightening, I have decided that anyone who elevates their ideas above those of any true prophet are not worth me trying to filter right from wrong in their teachings.
I have been encouraged by what I had thought were solid SDA members to consider listening to Tim. My response was to relate my email encounter with Tim, to which their enthusiasm was extinguished.
Praying for your courage and discernment and boldness to be a faithful watchman.
eprewitt
Amen
Riel Sarno
Hi brother Eugene,
I appreciate your deep review about the teaching that God is so loving that He will not cause sinners to suffer, some more than others, according to their works. I admit that I have not been able to read all the comments and replies, so this may be redundant.
For me there are three things that make me reject this teaching:
1. Jesus suffered our penalty of the second death. He paid my penalty. If I so choose to reject His payment for my sins, I will have to consciously suffer for my own sins. God’s love provided me a way out. But God’s justice demands I pay for my sins if I refuse His option of salvation.
2. The Third Angel’s Message, which says “the same shall drink of the wine of God’s wrath (where the sinner is conscious of the punishment)…and he shall be tormented with fire in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb…and they have no rest day nor night…” God’s love warns us about this fearful end, but God’s justice requires that judgment be meted out. Judgment cannot be accomplished on dead sinners.
3. The inspired commentary of the SOP. As you mentioned above in GC. Very clear and detailed. For one to think otherwise, it would be elevating our own faulty reasoning abilities above the inspired gift of prophecy given to the remnant for this very reason, because of a multitude of false teachings and theories. To go against the teaching of punishment of unrepentant sinners because God is “love” is to begin rejecting the whole gift of the SOP.
But, what other pitfalls are there if one chooses to believe the Graham Maxwell-Tim Jennings teaching that God will not punish sinners, but just allow them to die naturally? For someone who takes that viewpoint, what are the dangers of doing so. And would you have Scriptural support about those dangers?
Thanks,
Riel
AH
Anyone who has to rewrite (and, perhaps, call it The Remedy) the inspired Word of God in order to fit their ‘reasoned’ construct of the character of God is immediately suspicious to my mind. Be very careful Dr Tim Jennings. As intelligent as you appear to be, even you do not understand God fully.
Tim Cromwell
Elder Prewitt,
I appreciate your article here and the one posted on Fulcrum7.com. I agree with everything you have presented and thank you for warning me about this teacher who I had not heard of but I found is influential in some circles I am in.
I just have one thing that I would like to suggest to you that I think would make both articles easier to share and for people who might favor Dr. Jennings to read and honestly consider. I think you should divide your article into two sections. In the first part focus on the teachings of Dr. Jennings regarding the Atonement, something most Adventists are well-equiped to understand. Then, when you get to the point about how God punishes/destroys the wicked—a much less understood aspect of Adventist belief—your readers will already be following along and agreeing with you and be interested in what you have to say and trusting of your conclusions. While it is true that God destroys the wicked with fure and that how long they burn is based on their works and all, it is important to gain your audience’s trust and confidence first before presenting this harder topic.
Please let me know if you plan on doing this. Since you are already so versed in all this and have this great article on the topic, it would be great coming from you. However, if you decide not to do that, please let me know and I will write my own article on the topic because I believe it is that important.
Your brother in Christ,
Tim Cromwell
Craig Dirks
There is no one who can interpret Scriptures perfectly. Dr. Jennings never claims that he interprets the Scripture perfectly. He always invites questions and encourage everyone to think for themselves. His methods are to speak the truth with love and lets folks free to believe whatever they want. I have never experienced God’s punishment for my sins. I have experienced the consequences of my sinful choices. The moral laws that Dr. Jennings describe are always at work. God never treated me arbitrarily. My relationship with God,the Holy Spirit and Jesus has grown since I have been listening to Dr. Jennings. I am grateful that the Holy Spirit has lead me to Dr. Jennings.
Javier
Thanks for the comments on Dr Jennings presentations. Isn’t the destruction of Jerusalem an antitype of what will happen in the very end times?
Where we can see and understand the biblical term Wrath of God , we can also understand it by reading Gethsemane and pilates judgment hall
Looking down the ages, He saw the covenant people scattered in every land, “like wrecks on a desert shore.” In the temporal retribution about to fall upon her children, He saw but the first draft from that CUP OF WRATH which at the final judgment she must drain to its dregs. Divine pity, yearning love, found utterance in the mournful words: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I [22] have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” O that thou, a nation favored above every other, hadst known the time of thy visitation, and the things that belong unto thy peace! I have stayed the angel of justice, I have called thee to repentance, but in vain. It is not merely servants, delegates, and prophets, whom thou hast refused and rejected, but the Holy One of Israel, thy Redeemer. If thou art destroyed, thou alone art responsible. “Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.” Matthew 23:37; John 5:40.
Christ saw in Jerusalem a symbol of the world hardened in unbelief and rebellion, and hastening on to meet the RETRIBUTIVE JUDGMENTS OF GOD. The woes of a fallen race, pressing upon His soul, forced from His lips that exceeding bitter cry. He saw the record of sin traced in human misery, tears, and blood; His heart was moved with infinite pity for the afflicted and suffering ones of earth; He yearned to relieve them all. But even His hand might not turn back the tide of human woe; few would seek their only Source of help. He was willing to pour out His soul unto death, to bring salvation within their reach; but few would come to Him that they might have life.
What I also learned before hearing any teachings from Dr Jennings ( I’ve only seen two or three video of him one is the 3abn interview) is that the RETRIBUTIVE jugdements of God are shown in Jerusalems destruction. We also see How Jerusalem was left Desolate after the final rejection of Christ and the 40 years of extended mercy after his resurection.
The scene filled all heaven with wonder. That scene reveals to us the exceeding sinfulness of sin; it shows how hard a task it is, even for Infinite Power, to save the guilty from the consequences of transgressing the law of God. Jesus, looking down to the last generation, saw the world involved in a deception SIMILAR to that which caused the DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. The great sin of the Jews was their rejection of Christ; the great sin of the Christian world would be their rejection of the law of God, the foundation of His government in heaven and earth. The precepts of Jehovah would be despised and set at nought. Millions in bondage to sin, slaves of Satan, doomed to suffer the second death, would [23] refuse to listen to the words of truth in their day of visitation. Terrible blindness! strange infatuation!
We see how Jerusalem was destroyed by the RETRIBUTIVE JUDGEMENTS and what they RETRIBUTIVE judgments look like :
Jesus declared to the listening disciples the JUDGMENTS that were to fall upon apostate Israel, and especially THE RETRIBUTIVE VENGEANCE that would come upon them for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah.
For nearly forty years after the doom of Jerusalem had been pronounced by Christ Himself, the Lord delayed HIS JUDGMENTS upon the city and the nation. Wonderful was the long-suffering of God toward the rejectors of His gospel and the murderers of His Son. The parable of the unfruitful tree represented God’s dealings with the Jewish nation. The command had gone forth, “Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7) but divine mercy had spared it yet a little longer
The long-suffering of God toward Jerusalem only confirmed the Jews in their stubborn impenitence. In their hatred and cruelty toward the disciples of Jesus they rejected the LAST OFFER OF MERCY. Then GOD WITHDREW His protection from them and removed His RESTRAINING POWER FROM SATAN and his angels, and the nation was left to the CONTROL OF THE LEADER she had chosen. Her children had spurned the grace of Christ, which would have enabled them to subdue their evil impulses, and now these became the conquerors. Satan aroused the fiercest and most debased passions of the soul. Men did not reason; they were beyond reason—controlled by impulse and blind rage. They became satanic in their cruelty. In the family and in the nation, among the highest and the lowest classes alike, there was suspicion, envy, hatred, strife, rebellion, murder. There was no safety anywhere. Friends and kindred betrayed one another. Parents slew their children, and children their parents. The rulers of the people had no power to rule themselves. Uncontrolled passions made them tyrants. The Jews had accepted false testimony to condemn the innocent Son of God. Now false accusations made their own lives uncertain. By their actions they had long been saying: “Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.” Isaiah 30:11. Now their desire was granted. The fear of God no longer disturbed them. Satan [29] was at the head of the nation, and the highest civil and religious authorities were under his sway.
The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the CUP OF VENGEANCE. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;” “for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity.” Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the [36] destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan’s vindictive power over those who yield to his control
I think by reading some of these wonderful chapters we can learn a lot . Biblical terms should be studied more fully. I’m not bothered about your criticism on Dr Jennings teachings as I don’t really know what he teaches neither do I care. I have the Bible and the wonderful writings of Ellen White. Thanks alot for your comments!
eprewitt
Javier, yes, we should study more carefully and believe all that the prophets say. Yes, God has often used pagans and even demons to punish those deserving of the same. But no, not all judgments are this way. The flood and destruction of J both are types of the final judgment. But will be unlike both in details. Not death by water (as the flood) not by Satanic cruelty (as DoJ). It will be fire rained down from heaven on Satan and on others.
Russell Bantin
Many are committing an injustice to seek out those that they see in error and instead of opening an avenue of dialogue, they attack them with “The Truth”. The idea that because someone is speaking publicly we don’t have to follow Matthew 18 is preposterous and very damaging. That only leads to tearing God’s people apart and can be divisive. I see error on both sides and it really causes me pain. In the context of speaking of false teaching, is really a subtle attack on his character. I do not have reason to doubt either of your motives in seeking for truth and understanding of God. Once again, I do believe that there are many misconceptions of what is being said on both sides. However, I really do believe, at least for me, much of what is being discussed would be benefited in looking at the lake of fire, second death, and the fire that consumes in the light of “fire” as used throughout the Bible. I find it is always beneficial to include all the “outliers” of whatever theme we are discussing. Not that I have come up with any definitive conclusions on the matter. Only to say that there will be an end to sin and sinners. The consequences of our actions will be sure. And God will be exonerated.
Dan Chung
Thank you for addressing this issue. I completely agree with you that the only argument that is needed to reject TJ’s teachings is that he disagrees with inspiration in regards to Biblical retributive judgement, as you’ve already pointed out. In addition to this, I also find some logical inconsistencies in TJ’s arguments. One such inconsistency is his belief that will God not destroy the wicked, but yet He commands His chosen people to. More than this, if TJ is correct, I cannot reconcile his teachings with God resurrecting sinners to face the 2nd death. If there is no retributive justice, why would God resurrect those who are already dead (in fact, He resurrects some people twice [those who crucified Jesus]), just so they can die again? This seems unusually cruel, unless the reason is to face retributive judgment. In view of the “Healer model”, what kind of doctor would allow the disease to kill a patient, only to revive the patient so that the disease could kill them again? What would be the reason for this? In other words, is the healer only resurrecting the patient in order that the patient will know that he (the healer) did the best that he could for the patient, but since the patient rejected his cure he is going to allow the disease to kill the patient again, but this time permanently? Bearing in mind that for most, the 2nd death will be much more agonizing than their first death, I would again ask, what kind of healer would do this? Why not simply leave them dead?
Craig Dirks
I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, but I agree with Dr. Jennings interpretations of Scriptures. In the book of James, James says that Sin brings forth death. Jesus said if you have seen me, you have seen me, you have seen the Father. Dr. Jennings is interpreting the Scriptures much more like Jesus interpreted them than you are. And yes,I have been born again, nd I do have a personal relationship with Jesus. I view the Scriptures in the design health model rather then your view of Penal substitution view-that God,Jesus and the Holy Spirit rule this world the way humans do. This is a false view. Dr. Jennings has more evidence-both Scriptural and natural in his interpretation then you do.
Sean
I am also faced with the issue of Tim Jennings in my church. I see that support for his theology is growing. What I do not understand is why has conference or GC not made any comments regarding his theological errors. Also, can you clarify for me what is Tim’s position on the Substitutatny Atonement?
eprewitt
Sean, anyone who doesn’t believe that justice requires punative punishment for sin, also does not believe that Jesus took that punishment on himself as my substitute.
Russell Bantin
Are you saying that Jesus Died the Second Death?
Elmamarie Heldzinger
Thank you so much for addressing this sad theological issue that is leading many astray. I can understand now why Jesus said that “even the very elect” will be deceived in the last day. Also I read an EGW statement that only those who are fully grounded and daily reading the Word will be able to go through the end time. I now understand why, because there are so many beautiful sounding deceptions in our very church.
Quick question: Is TJ teaching that the Holy Spirit is not God? I thought he was teaching that? I would appreciate that because I have to address this issue with a lady in my small group at church who brought his book on the brain: “Is it so simple?” and wants to hand it out to everyone in our small group. Please if you can help me with this because I must warn the lady and the small group. So sad that right at the time when we are desperately needing and should be praying to receive the latter rain, some are teaching that the Holy Spirit is not God, idk some weird doctrine about the Holy Spirit which departs from all mainstream protestant churches and joins Jehovahs Witnesses on this point
.
Eugene Prewitt
As far as I know, TJ has not opposed the teaching that the Holy Spirit is a person.
Denver
Dear Eugene
I still do not think you entirely comprehend what Dr Jennings teaches regarding God imposing punishment for sin, and nor am I convinced your treatment of that issue above fully represents the scriptural evidence.
The bible is quite emphatic that death (and the suffering that precedes it) are the consequences of sin. These things entered the world through the first Adam’s sin and we are removed from their dominion through the second Adam’s (Christ’s) righteousness. God did not impose them as punishment for sin. They follow from it as night follows day.
In the interim between the fall of Adam and the second coming of Christ, we all (saints and sinners, wheat and tares, sheep and goats, wise and foolish, lost and found) grow up together. We all enjoy (and suffer) a life that could not exist at all without God’s constant protection from the devastating consequences of sin.
(I’d love to discuss with you the subject of Adam’s fall in more detail, in the context of God’s warning to him, “in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die”, but perhaps another time.)
The problem of sin is not that it offends God’s sense of right, nor that it makes Him angry, although both these are true. The problem of sin is that it causes suffering and death. Again, we could discuss the mechanics of this extensively, but the summary is sufficient for now. It is sin that causes (pays, because we have earned it) death, and in great contrast it is God that gives (unearned, i.e. unmerited favour = grace) eternal life. In context it is apparent that the death being spoken of is not what we call the first death, but in distinction to eternal life the death spoken of here is the second (eternal) death.
God has removed many people from His divine provision and protection of a temporal life we all have not deserved, but He has not done so as punishment for sin. When the earth was flooded (the mechanics of the flood are again a topic deserving of further exploration) God was acting to protect that holy line of descent which (for reasons not entirely clear even now) were important to Him for the production of the Messiah and thus the possibility of anyone being saved. His judgement was that had He not intervened righteousness would have perished from the earth. We know this because Jesus told us plainly that the end times, the times we have now entered, will be as the days of Noah before the flood, and we are also informed that if God does not intervene in our time no flesh will be saved.
When God shows Abraham the future of his descendants in Egypt He says something very pertinent to this point. He tells Abraham that the children of Israel will be slaves in Egypt for centuries, “for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” God apparently timed the events of Moses’ life to respond to the fullness of the Amorites’ iniquity. Did the Amorites need to be punished? No, sin is its own punishment, and they will receive the wages of their sins as will all who reject God’s salvation from sin. They needed to be removed, as Paul wrote, as examples to all of us who live after them. Their culture was toxic to the point that they murdered their own children as a matter of religious habit and God judged that culture as being a danger to all men, and removed it in preference to letting it prosper and propagate. (Remember that many of the ancients considered that God rewards the righteous with temporal wealth and power (cf Job’s friends), while punishing sinners with temporal disease and poverty, and the Amorites were incredibly wealthy and powerful.)
This insight, that sin is its own punishment, is a key to understanding, I believe. Many Christians, many Seventh Day Adventists, think and speak as if God is obliged to punish sin because sin itself has no inherent consequence. This is a dreadful misapprehension, to which Romans 6: 23 speaks directly in contradiction, and you’d be hard put to find an Adventist that doesn’t know that text and yet how few understand what it says most plainly?
Finally, does God act to bring about the final stages of earth’s history under the dominion of sin and sinners? Most assuredly, He does. He progressively removes the provisions and protections He has held in place since the fall of Adam, which have kept us all alive even though we should all be dead (in fact most of us should never have existed at all since Adam and Eve would have died the day they sinned had God not intervened), and He allows the foe to exercise all the powers that he retains from his previous estate as a covering cherub and prince of the angelic hosts. To rain fire down “from heaven” in the sight of men, trying to prove to us that he is God, as he could not (because God then prevented him) at Mount Carmel. Mrs White adds that this is not an illusion of fire but a real exercise of Satan’s power; real fire that really burns. The deceiving nature of this miracle is not its appearance but the claim that only God can do this and therefore the devil is God. There’s a further problem with claiming that God has to kill and it is that it implies not only that sin does not kill but that we have our own life within us and without God taking it we would therefore continue to live as immortal sinners. This also cannot be.
The question of God’s character finally resolves to a question we each must answer for ourselves: is there a moral distinction between God killing someone (permanently, i.e. second death) by actively taking from them something that belongs to them (life), and God finally turning away from those who have adamantly rejected His every overture to save them, and letting them suffer the inherent consequences of what they have so stridently demanded from Him, their complete independence?
(When Christ died, did God kill Him, or did He die as a consequence of His Father’s turning away from Him?)
I believe there is such a distinction.
I believe the bible upholds such a distinction.
I believe that God accepts moral responsibility for deaths that occur as a result of His refusal to continue to subsidise certain fatal (to others) and wicked behaviours. I believe that God has spent approximately 6,000 years keeping us all alive, saints and sinners alike, and a similar but unknown longer period keeping the devil and his angelic followers alive, in spite of sin and its inherent consequences. (“And I gave her TIME, to repent of her sins … ). He has given us all time to repent, BY holding in check the fatal consequences of sin.
I believe that He will, in mercy and justice, finally stop doing so.
I do not believe that means that God kills in the sense that we typically use that term.
I do not believe that God kills.
I am open to being convinced on this point, but I caution against simplistic reliance on single texts on which to build our doctrine. Here a little, there a little. God Himself said that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart but nether of us believe that God reached inside Pharaoh’s mind and prevented him from obeying and then killed him for disobedience. Irrespective of your wise counsels on the limits of human reason, THAT is beyond countenance.
As Dr Horst Müller points out, the opposite of to give is not to take – the opposite of to give is to not give. God’s nature is to give, for that is what love does and God IS love. His “strange act” is not to take life but to stop giving life.
I should not have to add this, but it is probably advisable: I am not a member of Dr Jenning’s congregation nor am I in agreement with all that he teaches. I test all things (against the only reliable measure we have, the Word of God) and I hold fast to that which is good.
Kindest Regards
Denver
Eugene Prewitt
Dear Denver,
I usually truncate such long comments. Maybe I will truncate yours later. But briefly, I agree that we should not take lone texts to overthrow the tenor of the teachings of the prophets. But on the issue of punishment for sin, it is the general teachings of the prophets that TJ and you both deny. And though spinning a fine web of talk will entangle some persons, it should not do so. Justice is part of who God is, and a part of righteousness. And when God causes suffering and death, that does in no way imply that the punished one must have had inherent immortality. We put criminals to death, and not because otherwise they would live forever.
Harald Giesebrecht
After reading your critique of Dr. Jennings, I realize how much I agree with him.
Retributive judgment does not heal anything even if it is ever so Just. There are other, more constructive forms of Justice better designed for healing the hurts.
Eugene Prewitt
Indeed, retributive judgment does not serve the purpose of healing the transgressor, though it does a fair bit to heal the universe. Am sorry you agree with a man that so disagrees with the prophets.
Craig Dirks
Mr. Prewitt-I agree with the concepts that Dr. Jennings presents because he provides evidence in the Scriptures, nature and individually about the CHARCTOR of God. God has “punishes” me when I refuse his help and I do things my way. Then he withdraws his protection against Satan’s attacks on me and I suffer the consequences. H e does this because if I don’t want God to interfere with any area of my life that I don’t want to change, then he withdraws from me and I suffer the consequences. I bring the punishment on myself because I am not accepting reality. I have experienced this. Nobody is able to interpret Scripture perfectly and Dr. Jennings never claims that he has arrived or he is perfect. His interpretation of Scriptures is much closer to the truth about God’s character then yours. You want to punish sins-God wants to HEAL our sinful condition. Jesus said ‘If you have seen me,you have seen the Father” Did Jesus punish folks. Did he threaten anybody,coecre anybody,bully anybody? He did not. So based on evidence from the Scriptures,nature and my own experience I believe that Dr. Jennings view of the character of God,Jesus and the Holy Spirit are closer to the truth then your view.
Eugene Prewitt
Craig, I am sorry you agree generally with the ideas Tim presents regarding atonement and judgment. Yes, if you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father. But you haven’t seen Jesus yet as Judge. When you do, you will the character of the Father there too. It is appointed unto men once to die, and after that, the judgment. Jesus often spoke of that future judgment. You are right that these warnings were neither threats or efforts to coerce His audience. But they were serious and real. It was Jesus who warned of fire and pain and justice. So you say Tim’s ideas match your experience. But, oh Criag, your experience is now, before the time of execution. So if you look in your experience for analogs to the future execution of justice, you are looking at an apple seed to see the character of the apple tree. Yes, they have the same character. But you can’t see it. Where in my article do you see evidence from inspiration being mishandled? I don’t fault Tim for being fallible but rather, for being unbelieving.
Glen Frachiseur
Eugene Prewitt – Reply
April 10, 2016 at 4:41 am
Wow, Ms Ash. Let me reply briefly. First, Tim undermines faith by inviting you and others not to believe some of the plainest statements of the prophets. Taking God at His Word is the essence of faith. And who should decide what is literal and what is a metaphor? William Miller gave a good sensible reply to that: We should assume a passage is literal unless the literal reading of it doesn’t make sense (such as when a goat doesn’t touch the ground while flying, or when a beast has four heads, etc.) Angels have never referred to God’s judgments as torture. Neither have prophets. Neither is justice a balancing act. It is fair punishment (and the only two other options are unfair punishment, or no punishment.) And as one that lives in an eastern context (southeast Asia) your correlation of Adventist eschatology with eastern mysticism is baffling. The lake of fire is not karma. It is the wrath of God against guilty persons. You wrote this on January 10, 2016. I will be interested to see what you believe about the Three Angel’s Messages on January 10, 2021.
Hi Eugene,
A missionary I recently met sent me a copy of one of Jennings books called The God Shaped Heart. I have not read it and was doing a little homework on the author and ran across this site. I appreciate your assessment, and it seems to me from what you and others have quoted, that he is in line with the ‘God doesn’t kill’ movement.
On a side note, I often gain more insights in the Q and A, or in this case, the comment section, than I do in the main article or presentation. I am puzzling over your comment to this person in regard to what they will believe about the Three Angel’s Messages come January 10, 2021. Do you mind elaborating?
Thank you,
Glen
Eugene Prewitt
Hi Glen. I think that when one lifts anchor and begins to believe only those parts of Scripture that seem reasonable to him, you can count on him drifting further and further afield. So I posited that if Miss Ash sees wisdom in Tim’s views, she will not likely retain key aspects of the Three Angels’ Messages over a period as long as a decade.
Sean
Ps Eugene,
I have 1 question in regards to the above,
Who killed Jesus ?
Eugene Prewitt
Hi Sean. The answer isn’t as straight forward as the question. Of course, the Romans killed Jesus. Also, the Jews killed him by using the Romans. (Acts 3:17). And Satan bruised Christ’s heal, which is a reference to Satan’s use of Jews and Romans to kill Jesus. But ultimately, Jesus testified that no man would take his life from him. Rather, he said, he would “lay it down” himself. John 10:18. Now what you are probably asking is, “Why would He lay it down?” And the answer is that He gave his life to pay for our sins as an act of Justice. And by laying it down in a way that involved fallen men and angels, Jesus showed that He was giving his life to fallen men as a ransom payment for the slavery into which they had sold themselves. I could write more.
Werner
Dear Ps Eugene
This article has been a great blessing to me.
Many thanks
Werner
gary
THIS is EXACTLY where the political correctness and multiculturalism leads. That place where we turn love the boundary into a boundary less “love” where being offended takes the place of being convicted and freedom of conscience becomes the freedom from knowing what right and wrong even is. A freedom that will be used and IS being used to undermine any semblance of morality.
All this leads to the false unity that is prophesied and will enlist many into becoming part of the quickly coalescing ecumenical movement that I believe takes away from freedom and back under the jurisdiction of the (healed) RC Pope and his Jesuit feudalism. A NWO controlled by the one desperately trying to turn the meaning love on its head for his last ditch attempt to make a run at God.. who knows that his time is short..
A. Way
Is the punishment you claim that God imposes on the wicked and exercise of force against them? Perhaps you should read Desire of Ages, particularly chapter 79, example: God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan’s government. The Lord’s principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God’s government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. {DA 759.1}
What did Jesus come to do, to save us from what God will do to us if we choose not to love Him? Is God the ultimate destroyer? Or is it a solemn truth that sin causes death? Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Sin pays it wage, death.
Back to DA chapter 79, Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God’s goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2
Now go back to Patriarchs and Prophets and read why sin was permitted. This issues you have brought up about the death of the wicked is smack dab in the middle of what we Adventist call, The Great Controversy. Christ demonstrated what happens to sinners on the Cross, and how was the Father involved? The Father did not touch His Son. Sin killed the Son of God as it will every unrepentant sinner in the end. This is the heart of the 3rd Angels Message. We better understand what God’s Wrath is!
Eugene Prewitt
Does APL in your email stand for Adventist Pioneer Library? If so, I think you might enjoy a book found in that archive called “The Judgment, Its Events and Their Order.”
In answer to your question, it is certainly true that justice is related to natural consequences. The reason a murderer should be punished is because death is the natural consequence of his choices. And when men choose to sin, you could say that they destroy themselves. This they accomplish even in their mortal state. But none of these natural consequences satisfy justice. Being blind, consequences are not fair. They do not weigh motive and calculate influences. Justice, on the contrary, takes all into consideration. And so it is that heavenly angels (with greater moral development than we possess) say, “You are righteous O Lord . . . because you have judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink, for they are worthy.” Revelation 16:4-5.
You bring up a good question. If God did not destroy Satan 6000 years ago, why would He do it 1000 years from now? The answer is that “it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgement.” Force waits for the bowed knees. All things are bending toward an eventual recognition of God’s justice. So it is ironic that a movement is on foot to deny the existence of executive justice.
Casey Reiswig
Is this the atonement article that you refer to just before the appendices? http://missionary247.org/uncategorized/the-day-of-cleansing-2/
Eugene Prewitt
Yes, it is. Thank you for asking.
Pastor Justis St. Hilaire
Dear Eugene,
Thank you for a clear, logical, biblical, response to the Moral Influence theology that is causing so many issues among us today. I have read through your article and then read a number of responses to it. A number of years ago when studying for the ministry one of my profs was adamant about the acceptance of a methodology of bible study called “Higher Criticism.” We argued for three weeks during class, as I protested against what I saw was a subtle subversion of the methodology of revelation, and in its place, human reason and judgement. My argument was simply the fact that I would rather have the inspiration of the Word and Holy Spirit guiding me rather then my own judgement in the understanding of Scripture.
It seems to me that this might be one of the underlying issues that is the root cause for the confusion that exists in Adventism today. One person argues for good judgement, or reason, to conclude an understanding of the scriptures, and then you yourself, argue for revelation, and with out argument, the need for the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the process of revelation. Could this be one of the reasons for the real issue for the confusion and biblical misinformation going on today. How can we reasonably agree collectively if we are not studying the Bible using the proper methodology of revelation? We have digressed so terribly from biblical principles to safeguard the truth and the church. One such principle, safety in the multitude of counsellors. “Today it’s every man a law to himself.”
Ellen White stated, “Let all who read these lines, take heed. Satan has made his boast of what he can do. He thinks to dissolve the unity which Christ prayed might exist in His church. He says, ‘I will go forth and be a lying spirit to deceive those that I can, to criticize, and condemn, and falsify.’ Let the son of deceit and false witness be entertained by a church that has had great light, great evidence, and that church will discard the message the Lord has sent, and receive the most unreasonable assertions and false suppositions and false theories. Satan laughs at their folly, for he knows what truth is. Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (p. 409).
Here is another statement that I find being ignored by so many and is a principle rarely practiced by individuals that think they know better than the church at large: “There are a thousand temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for ‘in the multitude of counselors there is safety.’” (Vol. 5, p. 293).
Instead we are busy fighting among ourselves instead of fighting for the salvation of souls. Sharing what is the final and concluding message of the 3AM before the end of all things and the door of probation finally closes.
I want to personally thank you for taking the time and energy to address your concerns about the Moral influence theology. Your article is in full compliance with the Bible, revelation, and the SOP. I want to affirm you and your courage for standing up to this heresy that is misleading so many today. It will eventually be shown for what it is….. a lie concerning God’s true Character. No amount of human reasoning, or scriptural distortion, can change that. In my humble opinion there is no need to rationalize God’s love and sense of justice by doing away with one or the other. This is not a dichotomy of His character but a Biblical disclosure of how He will deal in the ultimate sense with the problem of sin. Who else has the right and the authority to do so? Two years ago while studying I came across an amazing statement from EGW. I want to share this with you. It’s found in FLB 179: Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave His life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation. He did not die to make sin an immortal attribute; He died to secure the right to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.
The Faith I Live By (p. 179). Why did Jesus die to secure the right to destroy the Devil if He never intended to follow through with it?
God has promised in Nahum 1:9. “What do ye imagine against the LORD? He will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time. 10 For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry.” God and the saved will be filled with sorrow for the loss of the those who willfully chose not to accept his love and sacrifice. For this attitude they are fully personally, responsible. This sorrow will eventually be removed from the minds of the redeemed, but for God He will have to remember it through the endless ages of eternity.
There are many more that are for you than against you.
Sincerely,
Pastor Justis St. Hilaire
PS: For your followers I recommend they re-read GC 671-674 and do a word study on Isaiah 28:21-22. Pay special attention to the word consumption. It literally means “a decision to annihilate.” Only God is here mentioned as the One who makes that decision in the destruction of Satan. Jesus is the One who will manifest the final fulfillment of this prophecy.
Jonathan Mahurin
Dear Mr. Prewitt,
In your letter above you state..
“(as Satan could not perceive any harmony between justice and mercy, a similar perplexity to the one facing Jennings)”
I must politely disagree with this conclusion of Satan’s understanding of Justice and Mercy. The inspired writings of Ellen White clearly state that Satan sought to distort the union of Justice and Mercy as one of his great deceptions. I would recommend carefully reading chapter 79 of Desire of Ages, but here is the specific quote that you may find helpful…
“God’s love has been expressed in His justice no less than in His mercy. Justice is the foundation of His throne, and the fruit of His love. It had been Satan’s purpose to divorce mercy from truth and justice. He sought to prove that the righteousness of God’s law is an enemy to peace. But Christ shows that in God’s plan they are indissolubly joined together; the one cannot exist without the other. “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” Psalm 85:10.DA 762.3”
Further more, Sister White said that Satan rebelled in the full knowledge of the love of God. The way you stated it, one might be led to think that Satan didn’t really know that God’s Justice and Mercy can never be “divorced”.
“The divine Son of God saw that no arm but his own could save fallen man. He determined to help man. He left the fallen angels to perish in their rebellion, but stretched forth his hand to rescue perishing man. The angels who were rebellious were dealt with according to the light and experience they had abundantly enjoyed in Heaven. Satan, the chief of the fallen angels, once had an exalted position in Heaven. He was next in honor to Christ. The knowledge which he, as well as the angels who fell with him, had of the character of God, of his goodness, his mercy, wisdom, and excellent glory, made their guilt unpardonable.RH February 24, 1874, par. 33
There was no possible hope for those ever to be redeemed, who had witnessed and enjoyed the inexpressible glory of Heaven and had seen the terrible majesty of God, and, in presence of all this glory, had rebelled against him. There were no new and more wonderful exhibitions of God’s exalted power that could ever impress them as deeply as those they had already experienced. If they could rebel in the very presence of the weight of glory inexpressible, they could not be placed in any more favorable condition to be proved. There was no reserve force of power, nor were there any greater heights and depths of infinite glory to overpower their jealous doubts and rebellious murmuring. Their guilt and their punishment must be in proportion to their exalted privileges in the heavenly courts.RH February 24, 1874, par. 34”
I also believe the Dr. Jennings view actually harmonizes God’s Justice and Mercy instead of causing conflict between the two as Satan would have it.
Hope this helps in your endeavor to find Truth.
Eugene Prewitt
Brother, I would agree with you that initially Satan could see a union. The trouble with lying is that eventually you are deluded by your own lies. So I suppose the devil has a bit of sincerity now in some of his arguments. But nonetheless, I should have written, “as Satan claimed not to see any harmony….” Regarding Jennings, too bad you see things that way.
Lou
“Truncating ” ?
Since you people love “truth” so much why don’t you just call Eugene’s “truncating” what it really is – holy censorship.
[Truncated by Eugene Prewitt]
Dear Lou,
Yes, censorship is what I do with such letters as yours. It is kind of you to call it holy. Tim does have his own site for promoting his views.
One thing I do not truncate in these letters are actual Biblical arguments in favor of his views. These I include, and I respond to them. But sentences like yours (that I erased) that include phrases like yours, “liberal facists,” and the like, only inflame.
–Eugene
Carl Bankes
The positions espoused by “Come and Reason Ministries” with which you have taken issue, I think you should reconsider. In my 83 years being in the Adventist Church there have been, as long as I can remember, issues about God’s (the creator God) character that Christian, including Adventist, teachings have made me question. For example the eternal treatment of those who reject God’s offer of grace and eternal life. And there are others that the churches have and are teaching that make God out to be an arbitrary monster. For those who want to see Him that way I have pity. I believe it shows a lack of compassion and morality.
[Truncated by Eugene Prewitt]
I have considered the views of “Come and Reason Ministries” by Tim Jennings and others. And indeed some of these views that seem to differ with traditional “Adventist” teachings I find to be a ‘breath of fresh air’ because of how they express many of my own long-held views about God and His ways of dealing with His creation including us wayward human beings. On the other hand I believe we must not be swayed by every wind of doctrine that comes along but to see if it is consistent with God’s Word before embracing it or casting it away.
Sincerely,
Carl Bankes
—-
Dear Carl,
Thank you for caring about the truth. While Ellen White did write some common things (like letters to her young boys about clothing and school supplies), her published books were intended to represent her inspired visions. Thus, the statements I quote are authoritative for those who believe her to be inspired.
I need not reconsider believing ideas that so fundamentally counter the revealed will of God. It is God’s statements, not my commitment to tradition, that puts me in opposition to Tim Jennings’ teachings.
–Eugene Prewitt
Attilio
Bro. Eugene,
I did not read all of your replies above.
I read your last one which I find VERY troublesome, and pagan in its concept:
“The fiery indignation that will devour the adversaries who deserve more sore punishment that did OT characters, will be an act of justice by the Judge and it will be equal to the evil it punishes.”
It seemed that you did not address the meanings of the terminology that the Scriptures use, such as: justice, judgment(s), wrath, etc…
ONLY when you have done THAT , THEN and only then, you may say that you have used the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures.
.
Eugene Prewitt
Oh, Attilio…you say did not read all I wrote, and then fault me for not addressing certain points. Think that through.
But when I wrote that comment that troubled you, I was alluding to Hebrews 10:29,
“29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?”
When you say that this Scripture is pagan in its concept, who are you faulting? This is Scripture, and it most certainly does explain other scriptures when it says “worse punishment” and “will be deserved.”
Jonathan Bleeker
What stands out as the key indication of error is Christ’s own words regarding the Golden Rule, which is part of God’s love. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”
If God’s offer of repentance and mercy is rejected, is it fair then that the rejecters do not drink in proportion of the cup that they compelled others to drink? The bible makes it plain that they will try to refuse. But God says that they will indeed drink of this cup and His word is final. This in no way conflicts with His mercy. Now while probation lasts, He does not repay the evil according to their deeds. He treats us not as we deserve, but as though we were just.
Frank Webb
Eugene, thank you for continuing your work of upholding a “thus sayeth the Lord”. I am constantly amazed at all of these ‘wild goose chases’ that fellow believers go on simply because they do not or will not study AND believe the WHOLE of scripture. I have found that human nature(including my own) is prone to unbalance/imbalance when it comes to truth. We all are or have been guilty of becoming unbalanced in things we have taught or choose to believe. ONLY IN JESUS do we find balance. I enjoy presenting ALL Bible truth “as it is in Jesus”. This method has a powerful effect on its listeners. Thank you again for all you do for HIS cause.
Sincerely,
Frank
Mary
If my son jumped from a ten story building and fell to his death, do I need to go and shoot his dead body to destroy him? If being in Gods presence destroys the wicked, why does God need to destroy them?
Eugene Prewitt
Mary, vengeance isn’t yours. You won’t judge God’s people. You are not the judge. So, no, even if he lived you would have no obligation to finish him off. But as to your second question, being in God’s presence does not destroy the wicked except as God chooses for that to happen. God has perfect self control and even came as a man among men once. The fiery indignation that will devour the adversaries who deserve more sore punishment than did OT characters, will be an act of justice by the Judge and it will be equal to the evil it punishes.
Michael
Sadly, at this point Jennings’ errors are not limited to the destruction of the wicked. He has attacked the Sanctuary doctrine, stating that the sins of the penitent are not transferred to the sanctuary through the blood of the victim, and that the veil before the Ark represents the devil, as it “obscures” the glory of God. This then requires a re-interpretation or outright dismissal of the Investigative Judgment. And all of this proceeds from the seemingly innocuous question, “does God say love me or I’ll kill you?” Subtle, yet crass. God’s work of judgment is holy, and is treated as such by the Bible writers and EGW. It is heartbreaking to see so many thousands being swept away by this false theology.
Eugene Prewitt
Michael, I have not kept up with Tim. Am sorry to hear about the downward march. But such is a common pattern. Also, as I am not a witness of it (as you seem to be), I must treat it as a rumor. But as a witness, you are welcome to share what you have observed. Only faithfulness will preserve us from strong delusion.
MH
Brother EP,
I have (finally) gone to the trouble of reading all of your comments on TRJ presentations and also your replies to readers who are most probably strong supporters of either yourself or TRJ.
Did you know that most of your comments, so critical of TRJ’s presentations, are not even true?
Did you know that the theology you promote in your article is legalistic and not at all in favour of our God?
Did you know that your comments strongly support pagan god construct?….[heavily truncated]….
Did you know that your truncating inconvenient contents of letters is dishonest and manipulative,….
Brother EP, All of the above I’ve said in love, hoping that you may review your attitude with a humble heart and in Christian love.
MH, Aus
Brother (or Sister) “MH”
No, I do not know any of these things. I challenged you privately to provide some evidence for the strong statement that “most” of my comments “are not even true.” To date, you have provided no examples. I wait still, for false accusations are a violation of the ninth commandment, and I will correct them as soon as I know them.
And, no, I do not think that there is anything legalistic about believing in justice. And no, I do not believe that the Bible teaching on justice and atonement supports and pagan “construct.” Pagan atonement is almost always appeasement and merit. Christian atonement is Justice and Mercy.
And as I truncated your letter, no, I do not believe that it is dishonest to do so. I am under no moral obligation to give a forum for promoting views I view as dangerous.
MH, I am glad you have said these things in “love.” And I do take to heart the admonition to review my attitude humbly. I do not, however, suppose that those imbibing heresy will ever think that teachers of the Word who expose them have a good attitude.
Anna
Jennings’ seminar on the brain is on our church board agenda next month, being advocated by a church member. Our pastor is trying to be neutral but did send my husband, an elder, an email, saying Jennings’ current church and elders support him. (That wasn’t the case at the Collegedale church.) Can anyone tell me what church Jennings’ currently attends. I understood that he has SS in the City Hall at Collegedale.
Sue
I would like to invite each of you in this discussion to read the first chapter of the little book “Steps to Christ” prayerfully really thinking about what it is saying and asking God to help you understand the message He wants you to understand every day for a month. Then if you want to continue to read it and add the second chapter at times. I did this myself and found it to bring tremendous clarity. I wish each of our members would do this because I think it would make us more grounded and prepare us for the outpouring of the latter rain.
Joanne
Thanks, Eugene and others, for confirming my extreme discomfort with Tim Jennings’ teachings. A friend enthusiastically shared one of Tim’s recorded discussions several years ago and I was shocked at the great pains being taken to seemingly re-write the most fundamental Bible accounts, disallowing anything that could possibly be construed as “negative” (like punishment or consequences!). Even more shocking to me was the number of acquaintances in the Collegedale area who were completely sold-out to Tim’s teachings, all in the name of “love.”
Having encountered abusive behavior in my past (from within the church), I am forever grateful for the Biblical assurances of God’s discipline and justice. True love does NOT mean unconditional acceptance of bad behavior. In fact, if not for the balance of justice and love that God alone is so faithful and capable of administering, I would fail of seeing Him as a loving, protective heavenly Father.
Tracy
The first thing I read on this site about Eugene making public his views about Jennings without even talking to Jennings first…. I have seen this same exact scenario play itself over and over and over again in the Adventist realm. – – – One guy thinks he is absolutely right, period. Attacks the guy who is teaching,”Heresy” and dismisses himself from Matthew 18 because the guy he is speaking against isn’t a brother and is teaching the falsehoods of the evil one. – – -[This comment was heavily truncated for reasons that its author doesn’t appreciate.]
Eugene Prewitt
When a man puts his teachings in public, he is not ashamed of those teachings. To expose his teachings as error is not to expose his hidden sin. It is not an effort to correct hurt feelings or a wounded relationship. In short, what Paul says about Demitrius and Alexander and about several other men was not about a personal issue between him and them. Rather, it is about warning the church about the danger of dangerous teachings. Indeed, if Tim had come to me privately about his privately held ideas, then I should have kept the affair private while trying to help him. But public teachers of error are to be publicly exposed (Romans 16:17-18; etc) and Matthew 18 isn’t even related to the question.
Finally, to assert that a man (like Jennings or Ford or Rea or Pippenger or Houteff or Ballenger or Kellogg or Canright) is teaching error is most certainly not to set one’s self up as the ultimate judge. Nor is it to claim some exalted level of knowledge. It is simply to say, “my reading of Scripture and my experience with this man’s teachings tells me that there is danger. This is why….”
In other words, if my article condemned Tim’s teaching, but gave no reasons, it would say, “Trust the judgment of Eugene Prewitt on this issue.” But when the article presents the reasons, it says “look at the reasons and, by all means, use your own God-given judgment. Reason for yourself from the evidence presented and from whatever other inspired evidence you have at your command.”
Graham Sutherland
Hello Eugene
I’m listening occasionally to Tim and notice that although he uses the Church SS Lesson he consistently and persistently transcribes into it his own very special salvation story. I wonder why he just doesn’t write his own lesson. Why pretend to be following the Church teaching?
I also wonder why his class is called ‘Come and Reason’. I think that ‘Come and Listen’ would be more appropriate as Tim will tell you what to think if you just listen carefully. If there is a question, most in the class have now got to the place where they can parrot off the pet phrases and receive the affirming confirmation.
I wonder if Tim has developed this Theology to lay to rest Richard Dawkins philosophy that there must be something wrong with God if the best saving plan He could come up with was to send His Son to die on a Cross. Is Tim trying to answer Dawkins? I have noticed that his Alma Mater encourages original thinking and the art of persuasion in presenting something new. This effort could therefore be his ‘pass with credit’?
Finally, ‘Come and Reason’ actually presents no new picture to me on the loving character of God. Over the years there have been, from Ellen White on, multitudes of SDA writers who have presented this theme. The newness comes in the desire to present a new atonement theory that appears to be less substitutionary and less judgmental. It follows that Tim and his class are most likely, of a nature that have suffered from a harsh and loveless judgment picture of God. This sad scene has inspired in them fear with a subsequent loss of assurance. Tim has admitted this was the case for himself. Maybe a Church teaching that has, from some within, majored in a perfectionistic calling needs to take some responsibility for this? Regards Graham
Eugene Prewitt
Hi Graham. I understand your thoughts and resonate with some of them. Thank you for caring about the truth.
Richard Burnett
Eugene, Is it just me, or do you see it, also?? I find that many are obsessed with identifying anyone who does not agree with allowing error to be mixed with TRUTH classified as being LEGALISTIC. What seems just a little out of place to me is that those who through around their favorite word “LEGALISTIC” SO FREELY are JUDGING OTHERS, and from what little I have read and studied, that which involves others as Judging another is MORE LEGALISTIC THAN ANYTHING. iS NOT A jUDGE A BIG PART OF OUR lEGAL SYSTEM??? Is not Judging others in a Spiritual sense and act of SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS?? I COULD BE WRONG HERE in my observations and surmising. GOD BLESS YOU, BROTHER. If you go back and read the comments, you will, no doubt, UNDERSTAND TO WHOM i REFER.
Richard Burnett
Eugene, you are a wise man, and I APPRECIATE and AGREE with EVERYTHING you have said her in regard to Dr. Timothy Jennings. Your replys to comments also are WELL WRITTEN and WELL SAID. Dr. Jennings recently finished a weekend series here in College Place, WA at the Village Church. I chose NOT to attend. From what I heard from those who attended, including some of my family, the place was packed after being well advertised.
I personally believe that man’s wisdom is NOTHING compared to the WISDOM of GOD. Some attend worldy(Non-Christian) Colleges/Universities for higher Graduate Learning and Education and feel they have learned it all and know everything about their speciality of Study, but in reality know very little of TRUTH. Lots of Facts, Yes, TRUTH, NO.
I Am not afraid to acknowledge that I know very little with my weak, sinful mind, but ONE THING I DO KNOW and that is that ALL I need to know about my human Brain, my mind, I can and am acquiring from GOD’S HOLY WORD, The, also INSPIRED, Spirit of Prophesy, and through COMMUNION with my Lord in MUCH, CONSISTENT, DAILY PRAYER.
Mixing error with Truth is wrong and I am ONE of MAY who are saddened and disappointed by “the creeping compromise” that is flowing into our CHURCH and AMONG OUR PEOPLE, God’s Remnant, at an alarming rate of speed. satan REJOICES!!!
Eugene Prewitt
Blessings to you, Brother, from Malaysia where I am currently. I thank you for caring about what the prophets have risked so much to share. May we believe them.
Be faithful,
Eugene
Beverly Thompson
Thank you for your open response to Jennings presentations. He gave a series of lectures at my Village SDA Church in College Place, WA last Friday evening and Sabbath. I went to all lectures, but with reservations simply because he is a psychiatrist (I’m an RN and during training didn’t like psych because it didn’t follow EGW’s philosophy). After the first meeting, I remember feeling, “He’s a good lecturer and building up to something, but I don’t know what. At the end, I came away with the impression, “That’s not what I believe! Who invited him? Did he know Jennings theology? Am I going crazy?” What a relief to know that others questioned what he presented. On the other hand, after talking to many attendees, most said, “Wasn’t that wonderful! and free DVDs and book!” Sadly, it appears that most were gullible and soaked in everything he said without questioning or searching more into God’s Word. Jennings used many Bible verses and EGW writings but just to prove his point.
Conclusion: When we let others study God’s Word for us, we can be caught unawares and trapped by false teachings.
Eugene Prewitt
I hope, Sister Beverly, that you have found like-minded persons there near you who can hold the truth high as a banner for those who love it.
Be faithful,
Eugene
Welllington
I watched the Sabbath school lesson and I also came to your conclusion. The one thing that stood out for me was denying that God directly punishes/intervenes as He sees fit. There are accounts in the bible which then do not make sense or should be discarded if this were true. The story of the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and innumerable other accounts where God directly destroyed or killed. I now see in the Seventh Day Adventist Church a group of people who do not think the God of the bible, with all these stories of judgement , is not good enough and He needs a makeover. The makeover comes in the form of only presenting a loving God, a seducing doctrine to the itching ear as Paul says in the book of Timothy. This is postmodern theology that is now being pushed in our churches.
2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Ash
How has Jennings undermined faith? He hasn’t undermined mine. Indeed, I’m more convinced by Jennings that God through Christ can and will prepare me for a sinless life here and for eternity. The traditional road you offer seems to make it less possible. And who determines which statements of God are plain and are literal and which are metaphor? Because the god you posit, the god who requires torture for the mere purpose of achieving some sort of balance in its emotional state is, it seems, pagan and not dissimilar enough to eastern mysticism.
Eugene Prewitt
Wow, Ms Ash. Let me reply briefly. First, Tim undermines faith by inviting you and others not to believe some of the plainest statements of the prophets. Taking God at His Word is the essence of faith. And who should decide what is literal and what is a metaphor? William Miller gave a good sensible reply to that: We should assume a passage is literal unless the literal reading of it doesn’t make sense (such as when a goat doesn’t touch the ground while flying, or when a beast has four heads, etc.) Angels have never referred to God’s judgments as torture. Neither have prophets. Neither is justice a balancing act. It is fair punishment (and the only two other options are unfair punishment, or no punishment.) And as one that lives in an eastern context (southeast Asia) your correlation of Adventist eschatology with eastern mysticism is baffling. The lake of fire is not karma. It is the wrath of God against guilty persons. You wrote this on January 10, 2016. I will be interested to see what you believe about the Three Angel’s Messages on January 10, 2021.
Michael Maw
A close relative gave me a copy of Jennings’ “The God-Shaped Brain”. Both my wife and I have read it. At first, I was amazed at what I was reading (in a good way). It made a lot of sense, and was a very interesting read. Then I hit the chapters about God’s judgement and Jennings’ theology of the final punishment of the wicked. At first, it made me very uncomfortable and I knew something wasn’t right here. The closer I looked at it, and compared with what the Bible actually says (along with the writings of EGW) I noticed glaring errors. Your article summarizes well most of my own conclusions after investigating his teachings.
Some of my other relatives and friends have also read this book, and seem to embrace his theology to one degree or another. In fact, I’ve now been told “God does not physically punish the wicked in the flames, it is more just a mental suffering. The reason some burn longer than others is simply because they are resisting God’s love (“the consuming fire”) and finally they give in and cease to exist.” It’s a nice thought. God is just drawing close to the wicked because He loves them, but they burn up in His presence because they are full of sin and are resisting Him. But… it’s not true. I could find no evidence anywhere in the Bible or EGW to support this, or any of Jennings’ views on this topic. Furthermore, why would the wicked need to “surrender to God”? They already bow the knee and confess that He is right on the plains surrounding the New Jerusalem. I hardly think the flames of hellfire are meant for a “corrective” purpose for the wicked.
In fact, I was shocked to discover EGW actually states who decides how long each individual will suffer – it’s a 3rd-party…
At this time “the saints shall judge the world.” 1 Corinthians 6:2. In union with Christ they judge the wicked, deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then the portion the wicked must suffer is meted out, according to their works, and it is recorded against their names in the book of death.” {HF 399.4}
“Then the wicked saw what they had lost; and fire was breathed from God upon them, and consumed them. This was the Execution of the Judgement. The wicked then received according as the saints in unison with Jesus had meted out to them during the 1000 years. The same fire from God that consumed the wicked, purified the whole earth.” {ExV 35.1}
Did you catch that?! THE SAINTS, along with Jesus, decide HOW LONG the wicked will suffer in the flames. The wicked have NO CHOICE in the matter. It is 3rd-party penal judgement based completely upon their works. But Jennings seems to argue that the recording angel is simply writing down things to justify God’s character (and His decisions about who is saved/lost) only. These statements completely contradict his teaching.
That’s punitive justice. Penal punishment. Some may not like this thought. But truth is not dependent upon our warm fuzzy feelings, but upon the Word of God. Jennings’s teachings, in my opinion, minimize the horror of sin and its terrible consequences. God is love. But He is also just. We need to understand and study carefully both sides.
Maybe God’s wrath towards sin is just as amazing as His grace towards sinners.
Eugene Prewitt
Thank you for caring about the truth.
Dan Chung
Pastor Prewitt,
Thank you for this article. It was a great help in clearing up some issues that I’ve been thinking about and discussing with others. I believe that we have a finite understanding of love, especially God’s love, and that we can never fully understand how much pain God will endure at the destruction of the wicked. Thank you again and may God bless you and uphold you to continue to serve Him.
Dan
David Siebert
May this article inspire all readers to check out Dr. Timothy Jennings & Come and Reason’s message for themselves. ….. [I, Eugene Prewitt, deleted the remainder of David’s note which was written in favor of Tim Jennings. I deleted it rather than countering it because it offered no data not dealt with sufficiently by the article here.]
Roland Fnselau
Pastor Prewitt:
Thanks for your comment/evaluation of Dr. Jennings theology, which I saved and printed a copy for myself. A friend sent me your contribution.
Nowhere in the email is your website identified. Would you consider sending your email address to me, so that we can communicate?
Roland
Eugene Prewitt
[email protected]
Russell Bantin
Concerning the plagues:
I was shown that the judgements of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then, if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course, independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s decided attacks upon them.
It is Satan’s power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey.–14MR 3 (1883).
….[I, Eugene Prewitt, removed much of this letter as I do not care to let a presentation in favor of error appear on my page. Nevertheless, I respond below to the points in the letter, albeit succinctly.]
Eugene Prewitt
While it is true that some of God’s judgments are simply His work of removing protection, it is not true that all are of this nature. And the statement from 14MR above never was intended to be universal as it mentions “them” as a reference to persons under discussion who had done wrongly. I think a serious approach to the obvious meaning of Scripture is clear enough on this point for candid persons that live by every word of God.
Eugene Prewitt
Russell,
I am glad you are trying to raise your young child to not play in the street. And there is no doubt that TJ does use parallels as a powerful teaching technique. But please do understand that if one is determined to take the inspired counsels as they were obviously intended to be taken, then the statement here from 14MR is a description of one large class of God’s judgments, but not of all. Another class of purely punitive judgments exist and God’s active agency in these is mentioned in the White-Estate’s notes that you cut out of the quote above. (I don’t fault you for cutting the comments out, only for not being educated by them.)
Marlan
Is this the Dr Jennings of comeandreason.com. I have members wanting me to invite him to speak.
Eugene Prewitt
Yes, and I hope he didn’t get invited. Amen.
Fred Littlefield
Eugene:
Thanks for this article. It was truly a blessing.
When I first began to view Dr. Jennings Videos “God and Your Brain” that someone had left in our church, I thought there was something wrong, mostly because of the location of the recording of the video, and the picture of the the person doing Yoga Meditation on the cover. Since I am an elder I decided to take one and view it before letting them be distributed. I was looking for Centering prayer and Meditation techniques, but did not find them there, so I was disarmed, and relieved about that. In the Q and A session he started to talk about the Eternal Fire / Consuming Fire. Which sparked my interest, which led me to find your page, and this article. While looking for the obvious deception of Centering Prayer, I missed many of the things you mentioned in this article. I think that is what is called a “Red Herring”? Looking for the obvious you miss the more subtle things.
While there are many truths in his materials, You are right there should be a Red Flag out. We should not try to gather truth where error also exists.
Best Regards,
Fred
Jeff Mosley
I find it curious that you reference Jones and Waggoner. Are you aware of their views on the Final Judgement of the Wicked?
Eugene Prewitt
Jeff, thank you for writing. I think I have read nearly everything written by these prolific men. And I know that their views on many things began to shift in the mid 1890’s. But, no, I do not know where they ended up on this question. But I have been reading how they used the term “lake of fire.” Fascinating.