Posted By: Tom
Without the Shedding of Blood - 03/21/06 05:09 PM
"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." This is often used as an argument for the penal substitution view of the atonement. Also those who hold to the penal substitution view often assume that any alternative must be the Moral Influence Theory. This is not the case, and will be treated on another topic. The purpose of this thread is to kill two birds with one stone. One is to discuss Hebrews 9:22, showing that it is not necessary to hold to the view that this verse is teaching that God's wrath was appeased by the sacrifice of Christ. The second is to present some more Fifield.
quote:
You will find the text in the ninth chapter of Hebrews, and the twenty-second verse: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no remission." This text has in it the very soul and center and secret of all true Christian consecration.
The idea has obtained that God was angry with men because of sin, that God’s wrath must be satisfied; and so an arrangement must be made by which He could pour out His wrath upon His Son, and thus satisfy His justice. And while this wrath was waiting for full satisfaction when it should be poured out on His Son, a system of sacrifice was instituted which would appease His wrath temporarily, and hold it in abeyance.
But this idea of atonement, or reconciliation, separates entirely between the Father and the Son, making the Father so stern and hard that He demands his full “pound of flesh,” so to speak, and the Son so kind, so good, that He gives it out of His own heart that we may be set free. Thus instead of Christ revealing the Father, the two are opposite—entirely separated.
But no, “He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father.” And if you want to know how God feels toward sin, notice how Christ hated sin. If you want to know how God feels towards sin, notice how Christ hated sin. If you want to know how God feels toward the sinner, notice how Christ loved the sinner.
God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased; but it will consume the sinner in the end. His love is unending, unchanging, for the sinner. And just as we have learned that the moral law is not an arbitrary thing, but a statement of everlasting love and life, so, my brethren, may we learn that, although the ceremonies have passed away by limitation, yet the meaning of these ceremonies is just as true today as then. And it still is true that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” (1897 GCB, Sermon #2)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood - 03/22/06 07:27 AM
Tom, once again, please quote someone who actually believes the view Fifield condemns above. If you cannot prove that this view exists then it is pointless to argue against it.
The reason why the wages of sin is death is because Jesus ordained it thus. The fact sinners continue to muliply is evidence sin is not the natural, immediate consequences of sinning.
The only way to eliminate sinning is to eliminate sinners, otherwise, they will go on sinning. That's one of the reasons why Jesus forbade them access to the tree of life.
Posted By: Colin
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood - 03/22/06 07:52 AM
Thank you, MM, for that advice.
Tom, who believes that God's wrath against sin is also against sinners???!! Propitiation appeases God's wrath against sin - not sinners - and thereby reconciles the sinner. Fifield's objection is noted, but who's he objecting to??? Anyone in Adventism? Where does our church publish this view, which is clearly wrong, after all?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood - 03/22/06 06:31 PM
This objection to propitiation's appeasement of wrath isn't just that it misrepresents God's character, but that the misrepresentation is God's wrathful desire to destroy sinners along with sin. That "God was angry with men because of sin" comes straight from this false idea of wrath, and is the basic, false idea resulting in separating God's love for sinners from his wrath against sin - and applying that wrath to sinners too.
The problem is with the idea that God needs to be propitiated. God's wrath against sin cannot be appeased. God hates sin because He loves the sinner. God will always hate sin. As Wieland points out, it is not God who needed to be propitiated, but us. As Waggoner points out, the idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we might have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible. Ellen White never speaks of God's needing to be propitiated. Neither does Scripture. It says that Christ was a propitiation for our sins, and that God set Him forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, but it never says that God was propitiated by the sacrifice.
There's no problem with the idea that God loves the sinner and hates sin; just with the idea that God's hatred against sin can be appeased or that God needs to be propitiated.quote: He misrepresented God, and misinterpreted the rites that pointed to the Saviour. Men were led to fear God as one who delighted in their destruction. The sacrifices that should have revealed His love were offered only to appease His wrath. DA 115
The operative clause in that deception is "offered only to appease His wrath". She includes both love and wrath in the sanctuary service - as God intended & designed it, while the Devil takes out the love.
Ellen White never speaks of God's wrath being appeased. The sense of the sacrifice is that it is given to demonstrate God's love for us, that we might be justified by faith, brought into harmony with God and His law. She never speaks of God's needing the sacrifice.
The "only" here is speaking of Satan, not EGW. Satan is the one who seeks "only" to present God as one who's wrath must be appeased. EGW never speaks of God's wrath being appeased at all.I agree with MM on the Saviour substituting his suffering for us, but not on heaven and the saints rejoicing to see the wicked suffer it.
I agree that Christ substituted His suffering for us as well. What I disagree with is why it was necessary.
Do you agree with the portrayal of God as an "angry God" full of "vengeance and hatred and anger"? Somehow Christ's sacrifice allowed God to "take it out" on Him instead of us? Is this the Gospel? Is this an accurate portrayal of God's character? Is this idea that Jesus was conveying when He said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life?"The extended sermon doesn't go to the point since it addresses sanctification and not justification, which is the corollary of propitiation - its other half to wrath's appeasement. Receiving Christ's life is sanctification, not justification, and there's obviously no dispute there.
The sermon *is* discussing justification by faith (as well as sanctification, you can't separate the two; as soon as one is justified by faith, one is sanctified, and that process continues as long as one lives). It's similar in thought to what Waggoner presents here: quote:
This endless, spotless life Christ gives to all who believe on Him. "As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." John 17:2, 3. Christ dwells in the hearts of all those who believe on Him. "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself for me." Gal. 2:20. See also Eph. 3:16, 17. (Bible Echo 10/15/92)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood - 03/22/06 08:08 PM
C - I agree with MM on the Saviour substituting his suffering for us, but not on heaven and the saints rejoicing to see the wicked suffer it.
MM - Colin, here´s how I responded to Tom's summary of the view I have adopted.
quote:
MM - Correct. The lake of fire, though, is caused by Jesus raining down fire upon the unsaved sinners. They suffer in proportion to the sins they committed. The worse the sins the more severe the suffering. Some suffer fewer stripes, others more - depending on their sinfulness. I cannot understand how we will rejoice with the angels, but the Bible and the SOP make it clear we will.
MM - I suspect the reason we will rejoice with the angels when sin and sinners are punished and then forever eliminated in the lake of fire is due to the fact they are "worthy", which is how the angels put it. In Revelation 16 and 18 holy angels express these very sentiments in relation to the seven last plagues.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood - 03/22/06 10:29 PM
quote: The problem is with the idea that God needs to be propitiated. God's wrath against sin cannot be appeased.
That God showed us his love in his son is clear. God isn't propitiated by atonement - we are. God's wrath against sin isn't appeased in the sense of it being switched off on giving an offering, but in our Substitute fully suffering it for us, who possess that which arouses his wrath.
I agree with this. I would add that if this is what you think, which it must be since you said it, that you are misusing the word "appease." "Appease" (from Webster's) means "to bring to a state of peace or calm," "to cause to subside," "to buy off."
You refuse the point that propitiation is both suffering wrath - appeasing it for us, and reconciling us to God by that very suffering and death.
I'm going to have to ask what you mean by "appease" as you seem to not understand its meaning. Above you wrote "God's wrath isn't appease in the sense of it being switched off" but that's exactly what "appease" means. You seem to have the idea of "suffering" for "appease." If this is how you are understanding what "appease" means, then I am in agreement with you, because there's no doubt that Christ suffered the wrath of God because of our sins.
Your problem is defining God's propitiation as atonement: it's appeasement of wrath against sin - for us - alongside atonement for us.
I think the problem is not understanding what "appease" means.
...God's wrath against sin is eternal, hence sin leads to eternal death: Jesus suffered eternal death, didn't he? Which of these points for you do not combine, among Heb 2:9; 9:22 and Rom 3:25; 5:9? Second death, blood shed for remission, propitiation and saved from wrath...you do separate them one from the others, while they are all describing Christ's sacrifice for us.
Once again I think a big problem is not recognizing what "appease" means. Let's clear that up first, and we can get back to these other issues.
quote: The operative clause in that deception is "offered only to appease His wrath". She includes both love and wrath in the sanctuary service - as God intended & designed it, while the Devil takes out the love.
You missed my clear point: she's explaining the devil's deception, not hers!
Let's not be hasty. I didn't miss your point. I countered it.
You said the operative word was "only," as if she were saying that God's being appeased was a part of what was happeneing. In other words, you suggested the problem was understanding that Christ's sacrifice was "only" to appease God's wrath, as opposed to understanding that it was both an appeasement of God's wrath and a demonstration of God's love as well. I said the "only" did not apply to Ellen White's understanding of this, but to Satan's. Ellen White never suggested that God's wrath needed to be appeased.
You disagree that Jesus suffered God's wrath against sin for us.
No, I've never disagreed with this. I'm surprised you are still confused about this. You've misstated my position on this several times now, and each time I've corrected you.
I think the problem is that you misunderstand "appease" to mean "suffer," which it doesn't. It is true that Christ suffered God's wrath against sin, but it is not true that God's wrath was appeased.
, while you agree that God's wrath against sin exists and that Jesus suffered for us. Is the Saviour's second death experience for us the very suffering of God's wrath against sin or something else? IOW, what did Jesus suffer for us with his death???
Our differences here are monumental, and it'll take more thought to hope to solve this, as without Christ suffering wrath against sin for us, there is subsequently no atoning value to his death - and salvation is cancelled.
Those are the odds.
I think the first step is to agree on what "appease" means. I think a second step would to not be so polemic in tone.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood - 03/22/06 10:51 PM
Colin, I'd like to summarize how I perceive where we are in terms of things we a agree on:
1)Christ was our substitute.
2)God's wrath is against sin, not sinners.
3)Christ suffered God's wrath against sin, which was necessary for our salvation.
4)It is we, not God, who was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice.
A couple of things Wieland says is:
1)Faith is a heart appreciation of God love (agape), especially as revealed at the cross.
2)Justification by faith involves our being brought into harmony with God and His law.
Can we agree on these points as well?
The three points I have been arguing against are:
1)God's wrath was appeased by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
2)God was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
3)God needed Christ's sacrifice to have the legal right to forgive us.
You've already agreed with me on 2). I think we may in agreement on 1) as well, as it seems to me that our differences are due to your thinking "appease" means "suffer." I say this because when you use the word "suffer" instead of "appease," I agree with you, and you wrote that God's wrath was not appeased in the sense that it was swiched off, which is exactly what "appease" means. So I think our disagreement on 1) has a lot to do with the meaning of the word "appease."
This leaves 3), which we haven't really discussed yet I don't think.
Since you agree with me regarding our being propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, and not God, I'd be very interested in what you understand this to mean.
Thanks for your response.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood - 03/24/06 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Colin, I'd like to summarize how I perceive where we are in terms of things we a agree on:
1)Christ was our substitute.
2)God's wrath is against sin, not sinners.
3)Christ suffered God's wrath against sin, which was necessary for our salvation.
4)It is we, not God, who was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice.
A couple of things Wieland says is:
1)Faith is a heart appreciation of God love (agape), especially as revealed at the cross.
2)Justification by faith involves our being brought into harmony with God and His law.
Can we agree on these points as well?
Ummm, yes, bearing in mind that Wieland also supports the legal events involved, which I join him in doing, but do you?
I've conversed with Wieland quite a bit on this, and he's pretty vague as to what he actually means when speaking of the legal aspects. I'm awaiting clarification from him. I can't really say whether I support him or not until I know what he thinks. I'm not sure he really knows. I've spoken to him quite awhile on this, and I just don't think the specific legal issues involved is something he's thought through at depth.
I've spoken to him at length about Maxwell, and he's not said anything at all against Maxwell's view. So regarding this particular issue, I think he's still thinking things through.
Regarding Wieland's overall presentation of the Gospel, I'm 100% in support of what he presents. As Wieland pointed out, he doesn't emphasize the legal aspect anyway. I think his approach is correct. It's the love of God revealed from the cross melting the heart of the sinner which reconciles him to God. Wieland's emphasis is on the presentation of agape, the revelation of God's character from the cross, and I completely agree with his emphasis.
I just wish I were as capable as he at presenting the Gospel.
quote: The three points I have been arguing against are:
1)God's wrath was appeased by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
2)God was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
3)God needed Christ's sacrifice to have the legal right to forgive us.
You've already agreed with me on 2). I think we may in agreement on 1) as well, as it seems to me that our differences are due to your thinking "appease" means "suffer." I say this because when you use the word "suffer" instead of "appease," I agree with you, and you wrote that God's wrath was not appeased in the sense that it was swiched off, which is exactly what "appease" means. So I think our disagreement on 1) has a lot to do with the meaning of the word "appease."
Sorry, all three still need work - hence also 4) 'at the top'.
There's no need to be sorry. I'm just presenting what my perceptions are. If you disagree, you disagree.
Re 1) while Christ suffered God's wrath, that meant our anticipated suffering of it was appeased: we humans are physically due it, and that experience was appeased, by grace confirmed by faith.
It's not that we're due this suffering in any arbitrary or imposed sort of way. Suffering, misery and death are what sin brings about. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. God doesn't do anything special to make it happen. God is agape, and sin cannot bear that sight.
Re 2) even with Christ suffering God's wrath, propitiation automatically involves God - both heart break over his only begotten and his eternal wrath against sin being fully expressed, in favour of fallen man.
While we are the ones who are propitiated (you did say this, correct?), I agree with your statement that this propitiation involves God. Clearly it does. It was God who gave His Son.
Re 3) I'll come back to this later, since it involves the legal accomplishment of the cross which you don't recognise yet, as I remember. Don't have time right now to go into it.
I wouldn't put it this way. That is, I wouldn't say there's something I'm not yet recognizing. I would say I perceive what the issues that are involved to be different than what you perceive to be the relevant issues. Certainly all that God has done is in harmony with His law, which is the transcipt of His character.
quote: This leaves 3), which we haven't really discussed yet I don't think.
Since you agree with me regarding our being propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, and not God, I'd be very interested in what you understand this to mean.
Thanks for your response.
Ok, I'll wait for when you have more time. I'm still especially interested in what you understand it to mean that we, not God, are propitiated by Christ's sacrifice.