Blood of Christ
Posted By: Stacie
Blood of Christ - 11/22/04 03:52 AM
Hi All,
Please, someone explain to me in a nutshell how the blood of Jesus "washes" away my sin?
Peace & Love,
Stacie
Posted By: Kevin H
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/23/04 01:58 AM
WOW, have you ever asked a loaded question. The answer to this question greatly depends on your view of hell. In the Bible the cross was seen in some basic ways, such as compared to the Passover lamb and freedom from slavery, and substitute. Theories as to how it worked did not develop until after the New Testament closed.
A good place to start, and your nutshell answer is C. S. Lewis' statement from "Mere Christianity"
*******************************************
Now Before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this [Jesus’] dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. No I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on is that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this is another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like. All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good. But the modern theory of nourishment –all about vitamins and proteins—is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of vitamins is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same. Theories of Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are. My own church—the Church of England—does not lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. I think they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality.
*********************************************
As for these theories as to how the cross works, there has been four major theories that I'm aware of. The first was by a Church Father, I'll probably greatly misspell his name if I tried to spell it now, but most of us would recognize it when we hear it or see it, his name starts with a "T"
Anyway, he was also a student of Nature. I don't know how true this is, but he said that mother Pelicans, if her young were starving, would peck a hole in her stomach so that they could eat her food and not die. He compared that to Jesus who took the results of what we have done so that we can have his life.
Sadly, this theory did not last long and was soon replaced by what is called the "Bait Theory." Interestingly, the "Bait Theory" is sort of what C. S. Lewis used in "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe." even though it was seen as an old discarded theory by the church. Of course I don't know what he was thinking, but I'd like to think that he went for this old view to keep open the possibilities as to theories of the atonement, as he presented in the above quote.
The "Bate Theory" was that since man sinned, that Satan had claim over men's souls. God made a deal with Satan saying that if he would let man go that he could kill Jesus instead. Since the death of Jesus was a much bigger prize than men were, Satan gladly accepted the deal, but he did not foresee the resurrection and thus not only lost mankind but Jesus as well.
For about 1,000 years this was the official view of the church and what they believed that the Bible taught. Then in the 1200s this view began to be questioned. The church at this time believed in an eternal burning hell, and that when you died you came to judgment, standing trembling before God's throne, your records were gone over and God would either say that you could go into heaven, in which you'd breathe a sigh of relief and enter with joy. Or else God would say you could not go in and had to enter hell, or at least purgatory and you'd leave kicking and screaming "No! No! Please let me into heaven!"
At this time two views of the Atonement were suggested. The first was the forensic view, which said that we owe God a perfect life. Since we can not meet this payment we have to go to hell. But Jesus loved us so much that he came, took God's wrath so that if we let him suffer God's wrath in our place, then we can go into heaven under his perfect life. Christ's record covers ours so that God can't see our records but only Jesus'.
(As a child, after a third grade week of prayer in my one semester in an Adventist school, I use to pray something like "Father, can I talk to Jesus for a moment please-- ah, I mean in private-- No, it's not that I don't enjoy talking to you, Please don't feel hurt, but this is something that has to be just between me and my older brother. Jesus, is the Father not listening? -- Good! Now, when you get a chance can you sneak in and cover my record with yours? Thank you, now you can let the Father back into this prayer..." Now what made this even more confusing for me was that a few years before we had gotten some records of Bible Stories, all Old Testament stories. I came to love the God of the Old Testament. He was like a super hero that came through at the last minute, and also was loving and willing to work with people. Then after the third grade I got more of these records with New Testament stories, and one was of the 10 virgins. At the end was the line "I don't know you" was very haunting. I though that Jesus was going to come ready or not, and if I was doing something wrong at that moment, He would make that haunting announcement "I don't know you" while the God of the Old Testament seemed more like someone who would come, find me doing something that I should not be doing, pause with a sad look and say "I guess you are not ready. Hmmm, well, I know that you love and want to be with me, so let's forget about this and come along anyway" and was less afraid of the Father seeing my record than I was of Jesus seeing it, but sadly it was Jesus, not the Father who was coming for us, so I had to play by his rules.)
Another theory proposed about the same time as the Forensic theory is the Moral Influence Theory. I'd invite you to cut and paste both theories into your search window and read up on them. The Moral Influence Theory says that Jesus came to earth to teach us how much God loves us. Seeing such perfect love brought out the worst in mankind so that they killed Jesus, but Jesus refused to stop loving us even with all that we were doing to him. And that this love awakens love in us, and therefore since Jesus was willing to go through all this for us, surely we can live for him. The song "When I survey the Wondrous Cross" is a beautiful description of the Moral Influence Theory.
While it does have some strong points, there are some very glaring weaknesses to this theory. Some of the weaknesses of the Moral Influence Theory include that instead of being a substitution death (as taught in the Bible) that Jesus only needed to show us God's love, and the death was a martyr’s death. Secondly, the cross became a coach, encouraging us to produce the good works in us that would save us. "If Jesus was willing to go through all that for me, surely I can do the good works for him." (which goes against the Biblical teaching that our works do not save us?)
Do to these weaknesses, the church accepted the Forensic view (which still has the substitution and sacrifice) for about 800 years has been saying that this is the view that the Bible teaches. It has become a strong tradition and we tend to subconsciously read this view back into scripture, and are willing to argue on and on that this was indeed the teaching of scripture, rather than admit (as C. S. Lewis did above) that we are reading the text through Forensic colored glasses.
With in Seventh-day Adventism, a new view of hell has developed (Please look up the thread about the wrath of God, where it is discussed in this forum) where hell fire is simply God's glory, God's love. God loves us all the same, but we respond to this love in two different ways, and the death of the sinner is the natural results of what happens when those who refuse to repent come into contact with God in all God's beauty and pull back from the only source of life. The death of Jesus is what makes it possible to heal our broken life giving relationship with God, and cements the unfallen worlds and angels into not breaking the lifegiving relationship. As the Chapter "It is Finished" in Desire of Ages teaches, that both the fallen and unfallen creatures are redeemed by the death of Jesus. (in fact to answer your question, read that chapter and try to get a hold of a Signs of the Times article Mrs. White wrote called "God made Manifest in Christ"! These articles can do much more than my feable words here can.)
Neither the Bate Theory, Forensic Theory, nor Moral Influence Theory fit this view of hell. All three of these theories require God to do two different things to people, one to the saved the other to the lost, and try to explain the secret on how to get God to do the nice thing to you and not the bad thing. But if God treats us all the same, and we either accept his love and forgiveness and find his presence to be heaven, or we reject it, find it to be hell and pull away, then we need to discuss a view of how Jesus' death makes it possible that fits with this view of hell.
This is still an open field for discussion and study. What is sad is that some who defend tradition refuse to look at the issue. They like to simply say "There are two theories of the Atonement, the Forensic view and the Moral Influence Theory. If your view is not the forensic view, then it is automatically by default the Moral Influence theory" they go on to show the obvious faults and weaknesses of the Moral Influence theory, and feel they have won their case. Sadly all they succeed in doing is barking up the wrong tree, as these theories are no way, no how, by the wildest streach of the imaginiation the Moral Influence theory. If you want to compare these new suggestions to any of the classical theory of the atonement I do see similarities between the new suggested views and the old Pelican theory, and the major difference with the Forensic view is that it is not an imposed pennalty.
My current understanding is that all the members of the trinity bore my sins. Jesus wanted to be with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit and the Father wanted to be with Jesus. They wanted to be together, but refused, not for the same reasons that the wicked refuse at the end of time to come to God, but the trinity refused out of love for us. They knew that if they did not allow sin to separate them from each other, it would have eternally separated us from them and destroyed the whole universe.
Had Jesus given up bearing sin, Moses, Enoch and Elijah would not be called before a divine firing squad, but the entire universe would have given up it's righteousness by faith relationship with God and the entire universe would have been destroyed
Sort of a summery of the three currently debated theories (Forensic, Moral Influence, and some of the new ideas):
1. Forensic: You are found guilty in court, the judge sentences you to be excututed, but the Judge's son goes to the electric chair in your place so you get to go free.
2. Moral Influence: You are trapped in a burning building. Someone feels sorry for you and goes into the building, burns up in front of you to show how horrible it is to get burned so that you would do all you can to get out of the building before you are burned. (sadly it does not help with the fact that you are trapped in the building)
3. A generalized summery of some of the new views being proposed based on what we are stating to see as what the Bible and Mrs. White really teach about hell: You have fallen off a cliff and are falling towards a rocky ground which would break your bones, damage your organs and thus kill you. You land on a sheep, the force of your fall ends up killing the sheep while you end up brused but very much alive.
But once again how I understand it is just another theory. Elder E. Heppenstall was a brilliant theologian in our church, but he could not decided whether to believe in the Forensic view or some of these new views and went to his grave trying to hold both views but knowing that the two were incompatable with each other. Once he said to Graham Maxwell "The first thing I want to ask Jesus in heaven is which one of these two theories of the Atonement are correct." to which Graham Maxwell replied "Don't be surprised if Jesus replies, "Neither" and shares with us a completely new theory of the atonement unlike any we have suggested." In as far as we can go I'd refere you to "It is Finished" "God made Manifeset in Christ" and the C. S. Lewis quote above.
Sorry I can't be any more helpful.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/23/04 08:44 AM
For an inspired take on what the blood of Christ means to us, and the mechanics of how it saves us, it's good to have a look at the Old Testament sacrifices, from Adam's time through the sanctuary services. Those shadowy types can tell us a lot about what Christ actually does in antitype.
There are some good 'starter' explanations of all this at
Patriarchs and Prophets pp. 63-70
(
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pp/pp4.html ) and
Great Controversy pp. 417-422
(
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc23.html ).
Posted By: Will
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/23/04 06:59 PM
Good question Stacie.
God reveals to us in His Word how the blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins even though they be as scarlet they will white as snow (Isaiah 1:18).
In the old testament God showed moses a pattern of things in which to make on earth what is known as the earthly Sanctuary. This earthly Sanctuary is a copy of the Heavenly Sanctuary.
All the services which lead up to the atonment of the sins of Israel correspond directly with the death of Christ at the Cross and the atonment of His blood before the Father in the Heavenly Sanctuary, since He (Jesus) is the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.
The book of Hebrews discusses this as well. If you really want to learn about this I would do the following:
1. Pray and ask for Wisdom and understanding.
2. Have your Bible ready.
3. Read what John has posted.
4. Read the book titled
The Cross and it's Shadow.
It is available online and is excellent!
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/24/04 03:12 AM
I think it's a metaphor. The blood of Jesus refers to His death on the cross, which reveals the truth to us about:
1) God the Father
2) Jesus Christ
3) sin
4) the devil
5) ourselves
It washes us from sin because when we learn the truth about God, that truth transforms us, changes us from rebels into friends. It becomes our desire to be like Him, and to follow the principles of His government, which are principles of love and truth.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/29/04 08:11 AM
bump for Mike. (thanks Daniel)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/29/04 09:02 AM
How does the blood of Jesus wash away our sins? In a nutshell, the perfect life and death of Jesus gives God the legal right to substitute Christ's righteousness for our sins when we confess and forsake our sins. We may never know all the reasons why it works, but, in light of Satan's accusations, God couldn't just blow off our sin and rebellion, and then tell us to - Go, and sin no more.
Somehow the life and death of Jesus motivates us to hate sin enough to trust Jesus enough to empower us to - Go, and sin no more, to imitate His sinless example. The blood of Jesus was required to make atonement for our sins, and to motivate us to turn from our sins. Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. Exactly why this is so is not something we can readily explain now. Perhaps not even eternity is long enough to completely understand it.
Posted By: Kevin H
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 12:22 AM
Good comments Mike!
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 02:49 AM
quote:
[T]he perfect life and death of Jesus gives God the legal right to substitute Christ's righteousness for our sins when we confess and forsake our sins. We may never know all the reasons why it works, but, in light of Satan's accusations, God couldn't just blow off our sin and rebellion, and then tell us to - Go, and sin no more.
I'm not understanding this. How does Satan's accusations fit into this? If Satan weren't making accusations, then God could "just blow off our sin and rebellion, and then tell us to - Go, and sin nor more."?
What does it mean to say that Christ's perfect life and death gave God the legal right to substitute Christ's righteousness for our sins? Without Christ's perfect life and death the substitution would have been illegal? What law would have been broken?
Posted By: Stacie
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 03:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
The blood of Jesus was required to make atonement for our sins, and to motivate us to turn from our sins. Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. Exactly why this is so is not something we can readily explain now. Perhaps not even eternity is long enough to completely understand it.
Hi Mike,
God's people in Micah 6 ask God, "What sacrifices shall we bring to appease you? Calves? Bulls? Rivers of oil? Our firstborn? "The Lord has shown you what is good. He has told you what He requires of you. You must treat others fairly. You must love others faithfully and you must be careful to live the way your God wants you to." This is only one passage of many that explains what God requires and it is not bloody sacrifices of animals. So then is it fair to say that He DOES require the bloody sacrifice of His Son?
Please explain to me how a legal adjustment (ours) sets and keeps us right with God? Because the Pharisees and Saduccees were doing everything right and they failed to recognize God and had Him nailed to a tree to hurry up and keep the Sabbath. If we are in a legal tangle then why didn't Jesus stay in the grave? For eternal death is the result of sin....isn't it?
If we are in a legal bind then the blood covers EVERYONE and EVERYONE will be saved...right?
Mike, my brother, what will it be that secures the cosmos for eternity? The shedding of blood or what that shedding represents? How does blood take away sin exactly? We need to know the answer today, not tomorrow or next week because the world is dying, dying to hear the good news that heals broken hearts. There is a man out there right now with a gun in his hand ready to blow his brains out and if we give him anything less than what the 'shedding of blood' means in the simplest terms than we have failed him. We fail our Lord.
I don't mean to sound like I'm coming down hard on you, no I love you..we are united by the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ and that is why I am imploring you and begging you for an answer that a 10 year old can understand.
Much Love and Peace,
Stacie
Posted By: Stacie
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 03:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
I think it's a metaphor. The blood of Jesus refers to His death on the cross, which reveals the truth to us about...
It washes us from sin because when we learn the truth about God, that truth transforms us, changes us from rebels into friends. It becomes our desire to be like Him, and to follow the principles of His government, which are principles of love and truth.
Tom,
Amen brother. If we view blood as a metaphor for truth than we have what will turn the world upside down. What went wrong in the universe? Sin or distrust right? How did God deal with it?
By ultimately coming to this earth to show us what He is like...it was his PRIMARY goal. In John 17:3 Jesus says, "And what is eternal life? Knowing you the one true God..." He goes on to explain His mission in verse 4, "I have brought you glory on earth. I have finished the work you gave me to do..." And Jesus hadn't even died yet!
I would like to suggest that had Christ died in Gethsemane (and He would have not an angel been sent to revive Him) His mission would have been accomplished..to glorify God and show the universe His character. But the glaringly public way of dying on a cross was prophetic and must be fulfilled and so it went, God breathed His last breath hanging as a "criminal." His death had to be seen by many so that they and more importantly the universe could see where sin leads. The cross glorifies God! It vindicates God and strikes in the very face of the accusations of Satan that God cannot be trusted.
What did the cross (blood, death, sacrifice etc.) reveal? That God doesn't kill, sin does.
Love and Peace,
Stacie
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 04:48 AM
Tom, the basis of Satan’s accusations is what the great controversy is all about. When Adam and Eve sinned, Satan’s accusations were implied. Consequently, they had to be dealt with, that is, God must disapprove them. Thus, He cannot just blow off our sin and rebellion. Yes, in order to justify forgiving our sin and rebellion, in light of the law of sin and death, God needs legal justification; this is provided in the perfect life and death of Jesus. God cannot justify forgiving our sin and rebellion without the shedding of Christ’s blood, our substitute.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 05:10 AM
Stacie, I suspect from the questions and objections posted above that you are of the opinion God did not require the life and death of Jesus as a condition upon which He could justify forgiving our sin and rebellion. If this is the case, then I also suspect our discussion will yield unfavorable results.
Is God an angry and bloodthirsty Deity that must needs be appeased? No! Did He establish the law of sin and death? Yes! Did He promise life and death conditional on obedience and disobedience? Yes! Does it make Him bloodthirsty if He keeps His promises? No! Is He a tyrant because He accepted Jesus’ offer to die for our sins? No!
Did God require death for sin? Yes! Did Jesus die the second death? No! He consumed and conquered it when He drained the cup of trembling. Satan will die with our sin and second in the lake of fire. Why did God establish the law of sin and death? Why is the blood of Jesus necessary for salvation? I don’t have a perfect answer. No one does.
The best thing to tell the guy who is just about to shoot himself in the head, or the 10 year child pointing to the scars of Jesus, or the sincere seeker, or anybody else, the best thing to tell them is what Jesus Himself said:
John
3:16 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.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 05:16 AM
Stacie, the idea that Jesus accomplished everything He set out to do before He left Gethsemane is blasphemous.
Posted By: Stacie
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 08:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Stacie, the idea that Jesus accomplished everything He set out to do before He left Gethsemane is blasphemous.
Mike,
Man, it sounds blasphemous doesn't it? Tell me,
why did Jesus have to die on a cross? Why not on a rack? Why not a spear through the heart? Why not in a private garden? What is it about the cross that indicates a fulfillment of His mission?
Peace and Love,
Stacie
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 08:49 AM
Jesus did not cry, It is finished, until just before He laid down His life on the cross. Obviously, therefore, He didn't accomplish everything in Gethsemane.
DA 758
Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. {DA 758.1}
Why a cross? It was the means God chose. To second guess why God chose to die on a cross probably isn't wise, but to suggest that it could have been done some other way approaches treason. It is better, always better, to stick with the facts. Conjecture and speculation are the tools of the enemy.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 09:06 AM
quote:
Tom, the basis of Satan’s accusations is what the great controversy is all about. When Adam and Eve sinned, Satan’s accusations were implied. Consequently, they had to be dealt with, that is, God must disapprove them. Thus, He cannot just blow off our sin and rebellion. Yes, in order to justify forgiving our sin and rebellion, in light of the law of sin and death, God needs legal justification; this is provided in the perfect life and death of Jesus. God cannot justify forgiving our sin and rebellion without the shedding of Christ’s blood, our substitute.
Mike, what I'm taking issue with is the "thus". That "thus" is misplaced. It is not because of Satan's accusations that God "cannot just blow off our sin and rebellion." Satan's accusations have nothing to do with this (althought they have to do with the Great Controversy, of course).
No, the reason that God "cannot just blow off our sin and rebellion" is because that would have done nothing to solve the problem. The problem is in our hearts, irrespective of Satan's accusations. God revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ that the doubt which Satan instilled in us could be replaced by love and trust.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 09:15 AM
quote:
Stacie, I suspect from the questions and objections posted above that you are of the opinion God did not require the life and death of Jesus as a condition upon which He could justify forgiving our sin and rebellion.
Justify to whom?
When Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" do we surmise that God could hear that prayer on the basis of Christ's death? In other words, God could justify hearing Christ's prayer to forgive them for putting Him to death because He would die in order for that prayer to be heard?
It makes more sense to me to say that God forgives sin because it is His nature to do so. His character is "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth."
The forgivenss which the cross effects is all about us, not about God. He didn't need the cross in order to forgive us -- we needed the cross in order to be forgiven.
Posted By: Stacie
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 09:48 AM
quote:
Stacie, I suspect from the questions and objections posted above that you are of the opinion God did not require the life and death of Jesus as a condition upon which He could justify forgiving our sin and rebellion.
Right on. God forgave the wicked crowd as he hung on the cross and they didn't ask for it. God has forgiven us before we even ask. Our confession isn't to clear us before Him but to clear us for US. We must recognize our accountability before the healing can begin.
quote:
If this is the case, then I also suspect our discussion will yield unfavorable results.
Why is that? Difference of opinion is one of the most mind expanding experiences we could ever have. The more we disagree the more of a chance we have to demonstrate our graciousness toward one another. I love you man! ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
quote:
Did God require death for sin?
Really? Please explain.
quote:
Why is the blood of Jesus necessary for salvation? I don’t have a perfect answer. No one does.
Ouch. If we don't know the answer to this one we need to find a different religion. Our hope and trust is not based on mystery. (Col. 1:24-29)
I do believe that what we have going on here is cause and effect, not a legal tangle. The legal model only applies to the demands of a natural law, sin demands death...not God. You sin, you die...at the hands of God? No! At your own hand, your own choice to choose death.
Love and Peace,
Stacie
Posted By: Stacie
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 09:56 AM
quote:
Why a cross? It was the means God chose. To second guess why God chose to die on a cross probably isn't wise, but to suggest that it could have been done some other way approaches treason. It is better, always better, to stick with the facts. Conjecture and speculation are the tools of the enemy.
I say we ought to question it all and very seriously, soberly, and prayerfully. We must second guess it all until we are convicted through and through. We must be settled in truth and the settling does not come about by ingesting half-digested church doctrine. That brings malnutrition, disease and finally death.
Only truth can hold up under conjecture and speculation. Deception cannot bear the pressure so yes, we must put forth great effort to ask God, "Why?" and because He is truth, He can afford to be fair. Satan would love nothing more than for us to stop questioning because he knows that deep inquiry is what cements the truth in our forebrains. God is on trial and the investigative judgement is not for God to determine who is "clean" but for His creatures to decide whether or not He can be trusted.
Love and Peace,
Stacie
PS Mike, why was not a sacrifice required when Satan rebelled in heaven sparking this whole GC? God asked him back time after time and yet without a sacrifice to preceed it.
Maybe there is no answerer becourse the wrong question is asked? How would you see these quotes fit the topic?
quote:
Romans 8
More Than Conquerors
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
quote:
Colossians 1
The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[6] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
quote:
1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of Christ
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
The Resurrection of the Dead
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day--I mean that, brothers--just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die." 33Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." 34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/01/04 07:36 AM
Here is what Sister White says about Satan’s accusations:
DA 761, 762
In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner. {DA 761.4}
Another deception was now to be brought forward. Satan declared that mercy destroyed justice, that the death of Christ abrogated the Father's law. Had it been possible for the law to be changed or abrogated, then Christ need not have died. But to abrogate the law would be to immortalize transgression, and place the world under Satan's control. It was because the law was changeless, because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts, that Jesus was lifted up on the cross. Yet the very means by which Christ established the law Satan represented as destroying it. Here will come the last conflict of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. {DA 762.5}
These accusations are false, of course. The law can be obeyed perfectly, but if we refuse to avail ourselves of God’s grace to live in harmony with the law, then most assuredly we will be destroyed, just like Satan said. God could not, therefore, simply forgive Adam and Eve’s transgression and give them a new nature, at least not the moment they sinned. Why? Because of the law of sin and death.
Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness, no probation, no new nature, no new life. Jesus had to die in their place to pay the penalty of sin before God could restore man to his former glory. Also, time was needed for Satan’s principles to play out, so God couldn’t fix things right away; otherwise He would have fixed them then and there, that is, He would have restored Adam and Eve and He would have destroyed Satan and his followers. But time, lots of time, was needed.
DA 759, 761
It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. {DA 759.2}
Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 10:53 PM
Yes, absolutely, God is not willing that anyone should be lost. He’s not looking for excuses to kill people, but neither is He looking for excuses to save them. The truth is what sets us free. Does God have to justify forgiving us and saving us? Most certainly. Why? Because all have sinned and the wages of sin is death. In other words, according to the law of sin and death, we must die. Since God is the great life-giver, He must justify circumventing this law, otherwise He is a lawbreaker. Who is He accountable to that He must justify forgiving us and saving us? To Satan, to fallen angels, to unfallen angels and beings, to us – to the entire universe.
Romans
3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be
just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
quote:
He didn't need the cross in order to forgive us -- we needed the cross in order to be forgiven.
I believe this idea makes a mockery of the cross. It cheapens the blood and sacrifice of Jesus. It makes it sound as if the death of Christ was unnecessary were it not for our ignorance and immaturity. The idea that God could have made pardon and salvation available without the blood of Jesus shed on Calvary is, in my opinion, heresy. For reasons that we may never fully understand or comprehend, God cannot forgive our sins without the death of Christ.
God and God’s law (i.e., the transcript of His character) requires death for sin, and Jesus stepped in and took our place, He consumed and conquered our sin and second death on the cross, which gives Him the legal right to forgive us and to save us, and to transfer our sin and second upon Satan, who will perish with them in the lake of fire. Death is the only way to eradicate sin. No sinners, no sin. However, the plan of salvation makes Jesus the lawful owner of our sin and second death. No more sin, no more sinners. The sins of the saved will perish with Satan in the lake of fire. No more sin, no more death.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 11:04 PM
"God could not, therefore, simply forgive Adam and Eve’s transgression and give them a new nature, at least not the moment they sinned. Why? Because of the law of sin and death."
God did forgive Adam and Eve's transgression the moment they sinned. They very moment they sinned, they were forgiven.
This is obvious by all that transpired in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Even sinned. That caused them to be afraid of God. They ran and hid. God went after them. He approached them in a way that they perceived He was not really angry with them. God explained to them the Plan of Salvation and gave them the animal skin which represents the righteousness of Christ. God did all of this before Adam and Even had done anything related to repentance.
God's attitude towards Adam and Even was not affected by their sin, other than they now had a problem that had to be dealt with. He loved them, forgave them, explained to the Plan of Salvation, and gave them the Sacrifice they needed.
"Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness, no probation, no new nature, no new life." Agreed. But why? Is there something about God which needed to change, or something about man?
"Jesus had to die in their place to pay the penalty of sin before God could restore man to his former glory."
Why?
"Also, time was needed for Satan’s principles to play out, so God couldn’t fix things right away; otherwise He would have fixed them then and there, that is, He would have restored Adam and Eve and He would have destroyed Satan and his followers. But time, lots of time, was needed."
This is exactly right. Time was needed for Satan's principles to play out, so God couldn't fix things right away. What was the reason Satan's principles had to play out?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 11:06 PM
quote:
We must second guess it all until we are convicted through and through.
I would rather believe what it says in God’s Word, and then spend the rest of my life trying to understand why it is so, not if it is so.
quote:
Why was not a sacrifice required when Satan rebelled in heaven sparking this whole GC? God asked him back time after time and yet without a sacrifice to preceed it.
Satan had not yet rebelled when God offered to reinstate Him. Eventually though he committed the unpardonable sin, and as such a blood sacrifice would not have served as a means of salvation.
DA 761, 762
But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. {DA 761.5}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 11/30/04 11:49 PM
quote:
God did forgive Adam and Eve's transgression the moment they sinned. They very moment they sinned, they were forgiven.
Yes, of course, but not before Jesus pledged His blood on our behalf. Besides, you are overlooking the “and” in my post. Here it is again: "God could not, therefore, simply forgive Adam and Eve’s transgression and give them a new nature, at least not the moment they sinned. Why? Because of the law of sin and death." In other words, sin and death stood in the way of forgiveness and the restoration of all things, that is, until Jesus became “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” But even still, the restoration of all things did not occur immediately. Why? The SOP quotes I posted above answers that question.
quote:
"Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness, no probation, no new nature, no new life." Agreed. But why? Is there something about God which needed to change, or something about man?
Why? Because of the law of sin and death. The wages of sin is death. Period. Exactly why God established such a law is not clear. In some ways it makes sense. Once a person sins beyond the point of no return, once he commits the unpardonable sin, there is nothing else God can do for him. In order to rid the universe of sin, God must necessarily eliminate sinners. Consequently, the wages of sin is death.
To save sinners from eternal death, God came up with a plan whereby we can be separated from our sins, thus separated from death. But in order for this plan to work, it was necessary for Jesus to become the lawful owner of our sin and second death. To do this, He had to live and die the perfect life and death. But more than this, Jesus had to consume and conquer our sin and second death, which is precisely what He did on the cross.
He earned the right to own our sin and second death before He cried, It is finished, before He died. So, why did He die? Since He was victorious before He died, why did He lay down His life? We may never fully understand the answer to this question - which is the best answer. However, this much makes sense to me, Jesus became the lawful owner of the keys of hell and of death when He consumed and conquered the second death on the cross, to demonstrate this ownership and His victory over sin and death, Jesus triumphantly marched into and out of the domain of death.
By consuming and conquering the second death on the cross, Jesus accomplished more, way more, than succumbing to the second death. First of all, had He died the second death, who is to say He died before the cup was empty? But since the cup was drained dry before He died, we can rest assured nothing remains for us to drink later on. By surviving the pain and agony of the second death, unto the bitter end, rather than dying the second death, Jesus endured all that could be suffered – and survived to proclaim – It is finished. Those who die the second death, die lost, and die eternally.
But Jesus survived the second death. He was alive after death dealt its final blow. Death had nothing else to deal out. Death was defeated. And yet, Jesus wasn’t dead. He was still alive. That’s how we can know for sure that, in Christ, we have eternal life abiding in us. In Christ, we have passed from death to life. Death did not defeat Jesus, no way, instead, Jesus defeated death. To prove it, He walked in and out of hell, using the keys of hell and of death. Did Jesus die the second death? Not at all. Instead, He tasted and consumed it, and He conquered it. Satan is the one who will die with our sin and second death in the lake of fire.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/01/04 12:19 AM
"Besides, you are overlooking the “and” in my post. Here it is again: "God could not, therefore, simply forgive Adam and Eve’s transgression and give them a new nature, at least not the moment they sinned. Why?"
I didn't overlook it. I commented on it indirectly. The two things you are mentioning are separate. One has to do with what God does, and the other to what man does. God can and does forgive sin unilaterally, using the legal sense of the word. That is, in a legal sense God immediately forgave Adam and Eve. God did not need Christ's sacrifice in order to forgive us.
We needed the sacrifice. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. God forgives because it is His nature to forgive. He forgives sinners, not sin, and He doesn't need a sacrifice in order to do so. The sacrifice was for
us.
As to the second part, not immediately give them a new nature, God could not do that apart from their volition. He must win back the trust which sin had robbed them of. They must be restored, healed, reconciled. This is exactly what the Plan of Salvation was to accomplish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness, no probation, no new nature, no new life." Agreed. But why? Is there something about God which needed to change, or something about man?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why? Because of the law of sin and death. The wages of sin is death. Period. Exactly why God established such a law is not clear."
The "law of sin and death" is not some arbitrary thing God set up. Sin itself brings about death. Sin is deadly. The sting of death is sin. The wages of sin is death. This is not an arbitrary thing, but the true nature of sin.
God always knew this, of course, but He could not immediately allow the consequences of sin to take place because of the possible misunderstanding that Satan and his cohorts death were due to the arbitrary act of God rather than due to deadliness of sin itself.
quote:
By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. 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)
The love of God is the stuff that life is made of. To know God is life eternal. Sin is selfishness, and selfishness kills because it cuts itself off from God, who is the source of life.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/01/04 05:24 AM
quote:
God did not need Christ's sacrifice in order to forgive us. We needed the sacrifice.
Tom, as I mentioned elsewhere, this idea borders on heresy. The Bible clearly says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” Heb 9:22. God could not and cannot forgive us without the substitutionary death of Jesus, and not because we are too ignorant, hardhearted or immature to comprehend the sinfulness of sin without it. The law of sin and death demands the death of a sinner or a substitution. Just because we have a hard time reconciling this insight with a loving God, doesn’t make it untrue, not does it make God arbitrary or tyrannical.
quote:
The "law of sin and death" is not some arbitrary thing God set up. Sin itself brings about death. Sin is deadly. The sting of death is sin. The wages of sin is death. This is not an arbitrary thing, but the true nature of sin.
A part of me wants to believe this idea, Tom, really it does. But I cannot believe it because it denies the truth about the law of sin and death. The only reason why the wages of sin is the second death is because God has promised us eternal life if we obey Him and eternal death if we disobey Him. There is nothing about the law of sin and death that is natural. Yes, the effect is natural, but the cause is supernatural.
God had to prevent sinners from accessing and eating the fruit from the tree of life because it would perpetuate their miserable existence. Thus, we die the first death. Which is evidence death is not the natural consequences of sinning. But then God is going to resurrect the wicked, to judge them and to punish them, for rejecting His Son, His sacrifice, and His salvation. Everything about this death is supernatural – the resurrection, the judgment, the fire, the punishment, and the death.
I almost hate studying these things, because I would rather study the love and mercy of God. But, I also believe the wrath of God is love, it’s just that I cannot comprehend this truth as easily as I can relate to the love of God as manifested in the life of Jesus, and His faithful disciples, ancient and modern.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/01/04 09:50 AM
"Tom, as I mentioned elsewhere, this idea borders on heresy."
Who made you the judge of what passes for heresy? I have read some of the [this space intentionally left blank] ideas from you that I've seen anywhere, yet somehow have managed to refrain from labeling them as heresy, or making other of the harsh statements you routinely make. If I can control myself, so can you.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/01/04 09:54 AM
"The Bible clearly says, 'Without shedding of blood is no remission.' Heb 9:22."
Agreed. My first post on justification explains my understanding of this text in detail.
"God could not and cannot forgive us without the substitutionary death of Jesus, and not because we are too ignorant, hardhearted or immature to comprehend the sinfulness of sin without it. The law of sin and death demands the death of a sinner or a substitution. Just because we have a hard time reconciling this insight with a loving God, doesn’t make it untrue, not does it make God arbitrary or tyrannical."
The law of sin and death is that sin causes death. It's not an arbitrary rule which God enacted because He had a personal problem with sin. It's not like sin would have been fine if only it didn't upset God.
I don't have any problem reconciling this insight, because it makes perfect sense. If you have trouble reconciling your ideas, perhaps it's because some of them are not correct.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/01/04 10:01 AM
"I almost hate studying these things, because I would rather study the love and mercy of God. But, I also believe the wrath of God is love, it’s just that I cannot comprehend this truth as easily as I can relate to the love of God as manifested in the life of Jesus, and His faithful disciples, ancient and modern."
I think you've got it backwards Mike. It's God's love that is His wrath. "Who can dwell with the everlasting flames?... The righteous" God is not schizophrenic. The everlasting flame, the consuming fire, is agape. The same love which heals the willing destroys the unwilling, just like the same sun which melts the ice bakes the clay.
In the destruction of the wicked, God is no different than in Eden, on the cross, or in the life of Christ in the flesh on earth. God is agape, and God does not change.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/02/04 07:46 AM
Tom, labeling an idea as blasphemous or heretical is not the same as condemning the person advocating it, not is it bad form or unChristlike. Please do not take it personally. Besides, you are not the author of the ideas you are advocating, and neither am I the author of the ones I've been advocating - so that means neither one of us get the credit or the blame.
Which is it - Love is the wrath of God or the wrath of God is love? Both seem right to me. The Bible is repleat with examples of God using water, fire and war to punish and destroy His enemies. I don't understand how such a loving Lord can kill so many people, but it doesn't prevent me from accepting it, even if by faith alone. It's not called a "strange act" for nothing.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/02/04 02:09 AM
God doesn't "kill so many people." God protects and loves people. When people refuse God, they refuse His protection.
quote:
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. (GC 35)
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/02/04 02:12 AM
"Tom, labeling an idea as blasphemous or heretical is not the same as condemning the person advocating it, not is it bad form or unChristlike."
It is more considerate to preface remarks with "I believe" or "I think" or some such thing. For example, "To me your idea is heresy." I would prefer you write in this way, if you feel you must refer to an idea as heresy or in some such deragotory way. Better yet would be to just present your views without the hyperbole.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/02/04 04:13 AM
Okay. No more condemnation. Now, about that quote you posted above. Do you believe that this specific insight, regarding this specific situation, applies to the Flood, and to Sodom and Gomorrah, and to the plagues in Egypt, and the seven last plagues? If not, then how do you explain them?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/02/04 08:51 AM
Let's suppose for the sake of argument I said I didn't think the examples you gave followed the same principle I quoted from GC, what would you then conclude?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/02/04 10:54 PM
That you're at least not willing to twist the obvious meaning of those stories to serve your belief that God does not destroy sinners. What do you believe? and, how do we relate this to the topic - Blood of Christ?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/03/04 12:26 AM
Let's consider the law of sin and death. Two views.
View 1 - An arbitrary law which God established. Sin will be punished by God.
1. God must punish sin by death. Christ takes our sin, which allows God to punish Christ instead of us.
2. The wicked who choose not to repent must be punished by death at the second resurrection.
View 2 - Sin causes death
1. Christ "becomes sin for us" and suffers death as the result. God is not punishing His Son, but suffers with Him. God was crucified with Christ.
2. The wicked who choose not to repent do not allow God to rescue them from the effects of sin. They separate themselves from God and die.
I believe in View 2. I have tried to express what you believe in View 1. If I'm off, please correct it to reflect your thoughts. Thank you.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/03/04 04:45 AM
Why do you insist calling the first view arbitrary? What is so arbitrary about punishing and destroying sinners who refuse to accept Jesus as their Saviour?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/03/04 06:57 AM
quote:
Why do you insist calling the first view arbitrary? What is so arbitrary about punishing and destroying sinners who refuse to accept Jesus as their Saviour?
First of all, I don't "insist" on calling it arbitrary. I specifically asked for your input, and still do. I asked you to correct me if I misrepresented your view.
Secondly, I think "arbitrary" was a well chosen word which accurately represents your position. "Arbitrary" means "Depending on individual discretion and not fixed by law." You have denied that the "law of sin and death" has a cause and effect relationship, if I am understanding you correctly. It appears to me you are stating that it's only a "law" because God established it. That's exactly what "arbitrary" means: "depending on individual discretion."
But again, Mike, if you disagree with how I characterized your view, please explain your view. Certainly no one is more qualified to do this than you are. I do not in any way wish to put words in your mouth.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/03/04 08:32 AM
I believe the law of sin and death is based on promises - not an irrational, arbitrary decree.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/03/04 08:47 AM
quote:
I believe the law of sin and death is based on promises - not an irrational, arbitrary decree
"Arbitrary" does not imply "irrational". I didn't say "irrational."
What promises? Are the promises arbitrary? (based on individual discretion rather than fixed on law)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/03/04 06:38 PM
Fixed laws? Who fixed them? and why? based on what criteria? The reason the wages of sin is death is because God ordained it. It's what He promised. It makes sense to Him. Either way, God is in control. He established and maintains the laws. He is the author of life and death.
If the wicked die the second death because God chooses to destroy them with fire or by exposing them to His exceeding brightness, or both, the results are the same - they die because of God. They are alive because of God, and they die because of God.
quote:
Please, someone explain to me in a nutshell how the blood of Jesus "washes" away my sin?
It was ordained by God. If, by faith, we accept His eternal death, then, through faith, we have eternal life. Why? That's just the way it is. It makes sense to God. So, don't worry, be happy.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/04/04 02:01 AM
quote:
The reason the wages of sin is death is because God ordained it. It's what He promised. It makes sense to Him. Either way, God is in control. He established and maintains the laws. He is the author of life and death.
The reason the wages of sin is death is because sin causes death. Sin is to death what God is to life. It's not an arbitrary thing. It's not like sin would have been OK if God didn't have something against it so He said, "I don't like this. I better punish it." God hates sin because He loves us and it kills us.
God is not the author of death. Satan is the author of death.
quote:
If the wicked die the second death because God chooses to destroy them with fire or by exposing them to His exceeding brightness, or both, the results are the same - they die because of God. They are alive because of God, and they die because of God.
The wicked live because of God, but they die because of their own choice. "The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God." (GC 543)
"Please, someone explain to me in a nutshell how the blood of Jesus 'washes' away my sin?"
quote:
It was ordained by God. If, by faith, we accept His eternal death, then, through faith, we have eternal life. Why? That's just the way it is. It makes sense to God. So, don't worry, be happy.
You write something like this and wonder why your positions are described as arbitrary?
I believe in View 2. I have tried to express what you believe in View 1. If I'm off, please correct it to reflect your thoughts. Thank you.
Quoted from Tom Ewall post.
Deuteronomy 33:39
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
Isaiah 46:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.
Lamentations 3:38
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?
John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.
Hope these verses might light up in you that it is not the view 2 you must believe but view 1.
ALL THINGS were made by him, does this include death? Yes, and it is justified by the verses above.
Life and death is God creation, but not sin, because God creatures who created sin. But sin could not create death, the wages of sin, is death.
Do you think that by creating the death and kill sinners in order to abolish sin and sinners forever from his universe, God become a cruel and savage God? Yes if he didn’t save us back from the death through Christ redemption.
God knew that one of his creation before he created him would create sin and is the source of sin. And he knew that he must abolish this sinner with death, otherwise sin and sinners would live forever in this universe. God must abolish Lucifer when he sinned, but this would cause fear in heaven and all other holy angels would worship him in fear and not in love. But God would abolish Satan one day and all his followers.
If there is no death as God creation, if God does not kill, there is no death, Satan would live forever.
But by killing Satan and his followers when sin is revealed to its utmost and God had shown his love, credibility and integrity, would it effect God image, and is the universe judging him as a cruel and savage God? No, far from it, they will worship him with love, they understand now what love really is, and they love God not because they were created in his love or recreated in his love, but because they knew the meaning of love, they experienced his love, they knew what is good and what is evil.
In His love
James S
What is good and what is evil? Does God become bad when he created good and evil?
What is life and what is death? Does God become bad when he created death?
The man who knows to do good, but do it not, to him it is sin (James 4:17).
The man who knows to do evil, but do it not, he is a good man (my own).
So, there is nothing bad with evil, it is just a force, jus like good. But when an action is taken using this force, there would be a goodness or evilness.
So, if God created life, automatically there must be death as his creation. But remember, that he created angels and man to live forever, and not for to die. His creation choose the death them selves.
Deuteronomy 30:15.
See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.
Deuteronomy 30:19.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.
Is this not the same as once it was announce from Eden? “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
God does not become bad, cruel and savage by creating life and death and exercising the death (executing) upon sinners who choose the way of death.
Death is the wages of sin and the executioner of death is God, the Creator of death.
In His love
James S.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/04/04 11:06 PM
quote:
Death is the wages of sin and the executioner of death is God, the Creator of death. (James)
quote:
God is the author of death. (Mike)
quote:
The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, [Satan] charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death. (DA 24)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/05/04 03:17 AM
Tom, nice one. But do you really think I'm using the word "author" in the same sense Sister White did?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/05/04 06:53 AM
Yes, I think you are using the expression "God is the author of death" the way she was describing.
Satan is the author of death. Sin is his invention.
quote:
I think it is obvious that God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable.
To say "God is the author of death" is logically consistent with what you wrote above. This is, in my opinion, exactly the way Satan wants us to think. He wants us to think that sin does not cause death (his invention) but instead that God does. That way He can blame God for what he did. Satan always likes to do that.
In the DA 764 quote, EGW points out that had God allowed Satan to suffer the consequences of sin the angels would not have understood what had happened. They would have thought God was responsible for Satan's death instead of sin. So God allowed Satan's existence to continue so that the principles of his government could be seen.
God allowed Christ to die on the cross so all could see the consequences of sin, that it causes death, and that the death which sin causes was not caused by Him. When the universe saw what sin really does, it became safe for God to allow those who had rejected Him to suffer the results of their choice because those witnessing that death would know, thanks to the cross, that He was not doing it. Had He not waited, "evil seeds of doubt" would have sprung up, but because He waited, they won't.
It's ironic that the whole purpose for God waiting was to show that He was not responsible for death, but you would have Him doing that which the waiting was designed to show He was not doing.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/05/04 06:51 PM
Yes, God created a situation, by creating free moral agents, who were capable of sinning and dying, and who, according to His foreknowledge, were destined to sin and die, but it does not mean that God forced them to sin. Jesus did not die on the cross on account of sin, rather, by His God-given power and authority, Jesus laid down His own life, but not until He consumed and conquered sin and the second death, on our behalf.
Giving Satan the credit for creating sin and death robs God of His power and authority and His sovereignty. Blaming Satan for the existence of sin and death assumes Satan, and not God, is in control of sin and death. Sin and death were not possible until after God created beings capable of sinning and dying. Since God is responsible for creating beings, who He knew would sin, the responsibility for eliminating sin and death, therefore, rests with God, and God alone.
Not only must sin and death be eliminated, sinners must also be punished for refusing to embrace Jesus, for refusing to crucify their sinful habits. God cannot entrust this awesome and important responsibility to anyone else other than Himself, especially not to Satan. Throughout eternity we will praise God for punishing sinners and destroying them in the lake of fire, knowing that it was handled properly and by the right Person, the only One capable of doing it right and righteously.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/06/04 07:47 AM
"It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence. Yet enough may be understood concerning both the origin and the final disposition of sin to make fully manifest the justice and benevolence of God in all His dealings with evil. Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is 'the transgression of the law;' it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government."
{GC 492.2}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/05/04 10:22 PM
Yes, sin was avoidable. The fact man choose to sin is not God's fault, that is, He did not force them to sin. Sin is a choice. But the potential for sin was not possible until God created beings capable of sinning. Consequently, God created a situation that made sin possible.
Given the fact God created beings capable of sinning, knowing ahead of time that they would choose to sin, God took responsibility for sin, way before it happened, and consented to allow Jesus to live and die on our behalf. Before there was a sinner, there was a Saviour.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/06/04 12:59 AM
Hi Stacie and Tom:
Regarding the function of the blood of Christ, the New Testament writers are clear that it is no metaphore; that it is THE great reality. There are many texts we could cite, but I'll limit my quote to one:
quote:
9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. Hebrews.
One of the longest threads on the forum deals with this topic. Here is the link to it in the 'Search for Truth' forum.
http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=57;t=000110;p=1
What could be more foundational than the blood sacrifice of the Deity!? It is the mysterious source of all spiritual life for the fallen and unfallen worlds - all are sustained by that great river that issues from the riven side of Christ. The movement within Adventism to change this life-giving truth into a metaphore could well be the central pillar of the Omega that we have heard of for so many years.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/06/04 05:38 AM
Mike: Yes, God created a situation, by creating free moral agents, who were capable of sinning and dying, and who, according to His foreknowledge, were destined to sin and die, but it does not mean that God forced them to sin.
Tom: To say that God created free moral agents "destined to sin and die" may be Calvinism, but it is not Adventism. Can you come up with any SDA statement written during EGW's lifetime (by her or any other Adventist) that says or implies that man was "destined to sin and die"?
quote:
God made upright; He gave him noble traits of character, with no bias toward evil. He endowed him with high intellectual powers, and presented before him the strongest possible inducements to be true to his allegiance. (PP 50)
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person...He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race. (EW 126)
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 127)
These quotes show that heaven reacted to sin after it occured. What sense does this council make if man was "destined" for sin? And even less sense would the statement make that it was a "struggle" for God to yield up His Son.
The whole tenor of these quotes is that God was dealing with a situation which arose, not one which had been "destined."
Mike: Jesus did not die on the cross on account of sin, rather, by His God-given power and authority, Jesus laid down His own life, but not until He consumed and conquered sin and the second death, on our behalf.
Tom: Christ died of a broken heart, which was the result of Him taking our sin.
quote:
Reproach hath broken My heart; and I am full of heaviness: (Ps. 69:20)
Behold Him in the wilderness, in Gethsemane, upon the cross! The spotless Son of God took upon Himself the burden of sin. He who had been one with God, felt in His soul the awful separation that sin makes between God and man. This wrung from His lips the anguished cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matt. 27:46. It was the burden of sin, the sense of its terrible enormity, of its separation of the soul from God--it was this that broke the heart of the Son of God. (FILB 101)
Christ took upon Himself the condemnation of sin....
God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. (FILB 104)
Mike: Giving Satan the credit for creating sin and death robs God of His power and authority and His sovereignty.
Tom: Again, this is Calvinistic and not Adventist thought.
Mike: Blaming Satan for the existence of sin and death assumes Satan, and not God, is in control of sin and death.
Tom: It's simply assigning blame where it belongs; with Satan, not with God.
quote:
"The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, [Satan] charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death." (DA 24)
Mike: Sin and death were not possible until after God created beings capable of sinning and dying. Since God is responsible for creating beings, who He knew would sin, the responsibility for eliminating sin and death, therefore, rests with God, and God alone.
Tom: God knew man was capable of choosing to sin, and in that event He had a plan ready to meet the emergency. Because God created a Universe in which sin arose, although contrary to His will, it was His responsibility to take of the problem. He has taken care of the problem, not with compelling force, which is contrary to the principles of His government, but by using love and truth.
Mike: Throughout eternity we will praise God for punishing sinners and destroying them in the lake of fire.
Tom: This comment brings the following to mind:
quote:
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?..."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?" (GC 535)
You know, the "sinners" which God is being praised for "punishing" and "destroying" "in the lake of fire" could be your wife or children. Do you really think God will be cheering if your wife and children were destroyed?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/06/04 05:47 AM
Mark, if it's not a metaphor, then it's literal. Are you saying that Christ literally took His blood with Him to heaven? How to He gather it up? Was someone waiting at the cross to collect it? (I speak reverantly).
In what sense can it be said that Christ literally took His blood to heaven?
The word "blood" stands for "life". Christ gave His life for us. Do you disagree that with this?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/06/04 08:20 AM
quote:
Yes, sin was avoidable. The fact man chose to sin is not God's fault, that is, He did not force them to sin. Sin is a choice. But the potential for sin was not possible until God created beings capable of sinning. Consequently, God created a situation that made sin possible.
I have always agreed with this, although I find it interesting that you aparently feel the need to qualify the statement that sin is not God's fault. At any rate, this is a far cry from saying, "God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable." If sin is "inevitable," then how can you say it was "avoidable"? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
quote:
Given the fact God created beings capable of sinning, knowing ahead of time that they would choose to sin, God took responsibility for sin, way before it happened, and consented to allow Jesus to live and die on our behalf. Before there was a sinner, there was a Saviour.
I'm familiar with this statement:
quote:
As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. (DA 210)
This is such a well known statement, I can't help of thinking you had it in mind. Did you? If you did, what was your point in re-wording it?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/06/04 06:55 PM
Tom, thank you for taking the time to outline our differences. Nicely done. To summarize, I believe God 1) foresaw sin before it happened, 2) formulated the plan of redemption before sin happened, and 3) applied the blood of Jesus the moment sin happened.
Technically speaking, sin was avoidable, that is, God created beings capable of choosing not to sin. Knowing ahead of time that they would sin did not rob them of their freedom to sin, not any more than applying the blood of Jesus the moment they sinned robbed them of their freedom to die. We will always be free to sin and die, even in the New Earth.
But we are not free to sin and die the second death. We cannot resurrect ourselves, therefore we cannot choose to die the second death. God makes that choice for us. Yes, His decision to resurrect the wicked is based on the outcome of their choices, as disclosed during the IJ, but God is in control.
Since the wicked cannot die the second death without God resurrecting them, it should be obvious that whether or not they die the second death depends on whether or not God resurrects them. Thus, it should also be obvious that God is responsible for creating a situation where the second death is possible and inevitable. Again, God is in control.
The same can be said of the death of Jesus. In other words, God created a situation whereby it became possible for His Son to live and die as a human sacrifice. Thus, God is responsible for creating a situation where the death of His Son was possible and inevitable. Jesus chose to lay down His life. Again, God is in control, not sin, not death, and certainly not Satan.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/07/04 09:18 AM
I'll respond to the points of your post later, but I notice both here and many other places you mention God being in control. What's driving this? I've not stated nor implied at any time that God is not in control. I have re-iterated the view of inspiration that God is not the author of sin, suffering or death. Where is it that you see God's control being threatened in the views I've presented?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/07/04 06:23 PM
The reason I keep mentioning the fact God is in control is because He is the author of life and death. Yes, I know Sister White uses the word "author of death" in a different sense. And, of course, I agree with her. That is, God did not force anyone to sin. But the fact is, He has killed (i.e., destroyed) hundreds and thousands and millions of people since the Flood, and He will kill millions and billions more in the lake of fire. God, not sin and death, is in control of sin and death.
The death of Jesus is an example of God's control over sin and death. No one killed the Lamb of God - not sin, not death, not us, and not Satan. Yes, our sins caused Him to suffer great soul anguish, but it did not kill Him. Jesus willingly laid down His life, but not until He consumed and conquered our sins and our second death. Our Lord defeated sin and death on the cross. He laid down His life as a conqueror, not as a fallen foe of sin and death.
The idea that Jesus was a victim of sin and death, that He suffered the natural consequences of sin and death, contradicts the fact He was in control of sin and death on the cross, not sin and death. He cried, It is finished, before He died. Jesus defeated sin and death, and thereby became the lawful owner of our sin and second death, the lawful owner of the keys of hell and of death. As the holder of the keys of hell and of death, Jesus will determine and arbitrate the the final demise of hell and death.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/08/04 02:52 AM
quote:
The reason I keep mentioning the fact God is in control is because He is the author of life and death. Yes, I know Sister White uses the word "author of death" in a different sense. And, of course, I agree with her.
How is she using the term in any way different than yours? She stated that Satan has attempted to present God as the author of sin, suffering and death. That's exactly what you're saying. You said:
quote:
God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable.
If you really believe this, the logical conclusion is that God is the author of suffering and death, as well as being the author of sin, since without sin there would be no suffering and death. So you have the whole picture. God is the author of sin, suffering and death. What makes you think you're using the term any differenly than she is?
God is NOT the author of death. It is a blight on God's character to say such a thing. One hears these sorts of things from non-SDA's all the time, but this is not SDA theology and never has been. We have a direct statement from the Spirit of Prophesy specifically speaking to this very point.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/08/04 02:55 AM
quote:
But the fact is, He has killed (i.e., destroyed) hundreds and thousands and millions of people since the Flood, and He will kill millions and billions more in the lake of fire. God, not sin and death, is in control of sin and death.
You have a totally different concept of God than I do. I believe God is love, such love as was demonstrated by Jesus Christ. When I see His life portraid in the Gospels, I do not see the picture of a mass killer.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/08/04 03:01 AM
Christ died of a broken heart.
"I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. (Ps. 22:14)"
"Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. (Ps. 69:20)"
"It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. (DA 753)"
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/08/04 08:19 AM
quote:
That is, God did not force anyone to sin.
God did not force anyone to sin, is another way of saying, God is not the author of sin.
quote:
God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable.
The situation, which God created that made sin and death inevitable, was creating beings that He knew would choose to sin. It's another way of saying, God is the author of sin and death.
quote:
You have a totally different concept of God than I do.
Ignoring the facts doesn’t make them go away. God killed millions and He will kill millions more in the lake of fire. Though a mystery, and a strange act, it is nevertheless, a demonstration of God’s control, and God’s love. The wrath of God is love.
Yes, drinking the cup of God’s wrath, on our behalf, broke the heart of Jesus, but it didn’t kill Him. He laid down His own life, but not until after He defeated sin and the second death, on our behalf.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/08/04 11:18 PM
Mike: God did not force anyone to sin, is another way of saying, God is not the author of sin.
Tom: These are two completely different things, and it surprises me that you do not see the difference. An author is one who brings a work into being. It may or may not be by force. There is nothing in authorship that implies force. Saying God is the author of sin implies that He is its originator. This is a deception of the devil, who actually is the author of sin.
Mike: The situation, which God created that made sin and death inevitable, was creating beings that He knew would choose to sin. It's another way of saying, God is the author of sin and death.
Tom: God created free beings with the capacity to sin. God is not the author of sin. Satan is.
quote:
The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death.
If you say God put into effect a situation whose inevitable results were that Adam and Eve would sin, how are you doing anything different than what Satan is accusing God of?
Mike: Ignoring the facts doesn’t make them go away.
Tom: That's true, and the fact is that the truth about God is most clearly seen in Jesus Christ, who was neither a torturer nor a mass killer.
Mike: Yes, drinking the cup of God’s wrath, on our behalf, broke the heart of Jesus, but it didn’t kill Him.
Tom: I'm not sure what your saying. Christ was a human being, as well as God. As God, He was the Resurrection and the Life. No one could take His life away from Him. He was Sorverign over all life, including His own human life. No one could force Him to die, but He volunteered to die.
Christ did die, and He would not have died had it not been for sin.
When one studies Christ's death, one sees the same thing happening to Him as to the wicked. For example:
1) He, the Sin Bearer, endures the wrath of divine justice.
2) Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race.
3) It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute... (all quotes from DA "Calvary")
There's also this statement from "It is finished"
quote:
He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. (DA 761)
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/09/04 12:16 AM
Christ died as a mortal but was raised in a glorified body. Does the glorified body of Christ have blood pulsing through its veins? Apparently it does. Is the blood of the glorified Christ the same as His human blood? How could it be - His glorified body is not subject to death.
But we see that the Blood of the risen Christ is the focal point of His ministry in that it is used to purify the heavenly places of the Sanctuary. If the Sanctuary is a real place, the Blood of Christ must also be real. . . and the converse would also be true. Are you ready to turn the Heavenly Santaury into a metaphore as well?
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/09/04 03:12 AM
Notwithstanding His glorified state, Christ retains His human form. He was handled by the disciples to confirm this truth in the church. He ate with them in His glorified form. He is still fully human, praise God, but in glorified form.
His human heart pumps glorified human blood and it is this blood that unlocks paradise to us mortals. Remember the spiritual 'I know it was the blood'. . . the song is true, friends.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/09/04 04:51 AM
Jesus said, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53, 54)
Is this speaking of Christ's literal blood? Are we saved by literally drinking His literal blood?
I'm sorry Mark, but I can't understand what you mean by saying that the blood of Christ is His literal blood. Stacie's original question was "How does the blood of Christ wash us from our sins?" Is the answer that Christ literally washes us with His literal blood? Or does it mean that, thanks to His giving His life for us, our sins our forgiven when we believe in Him?
Please explain what you mean in saying Christ's literal blood is being referred to.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/09/04 08:18 AM
Tom, are you saying Jesus did not kill millions of people in the OT?
Mark, I agree with you. The blood that runs through Jesus' veins is real. Drinking His blood symbolizes living His life. The blood that He shed for us on the cross was as real as the blood He bears for us in heaven.
God cannot die, therefore, Jesus became a human so that He could die. Why? Because the wages of sin is death. Someone had to die for the sins we commit. The death of Jesus was the only way God could justify forgiving our sins and granting us eternal life.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/09/04 09:03 AM
quote:
The blood that runs through Jesus' veins is real.
Is anyone questioning this? Do you think the issue is whether Jesus' blood is real?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/09/04 06:02 PM
Tom, are you saying Jesus did not kill millions of people in the OT? If so, then why and how did they die?
Does anyone here, on MSDAOL, doubt Jesus' blood is real? Probably not. But why He had to shed His blood on the cross does seem to create questions. Did God require the blood of Jesus in order to justify granting us probation? in order to justify forgiving us? in order to justify rewarding us with eternal life?
Mike wrote:
The reason I keep mentioning the fact God is in control is because He is the author of life and death. Yes, I know Sister White uses the word "author of death" in a different sense. And, of course, I agree with her. That is, God did not force anyone to sin. But the fact is, He has killed (i.e., destroyed) hundreds and thousands and millions of people since the Flood, and He will kill millions and billions more in the lake of fire. God, not sin and death, is in control of sin and death.
Unquote.
You are perfectly right Mike and this is a truth of the Bible.
In His love
James S.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason I keep mentioning the fact God is in control is because He is the author of life and death. Yes, I know Sister White uses the word "author of death" in a different sense. And, of course, I agree with her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is she using the term in any way different than yours? She stated that Satan has attempted to present God as the author of sin, suffering and death. That's exactly what you're saying. You said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable.
If you really believe this, the logical conclusion is that God is the author of suffering and death, as well as being the author of sin, since without sin there would be no suffering and death. So you have the whole picture. God is the author of sin, suffering and death. What makes you think you're using the term any differenly than she is?
God is NOT the author of death. It is a blight on God's character to say such a thing. One hears these sorts of things from non-SDA's all the time, but this is not SDA theology and never has been. We have a direct statement from the Spirit of Prophesy specifically speaking to this very point.
= = =
Seems that Tom Ewall has a problem to understand Mike’s view and to grasp the truth of the Bible.
Surely Satan has attempted to present God as the author of sin, suffering and death, which would give an impression that God is cruel, savage and a tyrant. And millions of people believe this, which make them have no need for a savior and see Jesus Christ as a mere man, they seek eternal life through their own works.
But the truth is that Satan is the author of sin and suffering, God is the author of death. But death would not happen if there is no sin, and God had created angels and men not for to die but for living eternally.
So, can you see the truth now.
God did not create sin, he created holiness and righteousness, but those holy and righteous angel and man has freedom to choose, where they choused to serve SELF more than to serve God their creator, and sin was born. Sin and sinners must be eliminated forever from the Kingdom of God, but until sin is revealed to it utmost and the mask of Satan is opened, there would be no elimination yet.
How could sin kill a sinner? Mike is right, if sin does kill the sinner, then Satan, the author of sin is in control, and Satan would never die, because he is in control of the death. This means that sin would remain forever in the universe and kingdom of God. Oohhh…..what a view??
Surely God is responsible for creating intelligent living beings with a free will to choose, which create a situation where sin and death is inevitable. But he had taken this responsibility by dying for us in a weak human body to redeem our sins and gave our lives back. God is willing to become human in the likeness of sinful flesh to be tempted by Satan and his gangs, long before God create anything, this is to show his responsibility, his justice, his love and his righteousness.
Now, God had every right to kill a sinner, for Christ had come and die for sinners in order they might be saved back unto life again. If Christ didn’t come, then surely God has no right in killing sinners, for we didn’t ask to be born in sin.
With an open mind we may see the truth revealed here.
In His love
James S
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/10/04 04:47 AM
There are mysteries involved here - the greatest being that we really do not know how the Holy Spirit regenerates and resuscitates the human heart. It is like the wind Jesus said. We see the results, but don’t know how it was done. But we have been told in scripture that it is through the blood of Christ that the Spirit does these things and that atonement is made in the heavenly sanctuary. So while we cannot say exactly how it is accomplished, we accept by faith that these things are true and real.
So, again I’ll repeat my question to you Tom: In your mind if the blood of Christ is a metaphor, is the heavenly sanctuary that it cleanses a metaphor as well? Do you believe that the sanctuary in heaven is a real place? Do you believe it is being cleaned or purified? If so, how do you think that is being done?
There is a vision in which Sister White actually saw the atonement process in the heavenly sanctuary. I think it is in Early Writings where she was shown that Christ lifts his nail pierced hands and pleads his blood on behalf of sinners. She quotes Christ directly as saying; "My blood! Father, My blood, My blood!" or words close to those.
If you read Hebrews, the blood sacrifice is upheld as the means of atonement. It also makes it clear that the blood is a symbol of life. However, we need to also acknowledge that the blood is also a symbol of death. Both are essential ingredients in our salvation. I am finding that it is the death aspect of the sacrifice that has become repugnant to a segment of Adventists who are keen to change this foundational doctrine - the death of the subsitutionary victim.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/10/04 06:10 AM
So, it would seem, Mike and James, that your image of God is one of a "loving" blood-thirsty mass murderer, who actually didn't mean anything by "Thou shalt not kill", as He Himself has and will slaughter "billions"...quite a scary vision of Jesus...far beyond a "strange act".
To call God a murderer is a dangerous act: it is painting Him in the likeness of the destroyer, Satan.
Be very careful of your words here, gentleman, as they are being weighed in the Heavenly scales as you type.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/10/04 05:15 PM
Did God require the death of His own Son? If God did not spare His Son or the angels who fell, will He spare mortals who spurn His grace and trample on the blood and sacrifice of Christ?
There is an interplay here between sin and it's effects. However, in order to maintain both the sovereignity and gracious character of God, we have to acknowledge that He is the one who has elected us for salvation. He is the prime mover in giving life to the church. But, He is also the One who upholds the universal law of liberty and meets out the reward of the wicked. The wicked may perish as a result of their own choices, but I think we make a mistake if we don't acknowledge that the harvest that the wicked reap is the result of transgression of the laws governing the universe and that the ultimate enforcement of those laws is a matter of divine sovereignity.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/10/04 06:35 PM
quote:
If you read Hebrews, the blood sacrifice is upheld as the means of atonement. It also makes it clear that the blood is a symbol of life.
If the blood is a symbol life, then it's not literal. It's a metaphor. This is exactly what I've been saying.
I asked:
quote:
Mark, if it's not a metaphor, then it's literal. Are you saying that Christ literally took His blood with Him to heaven? ...
The word "blood" stands for "life". Christ gave His life for us. Do you disagree that with this?
To which you replied:
quote:
Christ died as a mortal but was raised in a glorified body. Does the glorified body of Christ have blood pulsing through its veins? Apparently it does. Is the blood of the glorified Christ the same as His human blood?
Which didn't directly answer my question, but did give the inference that you were asserting the blood was indeed literal, to which I, asking, further clarification asked:
quote:
Jesus said, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53, 54)
Is this speaking of Christ's literal blood? Are we saved by literally drinking His literal blood?
To which you replied:
quote:
If you read Hebrews, the blood sacrifice is upheld as the means of atonement. It also makes it clear that the blood is a symbol of life.
So it looks like we've gone full circle. I can't see how the above Q&A is any different than this:
Q. (Tom) If the blood is not literal, then it's a metaphor. The blood stands for Christ's life. Do you agree with this?
A. (Mark) Yes.
Aren't we saying the same thing? If the blood is symbolic, it's not literal. It's a metaphor. It stands for Christ's life. I'm reasserting these statements before answering your other questions because I believe it's vital that we agree on these fundamental points, otherwise we'll just be talking circles around each other. In order to have effective communication, we have to agree what the words we are using mean.
Regarding that the blood stands for Christ's death, this seems equivalent to me to saying it stands for Christ's life. In other words, to say that Christ shed His blood for us is equivalent to saying that Christ gave His life for us which is equivalent to saying that Christ died for us. I see all of these as saying the same thing in different words.
Now when Stacie asked the question, "How does the blood of Christ wash away our sins?" this is equivalent to asking, "How does Christ's death save us?" (I'm hesitant to speak for another, but Stacie can correct me if I mis-represent her.) This is the issue that we're trying to unravel. What is it about Christ's death that is so powerful that it saves us?
Once again, it's of vital importance that we all agree as to what it is we are discussing, so I'm going to stop here to see if there's anything I've written in this post which is not in agreement with what you (Mark) or anyone else participating in this thread thinks.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/10/04 06:46 PM
quote:
So, it would seem, Mike and James, that your image of God is one of a "loving" blood-thirsty mass murderer, who actually didn't mean anything by "Thou shalt not kill", as He Himself has and will slaughter "billions"...quite a scary vision of Jesus...far beyond a "strange act".
To call God a murderer is a dangerous act: it is painting Him in the likeness of the destroyer, Satan.
Be very careful of your words here, gentleman, as they are being weighed in the Heavenly scales as you type.
To be fair to Mike (and Mark, if he's supporting Mike's view, and anyone else supporting Mikes' view), I do not believe they would agree with this characterization of God. Mike has not asserted that God murders millions/billions but that He kills millions/billions. Assuming this distinction is an important one to Mike, which I suspect it is, your characterization should read:
quote:
"your image of God is one of a "loving" blood-thirsty mass killer, who actually didn't mean anything by "Thou shalt not kill", as He Himself has and will slaughter "billions"...quite a scary vision of Jesus...far beyond a "strange act".
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/10/04 11:17 PM
Thank you, Tom, for clarifying the difference between murderer and killer. I wasn't even going to bother addressing that post. Perhaps the word "executioner" is better than killer. But the fact remains, an executioner is responsible for killing convicted criminals. For people who favor capital punishment, which God does, they don't view the executioner as a murderer, or even as someone who is arbitrary or unloving. He is simply caring out the will of the people, in accordance with the law of the land.
I believe Jesus “shed His blood” on the cross, a metaphor that means Jesus died on the cross, because God cannot justify forgiving us and saving us without it. The wages of sin is death, therefore, Jesus had to die our death to satisfy the holy and just claims of the law of sin and death, and to give God the legal right to forgive us and to save us. So, the death of Jesus on the cross was very much real, and very much required. Without it, God has no legal right to forgive us or to save us.
God cannot disregard our sin, or ignore the law, and save us anyhow, just because He’s a nice guy, a loving and merciful Father. Such a thing would implicate God. It would make Him lawless and arbitrary, which would put the whole universe in peril, and jeopardize the eternal security of free moral agents. No one would be able to completely trust God, because there would be no standard or guideline to regulate right and wrong, or what could be expected of God. Uncertainty, fear and chaos would replace law and order.
I see two laws at work. You sin, you suffer. That's the first law. You refuse to abide in Jesus, you choose to be punished and killed in the lake of fire. That's the other law.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 04:16 AM
Killer, murderer, executioner...the end result is identical; not chastisment or rebuke...but oblivian forever.
Sorry Mike; I don't mean to bother you, merely to join in.
To see God even as an executioner is a mistake, according to Sister White:
"But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but he leaves the rejecters of his mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown, which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace, and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin, and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty." {GC88 36.2}
Posted By: Will
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 04:40 AM
Who caused the flood waters to inundate the earth?
God Bless,
Will
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 04:42 AM
Ikan, I don't mind responding to contructive posts. The way I used the word "executioner" does not contradict the fact God killed millions of people using floods, fires, famine, disease, war, etc., since the beginning of sin. Sin does not kill sinners, as evidenced by the fact sinners do not die when they sin. Sinning, not sin, causes death, but only becasue God refuses to give us access to the tree of life. But is that what causes the second death? No! The lake of fire is what causes the second death. See Rev 20:11-15.
Jesus shed His blood tasting and consuming and conquering the second death on the cross. Why? Because the wages of sin is death, and the legal demands of the law, and God, require death for sin. If Jesus hadn't paid the penalty for us, then all of us would have to die our own second death. But because Jesus conquered our sin and second death it His prerogative to place them upon Satan, who will die with them in the lake of fire.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 08:00 AM
Mike: I believe Jesus “shed His blood” on the cross, a metaphor that means Jesus died on the cross
Tom: Which is just what I said. Obviously I agree with this.
Mike: because God cannot justify forgiving us and saving us without it.
Tom: This is an odd way of putting it. God cannot forgive sin in such a way that does not result in man being brought back to harmony with God's law. If God's forgiveness of sin did not do that, then Satan's accuasations against God would be correct. However, God is God. He does not need to "justify" forgiving us, other than by demonstrating that His forgiveness has made us safe to save for eternity. He forgives us because it is His nature to forgive.
He forgave Satan (at first). Satan, even after persisting in rebellion for quite some time, could have returned to his station. It was only after Satan persisted in rebellion after he knew he was in the wrong that he was lost (could no longer be forgiven). If God could "justify" forgiving Satan, He could certainly "justify" forgiving us.
The issue which needs to be addressed is how man could be brought back to God. This could only be done by way of the cross.
Mike: The wages of sin is death, therefore, Jesus had to die our death
Tom: Right! Christ died our death, the second death. And there was not ball of fire which devoured Him.
Mike: to satisfy the holy and just claims of the law of sin and death, and to give God the legal right to forgive us and to save us.
Tom: God legally forgave us on the basis of Christ's death. The "legality" of the forgivenss is seen in that God forgives in such a way that His law is dishonored -- His forgiveness results in obedience to His law for all who receive it.
God's forgiveness was immediate. As soon as man sin, God forgave.
Because God forgave, He provided Christ as a means of salvation. It was man who needed to be reconciled, not God. God so loved the world, He gave His Son.
Mike: So, the death of Jesus on the cross was very much real, and very much required.
Tom: No doubt about this. Without Christ's death, not a soul could so much as live physically, nor be saved eternally, nor overcome a single temptation.
Mike: Without it, God has no legal right to forgive us or to save us.
Tom: Again, this is oddly stated. It sounds like putting God subservient to His law.
Mike: God cannot disregard our sin, or ignore the law, and save us anyhow, just because He’s a nice guy, a loving and merciful Father.
Tom: Right. If God were to take men to heaven without their characters being changed, they would be miserable. They would long to flee from heaven. Plus God's glory would destroy them, since God is a consuming fire wherever sin is found. So God must provide a means to eliminate sin from those who would spend eternity with Him. The only way possible to do this was through the cross.
Mike: Such a thing would implicate God.
Tom: Not only would it implicate Him, it wouldn't work. It would result in the destruction of those He would save.
Mike: It would make Him lawless and arbitrary, which would put the whole universe in peril, and jeopardize the eternal security of free moral agents. No one would be able to completely trust God, because there would be no standard or guideline to regulate right and wrong, or what could be expected of God. Uncertainty, fear and chaos would replace law and order.
Tom: Yes, since it would result in the death of those God would save, that would certainly put God in a bad light.
Mike: I see two laws at work. You sin, you suffer.
Tom: It's true that sin produces suffering, but the Biblical teaching is: "You sin, you die."
Mike: That's the first law. You refuse to abide in Jesus, you choose to be punished and killed in the lake of fire. That's the other law.
Tom: If you resist the grace of God, you would be miserable in heaven, so God could not take you there. All those who choose to separate themselves from God will receive the results of that choice. Those who cling to sin will be destroyed because God is a consuming fire wherever sin is found. They will be destroyed by the glory of God.
quote:
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. (DA 107)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 08:50 AM
God offered to reinstate Satan, before he sinned against God, before his questions and concerns led him to open rebellion. Our heavenly Father doesn’t mind us asking questions, so long as they don't lead us to rebel against Him.
Yes, it is in God’s nature to forgive, but it is not in the law’s nature to forgive. God cannot ignore the holy and just claims of the law. He cannot offer us forgiveness and salvation without first satisfying the demands of the law – the punishment for sinning is death, burning according to our sinfulness in the lake of fire.
Jesus didn’t die our second death, rather He tasted and consumed and conquered it on our behalf. Satan, as our scapegoat, will die our second death, with our sins, in the lake of fire. Jesus demonstrated the experience of the 144,000 drinking the cup of trembling, which is why it didn’t involve hell fire and brimstone. Satan, on the other hand, is an example of the unsaved drinking the cup of trembling in the lake of fire. See Isa 51.17-23.
God cannot forgive us until we repent and forsake our sins. It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance and salvation. The law requires the immediate death of sinners, or the immediate substitutionary death of the Son of God, before the legal demands of the law can be satisfied. God established the law, and He abides by it, which doesn’t make Him subservient.
Not only can God not take us to heaven without perfect characters, first He had to satisfy the holy and just demands of the law, which He accomplished through the life and death of Jesus, and all this before He could even offer us a means whereby we can imitate the example of Jesus. You seem to be undermining the reason why Jesus had to die. And you seem to be mixing two separate aspects of salvation. Your idea appears to put the cart before the horse, making salvation available even before Jesus satisfied the holy and just demands of the law by paying our penalty, by tasting death for us.
I hear you saying, the reason why Jesus had to die is because we needed to see how bad sin really is before we could be motivated to turn to God for the power to quit sinning, to live in harmony with the law. Yes, the death of Jesus motivates us to hate sin enough to trust in His promises to set us free, but there is more to it than the moral influence and affect His death has upon us spiritually.
Jesus had to die for the simple reason that the holy and just demands of the law required it, otherwise, God could not legally justify forgiving our sins and waiving our death penalty. The death of Jesus was necessary first, before pardon and salvation could be made available. That's why Jesus is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev 13:8. To suggest that Jesus’ death wasn’t necessary for legal reasons, to satisfy the holy and just requirements of the law, undermines the law itself, the very foundation of God’s character and kingdom.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 09:20 AM
Mike: You wanted to label God and executioner, rather than a killer or murderer.
EGW says "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but he leaves the rejecters of his mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown" {GC88 36.2}
Why you would consider her remark posted by me as as not being "constructive" is very puzzling.
No one is under any obligation to answer anyone here, but if anyone is to be trusted, answering questions directly and admitting goofs is...well..basic christian courtesy, no?
Mark: I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean: can you fill in a bit, please.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 09:55 AM
Mike: God offered to reinstate Satan, before he sinned against God, before his questions and concerns led him to open rebellion. Our heavenly Father doesn’t mind us asking questions, so long as they don't lead us to rebel against Him.
Tom: Yes, asking questions reverantly is good. It is vital that we understand the issues of the Great Controversy.
Mike: Yes, it is in God’s nature to forgive, but it is not in the law’s nature to forgive.
Tom: This doesn't make sense. The law is not a sentient being. It can't "forgive." Only sentient beings can forgive. I suppose what you write as a figure of speech is OK, assuming you mean that the law has no provision for disobeying it.
Mike: God cannot ignore the holy and just claims of the law.
Tom: Right. He doesn't do this. He forgives those who believe in Him in such a way that they are brought into harmony with His law.
Mike: He cannot offer us forgiveness and salvation without first satisfying the demands of the law
Tom: God forgives us and on the basis of that forgiveness we live. Please see FW 21, 22. This is also evident by God's actions in the Garden of Eden.
Actually you can't separate these actions in terms of time. Because God so loved the world, He forgave the world and gave it His son. Everything goes together. God is love and out of love flows the Plan of Salvation.
Mike: – the punishment for sinning is death,
Tom: right!
Mike: burning according to our sinfulness in the lake of fire.
Tom: Oops! Or maybe OK, if you undestand fire like this:
quote:
By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
Mike: Jesus didn’t die our second death
Tom: You just said in the preceeding post that Jesus "died our death." Was that wrong?
Mike: , rather He tasted and consumed and conquered it on our behalf. Satan, as our scapegoat, will die our second death, with our sins, in the lake of fire. Jesus demonstrated the experience of the 144,000 drinking the cup of trembling, which is why it didn’t involve hell fire and brimstone. Satan, on the other hand, is an example of the unsaved drinking the cup of trembling in the lake of fire. See Isa 51.17-23.
God cannot forgive us until we repent and forsake our sins.
Tom: There is a corporate forgiveness and the forgiveness which takes place when the sinner is justified. God corporately forgave the human race, which is why all of us live physically. Please see FW 21, 22.
Mike: It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance and salvation.
Tom: Amen!
Mike: The law requires the immediate death of sinners, or the immediate substitutionary death of the Son of God, before the legal demands of the law can be satisfied. God established the law, and He abides by it, which doesn’t make Him subservient.
Tom: Yes, the legal demands of the law were met for the entire human race. Please see FW 21, 22.
Mike: Not only can God not take us to heaven without perfect characters, first He had to satisfy the holy and just demands of the law, which He accomplished through the life and death of Jesus, and all this before He could even offer us a means whereby we can imitate the example of Jesus. You seem to be undermining the reason why Jesus had to die.
Tom: Not at all. Please see FW 21, 22. Also Romans 5:18, 2 Cor. 5:14, 19, 20; 1 John 2:2; Isa. 44:22; 1 Tim. 4:10; John 4:42
Mike: And you seem to be mixing two separate aspects of salvation. Your idea appears to put the cart before the horse, making salvation available even before Jesus satisfied the holy and just demands of the law by paying our penalty, by tasting death for us.
Tom: I'd say you're putting the cart before the horse, and you haven't correctly identified them. The horse is God's character. God is love, and because He is love, He forgives and provides the Plan of Salvation. It was because of His love that He met in Christ the demands of the law.
Mike: I hear you saying, the reason why Jesus had to die is because we needed to see how bad sin really is before we could be motivated to turn to God for the power to quit sinning, to live in harmony with the law.
Tom: That's a reason why Jesus had to die. We'll be studying why Jesus had to die throughout eternity. Far be it from me to say that's the reason.
Mike: Yes, the death of Jesus motivates us to hate sin enough to trust in His promises to set us free, but there is more to it than the moral influence and affect His death has upon us spiritually.
Tom: I've never said otherwise. Never.
Mike: Jesus had to die for the simple reason that the holy and just demands of the law required it, otherwise, God could not legally justify forgiving our sins and waiving our death penalty. The death of Jesus was necessary first, before pardon and salvation could be made available. That's why Jesus is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev 13:8. To suggest that Jesus’ death wasn’t necessary for legal reasons, to satisfy the holy and just requirements of the law, undermines the law itself, the very foundation of God’s character and kingdom.
Tom: You're not dealing with the real issues, at least not the difficult ones. It's very easy for God to forgive man. God is love. It is His nature to forgive. The difficult thing for God to do was to win man's heart, to undo the damage that Satan had causes to man's sould by unbelief. How can man be led to learn the truth about God? That God is kind, gracious, compassionate, a supreme regarder of freedom, and not the arbitrary taskmaster that Satan had made Him out to be.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 04:59 PM
Tom, I probably should have worded some things differently. The blood of the OT sacrifices was symbolic of the blood, life and death of Christ. In that sense, the blood of animals is symbolic. The blood of Christ is not. The point I was making about the life and death of Christ is that His blood embraces both aspects of His sacrifice. What some Adventists have recently concluded is that the substitutionary nature of His death is a heathen notion. However the scripture testifies to this truth as a central pillar in the plan of salvation. The doctrine regarding the reality of the power of the blood of Christ and it’s central place in the cleansing of the sanctuary are a complete answer to those who would do away with the substitionary nature of the Atonement.
Today, following the example and instruction of Christ, we drink the wine of the Lord’s Supper, a symbol of His blood. Why would Christ institute this central worship service of the church based on a symbol that itself only refers to another symbol? A principle of interpretation of the scriptures is that we are to take the most direct and simple application of the text as the true intent of the Spirit. Here, the wine is not a symbol of something that is merely another symbol, but the wine is in fact a symbol of the true cleansing agent – the blood of Christ.
Regarding the sovereignty of God and the punishment of the wicked, notice that in the same paragraph that Sister White says God is not the executioner, He is still the sovereign Justice who meets out the punishment of the wicked.
quote:
The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace, and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin, and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty." {GC88 36.2}
Posted By: Kevin H
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 07:51 AM
Just for a clearification, there have been unfair rumors that says that many in Adventist have come to no longer believe in the sacrificial and substitutionary aspects of Jesus death. This is not correct. It comes from theologians who are mostly familiar with the two views of Atonement that were developed in the 1200s, the forensic view and the moral influence theory, and they feel that if you are not teaching the one, you must, by default, be teaching the other. This is a narrow approach to the problem and it is incorrect.
I discussed and gave short discriptions in another thread here that there have actually been four major theories of atonement in Church history. The Pelican theory, the Bate Theory (which became the major theory for about a thousand years) then the bate theory was replaced by the forensic and moral influence views.
Both the Moral Influence and Forensic views were based on the understanding of hell at the time. The Moral Influence theory had too many left over parts from the evidence of scripture: things such as substitutionary sacrifice. Meanwhile the Forensic view included most of these left over parts, but again viewed these parts from the theological ideas of the 1200s, including the view of hell believed at that time.
The developing views in Adventistm are a new attempt to try to include what we have learned in the years since 1200, from people such as Luther, Wesley and especially Ellen White, and based on how we understand Mrs. White to teach about hell, yet we also try to include all the elements just as the Forensic view tried to do (Yes, INCLUDING the substitutionary sacrifice, which we DO NOT SEE AS HEATHEN). Therefore while we have ellememts in common with the different classical views, these new views are not one of the old classical views. Now if we were to compare these new attempts to the four classic attempts to discribe the atonement, it would probably be most comparable to the Pelican view, (NOT the Moral Influence view) but also is an entirely new approach. The consept of reasoning "We have two views of the Atonement, the forensic view and the moral influence view, you have to teach one or the other, and since you are not teaching the one, that means that you are teaching the other, and look at the problems with this other view." is an incorrect assessment.
[ December 11, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Kevin H ]
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/11/04 10:24 PM
Tom, I believe Jesus tasted, consumed and conquered our sin and second death on the cross, before He voluntarily laid down His life. He died the first death and was resurrected with a glorified body - just like the righteous who die the first death and will be resurrected with glorified bodies. Jesus is an example for the saved, not the unsaved. Satan is an example for the unsaved. Like him, the unsaved will drink the cup of trembling in the lake of fire and die with their sins.
How does the blood of Jesus, the substitutionary death of Jesus, make forgiveness and salvation possible and available?
Since the penalty for sinning is punishment and destruction in the lake of fire, since the law demands the punishment and destruction of sinners in the lake of fire, since the law cannot be ignored, placated or appeased, since the law cannot forgive sinners, and since God is a law abiding citizen, it was necessary and required that Jesus taste the second death on our behalf.
Nothing but punishment and death can satisfy the just and holy demands of the law. Death by itself is not enough. If it were, then there would be no need for the second resurrection. Sinners must also be punished for refusing to abide in Jesus. Why? I don't know. But I do know death is the only way to eradicate the sin problem, the only way to rid the universe of the presence and existence of sin. The equation is simple - No sinners, no sin. We can either die to sin, or die with sin. The choice is ours.
When we die to sin, the law credits the death of Jesus to our account. It also takes into consideration the fact Satan will someday die our second death, with our sins, in the lake of fire. Both are required to satisfy the law, that is, Jesus had to conquer our sins and second death on the cross, and then He must ransfer them to Satan, who must die our second death, with our sins, in order to satisfy the law.
But just exactly how does Jesus' victory over our second death, and Satan's death in the lake of fire, satisfy the just and holy demands of the law? The law, after all, doesn't make any allowances for a substitutionary payment. The law requires that the sinner himself pay his own sin debt. No earthly court would allow an innocent person to die in the place of a convicted criminal. Substitution doesn't satisfy justice, nor does it eliminate the sin problem, or make society a safe place. So, how does Jesus’ experience on the cross satisfy the law? From a legal point of view it doesn’t make sense. If it were merely a matter of money, of financial debt, then it would make sense. But were talking about an offence punishable by death.
I do not believe it is possible to answer this question. I do not believe it is possible to explain how and why Jesus’ experience on the cross, why His death and resurrection and mediation, satisfies the holy and just requirements of the law. But just because I cannot explain it does not mean I disbelieve it or doubt its legal standing. Nor will I attempt to explain it in such a way that diminishes the reason why Jesus had to drink the cup of trembling on our behalf. Somehow, some way, Jesus paid my sin debt on the cross, and for that, I am thankful - eternally thankful, I hope and pray.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 12:42 AM
Jesus suffered the 2nd death on the cross; actually the combined 2nd deaths of all humans who ever lived or will live.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 12:43 AM
I haven't studied the various views of how Christ saves us, and until your post Kevin didn't know anything about how some theologians have categorized the different views.
I do know that there are now quite a number of Adventists who have rejected the vicarious/substitionary death of Christ. I'm glad you don't hold the same belief Kevin.
In addition to asking Tom and Stacie to clarify whether they believe the heavenly sanctuary is real or is a metaphor I'd also like them to plainly say whether they believe in the substitutionary death of Christ. Let's be open and honest with each other regarding our positions.
Posted By: Edison
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 12:53 AM
Mike
You made this statement, "God cannot forgive us until we repent and forsake our sins."
We read in Luke 23:34 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots."
Jesus teaches us in Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5:45 "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
God forgives but it is up to us to receive the forgiveness by asking to be forgivin.
We are in jail, God has a pardon in his hand all we have to do is to reach out and take it from Him.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 01:33 AM
Repentance is a necessary pre-condition of forgiveness.
Luke 13:3
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
Luke 17:3
"Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."
Luke 24:
46 "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 5:31
"Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."
Acts 8:22
"Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."
1 John 1:9
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
---
"For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record."
{GC 421.2}
"Does God turn from justice in showing mercy to the sinner? -- No; God can never dishonor His law by suffering it to be transgressed with impunity. Under the new covenant, perfect obedience is the condition of life. If the sinner repents, and confesses his sin, he will find pardon. Forgiveness is secured for him by Christ's sacrifice in his behalf. Christ has paid the demands of the law for every repentant, believing sinner."
{ST 06-28-05 para. 4}
There are always conditions to God's promises. There is this excellent passage to consider, though, lest we make an error about repentance:
"Just here is a point on which many may err, and hence they fail of receiving the help that Christ desires to give them. They think that they cannot come to Christ unless they first repent, and that repentance prepares for the forgiveness of their sins. It is true that repentance does precede the forgiveness of sins; for it is only the broken and contrite heart that will feel the need of a Saviour. But must the sinner wait till he has repented before he can come to Jesus? Is repentance to be made an obstacle between the sinner and the Saviour?
{SC 26.1}
"The Bible does not teach that the sinner must repent before he can heed the invitation of Christ, 'Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.' Matthew 11:28. It is the virtue that goes forth from Christ, that leads to genuine repentance. Peter made the matter clear in his statement to the Israelites when he said, 'Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.' Acts 5:31. We can no more repent without the Spirit of Christ to awaken the conscience than we can be pardoned without Christ."
{SC 26.2}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 02:10 AM
John, it is clear that Jesus suffered drinking the cup of trembling, and that His suffering was for all mankind, not just those who are saved. The question is, Did Jesus die the second death? or did He consume and conquer it? This is one of the many places where the sanctuary service is helpful. On the day of atonement, it was the scapegoat that died in the wilderness, which symbolizes the second death.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 02:17 AM
Edison, I agree with John. By living and dying the perfect life and death, Jesus made forgiveness and salvation possible and available. But He cannot and will not forgive and save us against our will and desire. But He does offer it to us, with strong incentives and passionate appeals. Jesus bought this prerogative with His blood.
Posted By: Kevin H
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 03:09 AM
Mark, many people have falsely accused people, such as Graham Maxwell and his students, of having given up the substitutionary sacrificial aspects of the atonement. Maybe some trying to explain it may not have given a good picture, but they have not given it up. Therefore I suspect that there are a lot less people who have given it up than you think.
Now it is seen in a different way, due to seeing the "penality" of sin not being imposed but inherent in the nature of sin. There is a big difference between the penality of driving 60 miles an hour on a freeway in a state that keeps a 55 mile limit and you are stoped and have to pay for a trafic ticket, to the pennalty of driving over a hundred miles an hour and loosing control of the car and crashing it and getting killed by the car crash, yet both could be called the pennality of speeding.
I have used illustrations to try to compare and contrast these new attempts with the Forensic and Moral Influence view. Of course not all illustrations are perfect, but I do think these three get the point across:
1. Forensic view: You have committed a crime. You go to court, are found guilty and sentenced to die, but another in exicuted in your place.
2. Moral Influence view: You are traped in a burning building. Someone feels sorry for you and goes into the building and burns in front of you to show you how horrible it is to be burned so that you would want to get out of the building (of course it does not address the fact that you are traped).
3. These new proposals: You have fallen off a cliff with rocky ground below you. But a sheep passes by and you land on the sheep battered and brused, but the sheep broke your fall, and the impact of your fall killed the sheep.
The traditional criticism of the third view says that if you do not have an imposed pennality that you must not believe in a substitutionary death. But just because the illustration in view 3 does not have the same type of substitution as found in group 1 does not mean that they don't believe in a substitutionary death. (and I hope that you see that view 2 does not have a substitutionary componant.)
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 06:48 AM
Mark, what does the death of Christ accomplish? That's really the quesiton we're asking, isn't it?
I'm sure whatever answer I give will fall short -- it would have to. But I'll share some thoughts.
First of all I'd like to assert, so there's no misunderstanding, that I believe in the substitionary atonement of Christ. Christ died in my stead. Had Christ not died for me, my eternal death (assuming I was alive in the first place) would be inevitable. Christ took what was mine by rights, death, in order that I might have what was His by rights, eternal life.
The death of Christ saved the world. The Spirit of Prophesy says that! Christ is the Savior of the world, which John points out in several places, among them being John 4:42.
The Spirit of Prophesy points out that to the death of Christ we owe even our earthly lives. She has other quotes which bring out the same truth.
quote:
He took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race of men to favor with God.(1SM 343)
quote:
To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. The bread we eat is the purchase of His broken body. The water we drink is bought by His spilled blood. Never one, saint or sinner, eats his daily food, but he is nourished by the body and the blood of Christ. (DA 660)
The fullest treatment of this theme in the Spirit of Prophesy is found in FW 21, 22, which is why I've repeatedly referenced it. It's a bit long to quote in whole, so I'll quote just a small portion, but I strongly recommend reading the whole section:
quote:
Man broke God's law, and through the Redeemer new and fresh promises were made on a different basis. All blessings must come through a Mediator. Now every member of the human family is given wholly into the hands of Christ, and whatever we possess--whether it is the gift of money, of houses, of lands, of reasoning powers, of physical strength, of intellectual talents--in this present life, and the blessings of the future life, are placed in our possession as God's treasures to be faithfully expended for the benefit of man. Every gift is stamped with the cross and bears the image and superscription of Jesus Christ. All things come of God. From the smallest benefits up to the largest blessing, all flow through the one Channel--a superhuman mediation sprinkled with the blood that is of value beyond estimate because it was the life of God in His Son. (FW 22)
In the Scriptures the following deal with this same theme: Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14,19,20; 1 John 2:2; Rom. 3:23, 24; Isa. 44:22; 1 Tim. 4:10
The above Scriptures and quotes from the Spirit of Prophesy deal with what Christ's death accomplished from a legal standpoing. Again, the FW section on pages 21 and 22 is the best explanation I've seen on this anywhere.
So far this has been dealing with the legal aspects of the cross. The legal aspect has not impact on my character in and of itself. It is only as I perceive something that I am impacted. Here again, I'm going to quote from the Spirit of Prophesy, as the following quote eloquently expresses my thought:
quote:
How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (DA 175, 176)
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 07:30 AM
Tom: Mike, I might snip some of your quotes to keep the post from being too long. I tried not to lose anything vital to your thought. I'm certainly not trying to give a different impression in any way to what you think. Please repost anything you deem important that I may have left out.
Mike: Tom, I believe Jesus tasted, consumed and conquered our sin and second death on the cross, before He voluntarily laid down His life.
Tom: Saying that Christ voluntarily laid down His life is certainly true, as Christ was God the Self-Existant One. It would only be possible for Christ to die voluntarily. However, Christ was also fully human, and as such He could and did die. He died of a broken heart, the evidence of which is in the Scripture and Spirit of Prophesy texts I provided previously (Ps. 22; Ps. 69; DA "Calvary")
Mike: [snip] Jesus is an example for the saved, not the unsaved. [snip]
Tom: Evidence?
Mike: How does the blood of Jesus, the substitutionary death of Jesus, make forgiveness and salvation possible and available?
Since the penalty for sinning is punishment and destruction in the lake of fire, since the law demands the punishment and destruction of sinners in the lake of fire,
Tom: The wages of sin is death. Christ died our death in order that we might live. To sin, whereever it is found, God is a consuming fire. Christ experienced the second death. (Heb. 2:9) That death involved being burned by fire, but God did not zap Him with a ball of fire. The fire was the meeting of a just and holy God with sin. The wicked die because they cut themselves off from God, resulting in their death.
What I'm writing is directly stated from the Spirit of Prophesy, the evidence of which I've produced many times.
Mike: since the law cannot be ignored, placated or appeased, since the law cannot forgive sinners,
Tom: Of course the law cannot forgive sinners. The law isn't alive.
Mike: and since God is a law abiding citizen, it was necessary and required that Jesus taste the second death on our behalf.
Tom: The reason Christ's death was necessary was to reconcile us with God. It is all about us, not about God. God is already perfect. He needs no changing.
Mike: Nothing but punishment and death can satisfy the just and holy demands of the law.
Tom: You keep speaking of the law as if it were a living entity. What we're really speaking of is God. The law can't do anything. God does everything.
Mike: Death by itself is not enough. If it were, then there would be no need for the second resurrection. Sinners must also be punished for refusing to abide in Jesus. Why? I don't know.
Tom: Well, I was going to ask why, but since you've already said you don't know I won't bother. The reason you don't know why is that your view is completely arbitrary. You don't know why because, according to your way of viewing things, there is no reason why. I appreciate your honesty here.
Mike: But I do know death is the only way to eradicate the sin problem, the only way to rid the universe of the presence and existence of sin. The equation is simple - No sinners, no sin. We can either die to sin, or die with sin. The choice is ours.
Tom: The chapter "It Is Finished" explains the issues clearly. Sin cannot be destroyed by force. First of all, force is not a principle of God's government. Love and truth are the principles of God's government, and this is the means by which God will destroy sin. This is all laid out in the chapter "It Is Finished."
Sin can only be destroyed by a demonstration of the truth. If sin could be destroyed by force, God could have destroyed Satan immediately. But that would not have destroyed sin, as the Spirit of Prophesy makes clear.
This issue is of vital imporance. We must understand that it is truth and not force that destroys sin.
Mike: When we die to sin, the law credits the death of Jesus to our account. It also takes into consideration the fact Satan will someday die our second death, with our sins, in the lake of fire.
Tom: Again, you're speaking of the law as if it were alive. Try to formulate your thoughts using the word "law" as little as possible. The law cannot credit, it cannot "take into consideration" or do anything that a living being can do. We're concerned about what God can and will do. Let's speak about Him. It will make things clearer.
Mike: [snip] But just exactly how does Jesus' victory over our second death, and Satan's death in the lake of fire, satisfy the just and holy demands of the law? [snip] I do not believe it is possible to answer this question. I do not believe it is possible to explain how and why Jesus’ experience on the cross, why His death and resurrection and mediation, satisfies the holy and just requirements of the law.
Tom: I appreciate your honesty Mike, but it is possible to answer these questions, and what's more it's vital that we understand the issues involved and know how to answer them.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 07:46 AM
Mark, I've already answered the substitutionary atonement question. Regarding the sancturary, I I think you're making a false dichotomy by asking if a thing is real or a metaphor. These two attributes are not antithetical. For example, Christ is the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. This is a metaphor, yet it is also real.
Your question is probably better phrased simply, "Do you believe the heavenly sanctuary is real?" To this question my answer is I believe it is real.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/12/04 06:16 PM
Kevin, none of the views you outlined take into consideration the fact Jesus offered to die for us before Adam and Eve were created, before they sinned. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, which existed before Adam and Eve were created. I believe the Godhead agreed among Themselves, before the first free moral agent was created, that Jesus would become a human to live and die to redeem us from the death penalty. I also believe this decision is the basis upon which They chose to go ahead and create free moral agents anyhow, knowing they would sin, and that many of them would have to be punished and destroyed in the lake of fire.
The illustration that makes the most sense to me, the one that best helps to explain to me the substitutionary aspect of Jesus' life and death, and how it realtes to the law of sin and death, is, of course, the sanctuary.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/13/04 07:07 AM
Tom, yes, of course, Jesus died of a broken heart, but not until after He consumed the cup, that is, conquered the second death. This distinction, I believe, makes all the difference in the world. The evidence Jesus’ experience on the cross is an example of the 144,000 is, to me, obvious and empirical. Both Jesus and the 144,000 experience drinking “the” cup of trembling and being baptized with “the” baptism, and by comparing these experiences it is evident, to me, that they are too similar to assume they have nothing in common. See GC 632-634.
Matthew
20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Isaiah
51:17 Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, [and] wrung [them] out.
51:18 [There is] none to guide her among all the sons [whom] she hath brought forth; neither [is there any] that taketh her by the hand of all the sons [that] she hath brought up.
51:19 These two [things] are come unto thee; who shall be sorry for thee? desolation, and destruction, and the famine, and the sword: by whom shall I comfort thee?
51:20 Thy sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as a wild bull in a net: they are full of the fury of the LORD, the rebuke of thy God.
51:21 Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted, and drunken, but not with wine:
51:22 Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God [that] pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, [even] the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again:
51:23 But I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee; which have said to thy soul, Bow down, that we may go over: and thou hast laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over.
The reason why Jesus did not perish in hellfire and brimstone, when He drained the dregs of the cup, is because Satan is the one who must die in the lake of fire with our sins and second death. The scapegoat and the sanctuary make this clear. Jesus earned the right to own our sins and second death when, on the cross, He cried, It is finished. That’s why when Jesus walked out of Joseph’s tomb our sins and second death did not remain behind, buried forever. Our sins and second death are at this moment quarantined, within the blood of Jesus, in the heavenly sanctuary, where they are awaiting eradication in the lake of fire, upon the head of Satan.
Personifying the law is not an unusual way to address this issue. Please consider the following passages:
FW 100
Righteousness is obedience to the law. The law demands righteousness, and this the sinner owes to the law; but he is incapable of rendering it. The only way in which he can attain to righteousness is through faith. {FW 101.1}
HP 15
Jesus suffered the extreme penalty of the law for our transgression, and justice was fully satisfied. The law is not abrogated; it has not lost one jot of its force. Instead, it stands forth in holy dignity, Christ's death on the cross testifying to its immutability. Its demands have been met, its authority maintained. {HP 15.3}
LHU 158
Were the law understood apart from Christ, it would have a crushing power upon sinful men, blotting the sinner out of existence. But by understanding the law in connection with Christ, receiving Him by faith as his substitute and surety, man sees himself as a prisoner of hope. The truth as it is in Jesus is an acquaintance with the holy, just, and good law of God, as this law is elevated, and its immutability demonstrated, in Christ. He magnified the law, expanded its every precept, and in His obedience left man an example, that he also may meet its demands. {LHU 158.2}
I believe the heart of our disagreement as to why Jesus had to taste and consume our sins and second death on the cross is because we do not agree on the punishment aspect of the second death. You seem to believe eternal death is merely the consequences of sinning, of being separated from God, and not that it is considered a form of punishment. You believe you understand why the life and death of Jesus fully satisfied the holy and just demands of the law, and yet you deny the penalty and punishment phase of justice and retribution. Death, in all reality, is freedom from the punishment, not the punishment itself. Again, please hear what the prophet wrote about it:
GC 539, 540
God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that "the wages of sin is death," that every violation of God's law must receive its just retribution. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. {GC 539.3}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/13/04 12:32 AM
quote:
Kevin, none of the views you outlined take into consideration the fact Jesus offered to die for us before Adam and Eve were created, before they sinned. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, which existed before Adam and Eve were created. I believe the Godhead agreed among Themselves, before the first free moral agent was created, that Jesus would become a human to live and die to redeem us from the death penalty. I also believe this decision is the basis upon which They chose to go ahead and create free moral agents anyhow, knowing they would sin, and that many of them would have to be punished and destroyed in the lake of fire.
The way you're putting this doesn't coincide with what happened. God knew of the possibility of sin and made provision for it. Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world because the grace and mercy of God's character which the Plan of Salvation demonstrates was always a part of God's character. However, the Plan did not get instituted until sin actually occurred.
Note the following:
quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.
Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others.
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 127)
You're way of presenting what happens, to my view, makes a mockery of this. Under your perspective, in what sense could God have had a "struggle"?
It is clear from Early Writings that the Plan of Salvation was actually put into effect after sin occurred on earth, or you've just got God and Jesus putting on a show, a bunch of make-believe theater.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/13/04 01:45 AM
Mike: Tom, yes, of course, Jesus died of a broken heart.
Tom: Good! This is the point I've been trying to make for some time.
Regarding Jesus and the 144,000, I haven't disagreed that there is a similarity. I have asked you what the similarity is. I haven't seen that you've mentioned it yet.
How are the 144,000 and Christ similar in mission? What is it that causes the consternation of the 144,000? (this part is different than what caused Christ's consternation)
Mike: Jesus earned the right to own our sins and second death when, on the cross, He cried, It is finished.
Tom: What was finished? (Please see "It Is Finished" in DA)
Mike: Our sins and second death are at this moment quarantined, within the blood of Jesus, in the heavenly sanctuary, where they are awaiting eradication in the lake of fire, upon the head of Satan.
Tom: Sin is an act of volition, right? Something in our minds, which finds completion in a thought, word or deed. How does God quarantine our thoughts, words and deeds in the Heavenly Sanctuary? What does that mean?
Mike: Personifying the law is not an unusual way to address this issue.
Tom: You've taken personification of the law to a whole new level. You use expressions that make it appear that you view God to be subservient to His law. For example, "Yes, it is in God’s nature to forgive, but it is not in the law’s nature to forgive." So God would like to forgive us, but the Law won't allow Him to. This doesn't make any sense.
Mike: I believe the heart of our disagreement as to why Jesus had to taste and consume our sins and second death on the cross is because we do not agree on the punishment aspect of the second death.
Tom: I think the heart of our disagreement is that your view of God's participation in the Great Controversy, beginning with creation, continuing with the entrance of sin and the fall of man, continuing with the cross, and culminating at the second death, is arbitrary. I see this in virtually everything you write. This is why you find yourself so often saying things in contradiction to the Spirit of Prophesy and saying, "I don't why" this or "I can't expalin that" and so on.
I appreciate that you're trying to put together coherent theory. That's a worthwhile goal. If you started with the presupposition that God is not arbitrary and worked from there, I think you would find success. But an arbitrary God can only lead to an arbitrary theology.
Mike: You seem to believe eternal death is merely the consequences of sinning, of being separated from God, and not that it is considered a form of punishment.
Tom: You say "merely" as if it were a small thing.
quote:
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. (DA 107)
This is a description of what sin does. It kills. This is why God warns us of it. It doesn't tell us, "The soul that sinneth, I shall kill." but "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Calling the death which sin inflicts a punishment is fine. The point is that it is not arbitrary. Sin causes death because it is deadly. Your view doesn't seem to think sin is dangerous in and of itself, except that God arbitrarily punishes it.
Mike: You believe you understand why the life and death of Jesus fully satisfied the holy and just demands of the law, and yet you deny the penalty and punishment phase of justice and retribution.
Tom: You're mischaracterizing my position. I do not deny the penalty and punishment phase of justice and retribution. I've never said that.
Mike: Death, in all reality, is freedom from the punishment, not the punishment itself.
Tom: ??? I'm totally confused by what you're trying to say here. The wages of sin is death. Or, equivalently, the penalty of sin is death. The punishment is death. Death is the punishment. I've got no clue what you're saying here.
Mike: quote from SOP:
quote:
God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that "the wages of sin is death," that every violation of God's law must receive its just retribution. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. {GC 539.3}
From this we see:
1) God will punish transgressors of His law.
2) The cross proves that sin will meet its punishment.
3) Christ's death gives an example of what that punishment is:
a) Bearing the guilt of transgression
b) Bearing the hiding of the Father's face
c) Until heart is broken and life is crushed out
4) Only by Christ's death could man be freed from the penalty of sin
5) Everyone who refuses to become a partaker of the atonement will bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of sin.
This is exactly what I've been saying! Note from MB 116
quote:
We should not try to lessen our guilt by excusing sin. We must accept God's estimate of sin, and that is heavy indeed. Calvary alone can reveal the terrible enormity of sin. If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us.
The wicked refuse to partake in the atonement, meaning they refuse to be reconciled to God ("atonement" means "at-one-ment"), meaning they must in the end bear the guilt of their own sin themselves. The guilt crushes them, just as it says in MB 116, and just as it says it did to Christ in the GC quote. Sin will do to them what it did to Christ. They bear their own guilt and receive the punishment for sin.
Everything in the GC quote agrees with what I've been saying. There's nothing in there about an arbitrary punishment.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/13/04 02:04 AM
Mike wrote,
quote:
The question is, Did Jesus die the second death? or did He consume and conquer it? This is one of the many places where the sanctuary service is helpful. On the day of atonement, it was the scapegoat that died in the wilderness, which symbolizes the second death.
Yes, Jesus had to suffer the second death on the cross. For the sins of the redeemed to be placed on the scapegoat, Satan, they first have to be transferred to the heavenly sanctuary, for it is from there that they're placed on Satan's head at the end of the Investigative Judgment. How do the sins of the redeemed get there? What is the agent of transfer? The blood of Christ, it is evident. And those sins, the sins of the redeemed, are punished by the second death, which is the death of punishment for sin.
Of course the wicked suffer the second death for their own sins.
Satan will suffer for his own sins, and the sin of causing others to fall; and for the sins of the redeemed which will be transferred onto him. Thus he has an ulterior motive for causing us not to be saved; the more people he can keep from Christ, the less he'll suffer in the lake of fire.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/13/04 03:56 AM
quote:
How do the sins of the redeemed get there? What is the agent of transfer? The blood of Christ, it is evident.
You're just reciting phrases, John. What do the phrases mean?
Sin begins in the mind. It's acting contrary to God's will in thought, word or deed. What does it mean to say that God uses Christ's blood as an agent to transfer these contrary thoughts, words and deeds to the Heavenly Sanctuary?
God is obviously trying to teach us something. What is it?
Posted By: John H.
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/13/04 04:41 AM
Do you mean, How do the sins actually get transferred from redeemed humans to the heavenly sanctuary, the nuts and bolts of it? That's a mystery beyond our knowledge.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/13/04 08:47 AM
It doesn't make any sense. It's not meant to be taken literally. Sin is not a commodity that can be transferred by blood. It's not a commodity at all. God is trying to teach us something. What is He tring to teach us?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/13/04 08:59 AM
Are there not three aspects of sin?
1) the disease of sin
2) the acts of sin
3) the record of sin in the Sanctuary in the Book
I can only see that the only property or commodity that could be transferred, recorded, noted, accounted, held up to the unfallen universe is the record of sin.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/14/04 03:41 AM
Good, Ikan. I liked your signiture quote as well. Thanks for reminding us of the missions and missionary spirit.
Regarding the blood and substitution, you said above Tom you believe that substitution occurs in terms of Christ's life for your's. Where Prof Maxwell seems to differ with us is in the doctrine that Christ bore our guilt and penalty. Am I right? Do you share his view?
Also, I liked the quote you shared from FW. But regarding the sanctuary, I'd be interested to know what aspects are metaphor and what aspects are real. To my mind the heavenly sanctuary is THE great reality.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/14/04 04:23 AM
Tom and anyone else:
Speaking of blood and the transfer of guilt, there is an unusual statement that Christ makes in Matthew 23 about the transfer of blood guilt and retribution from the wicked father’s to the wicked children. Has anyone given thought to the meaning and implications of Christ’s statement.
Here Christ foretells the impending doom of the Jews which typifies the doom of Babylon and the wicked at the end of probation. So let me ask, “Will God indeed place the blood guilt of former generations on the heads of the wicked in the final generation?”
quote:
23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. . . .
23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
And if He can do this, can He not through the blood of Christ, transfer guilt from the righteous onto the head of Satan?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/14/04 07:02 AM
Well, if the "sons" (I don't think this is limited to family blood ties at all)
1) keep the disease of sin, by refusing a new heart
2) repeat the acts of sin
3) then the record of sin in the Sanctuary's Book
will be as black as their "fathers", church, family, cultural or denominational "fathers".
My sins killed Jesus. If I was the only sinner on earth, He would have volunteered to die to prove to me and the angels and the saved universe that sin kills.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/14/04 08:02 AM
I agree with Ikan's thoughts. The record of sin is in the heavenly sanctuary. The record of sin corresponds to the reality of our characters, so the cleansing of the sanctuary goes hand in hand with our characters reproducing the character of Christ. In order for us to reproduce His character, we must behold it. God is giving us great light regarding His character and the principles of the Great Controversy. The genious of the Seventh-day Adventist church is the message of God's character:
quote:
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love. (COL 415)
Regarding which part of the heavenly sanctuary is literal and which is metaphorical, I don't know, and I don't think it's important to know. The important thing is to learn that which God is trying to teach us.
I'll give an example of something I definately think is not literal. The veil of the type had angels sewn on them. It seems silly to me to suppose that the curtains in heaven have angels sewn on them when there are thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand of the real thing. I think everything that goes on there is real. Real is a better word than literal. For example, the ministry of Christ. Christ started a new ministry on 10/22/1844 before which His coming was not possible, but after which His coming could have happened very quickly. That's very significant. What is Christ doing? What's so important about it? These are questions I believe we should be interested in.
Regarding A. G. Maxwell, I've only recently really become acquainted with him. I think he is hugely misunderstood. People think he doesn't believe in a legal atonement, but he has always denied that accusation. His brother, C. Mervyn Maxwell, says the same thing (that is, that his brother is misunderstood). I like A. G. Maxwell's overall ideas regarding the character of God very much, and also his thoughts about justification by faith. I like my thoughts regarding the legal atonement better than his. My thoughts can be seen in the thread "justification" which I started.
I believe the endorsements of Ellen G. White regarding the 1888 message. My thoughts regarding justification by faith have been influenced to a far, far greater degree by Waggoner and Jones than by A. G. Maxwell. Also I've been very much influenced by Ellen G. White, which should be obvious by reading my posts.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/14/04 08:57 PM
I agree with John. The sanctuary makes it clear that Jesus earned the right to own our sins and second death on the cross, that they are, in some mysterious way, quarantined within His blood and transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by virtue of His presence. Yes, our sins are also on record in the MHP, but it doesn’t negate the fact they are also quarantined within the blood of Jesus Himself.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/14/04 09:44 PM
quote:
Jesus earned the right to own our sins
quote:
they [our sins] are also quarantined within the blood of Jesus Himself.
What do these statements mean?
Posted By: John H.
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/15/04 01:06 AM
I think what Mike's trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong Mike) is that the sins of believers are literally, actually transferred from the believing sinner, through the merits of the blood of Christ, to the heavenly sanctuary by a mystical process we limited mortals can't really understand.
Note Ellen White's description of what happened in the earthly sanctuary services:
"Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people."
{GC 420.1}
Then she describes what Jesus does by contrast:
"As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded....
{GC 421.3}
"It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty."
{GC 422.2}
These are real, literal transactions on the part of our High Priest. They were figurative in the earthly tabernacle services, but we're told that they are done "in fact" in the New Covenant. His shed blood gives Him the right to do this; it's evident that sin is actually removed from penitent believers through the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and transferred to the sanctuary in heaven; to be transferred onto Satan at the end of the Investigative Judgment.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/15/04 08:36 AM
quote:
I think what Mike's trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong Mike) is that the sins of believers are literally, actually transferred from the believing sinner, through the merits of the blood of Christ, to the heavenly sanctuary by a mystical process we limited mortals can't really understand.
Mike said the sins were quarantined with the blood itself, not that Christ by the merits of His blood transfered to Himself. What you're saying makes slightly more sense than what he said, but it's still incomprehensible, as you yourself state, "by a mystical process we limited mortals can't really understand."
We might as well be Catholics who believe that at communion it's the literal blood and body of Christ that being consumed, "by a mystical process we limited mortals can't really understand." Really, what's the difference?
Posted By: John H.
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/15/04 09:28 AM
What I'm saying is what Ellen White said. I'm sorry that's so incomprehensible to you.
The difference is that much of Catholic doctrine is man-made, and what Ellen White said is straight from God. The passages above are very plain in their meaning, for those who take time to digest them.
Of course many parts of the salvation process are not able to be understood by limited humans. "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God." (Deut. 29:29)
Or, do you claim to understand it all?
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/15/04 02:40 PM
Tom, regarding the meaning of the passage in Matthew 23, it might appear on the surface that Christ is saying that He will hold the Jews of His day accountable for the murder of the prophets and saint from the time of Cain forward. However, what Christ means I think is that when God withdraws His protecting care from the impenitent Jews and from the wicked at the end, there will be such scenes of woe and bloodshed that it will seem like the collective guilt of humanity is being punished in the final generation. In reality, the final generation is reaping the results of their own doings – they are not suffering for the sins of their fathers. Their fathers did not receive the punishment that was their due because mercy still lingered for the world as a whole. But when the world grieves away the Holy Spirit and the period of grace is over and the plagues fall, the final generation is an object lesson of what happens to all men when men reject the mercy of God and refuse to repent. Through their oppression of the righteous and their rejection of truth they fill up the cup of unmingled wrath so that in Babylon, the blood of all the martyrs is found. In other words in the wickedness, in the injustice, in the impenitence and in the judgments and plagues of Babylon we will have a demonstration of the results of sin from the beginning of its history. The man of sin will be fully revealed.
I’m still uncomfortable Tom, with your statement that the blood of Christ is not the real cleansing agent. Yes, Christ is the truth. He is the word made flesh. But it is the humanity - the human flesh and blood of the Son - that make the truth personal. Truth in the abstract - that is, the letter of the law - can do nothing for us. In the blood of Christ truth is personalized and washes away sin. In the blood of Christ mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other.
However I'm satisfied that your views are not as troubling as I might have thought at first. What is the nub of your views that you want to get across here, on this, and on the other topics? Would a point-form explanation work in helping you to get that across? Or a comparative/contrasting list?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/15/04 11:17 PM
I agree with your first paragraph, and think it was very well stated. I don't think I commented on your question as to what I thought that verse meant, which lack was not be design but by neglect. I don't think I could have explained things as well as you did, but would add a small point that I think Jesus had in mind, which is that although those to whom Jesus was speaking did not actually kill the other prophets, they manifested a spirit which showed that they would have killed them had they had the opportunity.
quote:
I’m still uncomfortable Tom, with your statement that the blood of Christ is not the real cleansing agent.
I'm quite sure I didn't say what you said I said. I think it would be better to post direct quotes, and then I could retract my statement if necessary (if I misspoke, or spoke unclearly) or clarify it.
I don't have a problem saying that the blood of Christ is the real cleansing agent. I believe it's true that Christ's blood washes away our sin. The question is, what does this mean? I think (hope) we have all agreed by this point that it is not meant to be taken literally.
Have you read the post I wrote on justification? I think that would be the best summary of my thoughts. Also, have you read Ty Gibson's books, such as "See Him With New Eyes" or "Shade of Grace"? I like what he writes very much, and my views are very similar to his if you're familiar with them.
Here's a bit from See With New Eyes:
quote:
The Father of the universe continually pours forth an endless river of love to all, which will eventually prove to be either eternal life or utter destruction to every person. Never does anything contrary to His love proceed from Him, and the intent of that love is always to give and sustain life, never to destroy... Healing to those who embrace it, because the love of God cleanses the ehart of its guilt and shame. Horrible to those who reject it, because the very same love cannot avoid drawing attention to the infinite contrast which exists between itself and human sinfulness....
Acceptance of His mercy always tends the heart toward reighteousness. Those who embrace God's mercy for sin inevitably fall in love with Him and seek to incorporate the principles of His law into their lives....
Sin's power is broken by means of revelation, by the enlightenment of the mind and emotions concerning the true character of God. When we see and believe the love that God has toard us, sin loses its hold on our heart...
There is nothing more healing to the sinful heart than to be fully known and yet fully loved. Those who met Jesus sensed that He knew everything about them and still loved them. (54, 55)
Sorry to have that long a quote, but it states more eloquently than I how I'm thinking.
In my own words I would say, regarding the atonement, that the main problem is not legal (this is not denying the legal aspect at all, just saying it's not the primary problem). The main problem is an actual reconciliation of human hearts to God. This is accomplished by means of the cross.
To say that God had to provide a sacrifice in order that He could forgive us is to my mind the height of folly. God forgives us because He is love. It is out of His love that He provides the sacrifice. The driving point, the starting point, is God's love. God is love. God so loved the world that He gave His Son. That's Christianity.
Paganism is that God is a vengeful, hating God who se wrath must be appeased. He must kill something. So He doesn't have to kill us, He kills Christ instead.
To summarize in a single word a word that I am against is "arbitrary." There is nothing arbitrary about the Plan of Salvation. God is good. Knowing Him is life eternal. Sin is bad. Being one with it is death. Death not because God arbitrarily inflicts pain on those who practice it, but because it is by its very nature evil. Sin is selfishness, and selfishness is suicidal, because it cuts one off from God, who is the fountain of life.
Well I've waxed eloquent long enough. Thanks for input Mark, and if you have any more questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/16/04 03:01 AM
Tom, again, I agree with John, and the quote he shared. The idea that Jesus earned the right to own our sins and second makes sense to me, but I realize you're not comfortable with the idea. In some ways, sin is a commodity, and I realize you're not comfortable with this idea either.
Since our sins and second death were not eliminated at the cross, that means they still exist somewhere. I believe they exist within the blood of Jesus, within the heavenly sanctuary, which I admit is a mystery, but I don't have a problem with it being a mystery. Yes, there is also a record of our sins in the MHP.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/16/04 05:37 AM
Does God punish, Tom? Does He enforce? Who records our sins? Isn't it the good angels? Why would a God of love do that - invest a significant part of the resources of the universe in keeping a record of our lives? Or do you think He does that? I believe He does and that it is truly the blood of Christ that is the only way the heavenly records can be cleansed and our characters revitalized? Yes, I believe I am truly washed in His blood. It is wonderful. I believe that shows the love of God - the lengths He will go to in order to justify a sinner, even me! Do you find that picture of God arbitary? If so, can you tell me why?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/17/04 04:08 AM
John: What I'm saying is what Ellen White said. I'm sorry that's so incomprehensible to you.
Tom: I'm asking what is it that Ellen White said means. Asking what something means is a good thing.
John: The difference is that much of Catholic doctrine is man-made, and what Ellen White said is straight from God. The passages above are very plain in their meaning, for those who take time to digest them.
Tom: This is an arbitrary answer. A Catholic would answer, "the difference with SDA thought is that it is man-made, and what the Pope proclaimed is straight from God."
John: Of course many parts of the salvation process are not able to be understood by limited humans. "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God." (Deut. 29:29)
Tom: I think you're misapplying this verse. The questions we have been studying, the atonement, the destruction of the wicked, the meaning of Christ's death, are not "secret things" but things which we have a sacred obligation to investigate. That's the purpose for our discussions, is it not? To endeavor to learn truth?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/17/04 04:21 AM
Mike: Tom, again, I agree with John, and the quote he shared. The idea that Jesus earned the right to own our sins and second makes sense to me, but I realize you're not comfortable with the idea.
Tom: I guess it depends on how one phrases things. I'm not sure what Jesus "owning" our sins means. I might not be against this idea, depending on what it meant. I certainly agree that He earned the right to call us brethren. This He did by humbling Himself to take our nature.
What I would say is that Jesus demonstrated by His life and death the truth of the issues of the Great Controversy, and this is how He has obtained the victory.
The idea I'm against is that God's forgiveness did not proceed directly from Him but that He had to be prompted or in so way prepared or something had to happen so that He could forgive. God forgave because He is forgiveness personified. It is His nature to forgive. He is gracious, kind and compassionate. That's why He provided the sacrifice. There was no need for Jesus to do something to influence God. We are the ones that need to be influenced.
Mike: In some ways, sin is a commodity, and I realize you're not comfortable with this idea either.
Tom: In what way is sin a commodity. Isn't sin the transgression of the law? Doesn't it reside in the mind?
I see the problem of sin being a problem of the mind. God needs to teach us to think correctly, to have the mind of Christ. The is what the atonement is all about. It is bring us into harmony with Him, making us "at one" with Him. He does this by revealing truth to us through Jesus Christ.
Mike: Since our sins and second death were not eliminated at the cross, that means they still exist somewhere.
Tom: Sins can't be eliminated physically. Sin is a mental problem. God has defeated sin by the principles of truth and love, through a revelation of Himself, His character, in Jesus Christ. All who accept this revelation are healed and restored now. Those who refuse will encountre God in the second resurrection when no more healing will be possible. However, they will also acknowledge that God's revelation is true, that God was right in the Great Controversy. All of creation will acknowledge this truth, and that's how sin will be destroyed. Not arbitrarily, not by force, but by the principles of God's government, love and truth.
Mike: I believe they exist within the blood of Jesus, within the heavenly sanctuary, which I admit is a mystery, but I don't have a problem with it being a mystery. Yes, there is also a record of our sins in the MHP.
Tom: How can sins exist within blood? I guess you'll just answer you don't know how. It's hard to continue a conversation past this, but I'll reiterate this sounds to me just like the Catholic idea that "somehow" we literally eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood. It's an arbitrary answer.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/17/04 04:22 AM
For some reason the colors are funky today. It is just me, or was something changed for the site (taking advantage of discussing things with a moderator)
Mark: Does God punish, Tom? Yes.
Does He enforce? Yes. Who records our sins? Isn't it the good angels? Why would a God of love do that - invest a significant part of the resources of the universe in keeping a record of our lives? Or do you think He does that?
Tom. I believe the record which God keeps is a record of our character. He does this so there will be no question as to the characters of those whom God has designated safe to save. The unfallen angels and other unfallen beings have a vested interest in seeing evidence that sin will not occur a second time, as God has promised. God does not simply ask them to accept His word, although of course they would, but He provides evidence so that anyone interested can see.
Mark: I believe He does and that it is truly the blood of Christ that is the only way the heavenly records can be cleansed and our characters revitalized? Yes, I believe I am truly washed in His blood. It is wonderful. I believe that shows the love of God - the lengths He will go to in order to justify a sinner, even me! Do you find that picture of God arbitary? If so, can you tell me why?
Tom: I agree with what you wrote. When you say "I believe I am truly washed in His blood" that's obviously not literal any more than we are saved by literally eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood.
I affirm that I truly am saved by eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood. I also affirm that I am saved by being washed by His blood. But what does this mean?
Arbitrary means by individual discretion rather than by a law which governs things. God gives us evidence so we can give reasons for the things we believe.
Look at how Christ responded to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. He didn't immediately reveal who He was, but He walked them through the Bible so they would have evidence to know who He was.
God wants us to think these things through to understand the principles involved, so we know why we believe what we believe.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/17/04 02:06 PM
Regarding the record of heaven, you imply there is no record of sin kept, only a record of character. The types however transfer the record of sin through the blood of the animal. The confession made on the head of the innocent lamb is of the wrong act, the sin. Wrong character is not transferred to the sanctuary. The sanctuary is the ‘safe place or refuge’ that allows us mortals with flawed characters to live notwithstanding our sins.
Regarding my statement that I am washed in the blood of Christ, it is literal. There is no metaphor. As one who takes the roll of a teacher, shouldn't we be entitle to expect that you know that we are speaking of spiritual things? Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom. We do not enter into our mother's wombs a second time to be reborn. The regeneration is spiritual, but it is the Spirit who through the blood of Christ washes us spiritually making us new. We do not know exactly how, but we know that the blood of Christ is applied by the Spirit to wash our away our sins and revitalize our characters. It is the spirit that quickens. The flesh profits nothing. But it is the blood of Christ that makes all of this possible and opens paradise to us.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/17/04 04:42 PM
Mark: We all are teachers, or we loose our standing as students.
"We are learners that we may be teachers. This idea must be imprinted in the mind of every church member.
We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. Nothing is to be allowed to keep the working servant of God from his fellowman. The individual believer is to labor for the individual sinner. . . .{DG 130.3}
"By wise cultivation our ability should increase, that we may have growing power to understand the sacred teachings of Christ. We are to become teachers of the mysteries of the gospel." {RH, April 19, 1892 par. 8}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/17/04 09:41 PM
Tom, what I mean by “Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death” is, in a way I don’t completely understand, He is lawfully responsible for eliminating our sin and second death. If Jesus hadn’t assumed responsibility for our sin and second death, by living and dying the perfect life and death, then each one of us would have to suffer and die our own second death, with our own sins.
When we sin, we incur the wrath of God, we come under the condemnation of law, we deserve to suffer and die the second death. God cannot simply disregard the holy, just and good law, and forgive us. The law demands the death of sinners, and in order to forgive and save us, God must satisfy the law. Yes, God longs to forgive us; yes, it’s in His nature to forgive; no, He doesn’t need excuses to forgive us.
Yes, in one sense sin is a commodity. I do not understand it completely, but sin would cease to exist if there were no sinners. So, in one way, Jesus earned the right to own us, which includes our sins and second death. Again, I believe our sins and second death are quarantined within His blood, within the heavenly sanctuary. Yes, sin is the transgression of the law, a problem of mind and heart. But we are associated with our sins, and to eliminate our sins, we ourselves must be eliminated, which is accomplished in Jesus, if we accept Him as our Saviour.
How can sin exist within blood? In the same way it can exist in books in heaven. Sin is not only a thought, word or deed, it is also a cancer that kills. You have made that point abundantly clear. “Alas that pride, unbelief, and selfishness, like a foul cancer, are eating out vital godliness from the heart of many a professed Christian! RC 368. However, you and I interpret this fact in different and contradicting ways. I believe it is a cancer that can be, and was, transferred to Jesus, and will be transferred to Satan. It is also passed on from generation to generation.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/17/04 11:04 PM
Mark: Regarding the record of heaven, you imply there is no record of sin kept, only a record of character.
Tom: That was not my intent. The books of heavenly reflect the reality if our characters. That's what I meant.
Mark: The types however transfer the record of sin through the blood of the animal. The confession made on the head of the innocent lamb is of the wrong act, the sin. Wrong character is not transferred to the sanctuary. The sanctuary is the ‘safe place or refuge’ that allows us mortals with flawed characters to live notwithstanding our sins.
Tom: What is it you see the act of the sinner offering a sacrifice representing? How many parties are involved? (e.g., the sinner is one party)
Mark: Regarding my statement that I am washed in the blood of Christ, it is literal. There is no metaphor.
Tom: Your using words in an odd way. Literal means "Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words." A metaphor is "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another." Although you claim your statement is literal, your explanation is of a metaphor. If it really were literal, it would mean that you took a bath in actual blood. This would be in accordance with, conforming to, and upholding the exact or primary meaning of the words involved.
It's difficult to communicate when words are used in a non-standard way. Since you have a non-standard defition of "literal" in mind, you could provide a definition of it, as well as a defintion of "metaphor," and then I might be able to understand what you're saying. It appears to me that you are confusing "literal" with "real," and "metaphor" with "not real," but perhaps you have some other meaning in mind, so I'll await your response.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/17/04 11:26 PM
Mike: Tom, what I mean by “Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death” is, in a way I don’t completely understand, He is lawfully responsible for eliminating our sin and second death.
Tom: This isn't difficult to understand. He's responsbile because He created us.
Mike: If Jesus hadn’t assumed responsibility for our sin and second death, by living and dying the perfect life and death, then each one of us would have to suffer and die our own second death, with our own sins.
Tom: I agree with this completely.
Mike: When we sin, we incur the wrath of God, we come under the condemnation of law, we deserve to suffer and die the second death. God cannot simply disregard the holy, just and good law, and forgive us. The law demands the death of sinners, and in order to forgive and save us, God must satisfy the law. Yes, God longs to forgive us; yes, it’s in His nature to forgive; no, He doesn’t need excuses to forgive us.
Tom: I agree with this too, although I think I understand what you wrote differently than you do. I understand that sin itself brings the condemnation; it's not something arbitrary which God adds. The principle of sin is selfishness, cutting oneself off from others, including God. Since God is the source of life, sin is suicidal. The sting of death is sin. The wages of sin is death. In other words, sin kills.
The statement that "the law demands death" is the same as saying "the soul that sins will die." It's not an arbitrary law, but a description of the way things really are. Sin really is evil. It really does cause death.
Mike: Yes, in one sense sin is a commodity. I do not understand it completely, but sin would cease to exist if there were no sinners.
Tom: This is easy to understand too. Sin resides in the mind. Without sinners, there is no mind in which it can exist.
Mike: So, in one way, Jesus earned the right to own us, which includes our sins and second death.
Tom: I agree with this statement if what it means is that Jesus, by taking our nature and overcoming sin by faith and suffering the consequences of taking our sin upon Him, did all that was necessary in order to bring us into harmony with God. Of course, Jesus already had the right to own us, or to state it more succinctly, He did own us by virture of having created us. After His work in accomplishing our redemption, He owns us twice, both by virture of creation and redemption. The section in FW 21, 22 touches on this (even more if you read the whole section, starting before page 21).
Mike: Again, I believe our sins and second death are quarantined within His blood, within the heavenly sanctuary. Yes, sin is the transgression of the law, a problem of mind and heart. But we are associated with our sins, and to eliminate our sins, we ourselves must be eliminated, which is accomplished in Jesus, if we accept Him as our Saviour.
Tom: It sounds to me like you have this completely backwards. Sin must be eliminated from us in order that our existence might not cease. It is not we who need to be eliminated, but sin. We are associated with our sins because as a man thinks in his heart, so he is. There's nothing arbitrary about this. You're making it harder to understand than it actually is.
Sin resides in the mind. It is our thinking which must be corrected. We need to learn to think in a Christ-centered way, in accordance with the principles of God's law, which is fulfilled by love. When we learn to love, rather than serve self, we are healed from the cancer of sin. Then we can exist in God's presence without being destroyed by His glory.
Mike: How can sin exist within blood? In the same way it can exist in books in heaven.
Tom: Sin doesn't exist in the books of heaven. Sin exists in our minds. The books in heaven are a record of our minds. It is our minds which need to be cleansed. The problem is in us.
Mike: Sin is not only a thought, word or deed, it is also a cancer that kills. You have made that point abundantly clear. “Alas that pride, unbelief, and selfishness, like a foul cancer, are eating out vital godliness from the heart of many a professed Christian! RC 368.
Tom: Sin is a cancer which kills because it leads us to view God in a way He is not; as arbitrary and cruel rather than gracious, kind and compassionate. It leads us to fear Him and makes us uncomfortable in His presence. It causes us to separate ourselves from Him, which leads to our death.
Mike: However, you and I interpret this fact in different and contradicting ways. I believe it is a cancer that can be, and was, transferred to Jesus, and will be transferred to Satan. It is also passed on from generation to generation.
Tom: You're interpreting it in an unnecessarily complicated and arbitrary fashion. Once again, the problem of sin is in us. It is our characters which are out of harmony with God and His law. That's what needs to be fixed. The Plan of Salvation is all about how God fixes us, how He brings our characters into harmony with Him.
Posted By: Charity
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/18/04 03:09 AM
Tom, I don’t have much more to add. I think you understand more of my meaning than you indicate. But to clarify and summarize my comments . . .
When someone says ‘I was born again during such and such a revival meeting’, they mean it as they know others will understand it. They don’t doubt that people will know they are talking about spiritual rebirth. The same applies to being washed by the blood of Christ. Children can and do grasp the meaning of that. As I stated earlier, blood and truth do not equate. The truth in theory cannot save us – even the truth of the gospel. I hesitate to say more because you seem ready to quibble, and I hesitate because it’s a deep topic that isn’t easy to articulate accurately, but I’ll finish with this: The blood of Christ I believe is a point at which divinity and humanity meet or combine. The 'life is in the blood' I think applies to Christ's divine nature as well as his human nature. The Holy Spirit takes this spiritual but real and precious commodity and through the blood makes the truth personal to us, convincing us of sin righteousness and judgment. If we follow the will of God as the Spirit interprets the true intent of scripture to us, the blood of Christ has it’s intended regenerating, cleansing effect.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/18/04 04:41 AM
Mark, I was in no sense wanting to quible. I just want to understand what you're saying. I'm interested in your opinion. I'm sorry to say, I'm still not quite getting it. Evidently you think you're being clear, but I don't. I'm not intentionally playing dumb.
I don't see how you're understanding things differently than I am. If you think you are understanding something differently than I am, then please point out what you see the difference to be, because evidently you are understanding me better than I am understanding you.
I'm particularly confused by your use of the word "literal." You insisted that you believe the blood of Christ is literal, yet every explanation I have seen where you say what you use the term in a non-literal way. On the contrary, you are using it the same as I use it, as far as I can tell. The only difference I'm seeing at this point is that you have in mind what seems to me to be an odd definition of the word "literal," which is why I asked you to explain what you think it means.
quote:
The Holy Spirit takes this spiritual but real and precious commodity and through the blood makes the truth personal to us, convincing us of sin righteousness and judgment. If we follow the will of God as the Spirit interprets the true intent of scripture to us, the blood of Christ has it’s intended regenerating, cleansing effect.
I'm not quite sure what this means. What does "through the blood makes the truth personal to us" mean? What I would say is that Christ did in fact give His life for us, and the Holy Spirit communicates this spiritual and real truth to us through our minds and makes the truth real and personal to us, convincing us of sin, righteousness and judgment. Do you disagree with this? Do you mean something other than this?
When you write "If we follow the will of God as the Spirit interprets the true intent of scripture to us, the blood of Christ has its intended regenerating, cleansing effect" I understand this to mean that Christ's having given His life will have its intended regenerating, cleansing effect. Do you agree with this? Do you mean something other than this?
Thank you for your response. I do hope I'm being clear.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/21/04 08:49 AM
Tom, I think it is safe to say we don't see eye to eye concerning the blood of Jesus, 1) why it was required by God, and 2) what it accomplishes.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/21/04 03:32 PM
Notice the powerful realness and illustrative useages of the words "Life" "Living" and "Blood"
Also notice the exegetical mention of the River of Life and His wonderous Blood.
Also the note that it's effectiveness is only when we "claim its virtue, keeping the conscience clean and at peace with God".
His life in us, not a mystical application through rites, ceremonies, memberships, mental agreements, or sacraments.
"Thank God that He who spilled His blood for us, lives to plead it, lives to make intercession for every soul who receives Him. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. It speaketh better things than the blood of Abel, for Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us. We need to keep ever before us the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. That life-cleansing, life-sustaining blood, appropriated by living faith, is our hope. We need to grow in appreciation of its inestimable value, for it speaks for us only as we by faith claim its virtue, keeping the conscience clean and at peace with God.
This is represented as the pardoning blood, inseparably connected with the resurrection and life of our Redeemer, illustrated by the ever-flowing stream that proceeds from the throne of God, the water of the river of life." {OHC 47.5}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/21/04 08:09 PM
Here's another statement that speaks of the blood of Christ:
quote:
Man broke God's law, and through the Redeemer new and fresh promises were made on a different basis. All blessings must come through a Mediator. Now every member of the human family is given wholly into the hands of Christ, and whatever we possess--whether it is the gift of money, of houses, of lands, of reasoning powers, of physical strength, of intellectual talents--in this present life, and the blessings of the future life, are placed in our possession as God's treasures to be faithfully expended for the benefit of man. Every gift is stamped with the cross and bears the image and superscription of Jesus Christ. All things come of God. From the smallest benefits up to the largest blessing, all flow through the one Channel--a superhuman mediation sprinkled with the blood that is of value beyond estimate because it was the life of God in His Son. (FW 22)
It is to the blood of Christ that we owe everything that we have. We live physically because of that blood.
quote:
Our Lord has said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. . . . For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." John 6:53-55. This is true of our physical nature. To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. The bread we eat is the purchase of His broken body. The water we drink is bought by His spilled blood. Never one, saint or sinner, eats his daily food, but he is nourished by the body and the blood of Christ. (DA 660)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/21/04 09:52 PM
The shed blood of Jesus was required because the justice of God demands that sinners be punished and that they die. Yes, the death of Jesus demonstrates the unselfish love of God, but it also satisfies the unyielding justice of God. Any idea or theory that ignores the justice of God misses the point. Anyone who refuses to abide in Jesus despises His death and deserves to be punished and destroyed.
AA 62
The wrath of God is not declared against unrepentant sinners merely because of the sins they have committed, but because, when called to repent, they choose to continue in resistance, repeating the sins of the past in defiance of the light given them. {AA 62.1}
Con 20
God forbears, for a time, the full execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon man. {Con 20.1}
OHC 78
When the repenting sinner comes to Christ, conscious of his guilt and unworthiness, realizing that he is deserving of punishment, but relying on the mercy and love of Christ, he will not be turned away. {OHC 78.3}
UL 378
Sin is disloyalty to God, and [is] deserving of punishment.... And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. {UL 378.6}
Micah
5:15 And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.
Nahum
1:2 God [is] jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and [is] furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth [wrath] for his enemies.
Romans
12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Hebrews
10:30 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.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
2 Thessalonians
1:6 Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
2 Peter
2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Revelation
14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
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:
14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Revelation
16:5 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.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.
Revelation
18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.
Revelation
19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Revelation
20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation
21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Blood of Christ - 12/22/04 07:11 AM
The wrath of God is manifest in God's withdrawing His presence (when people reject God, they reject His protection). Bold = God forsaking; Underline = God's wrath. Final GC quote Bold+Underline = Emphasis.
"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?And I will surely hide my face in that dayfor all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods." (Deut 31:17, 18)
"They come to fight with the Chaldeans, but it is to fill them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in mine anger and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my face from this city.
." (Jer. 33:5)
"For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD our God, and have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the LORD, and turned their backs.
Also they have shut up the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt offerings in the holy place unto the God of Israel.
Wherefore the wrath of the LORD was upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he hath delivered them to trouble, to astonishment, and to hissing, as ye see with your eyes." (2 Chron 29: 6, 8)
"And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.
Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made.
And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight." (2 King 17:17-20)
"Hide not thy face far from me; put not thy servant away in anger: thou hast been my help; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation." (Ps. 27:9)
"How long, LORD? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire?" (Ps. 89:46)
"Hear me speedily, O LORD: my spirit faileth: hide not thy face from me, lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit." (Ps. 143:7)
"Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!" (Hosea 9:12)
"The LORD was as an enemy: he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces: he hath destroyed his strong holds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation.
And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation (wrath JB) of his anger the king and the priest.
The LORD hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of the LORD, as in the day of a solemn feast." (Lam. 2:5-7)
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. (GC 35)