Destruction of the wicked
Posted By: Tom
Destruction of the wicked - 05/05/05 07:50 AM
Rosangela posted the following on another thread (where we've been going back and forth on God's wrath)
quote:
God’s glory and a literal lake of fire are not incompatible. God’s glory sets the earth on fire and at the same time acts (as His wrath) on the interior of the sinner.
This seems reasonable to me. I'm interested in other's thoughts on it.
Posted By: Cheri Fritz
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/05/05 02:00 PM
Dear Brother Tom,
Greetings. According to scriptures our God is a consuming fire. Therefore I would say that literal fire would be in the lake of fire. Remember light and darkness cannot dwell together, and if God is like the consuming fire, then what is darkness must be consumed.
Below are some verses to consider:
quote:
John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Dueteronomy 4:24 For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.
Hebrews 12:29 For our God [is] a consuming fire.
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Revelation 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Some quotes from the writings of Mrs. White:
quote:
"I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance," said John; "but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Matt. 3:11, R. V., margin. The prophet Isaiah had declared that the Lord would cleanse His people from their iniquities "by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." The word of the Lord to Israel was, "I will turn My hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin." Isa. 4:4; 1:25. 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. Jacob, after his night of wrestling with the Angel, exclaimed, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen. 32: 30. Jacob had been guilty of a great sin in his conduct toward Esau; but he had repented. His transgression had been forgiven, and his sin purged; therefore he could endure the revelation of God's presence. But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.
In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence. The Desire of Ages, pp. 107:4-108:1.
Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire.
Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off. Sin and sinners will perish, root and branch (Mal. 4:1)--Satan the root, and his followers the branches. . . . "They shall be as though they had not been." Obadiah 16. Faith I Live By, pp. 357.3-357.4.
Your Sister in Christ Jesus,
Cheri Fritz
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/06/05 06:13 AM
And, of course, who can forget this quote:
EW 294, 295
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}
Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/06/05 12:33 AM
There's this one, where she explains the meaning of her vision:
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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.
Rosangela and I have been going back and forth, and she formulated a statement which I was wondering if both sides of the question could agree with. Her statement says that God's glory destroys the wicked (a point I've been emphasizing) and results in a literal lake of fire when the earth is purified. This seems plausible to me. I would add that the same thing which causes the death of the wicked gives life to the righteous, which is an important point (this is from the DA 108 quote.)
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/06/05 12:47 PM
Picture this:
"Bob was told by his boss at the local Garden and Nursery shop to fetch a box of seeds from the old metal shed out in back of the store. Bob knew that no one had gone into that shed for years, and it looked a sore sight from the outside, all weathered and blistered. But when he got the jammed door open finally, he had to hold his nose: the inside was full of slime mold and wierd mushrooms that had festered in the dark dampness.
'Sorry boss; that old shed is overun with mold and fungus. It's covered everything and I'm afraid those flower seeds are ruined.'
After a little thought, the boss took Bob back to the shed and instructed him to tear off the roof, just the roof. Bob, puzzled, got to it, but thought his boss was insane.
After 3 weeks of warm spring sunshine and showers, Bob's boss took him back to the shed, and pried open the door. Lo and behold, the shed was packed to the roof with millions of bright and colorful flowers. The mushrooms and mold had all withered and vanished and the boxes had turned to mulch, a perfect starter bed for the store's new crop of potted flowers!"
That's how God's glory kills and yet gives life.
To the mushrooms, the open sky was a "lake of fire".
To the flower seeds, it was "the glory of His face."
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/07/05 08:16 AM
Did you do that Ikan? (very cool)
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/07/05 05:21 PM
Well, yes..It just sorta came to me, Tom as I was mulling over the problems of the Bible and SOP's "apparent" contradictions.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/16/05 12:05 AM
I moved from the thread "Behold the Lamb" to this thread because John B. is correct in suggesting that this thread is more appropriate to the discussion we are having.
quote:
Tom: No, [the duration of the punishment is] decided now. It's determined by the light rejected. It's not an arbitrary determination on the part of God, as if the rejection of light had nothing to do with the suffering the wicked will endure in the end, but it's that very rejection which determines the suffering.
Lesser or greater rejection of light determines a shorter or longer sentence. But God, together with the saved, determines the length of the sentence, that is, the exact amount of time the punishment will last (EW 290, 291). quote:
Tom: The principle of corporate forensice justification is that God treats all people as if they had never sinned. By the gift of Christ, God's grace is communicated to all. All live physically by virture of God's grace manifest in Christ.
I can’t find this view of corporate forensic justification either in the Bible or in the SOP. Justification, both in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White, is only and solely by faith.
Through Christ the human race was granted a second probation:
"After the fall Christ became Adam's instructor. He acted in God's stead toward humanity, saving the race from immediate death. He took upon him the office of mediator. Adam and Eve were given a probation in which to return to their allegiance, and in this plan all their posterity were embraced." {CC 20.6}
But a second probation and justification are two different things. A second probation has to do with the present life, while justification has to do with eternal life. Justification is our title to heaven.
What happened when man sinned?
"By rebellion and apostasy man forfeited the favor of God; not his rights, for he could have no value except as it was invested in God's dear Son. This point must be understood. He forfeited those privileges which God in His mercy presented him as a free gift, a treasure in trust to be used to advance His cause and His glory, to benefit the beings He had made. The moment the workmanship of God refused obedience to the laws of God's kingdom, that moment he became disloyal to the government of God and he made himself entirely unworthy of all the blessings wherewith God had favored him. {FW 21.1}
"This was the position of the human race after man divorced himself from God by transgression. Then he was no longer entitled to a breath of air, a ray of sunshine, or a particle of food. And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression. Christ proposed to become man's surety and substitute, that man, through matchless grace, should have another trial--a second probation--having the experience of Adam and Eve as a warning not to transgress God's law as they did. ...{FW 21.2}
"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." {FW 22.1}
Why is death the penalty of sin? Because by sinning man forfeited life.
Is it an imposed penalty? Yes, because God made obedience the condition of eternal life. Those who are not obedient cannot inherit it.
Man was not annihilated at the moment he sinned because Christ proposed to take the penalty of sin upon Himself. But those who do not accept Christ will finally have their life removed because they forfeited it by their transgressions:
“Since it is impossible for God, consistently with His justice and mercy, to save the sinner in his sins, He deprives him of the existence which his transgressions have forfeited and of which he has proved himself unworthy. {GC 544}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/16/05 08:18 AM
Old Tom: No, [the duration of the punishment is] decided now. It's determined by the light rejected. It's not an arbitrary determination on the part of God, as if the rejection of light had nothing to do with the suffering the wicked will endure in the end, but it's that very rejection which determines the suffering.
R: Lesser or greater rejection of light determines a shorter or longer sentence. But God, together with the saved, determines the length of the sentence, that is, the exact amount of time the punishment will last (EW 290, 291).
Tom: It's the wicked who determine the length of their sentence. As the Spirit of Prophesy points out repeatedly, God destroys no man, but they destroy themselves by rejecting His grace. God simply recognizes their choice. As the GC quote points out, the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.
Old Tom: The principle of corporate forensice justification is that God treats all people as if they had never sinned. By the gift of Christ, God's grace is communicated to all. All live physically by virture of God's grace manifest in Christ.
R: I can’t find this view of corporate forensic justification either in the Bible or in the SOP. Justification, both in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White, is only and solely by faith.
Tom: It's in many places of both. I quoted on from the Desire of Ages. Here's another from 1SM 343
quote:
He arose from the tomb enshrouded with a cloud of angels in wondrous power and glory--the Deity and humanity combined. 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.
The restoration of the whole race of men to favor with God is what corporate justification is about. A good description of it is found in FW 21, 22.
In Scripture the following texts discuss it: Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19; 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim. 4:10; Titus 2:11; Isa. 44:22. Those are just a few that jump to my mind.
R: Through Christ the human race was granted a second probation:
"After the fall Christ became Adam's instructor. He acted in God's stead toward humanity, saving the race from immediate death. He took upon him the office of mediator. Adam and Eve were given a probation in which to return to their allegiance, and in this plan all their posterity were embraced." {CC 20.6}
But a second probation and justification are two different things. A second probation has to do with the present life, while justification has to do with eternal life. Justification is our title to heaven.
Tom: Being restored to favor with God is what the corporate justification is about. Note that this was accomplished for the "whole race of men." This is not justification by faith, which, of course, only happens for those who believe.
It took me quite awhile to get it. Be patient with it. It's not universalism, and it's not justification by faith. It's saying that God did something for every person; He legally justified them, or restored them to favor with Himself by virtue of the gift of Christ. Thus every person is infinitely indebted to Christ for their existence, not just on the basis of creation, but on the basis of redemption. As the DA quote says, "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life."
BTW the Spirit of Prophesy got these ideas from the teachings of Jones and Waggoner on righteousness by faith.
R: What happened when man sinned?
"By rebellion and apostasy man forfeited the favor of God; not his rights, for he could have no value except as it was invested in God's dear Son. This point must be understood. He forfeited those privileges which God in His mercy presented him as a free gift, a treasure in trust to be used to advance His cause and His glory, to benefit the beings He had made. The moment the workmanship of God refused obedience to the laws of God's kingdom, that moment he became disloyal to the government of God and he made himself entirely unworthy of all the blessings wherewith God had favored him. {FW 21.1}
"This was the position of the human race after man divorced himself from God by transgression. Then he was no longer entitled to a breath of air, a ray of sunshine, or a particle of food. And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression. Christ proposed to become man's surety and substitute, that man, through matchless grace, should have another trial--a second probation--having the experience of Adam and Eve as a warning not to transgress God's law as they did. ...{FW 21.2}
"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." {FW 22.1}
Tom:This is the reference I mentioned earlier. You're telephathic.
R: Why is death the penalty of sin? Because by sinning man forfeited life.
Is it an imposed penalty?
Tom: No, not imposed, or arbitrary, which is probably a better word.
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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. (DA 764)
R: Yes, because God made obedience the condition of eternal life. Those who are not obedient cannot inherit it.
Tom: This isn't imposed or arbitrary either. To know God *is* eternal life (John 17:3). To be spiritually minded, is life and peace (Romans 8:6)
This would be an excellent topic for a post. I hope to do this tomorrow. Neither eternal life nor death is "imposed" or arbitrary. Both are the inevitable consequences of the choices made. This is an important concept to grasp. Not getting this will lead one to misapprehend God's character.
R: Man was not annihilated at the moment he sinned because Christ proposed to take the penalty of sin upon Himself. But those who do not accept Christ will finally have their life removed because they forfeited it by their transgressions:
“Since it is impossible for God, consistently with His justice and mercy, to save the sinner in his sins, He deprives him of the existence which his transgressions have forfeited and of which he has proved himself unworthy. {GC 544}
Tom: Yes, but even the ability to make that choice was purchased for them by Christ. So God paid an infinite price to preserve the freedom of choice for those who reject Him! This is how important freedom is to God. He would rather die than to allow His children to be without it. This is why it is wrong to understand that God is imposing His will upon either those who accept Him or reject Him. This is the enemy's way -- not God's. God rewards both those who accept Him and reject Him with the results of their choices. That is, each is allowed to exercise their freedom as they choose.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/16/05 05:13 PM
Tom,
1- Sin is rebellion against God’s law, and ultimately rebellion against God Himself. It’s rebellion against everything that God is: love, goodness, truth, justice. It is God who determines the punishment for sin on the basis of how offensive sin is to Him, and this is not arbitrary. It will be the intensity of the sufferings of Christ that will determine the intensity and duration of the punishment of the wicked.
The Son of God could fully understand the aggravating sins of the transgressor, and in His sinless character He alone could make an acceptable atonement for man in suffering the agonizing sense of His Father's displeasure. The sorrow and anguish of the Son of God for the sins of the world were proportionate to His divine excellence and purity, as well as to the magnitude of the offense. {Con 50.1}
His [Christ’s] suffering was proportionate to the perfection of His holiness and His hatred of sin. {ST, January 17, 1900}
The penalty for breaking the law of God is proportionate to the price paid to redeem its transgressors. {FLB 354}
Therefore, the intensity and duration of the anguish to be felt by the sinner has to be proportionate to the anguish Christ experienced because of His hatred of sin.
2- The exclusion from heaven is voluntary on the part of the wicked in the sense that they choose not to comply with the conditions; but it is imposed by God in the sense that God established that those who do not comply with His conditions cannot inherit His kingdom, which means that He has no other option but to remove their lives.
3- As the first Adam brought the condemnation of God upon all men, the second Adam brought the favor of God (His grace) upon all men (Rom. 5). The difference is that all men are by default the posterity of Adam, but only those who accpet Christ by faith are His posterity. God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor in the sense that all are offered His favor, not in the sense that all enjoy His favor. Those who accept Christ are under God’s favor, but sinners are under God’s condemnation, not His favor:
The soul that believes in Christ may be cleansed from all defilement, and, through the grace of Christ, may be restored to divine favor. {ST, September 23, 1889}
Man is unworthy of any favor from God; but as Christ becomes his righteousness, he may ask and receive, in his name and through his merit, the grace and favor of God.{ST, November 10, 1890}
Christ clothed His divinity with humanity, and by His death made it possible for man to be restored to the favor that Adam lost. {5MR 250}
The Creator loves His creatures, but he who loves sin more than righteousness, error more than truth, perpetuates the transgression that brought woe into our world, and cannot be regarded with favor by the God of truth. ... As we behold Christ, pierced for our sins, we shall see that we cannot break the law of God and remain in His favor; we shall feel that as sinners we must lay hold of the merits of Christ and cease to sin. {1SM 311, 312}
But let no one flatter himself that he may transgress the commandments, and yet receive the favor of God. In the government of God, justice and grace stand side by side. The law cannot be transgressed with impunity. {ST, October 10, 1892 par. 2}
Our money means souls, and it is to be used to bring a knowledge of the truth to those who, because of sin, are under the condemnation of God. {7T 91.3}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/17/05 08:54 AM
1- Sin is rebellion against God’s law, and ultimately rebellion against God Himself. It’s rebellion against everything that God is: love, goodness, truth, justice. It is God who determines the punishment for sin on the basis of how offensive sin is to Him, and this is not arbitrary.
Tom: Right, it's not arbitrary. It is dependent on the nature of the sin itself. It is according to the principles by which God created His children. The capacity to love includes the capacity to reject love. Rejecting God results in death. Not by an arbitrary means, but as a result of that choice. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked, and the pain the wicked suffer will depend on how much light they have rejected.
R: It will be the intensity of the sufferings of Christ that will determine the intensity and duration of the punishment of the wicked.
Tom: The intensity of the sufferings of Christ *demonstrate* the intensity and duration of the punishment of the wicked. It's not like God is ticked off or something like that and has to vent His anger on the wicked. The wicked suffer because they have so hardened their hearts against God that they have formed characters to which God's presence is a consuming fire.
R: The Son of God could fully understand the aggravating sins of the transgressor, and in His sinless character He alone could make an acceptable atonement for man in suffering the agonizing sense of His Father's displeasure. The sorrow and anguish of the Son of God for the sins of the world were proportionate to His divine excellence and purity, as well as to the magnitude of the offense. {Con 50.1}
His [Christ’s] suffering was proportionate to the perfection of His holiness and His hatred of sin. {ST, January 17, 1900}
The penalty for breaking the law of God is proportionate to the price paid to redeem its transgressors. {FLB 354}
Therefore, the intensity and duration of the anguish to be felt by the sinner has to be proportionate to the anguish Christ experienced because of His hatred of sin.
Tom: The intensity and duration of the anguish to be felt by the sinner is proportionate to their acquaintance with truth. As Christ knew the truth as no one else, His suffering was greater. The suffering caused by sin is not an arbitrary matter, but comes with the sin itself. It is the sin which causes suffering and death. This is the message God has been trying to communicate from the beginning. It is sin, and not God, that we should be afraid of. God is our friend. Sin is the enemy.
R: 2- The exclusion from heaven is voluntary on the part of the wicked in the sense that they choose not to comply with the conditions; but it is imposed by God in the sense that God established that those who do not comply with His conditions cannot inherit His kingdom, which means that He has no other option but to remove their lives.
Tom: It's voluntary in the sense that they would long to flee from the holy place. The presence of God would be awful for them. That's just what Ellen White says in the direct context of the statement that their choice is voluntary. It's right there in the GC 542 I think it is quote.
3- As the first Adam brought the condemnation of God upon all men, the second Adam brought the favor of God (His grace) upon all men (Rom. 5). The difference is that all men are by default the posterity of Adam, but only those who accpet Christ by faith are His posterity. God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor in the sense that all are offered His favor, not in the sense that all enjoy His favor.
Tom: That's not what EGW says at all. "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." This is past tense. It's something Christ already did. It's not about man, but about Christ. It's not contingent upon man, because it's a work done by Christ for "the whole human race."
As the Spirit of Prophesy puts it, "to the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." That is, the death of Christ accomplished a corporate justification of the human race which allows it to exist. That's just what the FW statement on pages 21 and 22 says. Christ's death actually accomplished something for every human being. Even the ability to reject God's grace and be lost forever was purchased at infinite cost by Jesus Christ. If one died for all, then all died. 2 Cor. 5:14. All. See Romans 5:18 as well. As many as were condemned by the offense of Adam, just so many received "justification of life" -- that is the same idea as "to the death of Christ we owe even our earthly life." Notice that there's nothing a person has to do to receive this gift. Just be alive, and you have it. Christ purchased our very physical life! Even the air we breath is the purchase of His blood! Everywhere is the grace of God evident. As the Spirit of Prophesy puts it, there is an atmosphere of grace around us as real as the air we breath.
R: Those who accept Christ are under God’s favor, but sinners are under God’s condemnation, not His favor:
Tom: Christ restored the whole race of men to favor with God. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. The fact that we live physically is proof that we have favor with God. The wages of sin is death, and we've all sinned. If it weren't for God's favor, we'd be dead.
R: The soul that believes in Christ may be cleansed from all defilement, and, through the grace of Christ, may be restored to divine favor. {ST, September 23, 1889}
Man is unworthy of any favor from God; but as Christ becomes his righteousness, he may ask and receive, in his name and through his merit, the grace and favor of God.{ST, November 10, 1890}
Christ clothed His divinity with humanity, and by His death made it possible for man to be restored to the favor that Adam lost. {5MR 250}
The Creator loves His creatures, but he who loves sin more than righteousness, error more than truth, perpetuates the transgression that brought woe into our world, and cannot be regarded with favor by the God of truth. ... As we behold Christ, pierced for our sins, we shall see that we cannot break the law of God and remain in His favor; we shall feel that as sinners we must lay hold of the merits of Christ and cease to sin. {1SM 311, 312}
But let no one flatter himself that he may transgress the commandments, and yet receive the favor of God. In the government of God, justice and grace stand side by side. The law cannot be transgressed with impunity. {ST, October 10, 1892 par. 2}
Our money means souls, and it is to be used to bring a knowledge of the truth to those who, because of sin, are under the condemnation of God. {7T 91.3}
Tom: The thing to keep in mind is the difference between the corporate and the individual. Corporately, we all have favor. Individually we experience favor when we believe. The same thing applies to forgiveness, justification, pardon, salvation -- all of these words. In Christ *all* men have these things. I'll try to write more on this tomorrow, as it's too late now.
Anyway the concept takes awhile to grasp. It took me several months anyway.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/18/05 06:03 AM
quote:
Tom: The intensity and duration of the anguish to be felt by the sinner is proportionate to their acquaintance with truth. As Christ knew the truth as no one else, His suffering was greater.
The light or truth is the holy character of God, which Christ possessed and that’s why sin was so offensive to Him; disharmony with the principles of God’s character brings dishonor to God, and that’s why
"The punishment inflicted on human beings will in every case be proportionate to the dishonor they have brought on God."--8MR 168 (1901). {LDE 217}
quote:
The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked, and the pain the wicked suffer will depend on how much light they have rejected.
The personal rejection of light is not all that is involved. Take Darwin, for instance. He rejected light and will be judged by that, but he will also be judged and punished by the influence he exerted, which led others to perdition.
quote:
The suffering caused by sin is not an arbitrary matter, but comes with the sin itself. It is the sin which causes suffering and death.
This is OK, but sin could continue for ever if God did not choose to put an end to it. God rejects evil, and He will choose to put it away from His kingdom. Thus those who cling to evil must be rejected by God with the evil.
quote:
Rosangela: The exclusion from heaven is voluntary on the part of the wicked in the sense that they choose not to comply with the conditions; but it is imposed by God in the sense that God established that those who do not comply with His conditions cannot inherit His kingdom, which means that He has no other option but to remove their lives.
Confirming this, Ellen White says:
"A great price has been paid for the redemption of man, and none who are untruthful, impure, or unrighteous can enter the kingdom of heaven. If men do not make Christ their personal Saviour, and become true and pure and holy, there is only one course for the Lord to pursue. He must destroy the sinner, for evil natures cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Thus it is that sin, if not destroyed, will destroy the sinner, just as Satan designed it should." {16MR 273}
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." This is past tense. It's something Christ already did. It's not about man, but about Christ. It's not contingent upon man, because it's a work done by Christ for "the whole human race."
“Lucifer had declared God's law to be of such a character that its penalty could not be remitted, and therefore every transgressor must be forever debarred from the Creator's favor. He had claimed that the sinful race were placed beyond redemption, and were therefore his rightful prey.” {4SP 323}
Christ changed this when He died on the cross. He became the representative of our race, instead of Satan. This is what He did. There is no justification involved in this. Justification is a declaration in the heavenly tribunal that the person is righteous.
quote:
Tom: The thing to keep in mind is the difference between the corporate and the individual. Corporately, we all have favor. Individually we experience favor when we believe. The same thing applies to forgiveness, justification, pardon, salvation -- all of these words. In Christ *all* men have these things.
Some have favor but don't have favor? God is not contradictory. BTW, I don’t believe in corporate forgiveness, justification, pardon, or salvation.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/18/05 01:29 AM
Old Tom: The intensity and duration of the anguish to be felt by the sinner is proportionate to their acquaintance with truth. As Christ knew the truth as no one else, His suffering was greater.
R: The light or truth is the holy character of God, which Christ possessed and that’s why sin was so offensive to Him; disharmony with the principles of God’s character brings dishonor to God, and that’s why
"The punishment inflicted on human beings will in every case be proportionate to the dishonor they have brought on God."--8MR 168 (1901). {LDE 217}
Tom: It's true that the suffering of those who reject God will be proportionate to the dishonor they have brought on God. How could it be otherwise? It's proportionate because their suffering is directly related to their sin. The more sin, the more suffering, and the more dishonor to God.
But the cause of their suffering is due to their own choice, their own sin.
"The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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." (DA 764)
It's hard to know what to underline, since all the points are good, but the underlined portion is the main point I wanted to make here. The wicked ruin their own characters so that God's presence becomes to them a consuming fire. They separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from life. This is what causes their death. "God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life."
Old Tom:The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked, and the pain the wicked suffer will depend on how much light they have rejected.
R: The personal rejection of light is not all that is involved. Take Darwin, for instance. He rejected light and will be judged by that, but he will also be judged and punished by the influence he exerted, which led others to perdition.
Tom: When he becomes aware of what he has done, he will suffer, as that knowledge will be painful to him. The recognition of the truth causes pain. It's not an arbitrary thing that God will afflict upon him because He's ticked off. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Old Tom:The suffering caused by sin is not an arbitrary matter, but comes with the sin itself. It is the sin which causes suffering and death.
R:This is OK, but sin could continue for ever if God did not choose to put an end to it.
Tom: Sin is suicidal. It results in one cutting oneself off from God and thus from life. The only way sin could exist would be if God perpetuated it -- but that would be contrary to His character. God's purpose, from the very beginning has been to eliminate sin as quickly as possible. The only means possible to do this is by means of the priniples of love, mercy and truth.
The whole controversy of sin arose in a being who embarked upon a principle contrary to the principles of God's government and His character. Namely, he was selfish. Selfishness is suicidal, but if God had allowed Satan to die immediately, his death would have been misunderstood as God's killing him, and the evil seed of sin would have remained. God had to come up with a way to eliminate sin from the root (which is the selfishness)
To do this He must manifest His character in a way as to remove all doubts, and demonstrate what sin was really all about. This He did by Jesus Christ, especially on the cross. Christ died a painful death, such as the wicked will die at the end. His suffering and death was caused by the mental anguish which sin causes upon the mind -- not because God tortured Him or killed Him. There is no need for us to have doubts as to what the nature of the death the wicked is because Christ has clearly demonstrated it.
The fact that Christ was willing to die, even feeling that He would be eternal loss, says wonderful things about God's character. It says that God views our eternal destiny as more important than His own. He is willing to do anything to save us, even die eternally. What love! What a wonderful God!
As we behold that love, we are transformed, and that transformation saves us. We are changed into the same image, and prepared to live in God's presence. The light of the glory of God begins, even now, to be life to us.
On the other hand, for those who refuse to see the truth in this life, when the truth is inevitably revealed at the end, they won't be able to bear it. It will cause great suffering and death.
It's like kemotherapy. A little bit results in the death of cancer, but the whole treatment at one time would kill the sinner. We couldn't stand to see the whole truth of God's character all at once, because a revelation of God's character necessitates a revelation of our own. As we see Him more clearly, we see ourselves more clearly. Seeing ourselves as we really are a little at a time leads to repentance and healing. Seeing it all at once leads to suffering and death.
R: God rejects evil, and He will choose to put it away from His kingdom. Thus those who cling to evil must be rejected by God with the evil.
Tom: Yes, and the way God rejects the evil is by revealing His glory, which is His character, which gives life to the righteous at the same time it is destroying sin.
Velha Rosangela: The exclusion from heaven is voluntary on the part of the wicked in the sense that they choose not to comply with the conditions; but it is imposed by God in the sense that God established that those who do not comply with His conditions cannot inherit His kingdom, which means that He has no other option but to remove their lives.
Nova Rosangela: Confirming this, Ellen White says:
"A great price has been paid for the redemption of man, and none who are untruthful, impure, or unrighteous can enter the kingdom of heaven. If men do not make Christ their personal Saviour, and become true and pure and holy, there is only one course for the Lord to pursue. He must destroy the sinner, for evil natures cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Thus it is that sin, if not destroyed, will destroy the sinner, just as Satan designed it should." {16MR 273}
Tom: Right, and He destroys sin by manifesting His glory. To sin, wherever it is found, God is a consuming fire.
Old Tom:"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." This is past tense. It's something Christ already did. It's not about man, but about Christ. It's not contingent upon man, because it's a work done by Christ for "the whole human race."
R:
“Lucifer had declared God's law to be of such a character that its penalty could not be remitted, and therefore every transgressor must be forever debarred from the Creator's favor. He had claimed that the sinful race were placed beyond redemption, and were therefore his rightful prey.” {4SP 323}
Tom: It really doesn't matter what Lucifer declares. He's a liar. God proved his accusations false, because no transgressors were debarred from God's favor. This is demonstrated by the fact that He solved the world that He gave every one of them His Son. What greater display of favor than this could there be?
R: Christ changed this when He died on the cross.
Tom: He changed it only in the sense that He made visible what had always been true. God did not begin to forgive or love when Christ died, but God's love and forgiveness is what led Him to give His Son at infinite cost, at the risk of failure and eternal loss, for us. God is no better after Christ's death than He was before. He loves no more, and forgives no more. In Christ, we see the Father.
R: He became the representative of our race, instead of Satan. This is what He did. There is no justification involved in this. Justification is a declaration in the heavenly tribunal that the person is righteous.
Tom: That's not how it's used in Romans 5:18. As Ellen White put it, "to the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." If you want to come up with a different name for the concept, go ahead. The concept's the important thing.
The important idea to recognize is that Christ accomplished something for every human being. Not just potentially, but in actually fact. He is the Savior of every man, especially of those who believe. Christ saved the world (EGW says this several times). If not for Him, and His sacrifice, we would be dead. Thus we owe our physical existence to Him.
The phrases I've used to express this concept are "Corporate justification" "Legal justification" and "Temporary Universal Justification". The idea is that God treats us, for a time, not as we deserve, but as Christ deserves. He does this because He is gracious, and to give us an opportunity to become a member of His family forever.
Old Tom: The thing to keep in mind is the difference between the corporate and the individual. Corporately, we all have favor. Individually we experience favor when we believe. The same thing applies to forgiveness, justification, pardon, salvation -- all of these words. In Christ *all* men have these things.
R: Some have favor but don't have favor? God is not contradictory. BTW, I don’t believe in corporate forgiveness, justification, pardon, or salvation.
Tom: Whether we believe something has no bearing on whether it's true or not. Surely you believe we owe our physical existence to the death of Christ, right? The whole human race? What would you like to call this concept?
Here's proof that pardon is both corporate and individual. When Christ prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," did God answer that prayer? Yes, He did. Of course. That's a corporate pardon. Yet if we do not individually repent, we will no individually experience pardon, and will be lost.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/19/05 06:30 AM
quote:
It is the sin which causes suffering and death.
The more hardened the sinner, the less able he is to suffer for his sin. Satan knows the whole truth; God won’t reveal anything new to him at the last great day. Yet he will suffer more than anyone else, because God will make him capable of seeing how greatly he dishonored His Creator. God must deliberately make sinners capable of comprehending the sinfulness of sin before they are able to suffer for sin. At the last great day, it is not sin itself, but an understanding of the sinfulness of sin, of how offensive sin is to God, which causes suffering and death; IOW, it is not sin, but the wrath of God, which causes the death of the sinner.
“At the last great day, when all will be rewarded or punished according to their obedience or disobedience, the cross of Calvary will appear plainly before those standing before the Judge of all the earth to receive sentence for eternity. They are made capable of comprehending something of the love that God has expressed for fallen human beings. They see how greatly he has been dishonored by those who have continued in transgression, choosing sides with Satan, and showing contempt for the law of Jehovah. They see that obedience to this law would have brought them life and health, prosperity and eternal good.” {RH, March 15, 1906}
quote:
Selfishness is suicidal, but if God had allowed Satan to die immediately, his death would have been misunderstood as God's killing him, and the evil seed of sin would have remained.
Satan would never commit suicide, therefore God would have to remove his life, which wouldn’t have been well understood by the inhabitants of the universe at the time. Sin is not suicidal. If God does not remove Satan’s life, he will continue to exist for ever and ever and ever.
quote:
Tom: It really doesn't matter what Lucifer declares. He's a liar. God proved his accusations false, because no transgressors were debarred from God's favor. This is demonstrated by the fact that He solved the world that He gave every one of them His Son. What greater display of favor than this could there be?
You repeat constantly that Satan is a liar. He is a liar but he is not a fool. He won’t invent something which nobody will believe. He always mixes truth with error. The correct part here is that transgressors were debarred from God’s favor. The wrong part is that this condition must exist for ever, for God found a solution for it. Satan himself had been debarred forever from God’s favor:
“After Satan was shut out of heaven... he and his followers repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin, their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment. When Satan became fully conscious that there was no possibility of his being brought again into favor with God, then his malice and hatred began to be manifest.” {1SG 18, 19}
As to humanity, however, God found a way, through the death of Christ, to restore it to His favor:
“Christ clothed His divinity with humanity, and by His death made it possible for man to be restored to the favor that Adam lost. {5MR 250}
However, this is possible only for those who accept Christ. Salvation and forgiveness are provisional, not effective, for the whole world:
“Christ manifested his interest in the salvation of every soul. When he endured the death of the cross, he made provision for the pardon of every soul, and to those who would obey his commandments, he promised eternal happiness in his kingdom. How is it that so few respond to this love?” {ST, January 5, 1891}
“There is no need for the world to be as it is today--filled with war and bloodshed, violence and crime. Christ has made provision for the salvation of every soul. He gave his life for the life of the world, and John declares, ‘As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.’ This is the gift of heaven to all who truly believe. In view of these things, how can men and women choose to receive the father of lies, and to cherish his spirit?” {RH, June 15, 1905}
But because salvation is possible for all, all must have the opportunity to accept it, thus everybody received another trial through Christ’s sacrifice. The benefits in which all are included, however, are limited to this temporal life.
About Christ’s prayer:
“Some of them would yet see their sin, and repent, and be converted. Some by their impenitence would make it an impossibility for the prayer of Christ to be answered for them” (DA 745).
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/20/05 08:27 AM
Old Tom: It is the sin which causes suffering and death.
R: The more hardened the sinner, the less able he is to suffer for his sin.
Tom: Why?
R: Satan knows the whole truth; God won’t reveal anything new to him at the last great day.
Tom: Not true. Satan knows lies. He believes his lies.
quote:
Unselfishness, the principle of God's kingdom, is the principle that Satan hates; its very existence he denies. From the beginning of the great controversy he has endeavored to prove God's principles of action to be selfish, and he deals in the same way with all who serve God. To disprove Satan's claim is the work of Christ and of all who bear His name. (Ed 154)
At the judgement Satan will know that he is wrong, as God's goodness will be fully revealed to him.
R: Yet he will suffer more than anyone else, because God will make him capable of seeing how greatly he dishonored His Creator.
Tom: Right. That's what will cause his suffering. Although it's not that God "makes" him capable in some forceful or arbitrary way. He simply reveals the truth to him.
R: God must deliberately make sinners capable of comprehending the sinfulness of sin before they are able to suffer for sin.
Tom: What are you saying? "Deliberately make sinners capable of comprehending the sinfulness of sin"? God made them that way at creation. He gave them consciences. For the same reason that people are able to recognize God's goodness they are able to recognize sin. God made them that way. He doesn't do something to arbitrarily make them feel pain. God is not that way! There is no cruelty or arbitrariness in God. God is love, and God created us with the capacity to give and receive love. That was the purpose for which we were created. If we live contrary to God's purpose, and choose to live according to Satan's invention -- the principle of selfishness -- then we will suffer and die. Not because God does something to torture us or inflice pain upon, but because this is what selfishness does to our consciences. When we confront truth, it's very painful. You can't have the capacity for love and appreciating love without the consequence of pain and suffering when love is rejected.
R: At the last great day, it is not sin itself, but an understanding of the sinfulness of sin, of how offensive sin is to God, which causes suffering and death;
Tom: Of course. Sin is not a thing or an entity which can cause pain or suffering, any more than the law is. Pain happens in the mind. When the mind becomes aware of the truth, the mind that is hardened by selfishness feel pain. This is right.
R: IOW, it is not sin, but the wrath of God, which causes the death of the sinner.
Tom: Right, it is God giving the sinner up to the consequences of sin which causes him pain. It is the light of the glory of God which does this; that is, God's goodness and kindness; the revelation of the truth of His character, and the revelation of the truth of the sinner. God's wrath.
“At the last great day, when all will be rewarded or punished according to their obedience or disobedience, the cross of Calvary will appear plainly before those standing before the Judge of all the earth to receive sentence for eternity. They are made capable of comprehending something of the love that God has expressed for fallen human beings. They see how greatly he has been dishonored by those who have continued in transgression, choosing sides with Satan, and showing contempt for the law of Jehovah. They see that obedience to this law would have brought them life and health, prosperity and eternal good.” {RH, March 15, 1906}
Old Tom: Selfishness is suicidal, but if God had allowed Satan to die immediately, his death would have been misunderstood as God's killing him, and the evil seed of sin would have remained.
R: Satan would never commit suicide, therefore God would have to remove his life, which wouldn’t have been well understood by the inhabitants of the universe at the time.
Tom: That's not what DA 764 says. It says the cut themselves off from the source of life, and thus die. This is what suicide is. Cutting yourself off from life. Then it says that God could not all them to suffer "the inevitable consequences of sin" because they would have misinterpreted that even. They would have thought God was killing them, that there death was an act of power from God.
You know it occurs to me how you have been understanding this sentence all this time:
"This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God." You have been understanding this as if it were saying "It is an act of power, but not an arbitrary one, because God exercizes it in justice." But the word "arbitrary" is not speaking of injustice. It's speaking of connection. That is, if the wicked were to die only because God did something to them to make them die, then that would not be the inevitable result of sin, but an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. In order to show that death is not due to an act of arbitrary power on the part of God (i.e. it is not disconnected from sin, but due to God's doing something -- God is showing this idea is not correct) He gave His Son that we might see what death is. In Christ we see the truth. We see the true nature of sin and death.
After the watching universe saw this, *then* they were able to understand that the death of the wicked was not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God (this is why this fact is recorded in the chapter called "It is Finished" which is discussing what Christ accomplished by His death.") Now, after Christ died, now they could see that death is the inevitable consequence of sin and accept the death of the wicked for what it is -- due to sin, and not God (except that sin cannot abide in His presence, because of God's goodness). That is, sin and God's agape cause pain, suffering and death, just as we see in Christ's death.
If we want to understand the death of the wicked, we must understand Christ's death. The principles of the death of the wicked and the atonement are identical. No arbitrariness (that is, disconnected events; God's doing things is a disconnected fashion)
R: Sin is not suicidal.
Tom: Sin is suicidal. That's what God has been trying to say to us. "The soul that sin shall die." "The wages of sin is death." "The sting of death is sin." "They that hate Me love death." "For to be carnally minded is death." These are all saying the same thing. Sin results in death. Not that God will torture and kill us if we do not obey Him. This view of God is tragic.
quote:
We dishonor God when we think of him only as a judge ready to pass sentence upon us, and forget that he is a loving Father. The whole spiritual life is molded by our conceptions of God; and if we cherish erroneous views of his character, our souls will sustain injury. (RH 1/14/90)
R: If God does not remove Satan’s life, he will continue to exist for ever and ever and ever.
Tom: Noone is created with immortality. No one could exist for a moment except God gives him life. I couldn't find an SOP statement about this, but there are many. They say things like we couldn't exist for a moment but for the sustaining power of God.
Life is of God. Separated from God, nothing can live. There is no life apart from God. God does not need to kill someone for them not to live; simply not making them live is enough for them to die. Life is not something we have of ourselves.
Old Tom: It really doesn't matter what Lucifer declares. He's a liar. God proved his accusations false, because no transgressors were debarred from God's favor. This is demonstrated by the fact that He solved the world that He gave every one of them His Son. What greater display of favor than this could there be?
R: You repeat constantly that Satan is a liar.
Tom: Yes, because this is an important point. Satan is clever, and will make arguments which are specious, in order to distract and confuse us. This is exactly what he did with Eve. We need to take heed of Christ's words, which are truth unmixed with guile.
R: He is a liar but he is not a fool. He won’t invent something which nobody will believe.
He always mixes truth with error.
Tom: This is my point. This is why we should be careful with his arguments. They are designed to decieve and mislead.
R: The correct part here is that transgressors were debarred from God’s favor.
Tom: If they were debarred from God's favor, why did God give His Son in their behalf? Oh that I were thus debarred from everyone's favor! Then I would be the richest person on earth, because everyone would give everything they had to me, as God has given everything He has to us.
R: The wrong part is that this condition must exist for ever, for God found a solution for it. Satan himself had been debarred forever from God’s favor:
“After Satan was shut out of heaven... he and his followers repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin, their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment. When Satan became fully conscious that there was no possibility of his being brought again into favor with God, then his malice and hatred began to be manifest.” {1SG 18, 19}
As to humanity, however, God found a way, through the death of Christ, to restore it to His favor:
“Christ clothed His divinity with humanity, and by His death made it possible for man to be restored to the favor that Adam lost. {5MR 250}
However, this is possible only for those who accept Christ. Salvation and forgiveness are provisional, not effective, for the whole world:
“Christ manifested his interest in the salvation of every soul. When he endured the death of the cross, he made provision for the pardon of every soul, and to those who would obey his commandments, he promised eternal happiness in his kingdom. How is it that so few respond to this love?” {ST, January 5, 1891}
“There is no need for the world to be as it is today--filled with war and bloodshed, violence and crime. Christ has made provision for the salvation of every soul. He gave his life for the life of the world, and John declares, ‘As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.’ This is the gift of heaven to all who truly believe. In view of these things, how can men and women choose to receive the father of lies, and to cherish his spirit?” {RH, June 15, 1905}
Tom: One needs to understand there are two aspects to this. One from man's side, and one from God's. You're only looking at man's side. From God's side we have statements like this:
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 243)
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. (DA 660)
The principle is that we live because of Christ's death. Everyone is benefited by that death.
R: But because salvation is possible for all, all must have the opportunity to accept it, thus everybody received another trial through Christ’s sacrifice. The benefits in which all are included, however, are limited to this temporal life.
Tom: Of course they're limited to this life. Noone's saying otherwise. An important point is that salvation is not just made possible, but is actually *given* to every person. The gift must actually be rejected for a person to be lost, because Christ is given to every person.
R: About Christ’s prayer:
“Some of them would yet see their sin, and repent, and be converted. Some by their impenitence would make it an impossibility for the prayer of Christ to be answered for them” (DA 745).
Tom: Right. This is from man's side. However forgiveness has two sides. There is the side of the forgiver and the forgiven. If someone does you harm, you may forgive them. However, if they do not accept your forgivenss, they remain unforgiven. But from your point of view, you have forgiven them.
God has forgiven us. The evidence of this is the fact that we are alive. The wages of sin is death, and if God had not forgiven us, we would be dead. This is the principles explained in FW 21, 22. The only reason we are alive, it explains there, is because God so loved the world that He gave His Son.
God's disposition is one based on agape. God forgives and loves, regardless of whether we love or forgive back. However, if we harden our hearts against God, and refuse to accept His love and forgiveness, we will die, because the wages of sin is death.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/20/05 08:51 AM
Sin IS suicidal!
Hate,lust,robbery,murder, and all breakers of the Commandments are "choosing" death, now and at the Judgment.
Please anyone: show me where the opposite of sin, righteousness, could possibly be suicidal!
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/21/05 01:54 AM
Tom,
quote:
R: The more hardened the sinner, the less able he is to suffer for his sin.
Tom: Why?
Tom, I thought this was self-evident. Everywhere around us we see people loving sin and exalting sin. If they don’t let the Spirit of God convince them of sin, how can they possibly understand the sinfulness of sin?
"We can seldom see our sins in the grievous light that God can. Many have habituated themselves to pursue a course of sin, and their hearts harden, under the influence of the power of Satan." {AG 264}
"The more nearly they [Christians] resemble Christ, the more they lament their unlikeness to Him; for their consciences are sensitive, and they regard sin more as God regards it". {NL 57}
quote:
Tom: Not true. Satan knows lies. He believes his lies. ... At the judgement Satan will know that he is wrong, as God's goodness will be fully revealed to him.
How can this be so? If God’s goodness hadn’t been fully revealed to Satan, there would have been hope for him:
"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."{DA 761}
He fully knew God’s goodness and He fully knew truth, but chose to deny it:
"The Lord saw the use that Satan was making of his power, and he set before him truth in contrast with falsehood. .... He chose to deny truth, to take refuge in misstatements and fraud." {18MR 362}
He knew the truth, but did not stand in the truth (John 8:44).
quote:
God made them that way at creation. He gave them consciences.
The Bible speaks about sinners “whose consciences are seared” (1 Tim. 4:2), and of course this is the condition of all those who resist the Spirit of God. Tom, willfull sinners are not and cannot be sensitive to sin.
quote:
That is, if the wicked were to die only because God did something to them to make them die, then that would not be the inevitable result of sin, but an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.
Look, the fact is that God will deliberately raise the wicked, will deliberately veil His glory for a time until they face judgment, and then will deliberately unveil it, knowing that by this act they will die. I would never define this as suicide, but you are entitled to your opinion. This is an act of power on the part of God, but not arbitrary power.
My dictionary defines arbitrary as:
1. arrived at without allowing argument or objection;
2. resulting from personal inclination entirely;
3. decided by chance or whim;
4. prejudiced, not based on reasoned examination;
5. absolute, despotic.
This act of God does not fall in any of the above definitions. It is motivated by love and done for the good of all His creatures, including the wicked, who lead a miserable existence.
quote:
God does not need to kill someone for them not to live; simply not making them live is enough for them to die. Life is not something we have of ourselves.
Of course the life of every creature is sustained by God. But not making live is the same as killing. The person who shots another is killing, but the person who cuts the oxygen supply of another is also killing, no matter how you try to slice it. The key point is that removing life can be an act of mercy. How many times we, in mercy, sacrifice our pets when they are suffering too much? Wouldn’t it be cruel to let them continue living under these circumstances, however much we love them?
quote:
Tom: If they were debarred from God's favor, why did God give His Son in their behalf?
To make possible for them to be restored to His favor! This is exactly what Ellen White says.
quote:
Tom: One needs to understand there are two aspects to this. One from man's side, and one from God's. You're only looking at man's side. From God's side we have statements like this...
Tom, you are complicating what is simple. The human race had another trial, a second probation, not through any “corporate justification”, but through the plan of redemption. What happened was simply this:
"After the fall Christ became Adam's instructor. He acted in God's stead toward humanity, saving the race from immediate death. He took upon him the office of mediator. Adam and Eve were given a probation in which to return to their allegiance, and in this plan all their posterity were embraced." {CC 20}
Infinite wisdom devised the plan of redemption, which places the race on a second probation by giving them another trial. {3T 484}
Adam should have died instantly, But Christ proposed to die in his place (the plan of redemption), so he was granted a second probation and in this plan all his posterity was embraced. That’s why every human being owes his life to Christ.
Have a happy sabbath!
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/23/05 06:06 AM
Tom,
Old R: The more hardened the sinner, the less able he is to suffer for his sin.
Old Tom: Why?
R: Tom, I thought this was self-evident. Everywhere around us we see people loving sin and exalting sin. If they don’t let the Spirit of God convince them of sin, how can they possibly understand the sinfulness of sin?
"We can seldom see our sins in the grievous light that God can. Many have habituated themselves to pursue a course of sin, and their hearts harden, under the influence of the power of Satan." {AG 264}
"The more nearly they [Christians] resemble Christ, the more they lament their unlikeness to Him; for their consciences are sensitive, and they regard sin more as God regards it". {NL 57}
Tom: So those who have most hardened their hearts against God will sin the least, since they have the least capacity to suffer for sin?
Old Tom: Not true. Satan knows lies. He believes his lies. ... At the judgement Satan will know that he is wrong, as God's goodness will be fully revealed to him.
R: How can this be so?
Tom: The explanation of this is in the quote I provided, which said, "Unselfishness, the principle of God's kingdom, is the principle that Satan hates; [u]its very existence he denies.[/u] From the beginning of the great controversy he has endeavored to prove God's principles of action to be selfish, and he deals in the same way with all who serve God."
The fact that Satan denies that unselfishness exists (by the way, how would you say "unselfishness" in Portugues? "abneganacao" "ser deinteresado" "o principio de negar o eu" comes to mind, but none seem to satisfactory) shows that he believes his lies, which was the point I was making.
R: If God’s goodness hadn’t been fully revealed to Satan, there would have been hope for him:
"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."{DA 761}
Tom: This quote shows the principle that it was possible for man to be saved by revealing truth to him. Satan knew the truth about God, so God's revealing it to him would not help him. It would help man, however, so for man there is remission of sin in the shedding of blood (although not for angels).
However, sin is so deceitful that even those who go into it knowing the truth about God will be deceived by it. Satan is proof positive of this.
Sin is an insideous thing. It is deadly. It confuses the mind, and leads one to have false ideas about God. What better example of this principle is there than Satan? He knew the truth about God, and was in the very presence of God, yet sin confused his mind, so that now he denies the very existence of unselfishness. Think about that! This is how powerful sin is, and shows our great need to be delivered from it.
R: He fully knew God’s goodness and He fully knew truth, but chose to deny it:
"The Lord saw the use that Satan was making of his power, and he set before him truth in contrast with falsehood. .... He chose to deny truth, to take refuge in misstatements and fraud." {18MR 362}
He knew the truth, but did not stand in the truth (John 8:44).
quote:God made them that way at creation. He gave them consciences.
The Bible speaks about sinners “whose consciences are seared” (1 Tim. 4:2), and of course this is the condition of all those who resist the Spirit of God. Tom, willfull sinners are not and cannot be sensitive to sin.
Tom: This doesn't mean that sin cannot cause them suffering, does it?
Old Tom: That is, if the wicked were to die only because God did something to them to make them die, then that would not be the inevitable result of sin, but an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.
R: Look, the fact is that God will deliberately raise the wicked, will deliberately veil His glory for a time until they face judgment, and then will deliberately unveil it, knowing that by this act they will die.
Tom: How else would the wicked know the truth if God did not resurrect them? Not only the wicked are involved in the judgment, but others as well. The resurrection is the only way the truth can be made known. You can be sure that God is not resurrecting them in order to inflict pain on them. God is not like that. He would make them happy, if He could (GC 541 or 542). God still loves them. It is the truth of His character that causes them pain, suffering and death. This is unavoidable.
R: I would never define this as suicide, but you are entitled to your opinion. This is an act of power on the part of God, but not arbitrary power.
Tom: It's not an act of power on the part of God, but an act of choice on the part of the wicked. It's the
glory of God that destroys the wicked, not God's power. This is EGW's whole point:
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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. (GC 764)
R: My dictionary defines arbitrary as:
1. arrived at without allowing argument or objection;
2. resulting from personal inclination entirely;
3. decided by chance or whim;
4. prejudiced, not based on reasoned examination;
5. absolute, despotic.
This act of God does not fall in any of the above definitions.
Tom: If the way you were looking at things were correct, it would follow under 2, which is the point I've been trying to make. If sin is not really deadly, and only has effect because God tortures and kills people who do it, then the death of the wicked is entirely due to the personal inclination of God. This is exactly what the definition of arbitrary is.
R: It is motivated by love and done for the good of all His creatures, including the wicked, who lead a miserable existence.
Tom: The motivation is not the issue. The causation is. If it is not sin which causes death, but rather God, than there is no organic relationship between sin and death. Sin would, in this case, only cause death because God doesn't like it and kills people who does it. In this case, it is God which causes death, not sin.
Old Tom: God does not need to kill someone for them not to live; simply not making them live is enough for them to die. Life is not something we have of ourselves.
R: Of course the life of every creature is sustained by God. But not making live is the same as killing.
Tom: No!!! (Add many more). It's not at all the same! It's totally different.
Here's an example. Let's say that I am responsible for you, and you are in a coma which is not reverseable but in great pain. According to medical science, there's no chance you can recover consciousness. I can make the decision to take away a machine which will keep you alive. So I decide to authorize your life support being taken away to end your suffering. That's one thing. Another thing is a take a knife and slit your throat. These are in no way related acts (by the way, I'm not arguing either for or against euthanasia in this illustration).
R: The person who shots another is killing, but the person who cuts the oxygen supply of another is also killing, no matter how you try to slice it. The key point is that removing life can be an act of mercy. How many times we, in mercy, sacrifice our pets when they are suffering too much? Wouldn’t it be cruel to let them continue living under these circumstances, however much we love them?
Old Tom: If they were debarred from God's favor, why did God give His Son in their behalf?
R: To make possible for them to be restored to His favor!
Tom: If they didn't already have His favor, He wouldn't have given His Son for them, would He? The angels proclaimed, "Peace on earth, and 'good will' (i.e. favor) towards man." The gift makes known the favor that man has with God. The gift does not create favor in God's heart for man, but demonstrates the favor man has already had in God's heart. God so loved the world He gave His Son. Christ's sacrifice does nothing for God. God is no more favorable disposed towards man after the sacrifice than before.
R: This is exactly what Ellen White says.
Old Tom: One needs to understand there are two aspects to this. One from man's side, and one from God's. You're only looking at man's side. From God's side we have statements like this...
R: Tom, you are complicating what is simple. The human race had another trial, a second probation, not through any “corporate justification”, but through the plan of redemption. What happened was simply this:
"After the fall Christ became Adam's instructor. He acted in God's stead toward humanity, saving the race from immediate death. He took upon him the office of mediator. Adam and Eve were given a probation in which to return to their allegiance, and in this plan all their posterity were embraced." {CC 20}
Infinite wisdom devised the plan of redemption, which places the race on a second probation by giving them another trial. {3T 484}
Adam should have died instantly, But Christ proposed to die in his place (the plan of redemption), so he was granted a second probation and in this plan all his posterity was embraced. That’s why every human being owes his life to Christ.
Tom: What you're describing in this last paragraph is corporate justification. Apparently you don't like the phrase, so I have invited you to choose another. Wallenkampf uses the phrase "temporary universal justification." The phrase is not the important thing, but the concept.
There's two important concepts to what we have been discussing. The first is:
1) The same thing that gives life to the righteous slays the wicked (the truth about God's character -- DA 108)
2) All mean live physically by the death of Christ, meaning that His sacrifice benefits them, having restored them (past tense -- making it clear it has nothing to do with them, since is has already been accomplished before they can act) to favor with God.
R: Have a happy sabbath!
Tom: Thank you. We visited family over the week-end. Went to a wedding.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/23/05 04:20 PM
1-
quote:
Tom: So those who have most hardened their hearts against God will sin the least, since they have the least capacity to suffer for sin?
Tom, what I mean is mental suffering for sin - to feel anguish for sin. They love sin and exalt sin. Hardened sinners have their consciences seared; they are incapable of understanding the sinfulness of sin. But when the Judge casts upon them “one penetrating, convicting glance, ... every deed, every transaction of life, will be vividly impressed upon the memory of the wrongdoer.” Then “the consequences to result to himself will draw from each an acknowledgment of his sin. It will be forced from the soul by an awful sense of condemnation and a fearful looking for of judgment” (PP 498).
2- God’s goodness won’t be revealed to Satan. He already knows it. It has been revealed to him as to no one else. He denies that unselfishness exists for a simple reason: how could he admit that God is unselfish and still continue to attack God? This admission would defeat his very purpose. He chose to deny truth but he knows very well what truth is. How can he succeed, though, if he admits that the truth is with God and that he is lying?
3- Of course this act of God does not result from personal inclination. There has been a judgment before this and the wicked are condemned by unanimity. If the whole universe is in agreement with God about the fate of the wicked, how can this be called an act resulting from personal inclination?
Besides you know that nobody here is saying that God tortures and kills people despotically or by whim. God is forced to remove the life of incorrigible rebels because sin is an evil ruinous to the whole universe and God must put an end to it. It would be cruel to keep sinners alive - cruel to the sinners themselves and cruel to the universe.
4- God’s favor and God’s love are two different things. God’s favor means God’s approval. To not enjoy the approval of God means to be under His condemnation. And God cannot approve of, but must condemn, those who are in sin.
P.S. Yes, the Portuguese word for unselfishness is abnegacao [abnegation - used in English with a different meaning], which would mean to deny self (for the good of others); also desprendimento.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/23/05 04:46 PM
Are you in agreement or not with Covenant Theology?
Covenant Theology grows out of the soil of the Reformed doctrine of federal representation and is based on the biblical teaching about the two Adams whose responses under covenant probation are imputed to those they represent.
God entered into a covenant with Adam, the basis of which was His law. In this covenant:
_ the condition was perfect obedience
_ the promise was eternal life
_ the penalty for transgression was exposure to the wrath of God (which inevitably meant death).
Although Adam enjoyed God’s favor because he had no sin, yet he was to obey, if he would enjoy eternal life. Thus he must have:
1) not only a negative righteousness - he was not guilty of anything; but also
2) a positive righteousness - he must obey that he might inherit eternal life
When he sinned,
1) he became guilty of transgression, forfeited God’s favor and became subject to the penalty
2) he failed to obey positively, failed to overcome the devil, and thus forfeited eternal life.
Therefore, in the covenant of grace, the representative of humanity, the second Adam, must
1) by satisfying the penalty, clear the slate and reinstate us in God’s favor _ Adam’s original condition. (This is called Christ’s passive obedience.)
2) accomplish the probationary assignment of overcoming the devil and presenting a perfect obedience, earning for us eternal life _ God’s promised reward. (This is called Christ’s active obedience.)
Thus, for man to be justified, he must have:
1) the not imputation of sin (passive righteousness), placing him in a condition as if he had never transgressed, that the penalty may be remitted
2) a reckoning of righteousness (active righteousness), granting him eternal life
Ellen White clearly agrees with Covenant Theology. Just some quotes that show this (there are many more):
“We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression. Jesus regained heaven for man by bearing the test that Adam failed to endure; for He obeyed the law perfectly, and all who have a right conception of the plan of redemption will see that they cannot be saved while in transgression of God's holy precepts.” {FW 88}
“As Adam lost the gift of life and immortality by his disobedience, so all born of Adam forfeit this gift. That one transgression opened the flood-gates of woe upon our world. Adam had no power in himself to redeem the past, or to win back the gifts bestowed by Christ. But by his incarnation, Christ was made fully competent to place man where he would no longer be an outcast, excluded from the tree of life. Christ himself bore the penalty of sin, that he might bring life and immortality to light.” (ST June 17, 1897)
"As representative of the fallen race, Christ passed over the same ground on which Adam stumbled and fell. By a life of perfect obedience to God's law, Christ redeemed man from the penalty of Adam's disgraceful fall. ... Bearing the penalty of the law, He gives the sinner another chance, a second trial. He opens a way whereby the sinner can be reinstated in God's favor. Christ bears the penalty of man's past transgressions, and by imparting to man His righteousness, makes it possible for man to keep God's holy law" (MS 126, 1901).
P.S. Adam should have died immediately, but this didn’t happen because just after his sin God explained to him the plan of salvation (Gen. 3:15) and he accepted it. He was justified just after he had sinned. His second chance involved an immediate justification. However, this doesn’t happen with his posterity, for men must first have a knowledge of the plan of salvation before accepting it; thus their second chance involves a lifetime of opportunity. But they are reinstated to God’s favor only when they are justified by faith. At least this is how I see it.
[edited to correct spelling]
[ May 23, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Rosangela ]
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/23/05 07:08 PM
1. Tom, what I mean is mental suffering for sin - to feel anguish for sin. They love sin and exalt sin. Hardened sinners have their consciences seared; they are incapable of understanding the sinfulness of sin. But when the Judge casts upon them “one penetrating, convicting glance, ... every deed, every transaction of life, will be vividly impressed upon the memory of the wrongdoer.” Then “the consequences to result to himself will draw from each an acknowledgment of his sin. It will be forced from the soul by an awful sense of condemnation and a fearful looking for of judgment” (PP 498).
Tom: I don't know what point you're wishing to make here. Would you agree that those who have most know the truth have a greater capacity to suffer for sin? This would seem to go along the lines of what you're presenting.
2- God’s goodness won’t be revealed to Satan.
Tom: Yes it will.
quote:
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.(DA 764)
That's what this quote is saying. God's glory is His goodness, His love. This is also pointed out in the DA 108 quote which says the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.
It's true that Satan knew God's goodness, and for this reason Satan cannot be saved by God's revealing it, because he hardened his heart in the full knowledge of it. He came to the point where he was so hardened by sin that God's presence became for him a consuming fire, and he is no longer able to abide in God's presence. However, at the judgment, everyone will come face to face with God, and to come face to face with God is to behold His goodness. There's no way around that. God can be no other than He is, which is good.
R:
He already knows it. It has been revealed to him as to no one else. He denies that unselfishness exists for a simple reason: how could he admit that God is unselfish and still continue to attack God? This admission would defeat his very purpose. He chose to deny truth but he knows very well what truth is. How can he succeed, though, if he admits that the truth is with God and that he is lying?
Tom:
quote:
Unselfishness, the principle of God's kingdom, is the principle that Satan hates; its very existence he denies. From the beginning of the great controversy he has endeavored to prove God's principles of action to be selfish, and he deals in the same way with all who serve God. To disprove Satan's claim is the work of Christ and of all who bear His name.(Ed 154)
It's a law of the mind that when one affirms or denies something, one comes to believe the thing that one is affirming or denying. Satan has been denying God is unselfish for thousands of years. He has come to believe the things he espouses. To suppose otherwise is to suppose he is acting contrary to human nature (ha ha).
R:
3- Of course this act of God does not result from personal inclination.
Tom: Who's inclination would it result from if not God's?
R:
There has been a judgment before this and the wicked are condemned by unanimity. If the whole universe is in agreement with God about the fate of the wicked, how can this be called an act resulting from personal inclination?
Tom: If the wicked are destroyed by an act of God which is disconnected from the essence of sin itself, then the destruction of the wicked is not due to a law or principle of sin itself, but due to an act of God, on the basis of His individual discretion. That others agree with His act does not change this fact.
R:
Besides you know that nobody here is saying that God tortures and kills people despotically or by whim.
Tom: No, not desptocially or by whim. I agree nobody is saying that. They are saying, by implication, that He is torturing and killing the wicked arbitrarily, however, using definition 2 from your list, by denying that sin causes death.
R: God is forced to remove the life of incorrigible rebels because sin is an evil ruinous to the whole universe and God must put an end to it. It would be cruel to keep sinners alive - cruel to the sinners themselves and cruel to the universe.
Tom: Yes, it would be cruel for God to keep sinners alive. So He doesn't. He allows them to suffer the inevitable results of sin. His glory, which is His goodness, and that which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.
R:
4- God’s favor and God’s love are two different things. God’s favor means God’s approval.
Tom: Ok. This I think describes the problem we're having in communication. When I have been speaking of God's favor in terms of the human race, I have been using the term as in the sense of doing something for someone which they do not deserve, and treating them not according to as they deserve, but according to one's own disposition towards them. So God does not approve of that which man does, but He still extends them favor. I'm using it like "grace."
R:
To not enjoy the approval of God means to be under His condemnation. And God cannot approve of, but must condemn, those who are in sin.
Tom: God cannot approve of, and must condemn, sin. Those who insist on clinging to sin are condemned, not because of God, but because of the sin. Christ came to justify, not to condemn, and He doesn't condemn. Christ made that point several times. People are condemned by their own unbelief. They refuse to believe the truth, and the truth will end up justifying God and all those who believe it, but condemning those who don't.
R:
P.S. Yes, the Portuguese word for unselfishness is abnegacao [abnegation - used in English with a different meaning], which would mean to deny self (for the good of others); also desprendimento.
Tom: I didn't think of "desprendimento." I don't like any of the words or phrases as well as "unselfishness," which is directly to the point and easy to understand. But that happens often going from one language to another. No nice word in English for "carinho."
Thanks for continuing the dialog, Rosangela. I've been learning a lot in our discussion.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/23/05 09:02 PM
Tom: This was a very well-written post. I think Covenant Theology is a way of looking at things, but not the only way. The clearest way I have seen is in terms of the Great Controversy. For example, the following statement from the Spirit of Prophesy:
quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (RH 1/20/90)
The main problem man has is in not understanding God's character. Believing God's lies has led to man seperating himself from God. In order to be brought back to God, the character of God must be revealed to man. It was for this purpose that Christ came. This was "the whole purpose" of His mission. Men are set right when they believe the truth about God. I think this is the clearest way of seeing things, and was Paul's perspective, as well as John's, and Peter's.
R:
Are you in agreement or not with Covenant Theology?
Covenant Theology grows out of the soil of the Reformed doctrine of federal representation and is based on the biblical teaching about the two Adams whose responses under covenant probation are imputed to those they represent.
God entered into a covenant with Adam, the basis of which was His law. In this covenant:
_ the condition was perfect obedience
_ the promise was eternal life
_ the penalty for transgression was exposure to the wrath of God (which inevitably meant death).
Although Adam enjoyed God’s favor because he had no sin, yet he was to obey, if he would enjoy eternal life. Thus he must have:
1) not only a negative righteousness - he was not guilty of anything; but also
2) a positive righteousness - he must obey that he might inherit eternal life
When he sinned,
1) he became guilty of transgression, forfeited God’s favor and became subject to the penalty
2) he failed to obey positively, failed to overcome de devil, and thus forfeited eternal life.
Therefore, in the covenant of grace, the representative of humanity, the second Adam, must
1) by satisfying the penalty, clear the slate and reinstate us in God’s favor _ Adam’s original condition. (This is called Christ’s passive obedience.)
2) accomplish the probationary assignment of overcoming the devil and presenting a perfect obedience, earning for us eternal life _ God’s promised reward. (This is called Christ’s active obedience.)
Thus, for man to be justified, he must have:
1) the not imputation of sin (passive righteousness), placing him in a condition as if he had never transgressed, that the penalty may be remitted
2) a reckoning of righteousness (active righteousness), granting him eternal life
Ellen White clearly agrees with Covenant Theology. Just some quotes that show this (there are many more):
“We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression. Jesus regained heaven for man by bearing the test that Adam failed to endure; for He obeyed the law perfectly, and all who have a right conception of the plan of redemption will see that they cannot be saved while in transgression of God's holy precepts.” {FW 88}
“As Adam lost the gift of life and immortality by his disobedience, so all born of Adam forfeit this gift. That one transgression opened the flood-gates of woe upon our world. Adam had no power in himself to redeem the past, or to win back the gifts bestowed by Christ. But by his incarnation, Christ was made fully competent to place man where he would no longer be an outcast, excluded from the tree of life. Christ himself bore the penalty of sin, that he might bring life and immortality to light.” (ST June 17, 1897)
"As representative of the fallen race, Christ passed over the same ground on which Adam stumbled and fell. By a life of perfect obedience to God's law, Christ redeemed man from the penalty of Adam's disgraceful fall. ... Bearing the penalty of the law, He gives the sinner another chance, a second trial. He opens a way whereby the sinner can be reinstated in God's favor. Christ bears the penalty of man's past transgressions, and by imparting to man His righteousness, makes it possible for man to keep God's holy law" (MS 126, 1901).
Tom: This is one way of looking at things. It's heavily legal, which is IMO a means to an end. That is, from this perspective we may learn the wonderful truth that God's favor cannot be earned, but that we must depend totally upon His graciousness in order to be saved. That's a very important point.
Something the 1888 message made clear, which the Reformed preachers had not seen, is that the legal aspect of Christ's work included all mankind, not just those who believed. So Christ became the second Adam for the entire human race, not just for those who believe, at least from the perspective that they owe their physical lives to Christ. I don't know of anyone who brought out this point before A. T. Jones, W. W. Presscott, E. J. Waggoner and Ellen G. White.
R:
P.S. Adam should have died immediately, but this didn’t happen because just after his sin God explained to him the plan of salvation (Gen. 3:15) and he accepted it.
Tom: It wouldn't have mattered if he had accepted it or not, Adam still would not have died immediately, just as those who do not accept it now do not die immediately.
R: He was justified just after he had sinned. His second chance involved an immediate justification.
Tom: Only from a legal standpoint. He was not justified by faith before he was given a second chance. This is obvious by what transpired in Eden. Adam ran away from God and hid. He should not have been able to do this as he should have been dead. The only reason he wasn't dead was because Christ was already acting as his Savior. "As soon as their was sin, there was a Savior."
So the order of events was:
1) Adam sinned.
2) God went looking for Adam.
3) Adam felt condemned because of his sin, and fled from God.
4) God explained the Plan of Salvation, which was already in force.
So the Plan of Salvation was in force starting from 1). Adam wasn't justified by faith until after 4).
R: However, this doesn’t happen with his posterity, for men must first have a knowledge of the plan of salvation before accepting it; thus their second chance involves a lifetime of opportunity. But they are reinstated to God’s favor only when they are justified by faith. At least this is how I see it.
Tom: All men have God's favor (i.e. grace) at all times. All are accepted in Christ. Through Christ, all receive physical life. If one refuses Christ for a lifetime, one will be eternally lost, because a lifetime of hardening one's heart will result in a character to which God's presence will be a consuming fire. The glory of God will destroy those who refuse to receive Christ, not because God is angry or vengeful, but because one who's character is solidified with the principles of selfishness cannot abide in the glory of He who is self-sacrificing love.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/25/05 05:45 AM
quote:
...not because God is angry or vengeful...
So, are the Bible and the SOP just joking around when they refer to God's anger and His vengeance, hundreds and thousands of times?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/25/05 12:21 PM
Joking?
Of course not: only a sloppy Bible reader would say that there are not tons of statements which are understood as saying God punishes, destroys or liquidates.
Here are a few listings:
Bible
Genesis 6:5-7, 17; 19:24,25; Exodus 4:21; 7;3,13; 32:27; Joshua 10:11; Matthew 22:7
The Spirit of Prophecy
PP 491.2; SDA Bible Commentary 1:117; COL pp 307 to 309
There are many more, naturally.
These are many folk today who read these texts, interpret them according to long-accustomed methods, and are quite satisfied to believe that God does behave as an executioner to those who refuse to obey His laws.
But in doing so they have to ignore several things.
Sadly, I have yet to see anyone address these things here.
Firstly, there are quite a number of statements which say the opposite from what these statements are interpreted to mean.
Secondly, there are the great Ten Commandments principles which are embodied in the constitution of God's government. These I have attempted to address in the "Perfection of the Law" thread.
Thirdly, there are the terrible implications of holding such beliefs about God.
These will be considered in turn as we proceed, but firstly let a list be made of what some would call counter-statements. In reality they are not and cannot be counter-statements for there is no such thing as a contradiction in God's Word.
Here are some examples of such statements:
(Those who wish to skip all heavenly admonitions or proofs that might disturb their settled conclusions can scroll to the bottom and look for the bold *)
"The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works." "Thy testimonies [commandments or laws] that Thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful." Psalms 145:17; 119:138.
The Lord is righteous and the law is righteous. Therefore God is what the law is. It is the "transcript of His own character," Christ's Object Lessons, 315, and that law declares "Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13. Therefore, if it is not in the law to kill, it is not in the character of God to kill.
So, "God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." Christ's Object Lessons, 84.
"God destroys no one." Testimonies 5:120.
"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 Great Controversy, 36.
"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree corning upon the earth, and why? The Lord's restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest." Testimonies 6:388, 389.
"This earth has almost reached the place where God will permit the destroyer to work his will upon it." Testimonies 7:141.
"God keeps a reckoning with the nations. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. Those who work evil toward their fellow men, saying, How doth God know? will one day be called upon to meet long- deferred vengeance. In this age a more than common contempt is shown to God. Men have reached a point in insolence and disobedience which shows that their cup of iniquity is almost full. Many have well-nigh passed the boundary of mercy. Soon God will show that He is indeed the living God. He will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of their iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of wickedness to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work." The Review and Herald, September 17, 1901.
When Jesus was asked to destroy the Samaritans who had rejected Him, He replied to His disciples, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." Luke 9:55, 56.
"There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." The Desire of Ages, 487.
"Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power." ibid., 759.
"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority." ibid., 22.
We know that God does nothing that is contrary to the principles of His government. Therefore, He does not use force.
"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.
*
Here is a compilation of statements, emphatic and clear, asserting that God is not an executioner, does not punish, and destroys no one. How unsettlingly confusing!!!
When these and the first set are viewed side by side, there appears no possibility of their being reconcilable.
These apparent contradictions present the Bible student with a problem. For unbelievers and skeptics, it is "solved" by simply discarding faith in the Word of God, charging it and its Author with duplicity and inconsistency. I get this all the time from Muslim "thinkers" and others here in Asia.
Others simply ignore the words which they are unable to understand or do not really desire to accept, while they carefully collect the opposite set, building their faith accordingly.
This was the course adopted by the rabbis and Jews prior to and at the first advent.
In the Old Testament there were many prophetic statements describing both the first and second coming of Christ. One set naturally spoke of His coming in obscurity, shame, ignominy, rejection and to final crucifixion. The other set described a coming in indescribable power, glory and triumph in which all His enemies would be totally annihilated.
To the Jewish mind, especially as it lost the Spirit's illumination, it was impossible to reconcile these seeming contradictions. Their solution was to ignore every statement which spoke of humility and obscurity and to dwell heavily on those which spoke of power and glory.
Once they had embarked on that wrong principle of interpretation, then, the more they studied their Bibles, the more conditioned they became to reject the Saviour when He appeared.
He came exactly as the Scriptures said He would, but not as they had read the prophecies. Therefore, because He did not fulfil the set of prophecies they had gathered, they rejected Him and thus lost their eternal lives.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/25/05 04:42 PM
Just a noitce. The correct translation of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is "thou shalt not murder".
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/25/05 04:46 PM
Tom,
Sorry for the delay; I didn't have enough time to reply yesterday.
1- The point I’m trying to make about the intensity and duration of the punishment of the wicked is that it is determined by God’s estimation of sin, not by sin itself. If God wasn’t antipathetic to sin, sinners wouldn’t suffer, for sin is not grievous in their sight. They will suffer because they will experience the sense of God’s wrath against sin, of His hatred for sin.
“God's wrath against sin and the punishment for sin must be exhausted. Manuscript 44, 1898, p. 3. {5MR 423.1}
2- The suffering of the wicked is mainly caused not by coming face to face with God’s goodness, but by coming face to face with God’s wrath against sin. That’s why I don’t view God at the last day treating the righteous and the wicked exactly in the same manner. The righteous will never personally experience the wrath of God, while the wicked will know it face to face.
3- Nothing God does results from inclination. God shows mercy because He is mercy. God shown love because He is love. God shows justice because He is justice. God shows wrath because He is holiness, truth, unselfishness, goodness - the opposite of sin. He will show His wrath against sin and this will kill the wicked; this is not a result of personal inclination. You think that God’s exterminating the wicked with fire is arbitrary, while exterminating them by His wrath is not, however, the wicked would suffer much less if they were exterminated just with fire.
4- Ellen White is clear that Adam lost God’s favor. This couldn’t refer to God’s grace, since there was no grace before sin. Grace is unmerited favor, and this is how God’s favor is called now, after sin. However, like pardon, salvation, and righteousness, grace is also provisional - extended to all, but effective to those who accept it.
“The grace of Christ and his righteousness are offered to men as a free gift.” {RH, December 24, 1908}
I still see no “corporate justification” involved here.
When Adam sinned, the wrath of God came upon him because of his sin; thus, he would have died immediately, for the wrath of God means death to the sinner. But Christ proposed to receive the wrath of God upon Himself, so that man could escape the death sentence by accepting Christ as His Redeemer. Thus, God’s wrath was restrained, the death sentence was delayed, so that man could have another trial, a lifetime of probation:
“The Son of God, undertaking to become the Redeemer of the race, placed Adam in a new relation to his Creator. He was still fallen; but a door of hope was opened to him. The wrath of God still hung over Adam, but the execution of the sentence of death was delayed, and the indignation of God was restrained, because Christ had entered upon the work of becoming man's Redeemer. Christ was to take the wrath of God, which in justice should fall upon man. He became a refuge for man, and, although man was indeed a criminal, deserving the wrath of God, yet he could, by faith in Christ, run into the refuge provided and be safe... God forbears, for a time, the full execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon man.” {Con 19, 20}
P. S. I’ve finally remembered the exact Portuguese word for unselfishness - it is “altruismo” [in English you have altruism]. As you said, not so good and simple as the English word.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/26/05 10:14 AM
Roseangela: said:
"Just a noitce. The correct translation of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is "thou shalt not murder".
Hmmmm... I guess Sister White musta not understood that "finer" distinction:
"When Jesus turned upon the Pharisees with the question whether it was lawful on the Sabbath day to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill, He confronted them with their own wicked purposes. They were hunting His life with bitter hatred, while He was saving life and bringing happiness to multitudes. Was it better to slay upon the Sabbath, as they were planning to do, than to heal the afflicted, as He had done? Was it more righteous to have murder in the heart upon God's holy day than love to all men, which finds expression in deeds of mercy? {DA 287.1}
"Across the sea from the place where they were assembled was the country of Bashan, a lonely region, whose wild gorges and wooded hills had long been a favorite lurking ground for criminals of all descriptions. Reports of robbery and murder committed there were fresh in the minds of the people, and many were zealous in denouncing these evildoers. At the same time they were themselves passionate and contentious; they cherished the most bitter hatred of their Roman oppressors and felt themselves at liberty to hate and despise all other peoples, and even their own countrymen who did not in all things conform to their ideas. In all this they were violating the law which declares, "Thou shalt not kill." {MB 56.1}
The spirit of hatred and revenge originated with Satan, and it led him to put to death the Son of God. Whoever cherishes malice or unkindness is cherishing the same spirit, and its fruit will be unto death. In the revengeful thought the evil deed lies enfolded, as the plant in the seed. "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15. {MB 56.2}
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/26/05 03:13 PM
Ikan,
These quotations just confirm what I said, that "to kill" in this commandment means "to murder". That this is the case is clear from the fact that the israelites were commanded by God to kill - to inflict the death penalty, to make war against the canaanite nations, etc. and by so doing were not transgressing the commandment.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/27/05 06:06 AM
"the israelites were commanded by God to kill".... is a good point brought up by Rosangela.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/26/05 07:20 PM
The Commandment says not to "kill" or "murder", however one wishes to translate it (my understanding is that the Hebrew word is best rendered "kill" just taking the word into account, and not the context of being a part of the Ten Commandments). God does not act contrary to His law -- everybody agrees to that. So however we interpret God's character to be, we will interpret the commandment. So we cannot appeal to the commandment to interpret God's character, since we read the commandment according to our interpretation of God's character.
However, we can appeal to Jesus Christ's life as an example. If we want to understand the Ten Commandments, we have but to look at the life of Christ. They show what observance of the Ten Commandments looks like. We can also look to Jesus Christ to understand God's character, since the whole purpose of His mission was to reveal God's character, in order to set us right with Him.
So if we wish to understand how God will treat the wicked in the end, we have but to look at how Jesus Christ treated the wicked while in the flesh. All that we need to know about God, or can know about Him, was revealed to us by Jesus Christ.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/26/05 09:12 PM
The verb involved is ratsach, which means:
1) to murder, slay, kill
1a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1a1) premeditated
1a2) accidental
1a3) as avenger
1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be slain
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to murder, assassinate
1c2) murderer, assassin (participle) (subst)
1d) (Pual) to be killed
Jews generally insist that the verb should be translated as “to murder”.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=9881 One thing is certain: this verb is never used when God commands someone to be killed.
Tom, you said,
quote:
God does not act contrary to His law -- everybody agrees to that.
That’s precisely why the verb would be better translated as “to murder”:
“And he said to them, ‘Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor'" (Ex. 32:27).
“While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day.
And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.
They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him.
And the LORD said to Moses, 'The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.'
And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses” (Numb. 15:32-36)
How can God command or approve something contrary to His law?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/26/05 09:43 PM
R: Tom,
Sorry for the delay; I didn't have enough time to reply yesterday.
Tom: No problem.
R: 1- The point I’m trying to make about the intensity and duration of the punishment of the wicked is that it is determined by God’s estimation of sin, not by sin itself.
Tom: I would say it's determined by the sin, and God's estimation of the sin is simply recognition of the truth. That is, there's nothing "new" that God adds to the equation (other than His own presence).
R: If God wasn’t antipathetic to sin, sinners wouldn’t suffer, for sin is not grievous in their sight.
Tom: This is a big difference in the way we see things, and I think I may start a topic on this. I would say that sin causes misery, pain, suffering and death, and that's why God wants to save us from it. Sin causes us to separate ourselves from He who is life and love, which is why it is so bad. Sin is not grevious in the sight of sinners because they are not recognizing it as it truly is, because if God were to reveal the truth to them it would kill them. This is what will happen at the judgment.
R: They will suffer because they will experience the sense of God’s wrath against sin, of His hatred for sin.
Tom: Yes, but God's wrath is simply His giving sinners over to the result of their sin (e.g. (Deut 31:17, 18; Jer. 33:5; 2 Chron 29: 6, 8; 2 Kings 17:17-20; Ps. 27:9; Ps. 89:46; Ps. 143:7; Hosea 9:12; Lam. 2:5-7; Rom. 1:18-26).
There are two conflicting pictures of God's wrath. One pictures God as actively saving His children from the evil which would destroy them, and passively allowing them to experience the results of sin (which is God's wrath). The other pictures God as sometimes passively allowing them to experience the results of sin, and sometimes visiting upon them wrathful acts which are active. The last view makes God to appear schitzophrenic. He's often like Jesus, but sometimes not. There is the danger of being led to follow God from the motivation of fear, rather than by being convinced of His goodness.
R:
“God's wrath against sin and the punishment for sin must be exhausted. Manuscript 44, 1898, p. 3. {5MR 423.1}
Tom: Once the wicked have experienced the inevitable results of their sin, God's wrath against sin and the punishment for it will be exhausted.
R:
2- The suffering of the wicked is mainly caused not by coming face to face with God’s goodness, but by coming face to face with God’s wrath against sin.
Tom: There's no difference between these two things. God's wrath *is* His goodness. God can be nothing other than good. That which gives life to the righteous (God's goodness) slays the wicked. The same thing does both.
R:
That’s why I don’t view God at the last day treating the righteous and the wicked exactly in the same manner. The righteous will never personally experience the wrath of God, while the wicked will know it face to face.
Tom: Both experience God's goodness. They experience it differently, but God is the same. Note the following:
quote:
Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; (Isa. 33:14, 15)
God is a consuming fire (fire in Scripture often represents God's love, or goodness) and these "everlasting burnings" destroy the wicked, but give life to the righteous. The same thing which gives life to one group causes death for another (what EGW calls "the light of the glory of God").
R:
3- Nothing God does results from inclination.
Tom: Everything God does results from inclination.
"Inclination," in the context we are discussing, means "A characteristic disposition to do, prefer, or favor one thing rather than another." This fits everything that God does. He acts according to His character.
R:
God shows mercy because He is mercy. God shown love because He is love. God shows justice because He is justice. God shows wrath because He is holiness, truth, unselfishness, goodness - the opposite of sin. He will show His wrath against sin and this will kill the wicked; this is not a result of personal inclination.
Tom: DA 108 says it is "the light of the glory of God" which destroys the wicked. "Light" has to do with truth. "Glory" has to do with character (that is, God's glory is His character, or His goodness -- e.g. Deut. 33:18, 19 "18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; "). The truth about God's goodness gives life to the righteous, but slays the wicked. God is the same to all, but the effects are different.
R:
You think that God’s exterminating the wicked with fire is arbitrary, while exterminating them by His wrath is not, however, the wicked would suffer much less if they were exterminated just with fire.
Tom: What makes one arbitrary and the other not has to do with whether their is an organic connection or not. In other words, if the only reason the wicked die is because God kills them, then this is an arbitrary act of power, not the inevitable results of sin. On the other hand, if the reason the wicked die is because in the inevitable results of sin is death, then that is not arbitrary. Since God's wrath is nothing other than His goodness, it's difficult to conceive that as God's "exterminating" them with His goodness. Note the Spirit of Prophesy warns us not to view God as an executor, but makes the point that the wicked bring their fate upon themselves.
R:
4- Ellen White is clear that Adam lost God’s favor.
Tom: If one is talking about "favor" in terms of approval, then that's true. God did not approve of Adam's sin, because the result of sin is death, and God certainly did not desire Adam's death. However, in terms of God's disposition towards Adam, that never changed. Say you have a child, and the child disobeys you. You can say your child has lost favor with you, if by that you mean that you disapprove of its dead. However, it would be absurd to suggest that your disposition towards the child in terms of loving and caring for it had in any way changed, unless you were a wicked parent, and it would be infinitely more absurd to suggest such of God.
God so loved the world, that He gave His Son. This is as clear an expression of God's favor, or good will, or grace (however you want to call it) that there is.
R:
This couldn’t refer to God’s grace, since there was no grace before sin.
Tom: Grace is the outgrowth of God's graciousness. God has always been gracious and merciful. That didn't begin with the dawn of sin. It just hadn't been manifest for want of need.
R:
Grace is unmerited favor, and this is how God’s favor is called now, after sin.
Tom: God hasn't changed. If God is "unmerited favor" then He was just as much "unmerited favor" before sin as after.
R:
However, like pardon, salvation, and righteousness, grace is also provisional - extended to all, but effective to those who accept it.
Tom: Grace is both effective and provisional, as are pardon, salvation and righteousness. You have a solid grasp on the provisional part, but do not seem to be grasping the effective part, which I've been trying to bring out. Here's a quote from Steps to Christ which brings out the point:
quote:
"In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who chose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live and grow up to the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus." -- Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 68
Air is not simply "provisional" but is "effective" for all. So is grace. All are physically alive because of grace. All who choose may experience the full benefits of grace. Here's a Scripture which brings out the same concept of provisional/effective:
quote:
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Tim. 4:10)
Christ is the Savior of all men (in that they live physically by virture of His self-sacricing love) but especially of those who believe (there receive not only physical life from Christ, but eternal life as well, so He is a Savior in a double sense, not just one).
R:
“The grace of Christ and his righteousness are offered to men as a free gift.” {RH, December 24, 1908}
I still see no “corporate justification” involved here.
Tom: The grace of Christ is not only offered, but it is effective for all. It depends on the context. In the context of eternal life, those who reject it will not receive the benefits of it. In terms of physical life, as long as one is alive, one receives the grace of Christ. "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." This is "corporate justification."
R:
When Adam sinned, the wrath of God came upon him because of his sin; thus, he would have died immediately, for the wrath of God means death to the sinner.
Tom: The wrath of God *didn't* come upon Adam, because Adam did not die. As you point out, the wrath of God means death to the sinner, since to sin wherever it is found, God is a consuming fire. However Adam did not die, so the wrath of God did not come upon Adam.
R:
But Christ proposed to receive the wrath of God upon Himself, so that man could escape the death sentence by accepting Christ as His Redeemer. Thus, God’s wrath was restrained, the death sentence was delayed, so that man could have another trial, a lifetime of probation:
Tom: Was this an idea of Christ alone? That is, is the idea that you are presenting that God the Father was ready to wipe out Adam and Eve, but fortunately for mankind Christ perked up and said, "Wait a minute! I've got an idea! Don't kill them, kill Me instead!" Is this the idea?
R:
“The Son of God, undertaking to become the Redeemer of the race, placed Adam in a new relation to his Creator. He was still fallen; but a door of hope was opened to him. The wrath of God still hung over Adam, but the execution of the sentence of death was delayed, and the indignation of God was restrained, because Christ had entered upon the work of becoming man's Redeemer. Christ was to take the wrath of God, which in justice should fall upon man. He became a refuge for man, and, although man was indeed a criminal, deserving the wrath of God, yet he could, by faith in Christ, run into the refuge provided and be safe... God forbears, for a time, the full execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon man.” {Con 19, 20}
Tom: Is there any difference between God and Christ? (in terms of character).
R:
P. S. I’ve finally remembered the exact Portuguese word for unselfishness - it is “altruismo” [in English you have altruism]. As you said, not so good and simple as the English word.
Tom: Ok. Another possibility to try out. How about "desegoismo"? That would be a good word.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/26/05 11:19 PM
quote:
"the israelites were commanded by God to kill".... is a good point brought up by Rosangela.
God commanded an evil spirit to lie to Ahab:
quote:
19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. 20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? 21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. 22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. (1 Chron. 18:19-22)
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/27/05 02:18 AM
First of all, I think you have the wrong Bible reference as those verses do not exist.
![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
I did find the text in 1 Kings 22:20-23 in which verse 22 refers to the lying spirit.
In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not restrain. The whole picture is a parable. Ahab had chosen to be guided by false prophets, and God simply permitted him to be guided by these prophets to his ruin.
The same is in the case where in one verse it says the Pharoah hardened his own heart, whereas elsewhere, the same Bible also says that God hardened the Pharoah's heart. In other words the Pharoah hardened his own heart and God allowed him to do so.
Here are the texts for this:
quote:
Exo 7:13 And He hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he did not listen to them, as Jehovah had said.
Exo 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/27/05 02:48 PM
God was coerced by the unbelief of the Hebrews to allow them to kill/murder a demon possed tribe, because they ignored His way of securing their safety as detailed in Exodus 23:20-23 and Exodus 23:27-33. THIS was God's way, not theirs.
Since they refused His methods, and He could not abandon them, He very reluctantly instructed them how to behave like an army.
Tell me: Where in the Bible do the Hebrews get weapons from in the middle of the desert? They had weapons, and there was no way they took them from Egypt, so where did they get them? Was that God's way?
[ May 30, 2005, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Phil N. D'blanc ]
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/27/05 02:48 PM
Daryl wisely said:
"In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not restrain. The whole picture is a parable. Ahab had chosen to be guided by false prophets, and God simply permitted him to be guided by these prophets to his ruin.
The same is in the case where in one verse it says the Pharoah hardened his own heart, whereas elsewhere, the same Bible also says that God hardened the Pharoah's heart. In other words the Pharoah hardened his own heart and God allowed him to do so."
This is one of the very principle that I have been trying to maintain!
The Bible says Saul fell on his sword and killed himself, then says later that "God slew him." There are many such examples that come to mind, and rarely do Bible students stick with this fundemental law when reading, and thus see god as doing things that He is allowing.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/27/05 09:48 PM
quote:
In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not restrain.
Excellent! This is the important principle to keep in mind. Now is this something specific to Scripture? That is, is it only the Bible that does this, or can the Spirit of Prophesy do it as well? (present God as doing something which he permits).
Why is it that God is presented as doing something which He permits? Is it simply a quirk of language, or is there more to it than that?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/27/05 11:57 PM
Happy sabbath to you all.
Ikan, please pay attention to this text:
“While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day.
And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.
They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him.
And the LORD said to Moses, 'The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.'
And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses” (Numb. 15:32-36)
So they didn't know what to do, then God instructs them to violate His law?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/28/05 12:46 AM
1- Tom, when I said “If God wasn’t antipathetic to sin, sinners wouldn’t suffer, for sin is not grievous in their sight”, I was referring to the mental suffering of the last great day, the terrible anguish and agony sinners will experience. Sinners will feel this because they will be exposed to God’s wrath.
God’s wrath is God’s
hatred for sin. His giving sinners over to the consequences of their sin is just one of the ways He
manifests this wrath. And of course it is not the only way. As you said, sometimes He does so passively, and sometimes actively. I don’t think Jesus was schizophrenic when He drove out all who sold and bought in the temple with a whip of cords. Was He expressing His wrath here in a passive manner or in an active manner?
2- Another point is that God’s wrath and His goodness are not the same thing. Of course not. God’s mercy and goodness are His characteristics as a
Father; God’s justice and His wrath toward evil are His characteristics as a
Judge. At the last great day, in the same way as at the cross, God will divest Himself of His qualities as a Father, and will assume in relation to the wicked the character of a Judge:
“God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. He Himself
assumes toward the Sin-Bearer the character of a judge, divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.” {FLB 104}
3- “Inclination” means “tendency”. God has no tendencies. God is what He is and does what must be done.
Isn’t “to exterminate” the same as “to destroy”?
An EXECUTIONER is someone
whose main activity is to put people to death (like a hangman, for instance). He is used to this task. God definitely is not like that. Ellen White says:
“
The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin.
In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: ‘The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ The work of wrath and destruction is indeed
a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love. {ST, August 24, 1882}
4-
quote:
Grace is both effective and provisional, as are pardon, salvation and righteousness.
Sorry, Tom, but this to me is absurd. It is the same as saying that everyone is saved and everyone is righteous, which does not make any sense at all. In what sense are the wicked righteous?
quote:
The wrath of God *didn't* come upon Adam, because Adam did not die.
Tom, it *did* come upon Adam the moment he sinned, and hadn’t Christ proposed to become His Savior, God’s wrath wouldn’t have been restrained and it would have fallen upon him. Then he would have died.
“Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam.”-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.
quote:
Tom: Was this an idea of Christ alone? That is, is the idea that you are presenting that God the Father was ready to wipe out Adam and Eve, but fortunately for mankind Christ perked up and said, "Wait a minute! I've got an idea! Don't kill them, kill Me instead!" Is this the idea?
No, of course the idea is not that. When I say God, I mean the Godhead. The Godhead was offended by man’s sin, thus the wrath of the Godhead came upon man because of sin. Because God [the three persons] is just, He had to manifest His wrath against sin, which would kill man; but because He is merciful, he wished to forgive and spare man. This dilemma was resolved because one of the members of the Godhead proposed to receive in Himself the wrath against sin. Thus the Godhead could punish sin and be enabled to forgive.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/28/05 07:27 AM
Preface from Tom. I'm a computer programmer, and getting this post to "compile" involved a great deal of "debugging". In order to get this to go through, I had to chop off a piece of the end, so I'll try to get that through in another post. This was a lot of work! (I'm supposed to be resting from debugging!
R:
1- Tom, when I said “If God wasn’t antipathetic to sin, sinners wouldn’t suffer, for sin is not grievous in their sight”, I was referring to the mental suffering of the last great day, the terrible anguish and agony sinners will experience. Sinners will feel this because they will be exposed to God’s wrath.
God’s wrath is God’s hatred for sin.
His giving sinners over to the consequences of their sin is just one of the ways He manifests this wrath. And of course it is not the only way. As you said, sometimes He does so passively, and sometimes actively. I don’t think Jesus was schizophrenic when He drove out all who sold and bought in the temple with a whip of cords. Was He expressing His wrath here in a passive manner or in an active manner?
T: God hates sin because it kills us. He doesn't kill us because He hates sin.
God's wrath is His giving people over to the result of their sin. The many Bible verses I quote all illustrate this. The destruction of Jerusalem illustrates this. The pattern is:
1) God's mercy and grace are rejected.
2) By rejecting God's mercy and grace, the wicked form a character so out of harmony with God's character that His presence becomes to them a consuming fire.
3) God's glory, which is His goodness, His character (Ex. 33:18) destroys them.
Note that it is the same thing which gives life to the righteous which destroys the wicked.
In all the life of Christ, there are only two incidents which appear to be in harmony with the vengeful view of God. One is the cleansing of the temple, and the other is the cursing of the fig tree. Both of these are best understood as Christ's anger at sin and its destructive power. The temple was a place which God had designed for the healing by beholding His character. However, the moneychangers had so perverted the services that God's character could not be discerned. Christ cleansed the temple so the beauty of God's holiness could be beheld. Apart from beholding God's character, there is no safeguard from the destruction which sin brings.
Right after the cleansing of the temple, children were sitting on Christ's lap and the sick were presented to Him for healing. The Spirit of Prophesy makes clear that there was no violence involved in the eviction of the wicked. It was their own conscience and their discomfort in the presence of the infinite goodness of Christ which motivated them to leave. Just like the evil angels (Jude 6) who "kept not their habitation," the moneychangers left, not being able to abide His presence. This is a model of what will happen in the end, except that the wicked will have nowhere to run. That same discomfort that the wicked were running away from in Christ will be felt at the end. And just as the goodness of Christ attracted some (the children who sat on His lap and the lame) and dispersed others, to at the judgment His goodness will enliven some and destroy others.
R:
2- Another point is that God’s wrath and His goodness are not the same thing. Of course not. God’s mercy and goodness are His characteristics as a Father; God’s justice and His wrath toward evil are His characteristics as a Judge. At the last great day, in the same way as at the cross, God will divest Himself of His qualities as a Father, and will assume in relation to the wicked the character of a Judge:
“God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. He Himself assumes toward the Sin-Bearer the character of a judge, divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.” {FLB 104}
T: How is it that God assumed the character of Judge? By permitting "His Son to be delivered up for our offenses"! This is God's wrath: permitting the wicked to be delivered up for their offenses. In other words, allowing them to suffer the consequences of their choice, to reap that which they have sown.
quote:
The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. (DA 764)
R:
3- “Inclination” means “tendency”. God has no tendencies. God is what He is and does what must be done.
T: The context of "personal inclination" that we were discussing had to do with the definition of arbitrary. My point was that if the only reason the wicked die is because God kills them, and is not related to sin itself (i.e. to a law, or principle, that sin causes death), then that is arbitrary, because it is on the basis of personal discretion rather than on the basis of a principle or law.
R:
Isn’t “to exterminate” the same as “to destroy”?
T: No, not at all. "Eterminate" has a finer granularity than "destroy."
R:
An EXECUTIONER is someone whose main activity is to put people to death (like a hangman, for instance). He is used to this task. God definitely is not like that. Ellen White says:
“The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: ‘The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love. {ST, August 24, 1882}
T: The context of the statement that God should not be looked at as an executioner is given in the statement in which it is found, which is in the first chapter of the Great Controversy.
quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. 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 rejectors 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. (GC 36)
God's hatred of sin and the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty was given a most "decisive testimonty" in the destruction of Jerusalem. What happened there? Sinners were left to reap the results of their sin.
R:
4-
"Grace is both effective and provisional, as are pardon, salvation and righteousness."
Sorry, Tom, but this to me is absurd. It is the same as saying that everyone is saved and everyone is righteous, which does not make any sense at all. In what sense are the wicked righteous?
T: God treats the wicked as if they were righteous . "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." (1 SM 343)
"This was the position of the human race after man divorced himself from God by transgression. Then he was no longer entitled to a breath of air, a ray of sunshine, or a particle of food. And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression." (FW 21)
Men do not deserve to live, and only do live because of God's graciousness. He graciously treat wicked men as if they were as righteous as His own Son -- He gives them physical life when they deserve nothing but death.
R:
"The wrath of God *didn't* come upon Adam, because Adam did not die." (<==quote from Tom)
Tom, it *did* come upon Adam the moment he sinned, and hadn’t Christ proposed to become His Savior, God’s wrath wouldn’t have been restrained and it would have fallen upon him. Then he would have died.
“Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam.”-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.
T: The term is being used in a different way than it has been being used in our discussion. The wrath of God is, in Scripture, God's giving people over to the result of their sin. God didn't give Adam up to the choice of his sin, but instead gave Christ up to the choice of Adam's sin. So in the usual Biblical sense, God's wrath fell upon Christ, not Adam. The sense EGW is using the phrase "divine wrath" clearly means from the context "divine displeasure," which is again not the sense we have been using it in our discussion.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/28/05 07:31 AM
OK. Let me see if I can figure out how to get this part through. Got it! This was hard.
R:
"Was this an idea of Christ alone? That is, is the idea that you are presenting that God the Father was ready to wipe out Adam and Eve, but fortunately for mankind Christ perked up and said, "Wait a minute! I've got an idea! Don't kill them, kill Me instead!" Is this the idea?" (quote from Tom)
No, of course the idea is not that. When I say God, I mean the Godhead. The Godhead was offended by man’s sin, thus the wrath of the Godhead came upon man because of sin. Because God [the three persons] is just, He had to manifest His wrath against sin, which would kill man; but because He is merciful, he wished to forgive and spare man. This dilemma was resolved because one of the members of the Godhead proposed to receive in Himself the wrath against sin. Thus the Godhead could punish sin and be enabled to forgive.
T: This presents the picture that man must be saved from God's wrath, and not sin. It also presents the picture that man can be saved from God's wrath by one member of the Godhead exercising His wrath upon another member. How does this solve the real problem, which is sin in the human heart? Also, what was the role of the Holy Spirit? Was He doling out wrath, like the Father, or absorbing it like the Son? (or perhaps He was neutral?)
Also when you say God was enabled to forive man by Christ's sacrifice, do you mean to suggest that before Christ's death God did not forgive sin?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/30/05 04:56 PM
1-
quote:
God's wrath is His giving people over to the result of their sin. The many Bible verses I quote all illustrate this. The destruction of Jerusalem illustrates this.
There are many Bible verses and SOP quotes which clearly show God’s wrath as an active intervention of God, but these you refuse to consider or to discuss.
When Christ drove out the money-changers from the temple, He was not giving them over to the result of their sin. He was actively showing His wrath, in a way very similar to what will happen at the day of judgment. These quotes are taken from DA chap. 16:
“As He beholds the scene, indignation, authority, and power are expressed in His countenance.”
“With a zeal and severity He has never before manifested, He overthrows the tables of the money-changers.”
“Even the disciples tremble. They are awestruck by the words and
manner of Jesus, so unlike His usual demeanor.”
And this quote is from DA chap. 65, “The Temple Cleansed Again”:
“The displeasure of His countenance seemed like consuming fire.”
Consider this experience of Ellen White:
“I did not realize that I was unfaithful in thus questioning and doubting, and did not see the danger and sin of such a course, until in vision I was taken into the presence of Jesus. He looked upon me with a frown, and turned His face from me. It is not possible to describe the terror and agony I then felt. I fell upon my face before Him, but had no power to utter a word. Oh, how I longed to be covered and hid from that dreadful frown! Then could I realize, in some degree, what the feelings of the lost will be...” {CET 79}
Of course God does not treat the righteous and the wicked in exactly the same way. It is the severity and displeasure of God’s countenance which will cause the anguish of the wicked. But this is not in vengeance. The severity which God manifests is against sin. When God looks at the wicked, He sees sin, and cannot but manifest displeasure towards it. On the other hand, when God looks at the righteous, He sees His holiness reflected in them, and cannot but manifest pleasure towards it. His character, however, is the same in both cases.
2- quote:
How is it that God assumed the character of Judge? By permitting "His Son to be delivered up for our offenses"!
How is it that God assumed the character of a judge? Divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.
3- quote:
My point was that if the only reason the wicked die is because God kills them, and is not related to sin itself (i.e. to a law, or principle, that sin causes death), then that is arbitrary
Tom, the wicked die because of their sin, in the same way that a criminal condemned to death dies because of his crime.
4- I see no difference between extermination, destruction, eradication and extinction. It’s all the same to me.
5- quote:
The context of the statement that God should not be looked at as an executioner is given in the statement in which it is found...
The point is: What does the phrase “God is not an executioner” mean? It certainly does not mean that God does not executes judgment against the transgressors of His law.
6- quote:
God treats the wicked as if they were righteous
Physical blessings have nothing to do with spiritual status. God "makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45), but this is light-years away from saying that God declared the wicked righteous in the heavenly tribunal, which is the meaning of “legal justification”.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/30/05 05:05 PM
quote:
This presents the picture that man must be saved from God's wrath
Isn’t this what the Bible says?
Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
quote:
and not sin.
It is from both.
quote:
It also presents the picture that man can be saved from God's wrath by one member of the Godhead exercising His wrath upon another member.
Man can be saved from God’s wrath because man’s sin was heaped upon a Substitute and God’s wrath against man’s sin fell upon this Substitute.
quote:
How does this solve the real problem, which is sin in the human heart?
There are two problems involved here, not just one. Man must be saved from the power of sin and from the punishment for sin.
quote:
Also, what was the role of the Holy Spirit? Was He doling out wrath, like the Father, or absorbing it like the Son? (or perhaps He was neutral?)
Why to speculate? What we do know is that it was God the Father who assumed the role of Judge at the cross.
quote:
Also when you say God was enabled to forive man by Christ's sacrifice, do you mean to suggest that before Christ's death God did not forgive sin?
Tom, we have already discussed this at length and reached no agreement, so I don’t want to go all over it again. But, speaking of man’s sin, what happened at the cross was that
“Through him [Chirst] mercy was enabled to deal justly in punishing the transgressor of the law, and justice was enabled to forgive without losing its dignity or purity.” {ST, June 18, 1896 par. 2}
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/31/05 01:58 AM
Roseangela:
Could you address Daryl's comment from a few days ago about the hardening of Pharoah's heart being written as if God did it? And the apparent contridiction about Saul's suicide or God's murdering him?
Also my questions of several days ago got buried:
Where did the Israelites get weapons in the wilderness? Was this a miracle from God in order for them to slay their enemies?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/31/05 03:05 PM
Ikan,
The Bible sometimes pictures God as doing that which He permits, but you will notice that the Bible itself makes the subject clear in parallel passages. Besides, we have perfect enlightenment about these incidents through the SOP. And Ellen White shows in clear words when God behaved passively and when He behaved actively. We have only to pay attention to what she says.
Where the israelites got their weapons we don’t know; some speculate they picked up some of the weapons of the Egyptian army that the waves brought to shore. But what exactly is your point here?
Speaking about the Egyptian army, this brings another point for discussion. Who killed them?
“Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.’ So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled into it, and the LORD routed the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained.”
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/01/05 06:42 AM
quote:
The Bible sometimes pictures God as doing that which He permits, but you will notice that the Bible itself makes the subject clear in parallel passages.
Most of the time the Bible doesn't have parallel passages. Does the principle apply if the parallel passages don't exist? Or do we assume the principle doesn't apply unless we see a parallel passage?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/31/05 07:42 PM
Old Tom:God's wrath is His giving people over to the result of their sin. The many Bible verses I quote all illustrate this. The destruction of Jerusalem illustrates this.
R: There are many Bible verses and SOP quotes which clearly show God’s wrath as an active intervention of God, but these you refuse to consider or to discuss.
T: I have been considering and discussing them throughout. There are two types of statements, both in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy, and it seems to me three ways to attempt to reconcile them. One set of statements presents sin as the enemy which destroys, and God's wrath as giving people over to that power. Another set of statements presents God as the One who destroys, and God's wrath as His employing that destructive power. The way ways of dealing with these are:
1) Interpret the former in terms of the latter. This appears to me to be what Mike does. That is, all the statements really mean that God is destroying, but some of them *appear* to make God passive. But in reality, God is always active.
2) Interpret both as true. Sin destroys, and God destroys. Sometimes one, and sometimes the other. This is your approach.
3) Interpret the latter in terms of the former. God's wrath is always God's giving sinners over to the result of their choice, even though it may *appear* that God is active in their destruction.
I should reiterate, for the sake of clarity, that we have been discussing the destruction of the wicked in the judgment. The Spirit of Prophesy spends a whole chapter explaining how the wrath of God was His giving Jerusalem over to the result of their choice. She explicitly states that this: "Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of His mouth and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire.
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....
Let men beware lest they neglect the lesson conveyed to them in the words of Christ. As He warned His disciples of Jerusalem's destruction, giving them a sign of the approaching ruin, that they might make their escape; so He has warned the world of the day of final destruction and has given them tokens of its approach, that all who will may flee from the wrath to come. (GC 36, 37)
According the Spirit of Prophesy, there is no better example to understand the destruction of the wicked than the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the most decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin ever given. Yet what was it? How was God's wrath poured out?
quote:
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)
R: When Christ drove out the money-changers from the temple, He was not giving them over to the result of their sin. He was actively showing His wrath, in a way very similar to what will happen at the day of judgment. These quotes are taken from DA chap. 16:
“As He beholds the scene, indignation, authority, and power are expressed in His countenance.”
“With a zeal and severity He has never before manifested, He overthrows the tables of the money-changers.”
“Even the disciples tremble. They are awestruck by the words and
manner of Jesus, so unlike His usual demeanor.”
And this quote is from DA chap. 65, “The Temple Cleansed Again”:
“The displeasure of His countenance seemed like consuming fire.”
T: She writes this of the same event:
"Overpowered with terror, the priests and rulers had fled from the temple court, and from the searching glance that read their hearts. In their flight they met others on their way to the temple, and bade them turn back, telling them what they had seen and heard. Christ looked upon the fleeing men with yearning pity for their fear, and their ignorance of what constituted true worship. In this scene He saw symbolized the dispersion of the whole Jewish nation for their wickedness and impenitence. (DA 162)"
The underlined portion makes two points. First of all, Christ looked at the fleeing men with "pity." This gives an idea as to what is in the heart of God as He executes judgement. He was in pity for their fear.
What is it that caused them to fear? It was the same thing that caused Adam and Eve to run an hide. Their sin brought self-condemnation upon them ("I was naked") and caused them to view God in a false light ("I was afraid").
This also describes the scene:
quote:
Three years before, the rulers of the temple had been ashamed of their flight before the command of Jesus. They had since wondered at their own fears, and their unquestioning obedience to a single humble
Man. They had felt that it was impossible for their undignified surrender to be repeated. Yet they were now more terrified than before, and in greater haste to obey His command. There were none who dared question His authority. Priests and traders fled from His presence, driving their cattle before them....
Upon entering, they stood transfixed before the wonderful scene. They saw the sick healed, the blind restored to sight, and deaf receive their hearing, and the crippled leap for joy. The children were foremost in the rejoicing. Jesus had healed their maladies; He had clasped them in His arms, received their kisses of grateful affection, and some of them had fallen asleep upon His breast as He was teaching the people. (DA 591, 592)
Note that not everybody left the presence of Christ. While the guilty couldn't get away fast enough, those needing healing, and children(!) approached Him.
R:
Consider this experience of Ellen White:
“I did not realize that I was unfaithful in thus questioning and doubting, and did not see the danger and sin of such a course, until in vision I was taken into the presence of Jesus. He looked upon me with a frown, and turned His face from me. It is not possible to describe the terror and agony I then felt. I fell upon my face before Him, but had no power to utter a word. Oh, how I longed to be covered and hid from that dreadful frown! Then could I realize, in some degree, what the feelings of the lost will be...” {CET 79}
Tom: This describes the effects of sin. There is no doubt that those who refuse God's grace will experience terror when they come face to face with God. What is the cause of that terror? It is due to the effect of sin. "Who can dwell with the everlasting burnings?" God is perfect in holiness, and is a consuming fire to sin wherever it is found.
R:
Of course God does not treat the righteous and the wicked in exactly the same way.
T: He is infinitely good to both. That was my point.
R:
It is the severity and displeasure of God’s countenance which will cause the anguish of the wicked. But this is not in vengeance. The severity which God manifests is against sin. When God looks at the wicked, He sees sin, and cannot but manifest displeasure towards it. On the other hand, when God looks at the righteous, He sees His holiness reflected in them, and cannot but manifest pleasure towards it. His character, however, is the same in both cases.
T: When He looks at His children, He sees an individual. The individual may be in need of healing, or may have already been healed, but in whichever case He has infinitely love and compassion for them.
R:
2-
Old Tom: How is it that God assumed the character of Judge? By permitting "His Son to be delivered up for our offenses"!
R: How is it that God assumed the character of a judge? Divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.
Tom: This is how God is *perceived* by those who are experiencing the effects of sin. But God does not cease to be our Father! He continues to loves us infinitely, and the loss of any of us causes Him immeasurable pain and loss.
quote:
It is Satan's work to fill men's hearts with doubt. He leads them to look upon God as a stern judge. (DA 356)
Nothing can hurt your own soul more than to entertain such thoughts of our heavenly Father. Our whole spiritual life will catch a tone of hopelessness from such conceptions of God. They discourage all effort to seek God or to serve Him. We must not think of God only as a judge ready to pronounce sentence against us. He hates sin; but from love to sinners He gave Himself, in the person of Christ, that all who would might be saved and have eternal blessedness in the kingdom of glory. (5T 633)
R:
3-
Old Tom:My point was that if the only reason the wicked die is because God kills them, and is not related to sin itself (i.e. to a law, or principle, that sin causes death), then that is arbitrary.
R: Tom, the wicked die because of their sin, in the same way that a criminal condemned to death dies because of his crime.
T: No, it's very different. The law of God is everywhere, and the presence of God is everywhere. It requires the grace of God to allow any of us to even physically exist during our temporal lives here. In the judgement, this grace will not be continued, and those who have rejected God's grace will stand face to face before God without a mediator.
R:
4- I see no difference between extermination, destruction, eradication and extinction. It’s all the same to me.
T: It is the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, which causes the destruction of the wicked. Destruction is a more general term than extermination. If I drop a glass, for example, that can lead to its destruction, but I would hardly say that I exterminated the glass.
R:
5-
Old Tom:The context of the statement that God should not be looked at as an executioner is given in the statement in which it is found...
R:
The point is: What does the phrase “God is not an executioner” mean? It certainly does not mean that God does not executes judgment against the transgressors of His law.
Tom: As I pointed out, the context of the statement can be found in the quote itself. I quoted it. Here it is again:
quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. 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 rejectors 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. (GC 36)
There is no doubt that God is executing judgment, but how does He do so? He "leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown." The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner.
R:
6-
Old Tom:God treats the wicked as if they were righteous.
R:
Physical blessings have nothing to do with spiritual status. God "makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45), but this is light-years away from saying that God declared the wicked righteous in the heavenly tribunal, which is the meaning of “legal justification”.
T: You are ascribing language to me which I have not used. I have quoted from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy. I'll repeat:
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.(1 SM 343)
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. The cross of Calvary is stamped on every loaf. It is reflected in every water spring. All this Christ has taught in appointing the emblems of His great sacrifice.(DA 660)
The point in these passages is that even the unrighteous owe their physical existence to the death of Christ. So His sacrifice actually benefits them, if they choose to reject His grace. I have quoted a number of Scripture texts which present the same theme (Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14, 19; 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim. 4:10; Isa. 44:22 are a couple that come to mind).
The phrases I have heard to describe this concept are "legal justification" "corporate justification" and "temporary universal justification". If you don't like these phrases, that's fine, you can invent your own. But the important point is the concept that the sacrifice of Christ actually benefits all, whether they accept Him as their personal savior or not. Every person lives physically because of Christ's work; He "restored the whole race of men to favor with God."
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/01/05 04:37 AM
Very clear Tom, thank you, especially for this part (please pay attention R.
1) Interpret the former in terms of the latter. This appears to me to be what Mike does. That is, all the statements really mean that God is destroying, but some of them *appear* to make God passive. But in reality, God is always active.
2) Interpret both as true. Sin destroys, and God destroys. Sometimes one, and sometimes the other. This is your approach.
3) Interpret the latter in terms of the former. God's wrath is always God's giving sinners over to the result of their choice, even though it may *appear* that God is active in their destruction.The #3 stance is mine as well, and the angry defense by some Christians (not you Roseangela: you've been quite civil and objective, on the whole)of a bloody Creator's portrayal once He gets ticked off enough only proves that we become what we invision God to be like. Angry Leader=angry followers. Note the record of the 1260 year Roman Church and how they treated their fellow men because they saw God as a they saw earthly kings and popes.
I for one do not believe in the bi-polar God, one who breaks His own Commandments because He could.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/01/05 05:33 PM
quote:
Interpret both as true. Sin destroys, and God destroys. Sometimes one, and sometimes the other. This is your approach.
I wouldn’t describe it this way. I would say that sin is always the cause, and destruction always the consequence. Besides, destruction is always the own choice of those involved. This destruction, however, may be either caused or permitted by God.
quote:
According the Spirit of Prophesy, there is no better example to understand the destruction of the wicked than the destruction of Jerusalem.
If you read the whole chapter, you will see that Ellen White is comparing the destruction of Jerusalem with the results of sin that the wicked reap on this earth for having yielded to Satan’s control.
“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.” {GC 36.1}
She mentions the “tumults, conflicts, and revolutions”, then mentions the day when the “Spirit of God shall be wholly withdrawn from the wicked”, and ends with the second coming. She doesn’t speak of the Day of judgment. As to this Day, however, she says:
“It is a fearful thing for the unrepenting sinner to fall into the hands of the living God. This is proved by the history of the destruction of the old world by a flood, by the record of the fire which fell from heaven and destroyed the inhabitants of Sodom. But never was this proved to so great an extent as in the agony of Christ, . . . when He bore the wrath of God for a sinful world.” {TMK 64}
quote:
Christ looked at the fleeing men with "pity."
Yes, God’s hatred is for sin, not for sinners, but it is this hatred for sin which kills sinners.
quote:
When He looks at His children, He sees an individual. The individual may be in need of healing, or may have already been healed, but in whichever case He has infinitely love and compassion for them.
At the Day of judgment God will manifest His displeasure and hatred toward sin, although His causing the death of His creatures may be extremely painful to Him - that’s why it is called a “strange work”.
quote:
We must not think of God only as a judge ready to pronounce sentence against us. He hates sin; but from love to sinners He gave Himself, in the person of Christ, that all who would might be saved and have eternal blessedness in the kingdom of glory. (5T 633)
Please notice the word “only” in the quotation you provided. At present the most prominent characteristics of God are those of a Father of infinite compassion, but after the close of probation, His most prominent characteristics will be those of a Judge:
“[Christ] is soon to cease his work in the heavenly sanctuary. Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. He for whom his people have looked will assume his right,--the office of Supreme Judge.” {RH, January 1, 1889 par. 1}
“The same voice that with patient, loving entreaty invites the sinner to come to Him and find pardon and peace, will in the judgment bid the rejecters of His mercy, ‘Depart from Me, ye cursed.’ Matthew 25:41. In all the Bible, God is represented not only as a tender father but as a righteous judge. Though He delights in showing mercy, and ‘forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,’ yet He ‘will by no means clear the guilty.’ Exodus 34:7.” {PP 469.2}
quote:
The phrases I have heard to describe this concept are "legal justification" "corporate justification" and "temporary universal justification". If you don't like these phrases, that's fine, you can invent your own. But the important point is the concept that the sacrifice of Christ actually benefits all, whether they accept Him as their personal savior or not. Every person lives physically because of Christ's work; He "restored the whole race of men to favor with God."
It’s not that I don’t like the phrases; it’s that I don’t agree with the concept. The race was subject to God’s wrath in Adam, but is restored to God’s favor in Christ. However, our relationship with Adam is physical, while our relationship with Christ is spiritual. Christ’s sacrifice made provision for a time of probation for man during which he could return to his allegiance to God. This was necessary for the accomplishment of the plan of salvation, and that’s the only reason why all are benefited by it.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/01/05 07:18 PM
Old Tom:Interpret both as true. Sin destroys, and God destroys. Sometimes one, and sometimes the other. This is your approach.
R: I wouldn’t describe it this way. I would say that sin is always the cause, and destruction always the consequence. Besides, destruction is always the own choice of those involved. This destruction, however, may be either caused or permitted by God.
T: Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your approach would be that sometimes sin is the cause of destruction, and sometimes God is the cause of destruction. That would be a better way of putting it than sin destroys or God destroys. Is that right? This seems to me to be saying the same thing, but if you see a distinction, I'll be glad to use your wording.
Old Tom: According the Spirit of Prophesy, there is no better example to understand the destruction of the wicked than the destruction of Jerusalem.
R: If you read the whole chapter, you will see that Ellen White is comparing the destruction of Jerusalem with the results of sin that the wicked reap on this earth for having yielded to Satan’s control.
T: I don't think the distinction you can make is viable. First of all, you will see that she speaks of the same principles that the closing paragraphs of "It Is Finished" uses of, which is dealing with the judgement of the wicked. For example, she writes:
"By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire. (GC 37)"
In DA 764 she writes: "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. (DA 764)"
This is saying the same thing. Secondly she writes, "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 (GC 36)."
She is describing a principle which applies to "all." This can only have the final judgement in mind, as on this earth "all" do not receive the results of their sin. Not even close. It's only at the judgement that the retribution of sin occurs.
R:
“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.” {GC 36.1}
She mentions the “tumults, conflicts, and revolutions”, then mentions the day when the “Spirit of God shall be wholly withdrawn from the wicked”, and ends with the second coming. She doesn’t speak of the Day of judgment. As to this Day, however, she says:
“It is a fearful thing for the unrepenting sinner to fall into the hands of the living God. This is proved by the history of the destruction of the old world by a flood, by the record of the fire which fell from heaven and destroyed the inhabitants of Sodom. But never was this proved to so great an extent as in the agony of Christ, . . . when He bore the wrath of God for a sinful world.” {TMK 64}
Old Tom: Christ looked at the fleeing men with "pity."
R: Yes, God’s hatred is for sin, not for sinners, but it is this hatred for sin which kills sinners.
T: My point here is that God's disposition towards the wicked does not change. He would save them if He could. He has no anger or hatred towards them. He hates their sin because it kills them.
The Spirit of Prophesy says it is the "light of the glory of God" which destroys the wicked, the same thing which gives life to the righteous. I understand that to mean "the truth of God's character" or "the truth of God's goodness." That light is truth seems clear enough to me, and that God's glory is His goodness, His character, is made clear by God Himself who responded to Moses' request for God to display His glory by making His goodness to pass before Moses and by proclaiming His character. It's also worth noting that it is the same thing which gives life to the righteous which slays the wicked. This point is very important. God's hatred of sin does not give life to the righteous.
Old Tom: When He looks at His children, He sees an individual. The individual may be in need of healing, or may have already been healed, but in whichever case He has infinitely love and compassion for them.
R: At the Day of judgment God will manifest His displeasure and hatred toward sin, although His causing the death of His creatures may be extremely painful to Him - that’s why it is called a “strange work”.
T: I'm glad we agree that it's painful to Him. Before you expressed the thought that it was God's glory which caused the fire which caused the death of the wicked. I assume you still think that way. So if we agree that God's glory is His goodness -- His character -- then we have common ground.
Regarding the principle of the lethality of sin, sin is based on the principle of selfishness. Selfishness kills, because it leads one to separate oneself from God, who alone is the source of life. "God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life" (DA 764) . This is dealing with the destruction of the wicked.
This principle makes perfect sense. To reject God and choose self only is to choose death, because life comes only from God. It would be like someone who is scuba diving deciding to cut off the lines of support which tie him to the air above.
Old Tom: We must not think of God only as a judge ready to pronounce sentence against us. He hates sin; but from love to sinners He gave Himself, in the person of Christ, that all who would might be saved and have eternal blessedness in the kingdom of glory. (5T 633)
R: Please notice the word “only” in the quotation you provided. At present the most prominent characteristics of God are those of a Father of infinite compassion, but after the close of probation, His most prominent characteristics will be those of a Judge:
T: That is how He will be perceived by those who have rejected His grace. Sin causes us to view God in an unflattering way. However, His true character remains unchanged. He cannot save the sinner, and He cries out in love, "How can I give you up?!" But He has no choice. He must respect the choice of His children, even if it breaks His heart.
The "only" seems to me to be saying "primarily." That is, the point of the paragraph I quoted was not to have some way to be able justifiably view God as a judge, but to point out the danger in viewing Him primarily as judge rather than as Father. If we view God in a way which causes us to be afraid of Him, rather than love Him, terrible things result, as the death of Christ shows.
“[Christ] is soon to cease his work in the heavenly sanctuary. Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. He for whom his people have looked will assume his right,--the office of Supreme Judge.” {RH, January 1, 1889 par. 1}
“The same voice that with patient, loving entreaty invites the sinner to come to Him and find pardon and peace, will in the judgment bid the rejecters of His mercy, ‘Depart from Me, ye cursed.’ Matthew 25:41. In all the Bible, God is represented not only as a tender father but as a righteous judge. Though He delights in showing mercy, and ‘forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,’ yet He ‘will by no means clear the guilty.’ Exodus 34:7.” {PP 469.2}
Old Tom: The phrases I have heard to describe this concept are "legal justification" "corporate justification" and "temporary universal justification". If you don't like these phrases, that's fine, you can invent your own. But the important point is the concept that the sacrifice of Christ actually benefits all, whether they accept Him as their personal savior or not. Every person lives physically because of Christ's work; He "restored the whole race of men to favor with God."
R: It’s not that I don’t like the phrases; it’s that I don’t agree with the concept. The race was subject to God’s wrath in Adam, but is restored to God’s favor in Christ. However, our relationship with Adam is physical, while our relationship with Christ is spiritual. Christ’s sacrifice made provision for a time of probation for man during which he could return to his allegiance to God. This was necessary for the accomplishment of the plan of salvation, and that’s the only reason why all are benefited by it.
T: I was dealing with the physical. The point of the concept is that we owe our physical lives to the death of Christ. That's what "corporate justification" is saying. The cross of Christ benefits all because all are alive physically because of His death.
It's not clear at all to me what you are disagreeing with. You seem to be repeating the same thing I'm saying. Is there anything in the above paragraph (the one right above this one) that you disagree with?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 06:48 AM
quote:
T: Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your approach would be that sometimes sin is the cause of destruction, and sometimes God is the cause of destruction. That would be a better way of putting it than sin destroys or God destroys. Is that right?
No.
What causes the destruction? In all cases, sin.
Who accomplishes the destruction?
1- God or His agents; or
2- Satan or his agents, when God permits
quote:
I don't think the distinction you can make is viable.
Tom, I do think it is viable. Why would she mention two different things as examples of the same event (the day of judgment) and refer to both in such absolute terms as “never”?
quote:
She is describing a principle which applies to "all." This can only have the final judgement in mind, as on this earth "all" do not receive the results of their sin. Not even close. It's only at the judgement that the retribution of sin occurs.
She mentions the destruction of Jerusalem as an example of what will happen to all who yield to Satan’s control. She says:
“Dark are the records of human misery that earth has witnessed during its long centuries of crime.... Terrible have been the results of rejecting the authority of Heaven. But a scene yet darker is presented in the revelations of the future.”
But what are these revelations?
“What are these [the records of the past], in contrast with the terrors of that day when the restraining Spirit of God shall be wholly withdrawn from the wicked, no longer to hold in check the outburst of human passion and satanic wrath! The world will then behold, as never before, the results of Satan's rule.
“But in that day, as in the time of Jerusalem's destruction, God's people will be delivered...” {GC 36}
And then she ends with the manifestation of God’s glory at the second coming of Christ. She doesn’t go beyond that. It is true that at both the second coming and the judgment day God will manifest His glory, but she is referring to the former here, and not to the latter.
quote:
My point here is that God's disposition towards the wicked does not change. He would save them if He could. He has no anger or hatred towards them.
Yes, of course. But He shows His disapproval of their sin, and He can’t show this with a sweet smile in His face. Jesus didn’t smile while He was rebuking the money-changers, but of course He smiled when the children who were entering the temple approached Him.
quote:
The point of the concept is that we owe our physical lives to the death of Christ. That's what "corporate justification" is saying.
“Corporate justification” and “legal justification” are terms used by Wieland, Sequeira and others, to express the concept that everyone is legally saved until they have "chosen to resist the saving grace of God." Is this what you believe?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/02/05 07:18 PM
Old Tom: Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your approach would be that sometimes sin is the cause of destruction, and sometimes God is the cause of destruction. That would be a better way of putting it than sin destroys or God destroys. Is that right?
R: No.
What causes the destruction? In all cases, sin.
Who accomplishes the destruction?
1- God or His agents; or
2- Satan or his agents, when God permits
T: This seems to be saying in no case sin causes destruction. Either Satan and his agents, when God permits, causes destruction, or God does. Sin doesn't cause destruction, but is simply a criterion based on which God chooses to destroy, either Himself personally, or through an agent.
Old Tom:I don't think the distinction you can make is viable.
R: Tom, I do think it is viable. Why would she mention two different things as examples of the same event (the day of judgment) and refer to both in such absolute terms as “never”?
T: That wasn't the distinction I was talking about. I was talking about distinguishing between sin destroying and sin causing destruction. It's a moot point anyway, as you've explained your thought.
Old Tom:She is describing a principle which applies to "all." This can only have the final judgement in mind, as on this earth "all" do not receive the results of their sin. Not even close. It's only at the judgement that the retribution of sin occurs.
R: She mentions the destruction of Jerusalem as an example of what will happen to all who yield to Satan’s control. She says:
“Dark are the records of human misery that earth has witnessed during its long centuries of crime.... Terrible have been the results of rejecting the authority of Heaven. But a scene yet darker is presented in the revelations of the future.”
But what are these revelations?
“What are these [the records of the past], in contrast with the terrors of that day when the restraining Spirit of God shall be wholly withdrawn from the wicked, no longer to hold in check the outburst of human passion and satanic wrath! The world will then behold, as never before, the results of Satan's rule.
“But in that day, as in the time of Jerusalem's destruction, God's people will be delivered...” {GC 36}
And then she ends with the manifestation of God’s glory at the second coming of Christ. She doesn’t go beyond that. It is true that at both the second coming and the judgment day God will manifest His glory, but she is referring to the former here, and not to the latter.
T: Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable. Most of the wicked, in this life, get away with their wickedness. The destruction of Jerusalem is hardely a decisive testimony of the destruction of "all" if the even she is referring to is only applicable to some minuscule percentage of the wicked who have ever lived.
Old Tom:My point here is that God's disposition towards the wicked does not change. He would save them if He could. He has no anger or hatred towards them.
R: Yes, of course. But He shows His disapproval of their sin, and He can’t show this with a sweet smile in His face.
T: Of course not. If you had a child who was addicted to heroine, would you meet heroine with a smile on your face? God has always been aware of what a hideous thing sin is, and hates it with a perfect hatred. Sin results in pain, misery, suffering and death for His children. Of course He disapproves of it.
R: Jesus didn’t smile while He was rebuking the money-changers, but of course He smiled when the children who were entering the temple approached Him.
T: Jesus felt pity for the money-changers, the same as for the children who approached them. He loved both classes of people, and was good to both. The same offer of healing applied to both. He wanted to heal the money-changers as well as the children, but they ran away. If they would humble themselves as the children did, he would have healed them too. He is not a respector of persons.
Old Tom:The point of the concept is that we owe our physical lives to the death of Christ. That's what "corporate justification" is saying.
R: “Corporate justification” and “legal justification” are terms used by Wieland, Sequeira and others, to express the concept that everyone is legally saved until they have "chosen to resist the saving grace of God." Is this what you believe?
T: I believe that Christ restored the whole race of men (i.e. everyone) to favor with God by His wonderful work in giving His life. I believe that to the death of Christ we (i.e. everyone) owe even our earthly life. This means the death of Christ is effective, at least to the extent of providing physical life, for everyone.
I have done extensive research on this subject, and the first to use the term "justification" in the sense I am speaking of that I have been able to discover was W. W. Prescott in 1895. The concept was also clearly enunciated by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, which is where Wieland and others got it from.
The first person who spoke of the theme I have been able to discover was Ellen G. White. Well, I should say, the first person since Biblical times. Ellen G. White, Prescott, Jones and Waggoner got the idea from the Bible, of course.
It wouldn't surprise me of some non-SDA expressed the thought before Ellen White did, but I wasn't able to come across anyone, although the thoughts of some of the fathers (such as Gregory of Nazarene) certainly tend in that direction.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 02:20 PM
quote:
T: This seems to be saying in no case sin causes destruction. Either Satan and his agents, when God permits, causes destruction, or God does. Sin doesn't cause destruction, but is simply a criterion based on which God chooses to destroy, either Himself personally, or through an agent.
Correction: God does not choose to destroy, He is forced to destroy, for the good and safety of His creatures.
Now, in your position it is also impossible for you to defend that sin destroys in all cases, since in the destruction of Jerusalem, sin was the cause, but it was Satan’s agents (pagan nations) who accomplished the destruction, isn’t it?
quote:
Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable.
I would have nothing against the destruction of Jerusalem as a symbol of the Day of judgment, since several episodes are mentioned as examples of that Day. However, this doesn’t seem to me to be the case because EGW refers to two things in absolute terms; how could they apply to the same event? Now choose the correct alternative: Never was there given a better example of what will happen at the Day of Judgment as:
a) In the destruction of Jerusalem
b) In the agony of Christ on the cross
“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.” {GC 36.1}
“It is a fearful thing for the unrepenting sinner to fall into the hands of the living God. ... Never was this proved to so great an extent as in the agony of Christ, . . . when He bore the wrath of God for a sinful world.” {TMK 64}
quote:
T: Jesus felt pity for the money-changers, the same as for the children who approached them.
The point is that though He felt pity for those miserable creatures, Jesus made clear through His look, through His countenance and through His demeanor that He was displeased with their sin. This made them feel terrorized.
quote:
The concept was also clearly enunciated by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, which is where Wieland and others got it from.
If you agree with Wieland, then we certainly don’t agree. The physical benefits Christ secured for humanity through the cross can in no way be expressed by the term “justification”. Using the term “justification” in this case would be twisting the term. Now, the point is that Wieland doesn’t use the term “corporate justification” just for physical benefits, but for spiritual status. And again, Ellen White says that the whole race of men was restored to God’s favor in Christ, and of course not all men are in Christ.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 02:39 PM
This is a reply from the thread "Salvation of the Wicked".
Tom,
Saying that Jesus delivers us from
our own wrath
to come (1 Thess. 1:10), that we
will be saved from
our own wrath (Rom. 5:9), that we must
flee from
our own wrath to come (Matt. 3:7) does not make any sense at all. You shouldn’t be so influenced by Waggoner’s views. Who said God is angry with sinners? God is antipathetic to sin.
The subject is very simple. God has been restraining His wrath against sin for a long time, but He has set a Day when He will finally manifest this wrath. On that Day, everybody who is in sin will be lost and meet destruction. But, by His own grace, by accepting His sacrifice, we may flee from this wrath, be saved from this wrath which will fall upon the world; for being saved from sin means, among other things, being saved from the just wrath of God against sin.
“May the converting power of God come upon the churches, that they may feel a burden for souls, for the souls for whom Christ died, and
seek to save them before the day of God's wrath breaks over the world.” {SW, February 12, 1907 par. 10}
“That Lamb whose wrath will be so terrible to the scorners of His grace will be grace and righteousness and love and blessing to all who have received Him. The pillar of cloud that was dark with terror and avenging wrath to the Egyptians, was to the people of God a pillar of fire for brightness. So will it be to the Lord's people in these last days. The light and glory of God to His commandment-keeping people are darkness to the unbelieving. They see that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. The arm, long stretched, strong to save all who come unto Him, is strong to execute His judgment upon all who would not come unto Him that they might have life. God grant that while mercy still lingers, while the voice of invitation is still heard, there will be a turning unto the Lord.
The sure provision has been made to shelter every soul and shield those who have kept His commandments until the indignation be overpast.” {TMK 356.4}
“I was then pointed to the flattering things taught by some of these transgressors of God's law. I was shown a bright light, given by God to guide all who would walk in the way of salvation, and also to serve as
a warning to the sinner to flee from the wrath of God, and yield a willing obedience to his claims.” {2SG 275, 276}
quote:
God intervenes in the case of Satan by not manifesting His glory to him, because to do so would result in his death. God does manifest His glory to the holy angels, and this is life to them.
In this sense, I agree.
quote:
Yes, and a number of your posts seem to indicate that you believe that angels have immortality of themselves. You wrote something like God created angels so that they live forever. Phil Blanc has noticed and commented on the same thing.
Tom and Ikan,
The following text also could bring additional light about Luke 20:36:
“Man was to be tested and proved, and if he should bear the test of God, and remain loyal and true after the first trial, he was not to be beset with continual temptations; but was to be exalted equal with the angels, and henceforth immortal.”--RH Feb. 24, 1874. {TA 50.1}
Although in a sense it is true that God keeps our hearts beating, and the stars in their orbits, our own experience shows us that many of these processes are automatized. For instance, in a sense it is true that God brings every human being to existence, but how does He do it? He implanted the principle of life in the human cells, therefore the process of reproduction is automatized. Thus, there is a potential human being in a frozen embryo in a laboratory, and any individual may be cloned; and if a human being is born with a physical or mental handicap, this does not mean that God has specifically chosen a given defective cell to be joined to another to form that human being. Therefore, God created man to perpetuate his immortality by partaking of the tree of life, and failing to partake of that tree led man to deteriorated health and temporal death. This is not true of angels, however; their life doesn’t depend on anything, but directly on God. Thus, they are immortal _ until God chooses to remove their lives.
Additionally, Ellen White says that it was by His death that Christ secured Satan’s death and brought Satan under the dominion of death:
“Satan is the author of death. What did Christ do after He brought Satan under the dominion of death? The very last words of Christ while expiring on the cross were, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The devil saw that he had overdone himself. Christ by dying accomplished the death of Satan and brought immortality to light.” {FW 73.4}
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 05:09 PM
"Equal" as mentioned by Sister White also mean "like the angels", by the same conditions angels have eternal life, voluntary submission to His will, which is the Law.
So you mean,Roseangela that neither good angels nor bad angels have unlimited lifespans, as good ones rely on God's mercy through their obedience, and evil ones have nothing but death facing them , right?
Sorry but your philosophy about "automatized life" is very much the definition of Deism: "{The belief}that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning" Webster's New World Dictionary 1998
(By the way: there are no human clones as of yet, unless you trust the Raelian cult's claims! By "individuals" did you mean Dolly the sheep??)
I wonder what you mean by "temporal death"? Adventists do believe in death of body is death of spirit, or am I in the wrong classroom?
Although I dislike studying or quoting from popular compilations of God's Messenger, your quote of {TA 50.1} just happens to be below a relative one:
The law of God existed before man was created. It was adapted to the condition of holy beings; even angels were governed by it.--ST April 15, 1886. {TA 49.5}
Did Satan and his angel sympathizers break the Law? Yes!
Does that mean they sinned? Yes!
Did they reap tangible physical results? Yes; they were banished from heaven, made homeless and vagrants from their heavenly homes...forever.
Did they die, or did death become their future "wages"? Yes, their future destinies, guaranteed but yet to be actualized. "In chains.." as the Word calls it.
So angels DO NOT have eternal life under disobediant circumstances; neither does man. All depends on who is your master, Satan and his seed, sin, or Christ and His seed, His right-doingness.
"By this law, which governs angels, which demands purity in the most secret thoughts, desires, and dispositions, and which "shall stand fast forever..."{ST, April 15, 1886 par. 15}
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 05:13 PM
The law of God existed before man was created. It was adapted to the condition of holy beings; even angels were governed by it.--ST April 15, 1886. {TA 49.5}
In what way was the 10 Commandments "adapted to the condition of holy beings" ?
Does the word "even" mean that she is speaking of others besides the angels?
Who are these beings?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 07:00 PM
quote:
Sorry but your philosophy about "automatized life" is very much the definition of Deism: "{The belief}that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning" Webster's New World Dictionary 1998
Very, very different, Ikan. God created the world and its natural laws, but is interested in His creatures personally, knowing even when a sparrow dies and how many strands of hair you have in your head.
However, do you believe that God goes personally to the laboratory to give life to the spermatozoid and the ovule that are being joined there in a test tube? Besides, Ikan, life is life, whether in an animal, in a plant or in a human being. Does God sanction clonings, giving life personally to the creature being cloned?
Yes, death is the penalty of all those who transgress God’s law. The problem we are discussing is, if God didn’t remove Satan’s life, how would he die? What effect of sin would make him die?
P.S. Temporal death is just a terminology to distinguish it from eternal death.
[edited for grammar correction]
[ June 03, 2005, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Rosangela ]
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 07:04 PM
Old Tom: This seems to be saying in no case sin causes destruction. Either Satan and his agents, when God permits, causes destruction, or God does. Sin doesn't cause destruction, but is simply a criterion based on which God chooses to destroy, either Himself personally, or through an agent.
R: Correction: God does not choose to destroy, He is forced to destroy, for the good and safety of His creatures.
T: This statement looks to have two problems to me. First of all, the idea that God is forced to do anything is problematic. God is God. Everything He does is because He chooses so to do. He is not forced to do anything.
Secondly it implies that there is nothing lethal about sin. God is "forced" to do something, because those who have chosen sin would just go merrily along. But sin is lethal, and would cause death at any moment if God did not act to prevent it from doing so:
quote:
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. (DA 764)
God doesn't allow Satan and his followers to reap the full result of sin until the judgment when they will be destroyed by His glory. Until then, He does not reveal His glory to the wicked, which artificially allows sin to continue so that its principles can be seen. That way when God does allow the full result of sin to occur, no questions will remain, because the principles of sin will have been clearly seen.
R: Now, in your position it is also impossible for you to defend that sin destroys in all cases, since in the destruction of Jerusalem, sin was the cause, but it was Satan’s agents (pagan nations) who accomplished the destruction, isn’t it?
T: We have been discussing just one event, which is the destruction of the wicked. Let's not get sidetracked from that. I brought up the destruction of Jerusalem because it has principles which deal with the destruction of the wicked.
quote:
God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors 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...Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire. (GC 36, 37)
Old Tom:Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable.
R: I would have nothing against the destruction of Jerusalem as a symbol of the Day of judgment, since several episodes are mentioned as examples of that Day. However, this doesn’t seem to me to be the case because EGW refers to two things in absolute terms; how could they apply to the same event? Now choose the correct alternative: Never was there given a better example of what will happen at the Day of Judgment as:
a) In the destruction of Jerusalem
b) In the agony of Christ on the cross
“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.” {GC 36.1}
“It is a fearful thing for the unrepenting sinner to fall into the hands of the living God. ... Never was this proved to so great an extent as in the agony of Christ, . . . when He bore the wrath of God for a sinful world.” {TMK 64}
T: These quotes seem to be making my point. From the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, we learn the principles which will apply to the judgment of the wicked. What happened in the destruction of Jerusalem? Did God actively destroy it? How was God's wrath manifest?
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. (GC 35)
So we see in the destruction of Jerusalem the principle that God's wrath is manifest in His giving those who have chosen sin over to the results of their choice. This principle is also seen on the cross. This is the principle that will apply at the judgment as well. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will destroy the wicked, because by a life of rebellion they have constructed characters which are so out of harmony with God that His presence is to them a consuming fire.
Old Tom: Jesus felt pity for the money-changers, the same as for the children who approached them.
R: The point is that though He felt pity for those miserable creatures, Jesus made clear through His look, through His countenance and through His demeanor that He was displeased with their sin. This made them feel terrorized.
T: It is sin which causes people to feel afraid. This happened to Adam. He ran and hid from God, and when God asked him why, he said he was afraid. But why should he have been afraid of God? That was an irrational fear, but such is how sin plays on the brain. Sin brings self-condemnation and causes us to view God in an unflattering light, as one who would destroy the sinner. This effect of sin is inevitable. There's nothing God can do about it, except as the affected one allows himself to be healed. To all who would respond, Jesus would heal.
Old Tom:The concept was also clearly enunciated by A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, which is where Wieland and others got it from.
R: If you agree with Wieland, then we certainly don’t agree. The physical benefits Christ secured for humanity through the cross can in no way be expressed by the term “justification”.
T: Why not? That's how W. W. Prescott expressed it. This was during a time when Ellen White endorsed his work as strongly as she endorsed anybody's, including Jones and Waggoner.
Paul uses this expression in Romans several times, the clearest of which is perhaps Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." This "justification of life" is speaking of the physical life which Christ bestows upon all. Paul is not talking about justification by faith here because he is speaking of that which applies to all, just as Adam's offense did. Here's how Waggoner comments on this verse:
"There is no exception here. As the condemnation came upon all, so the justification comes upon all. Christ has tasted death for every man. He has given himself for all. Nay, he has given himself to every man. The free gift has come upon all. The fact that it is a free gift is evidence that there is no exception. If it came upon only those who have some special qualification, then it would not be a free gift.
It is a fact, therefore, plainly stated in the Bible, that the gift of righteousness and life in Christ has come to every man on earth. There is not the slightest reason why every man that has ever lived should not be saved unto eternal life, except that they would not have it. So many spurn the gift offered so freely." (http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/aor/rom05.htm)
This is what A. T. Jones said regarding the same verse:
quote:
Therefore, just as far as the first Adam reaches man, so far as the second Adam reaches man. The first Adam brought man under the condemnation of death; the second Adam's unrighteousness undoes that, and makes every man live again. As soon as Adam sinned, God gave him a second chance, and set him free to choose which master he would have. (1895 General Conference Bulliten)
R: Using the term “justification” in this case would be twisting the term.
T: In Romans 5:18 Paul uses the term in exactly this way. W. W. Prescott also used the term exactly this way. Waggoner and Jones, while not using the term, clearly expressed the concept, as shown above. So did Ellen White; "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life" is expressing the same concept as Paul, both in Rom. 5:18 and 2 Cor. 5:14, as well as in other places.
R: Now, the point is that Wieland doesn’t use the term “corporate justification” just for physical benefits, but for spiritual status.
T: Why do you think that? Do you have some quote in mind? I've never seen him express the concept in any other way than Jones, Prescott, Waggoner and EGW used it.
R: And again, Ellen White says that the whole race of men was restored to God’s favor in Christ, and of course not all men are in Christ.
T: She wrote the following:
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)
This is not restricted in any way. In fact, the expression "the whole race of men" makes it as clear as can possibly be made what Christ accomplished includes everyone.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 07:57 PM
R: This is a reply from the thread "Salvation of the Wicked".
Tom,
Saying that Jesus delivers us from our own wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:10), that we will be saved from our own wrath (Rom. 5:9), that we must flee from our own wrath to come (Matt. 3:7) does not make any sense at all.
T: You quoted two texts, 1 Thess. 1:10 and Rom. 5:9 as stating that we are saved from the "wrath of God." I simply pointed out that this is not what the texts say. They speak of "wrath."
I discussed the text in Romans.
R: You shouldn’t be so influenced by Waggoner’s views.
T: Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith was specifically endorced very strongly by E. G. White. She said he understood the subject better than she did. You rely on her writings to a very great degree, so given that is the case, and given she recognized Waggoner as an authority, then why shouldn't I be influenced by what he said?
R:Who said God is angry with sinners? God is antipathetic to sin.
T: No one disagrees with this. This question had to do with how the word "wrath" is being used in Romans. Waggoner's argument is that propitiation has to do with wrath being appeased, but it's not God's wrath. Therefore it must be man's. This was the point being addressed.
R: The subject is very simple. God has been restraining His wrath against sin for a long time, but He has set a Day when He will finally manifest this wrath. On that Day, everybody who is in sin will be lost and meet destruction. But, by His own grace, by accepting His sacrifice, we may flee from this wrath, be saved from this wrath which will fall upon the world; for being saved from sin means, among other things, being saved from the just wrath of God against sin.
T: I don't have any problem with any of the above, but it should be understood that God's wrath is His allowing the wicked to reap that which they have sown. It's not something arbitrary that God does, but is the inevitable result of sin. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, destroys the wicked.
R:“May the converting power of God come upon the churches, that they may feel a burden for souls, for the souls for whom Christ died, and seek to save them before the day of God's wrath breaks over the world.” {SW, February 12, 1907 par. 10}
“That Lamb whose wrath will be so terrible to the scorners of His grace will be grace and righteousness and love and blessing to all who have received Him. The pillar of cloud that was dark with terror and avenging wrath to the Egyptians, was to the people of God a pillar of fire for brightness. So will it be to the Lord's people in these last days. The light and glory of God to His commandment-keeping people are darkness to the unbelieving. They see that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. The arm, long stretched, strong to save all who come unto Him, is strong to execute His judgment upon all who would not come unto Him that they might have life. God grant that while mercy still lingers, while the voice of invitation is still heard, there will be a turning unto the Lord. The sure provision has been made to shelter every soul and shield those who have kept His commandments until the indignation be overpast.” {TMK 356.4}
“I was then pointed to the flattering things taught by some of these transgressors of God's law. I was shown a bright light, given by God to guide all who would walk in the way of salvation, and also to serve as a warning to the sinner to flee from the wrath of God, and yield a willing obedience to his claims.” {2SG 275, 276}
T: These statements should be interpreted in the light of what EGW wrote in "The Destruction of Jersualem," shouldn't they? She wrote:
quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. 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 rejectors 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.(GC 36)
quote:
Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire. (GC 37)
These quotes makes the principles of God's wrath clear. God finally withdraws His Spirit from those who have persistenly resisted Him. Without God's protection, the wicked our destroyed. This is His wrath.
Old Tom:God intervenes in the case of Satan by not manifesting His glory to him, because to do so would result in his death. God does manifest His glory to the holy angels, and this is life to them.
R: In this sense, I agree.
T: Good, some common ground.
Old Tom:Yes, and a number of your posts seem to indicate that you believe that angels have immortality of themselves. You wrote something like God created angels so that they live forever. Phil Blanc has noticed and commented on the same thing.
Tom and Ikan,
The following text also could bring additional light about Luke 20:36:
“Man was to be tested and proved, and if he should bear the test of God, and remain loyal and true after the first trial, he was not to be beset with continual temptations; but was to be exalted equal with the angels, and henceforth immortal.”--RH Feb. 24, 1874. {TA 50.1}
Although in a sense it is true that God keeps our hearts beating, and the stars in their orbits, our own experience shows us that many of these processes are automatized. For instance, in a sense it is true that God brings every human being to existence, but how does He do it? He implanted the principle of life in the human cells, therefore the process of reproduction is automatized. Thus, there is a potential human being in a frozen embryo in a laboratory, and any individual may be cloned; and if a human being is born with a physical or mental handicap, this does not mean that God has specifically chosen a given defective cell to be joined to another to form that human being. Therefore, God created man to perpetuate his immortality by partaking of the tree of life, and failing to partake of that tree led man to deteriorated health and temporal death. This is not true of angels, however; their life doesn’t depend on anything, but directly on God. Thus, they are immortal _ until God chooses to remove their lives.
T: I don't know what the "in a sense" means. There's no need to qualify God's involvement in life. It's not simply the tree of life which sustains man, but man receives life directly from God, precisely as the angels do. Man is not eating from the tree of life now, yet he lives. How? By the direct intervention of God. If God were to get distracted for even a microsecond, His children, whether men or angels, would die. It takes God's active power to sustain life.
R: Additionally, Ellen White says that it was by His death that Christ secured Satan’s death and brought Satan under the dominion of death:
“Satan is the author of death. What did Christ do after He brought Satan under the dominion of death? The very last words of Christ while expiring on the cross were, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The devil saw that he had overdone himself. Christ by dying accomplished the death of Satan and brought immortality to light.” {FW 73.4}
T: This must be understood in the sense spoken of here:
quote:
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)
That is, the text you quote is not making the point that God was unable to effect Satan's death before Christ's death in the sense of not having the power to do so. But on moral grounds He chose not to, because the results of have left an evil seed of doubt. Christ's death, by making clear the nature of death, made it possible for God to allow Satan to reap the full result of his sin, and now that death has been seen (i.e. the second death, which is the wages of sin, which Christ "tasted") it is safe for God to allow Satan to die without that death being misunderstood.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/03/05 09:04 PM
R: The problem we are discussing is, if God didn’t remove Satan’s life, how would he die? What effect of sin would make him die?
T: These are two different questions. The answer to the first question is that if God simply ceased giving Satan life, he would die. God doesn't have to remove Satan's life, because the only life Satan has is that which comes from God. If God were to stop sustaining life for even an instant, it would cease. Satan has no life in and of himself, but only that which God gives to him. This first question doesn't have to do with sin, as any creature, whether sinless or not, depends upon God for life. No creature has life inherently.
The answer to the second question is that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. Satan and all those who have followed him form characters so out of harmony with God that His presence becomes to them a consuming fire. It is this effect of sin which causes Satan to die.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/04/05 12:59 AM
Tom,
In both cases God would be removing Satan's life.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/04/05 02:06 AM
quote:
He is not forced to do anything.
“The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: ‘The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love.” {ST, August 24, 1882}
quote:
T: We have been discussing just one event, which is the destruction of the wicked. Let's not get sidetracked from that.
What I had said was:
“Now, in your position it is also impossible for you to defend that sin destroys in all cases, since in the destruction of Jerusalem, sin was the cause, but it was Satan’s agents (pagan nations) who accomplished the destruction, isn’t it?”
How is this sidetracking? Besides, you didn’t provide an answer.
quote:
Old Tom:Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable.
Tom, let’s just leave it at that. There are more important points to discuss.
quote:
So we see in the destruction of Jerusalem the principle that God's wrath is manifest in His giving those who have chosen sin over to the results of their choice. This principle is also seen on the cross.
In the destruction of Jerusalem God manifested His wrath passively but in the death of Christ, for God to manifest His wrath passively, the only thing He had to do was to let Christ die from the effects of the crucifixion. Therefore, it is clear He manifested it actively.
quote:
T: It is sin which causes people to feel afraid.
It is the displeasure of God toward sin which causes people to feel afraid.
quote:
Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
Please, read v. 17:
“If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Do the wicked “reign in life”?
quote:
This "justification of life" is speaking of the physical life which Christ bestows upon all.
No. “Life” here is referring to eternal life. “So that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v. 21).
quote:
In Romans 5:18 Paul uses the term in exactly this way.
“Justification” here is the opposite of “condemnation”, therefore it refers to spiritual status.
quote:
Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith was specifically endorced very strongly by E. G. White.
She said specifically that there were points in which she disagreed with him.
quote:
She said he understood the subject better than she did.
I’ve never read this. Does the quote use these exact words?
quote:
It takes God's active power to sustain life.
If you take this too far, you will have to say that God kills people. What occurs in relation to human beings is that something wrong happens to some organ of the body and the person dies. This definitely does not happen with angels.
quote:
the text you quote is not making the point that God was unable to effect Satan's death before Christ's death in the sense of not having the power to do so. But on moral grounds He chose not to
Of course.
A happy sabbath to you and to all!
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/04/05 02:40 AM
R: The problem we are discussing is, if God didn’t remove Satan’s life, how would he die? What effect of sin would make him die?
R: (commenting on these questions) In both cases God would be removing Satan's life.
T: I think this is an odd way of looking at things. The first question asks, how would Satan die if God didn't remove his life. My answer was that Satan does not have life in himself (no creature does -- only God has life in Himself) so it is not necessary for God to remove his life. All God needs to do is simply not give him life and he dies. You characterize that as God removing his life. This seems like an odd way of looking at things, but it's possible. You're likely to be misunderstood if you communicate this way, but this is actually exactly what has happened in God's case, so I accept your language.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/04/05 03:15 AM
Tom: He is not forced to do anything.
R:“The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: ‘The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love.” {ST, August 24, 1882}
Tom: You are taking as literal something which should not be. Either that, or your use of the word "force" actually is in harmony with what I'm saying. God is not literally forced to do anything. That would be impossible. EGW is using the word "forced" in exactly the sense of His making a free will choice. There is nothing in this quote which differs from the point I was making.
For God to allow those who have chosen to so harden their hearts against Him that His very presence is to them a consuming fire to experience the inevitable results of sin is God's wrath. For God to do anything which results in death -- which is what revealing His glory to those who have persistently rebelled against Him will result in -- is a strange act. He loves His children and takes no pleasure in their death.
Old Tom: We have been discussing just one event, which is the destruction of the wicked. Let's not get sidetracked from that.
What I had said was:
“Now, in your position it is also impossible for you to defend that sin destroys in all cases, since in the destruction of Jerusalem, sin was the cause, but it was Satan’s agents (pagan nations) who accomplished the destruction, isn’t it?”
How is this sidetracking? Besides, you didn’t provide an answer.
T: I'm not talking about "all cases" but one case, that case being the destruction of the wicked. I did provide an answer. The answer is that God gave the wicked over to the result of their choice. They persistently resisted God's Spirit, so God withdrew Himself from them. This led to their destruction. This is God's wrath.
Old, old Tom: Again, if this is all she had in mind, and not the destruction of the wicked at the judgement, then the word "all" would not be applicable.
R: Tom, let’s just leave it at that. There are more important points to discuss.
T: The point I was making was that the Chapter "The Destruction of Jerusalem" is indeed involving the destruction of the wicked, which is what we have been talking about. This statement "By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire." makes this point clear (GC 37).
Old Tom: So we see in the destruction of Jerusalem the principle that God's wrath is manifest in His giving those who have chosen sin over to the results of their choice. This principle is also seen on the cross.
R: In the destruction of Jerusalem God manifested His wrath passively but in the death of Christ, for God to manifest His wrath passively, the only thing He had to do was to let Christ die from the effects of the crucifixion. Therefore, it is clear He manifested it actively.
T: This isn't clear at all. What caused Christ's death was the mental anguish He suffered, not the physical effects of the cruicifixion. The principles involved in Christ's death, and the destruction of the wicked, are the same, which is why EGW explains the destruction of the wicked in the chapter of the Desire of Ages which is explaining the principles involved in Christ's death. You can't understand the destruction of the wicked without understanding Christ's death.
Christ on the cross believed that God was abandoning Him (at least, He felt that way). However, God was actually closer to Him on the cross than He ever had been. There was a disconnect going on between what God was actually doing (drawing close to His Son in love) and Christ's experience ("My God, my God, why art Thous forsaking me?"). This same disconnect will be experienced by the wicked. This disconnect is the effect of sin on the mind.
Old Tom: It is sin which causes people to feel afraid.
R: It is the displeasure of God toward sin which causes people to feel afraid.
T: I don't think so, for two reasons. First of all, consider Adam and Eve. They ran and hid from God. Why? There's no indication whatsoever that God was angry at them. It's clear, in fact, that God wasn't angry at them, because when God called out to them, they came out and presented themselves to Him. So there must have been something winsome about His voice which won their confidence. Had they perceived Him to be displeased with them, they would have stayed hidden.
Now Adam and Eve had never experienced God's displeasure, so there was no reason for them to fear His anger. They didn't even know what anger was. It was their sin which caused them to be ashamed and afraid. Not God's displeasure.
Secondly, if it were God's displeasure which caused people to be afraid, then this suggests that sin would not make people afraid if God were not displeased. Of course, it's impossible for God not to be displeased with sin, since is causes pain, suffering and death for His children, but aside from God's displeasure, sin is in reality bad. It, of itself, causes all sorts of negative emotions. Fear is just one of those emotions.
Sin is evil, not because of God, but by its inherent nature. God's calling sin evil is not what made it, or makes it, evil. God's calls it evil because it is.
Old Tom:Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
R: Please, read v. 17:
“If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Do the wicked “reign in life”?
T: vs. 17 is a different thought. Vs. 18 is speaking of all, reaching the culmination of the thought started in 12. Vs. 17 is parenthetical. The summary of the thought is 18, which is a clear parallel, even clearer in the Greek than in English, which involved all. The whole point of Paul's thought vanishes if one does not understand that as many as were impacted by sin in Adam are impacted for the good in Christ. This is the point of the entire chapter. Where sin has abounded, grace has much more abounded. As far as sin has reached in scope, so has grace, and grace with much greater power. That's the thought of the chapter in a nutshell. "Much more" in two words.
Old Tom:This "justification of life" is speaking of the physical life which Christ bestows upon all.
R: No. “Life” here is referring to eternal life.
T: This is impossible. The text is clearly dealing with all men. As many as were impacted by Adam were impacted by Christ. Not all have eternal life, but all have physical life. It must be physical life that's being referred to, which is how Waggoner, Jones and Prescott all understood this verse.
R: “So that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (v. 21).
Old Tom:In Romans 5:18 Paul uses the term in exactly this way.
R: “Justification” here is the opposite of “condemnation”, therefore it refers to spiritual status.
T: The condemnation being referred to is due to the effect of Adam's sin. That's physical death, not spiritual, unless you believe in original sin.
Old Tom:Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith was specifically endorced very strongly by E. G. White.
R: She said specifically that there were points in which she disagreed with him.
T: I can only think of one area that she disagreed with, and that was regarding whether it was possible for Christ to sin. Waggoner at first said it wasn't, because He had perfect faith. She corrected him, and he revised his teaching. That's the only incident I am aware of. Can you name anything specifically?
Regarding the concept of corporate justification, it's obvious she endorsed his views, because she parroted them. The language she used in DA 660 is a paraphrase of Waggoner's own words!
Old Tom:She said he understood the subject better than she did.
R: I’ve never read this. Does the quote use these exact words?
T: It's from an interview of an SDA minister who was at the 1888 General Conference session. He was a relative of Butler, I think. If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the interview. I think the minister's name was Washburn.
Old Tom:It takes God's active power to sustain life.
R: If you take this too far, you will have to say that God kills people.
T; Ok. God kills people.
R: What occurs in relation to human beings is that something wrong happens to some organ of the body and the person dies. This definitely does not happen with angels.
T: I don't know what point you're wanting to make here. The point I was making is that any creature would die, whether sinless or sinful, angel or human, were it not for God's active, sustaining action to give them life.
Old Tom:the text you quote is not making the point that God was unable to effect Satan's death before Christ's death in the sense of not having the power to do so. But on moral grounds He chose not to
R: Of course.
A happy sabbath to you and to all!
T: Thank you. And thank's again for the discussion. It's been very helpful for me, and I appreciate the time and effort you make to respond to the posts.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/05/05 05:57 PM
1-
quote:
My answer was that Satan does not have life in himself (no creature does -- only God has life in Himself) so it is not necessary for God to remove his life. All God needs to do is simply not give him life and he dies. You characterize that as God removing his life. This seems like an odd way of looking at things, but it's possible.
Why odd, Tom? Let me provide an example. Look at what God did with Ananiah and Saphira _ He ceased to give them life and they immediately fell dead to the ground. This is removing life. They didn’t die because of any internal or external factor _ they died because God removed their lives.
2- quote:
EGW is using the word "forced" in exactly the sense of His making a free will choice.
Haven’t circumstances ever forced you to make a choice you wouldn’t like to make? Would this fall exactly in the category of a “free will choice”? This is a choice God is forced to make, that is, He wouldn’t do it voluntarily. He does it because it is the only option He is left with. There is no other viable alternative. It’s a lesser evil, as I once said.
3- quote:
I'm not talking about "all cases" but one case, that case being the destruction of the wicked.
What happens is that the example you provided (the destruction of Jerusalem) of that case (the destruction of the wicked) to prove your point, proves too much. You stated that your position is that it’s sin that destroys. But what is demonstrated here is that sin is the cause, and not the agent of destruction.
4- quote:
Christ on the cross believed that God was abandoning Him (at least, He felt that way).
It’s not that He felt that way. It was that way. Suppose you are a judge and you have to judge your own son for a crime. How can you do it, except by stopping being a father, and concentrating on being a judge? You can feel like a father, but you can’t manifest your feelings. You must act as a judge and condemn the criminal. As a Judge, God must condemn the sinner, and must show His disapproval of sin. But this has nothing to do with being vindictive.
“God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. He Himself assumes toward the Sin-Bearer the character of a judge, divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.” {FLB 104.7}
“The righteous One must suffer the condemnation and wrath of God, not in vindictiveness; for the heart of God yearned with greatest sorrow when His Son, the guiltless, was suffering the penalty of sin. This sundering of the divine powers will never again occur throughout the eternal ages (MS 93, 1899). {7BC 924.2}
"God is calling upon all to behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. Christ lifts the guilt of sin from the sinner, standing Himself under the condemnation of the Lawgiver." {ST, April 7, 1898}
5- quote:
First of all, consider Adam and Eve. They ran and hid from God. Why? There's no indication whatsoever that God was angry at them.
They knew their disobedience was a crime in God's eyes, and of course they knew God wouldn’t be pleased with it, although, because of His love, they still hoped to escape its punishment.
“Their crime is now before them in its true light. Their transgression of God's express command assumes a clearer character. Adam censured Eve's folly in leaving his side, and being deceived by the serpent; but they both flattered themselves that God, who had given them everything to make them happy, might yet excuse their disobedience, because of his great love to them, and that their punishment would not be so dreadful after all.” {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 6}
6- Romans 5:12-20 is a unit.
Look at the parallels traced:
v. 18:
Sin - condemnation
Grace - justification
v. 19:
disobedience of one - many sinners
obedience of one - many righteous
v. 21:
Sin reigned unto death
Grace might reign unto eternal life
The whole text revolves around this: as sin brought death to all, grace brought eternal life to all. But how is this so? Paul speaks about this in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Who are these all who shall be made alive? Of course all who are in Christ.
7- quote:
I can only think of one area that she disagreed with
I’ve not read much of Waggoner, but I’ve found several divergences between what he says and what Ellen White says. This was evident in the thread about the covenants.
8- quote:
Regarding the concept of corporate justification, it's obvious she endorsed his views, because she parroted them. The language she used in DA 660 is a paraphrase of Waggoner's own words!
Is EGW parroting in DA 660 what Waggoner says where? In “The Glad Tidings?”
9- quote:
If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the interview.
It would be very interesting, although if he really knew the subject better than she, she would have had no reason to disagree with him.
10- quote:
Ok. God kills people.
Tom, in the examples where I see that God does kill people (the flood, Sodom, etc.) you disagree, and then you turn around and say God kills every person who lives on earth? What I’m saying is that in general God does not cause directly the death of people by ceasing to impart life; death is a natural result of the aging process or of the action of some external factor (as a knife, a bullet, a virus, etc.).
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/05/05 10:36 PM
Old Tom:My answer was that Satan does not have life in himself (no creature does -- only God has life in Himself) so it is not necessary for God to remove his life. All God needs to do is simply not give him life and he dies. You characterize that as God removing his life. This seems like an odd way of looking at things, but it's possible.
R: Why odd, Tom? Let me provide an example. Look at what God did with Ananiah and Saphira _ He ceased to give them life and they immediately fell dead to the ground. This is removing life. They didn’t die because of any internal or external factor _ they died because God removed their lives.
T: If what you mean by God's removing life is that He ceases to give life, then that's fine by me. It's using an active voice when one would ordinarily use a passive voice, but this is exactly what I and others have been arguing that inspiration often does, so if you want to join in then you're in good company. By using language this way you set yourself to be misunderstood just as inspiration is.
R:
2-
Old Tom:EGW is using the word "forced" in exactly the sense of His making a free will choice.
R: Haven’t circumstances ever forced you to make a choice you wouldn’t like to make? Would this fall exactly in the category of a “free will choice”? This is a choice God is forced to make, that is, He wouldn’t do it voluntarily. He does it because it is the only option He is left with. There is no other viable alternative. It’s a lesser evil, as I once said.
T: Certainly God would prefer that the wicked live. He says He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and "How can I give you up?" But they have formed characters so out of harmony with Him that His presence is to them a consuming fire. The light of His glory, which gives life to the righteous, destroys them. I agree with you that God would prefer that this not be the case.
R:3-
Old Tom:I'm not talking about "all cases" but one case, that case being the destruction of the wicked.
R: What happens is that the example you provided (the destruction of Jerusalem) of that case (the destruction of the wicked) to prove your point, proves too much. You stated that your position is that it’s sin that destroys. But what is demonstrated here is that sin is the cause, and not the agent of destruction.
T: What I have been saying is that the destruction of the wicked is due to actions which they themselves take, not due to God's doing anything other than respecting their choice. She wrote:
quote:
Then shall they that obey not the gospel be consumed with the spirit of His mouth and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Like Israel of old the wicked destroy themselves; they fall by their iniquity. By a life of sin, they have placed themselves so out of harmony with God, their natures have become so debased with evil, that the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire.(GC 37)
She points out:
1) They destroy themselves.
2) Because they have debased themselves with evil, the manifestation of God's glory is to them a consuming fire.
This is the same thing she writes in DA 764:
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. (DA 764)
The same principles brought out in "The Destruction of Jerusalem" are brought out in "It Is Finished". The Destruction of Jerusalem makes clear the relationship between God's wrath and sin.
quote:
God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors 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. (GC 36)
When I speak of sin resulting in death, I don't mean anything other than what the quotes I've cited here are saying.
R:4-
Old Tom: Christ on the cross believed that God was abandoning Him (at least, He felt that way).
R: It’s not that He felt that way. It was that way.
T: Well, this is an important thing to understand. Was God really abandoning Christ? Ps. 18 describes the scene where God leaves heaven to be close to His Son:
quote:
7 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth. 8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, F47 and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. 9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. 10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind. 11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.(Ps. 18:7-11)
The Desire of Ages comments:
quote:
In that thick darkness God's presence was hidden. He makes darkness His pavilion, and conceals His glory from human eyes. God and
His holy angels were beside the cross. The Father was with His Son. (DA 754)
So God was not abandoning Christ, but doing the reverse. He was coming close to His Son.
It's a mistake to attempt to divide up the Godhead as if One member were against another. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. As EGW puts it, God was crucified with Christ. Acts talks about the church being the purchase of God's blood.
It's not the case that God the Son was for us and protecting us from God the Father, but God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are working on our side against the common enemies of sin, death and Satan.
R: Suppose you are a judge and you have to judge your own son for a crime. How can you do it, except by stopping being a father, and concentrating on being a judge? You can feel like a father, but you can’t manifest your feelings. You must act as a judge and condemn the criminal. As a Judge, God must condemn the sinner, and must show His disapproval of sin. But this has nothing to do with being vindictive.
“God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. He Himself assumes toward the Sin-Bearer the character of a judge, divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.” {FLB 104.7}
T: This quote brings out how we should understand God's role, both in the atonement and the judgment. God assumes the character of a judge by permitting His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. The word "delivered" is the same as used in Romans 1 which speaks of God's wrath against the wicked as His delivering them up.
R: “The righteous One must suffer the condemnation and wrath of God, not in vindictiveness; for the heart of God yearned with greatest sorrow when His Son, the guiltless, was suffering the penalty of sin. This sundering of the divine powers will never again occur throughout the eternal ages (MS 93, 1899). {7BC 924.2}
T: God suffers with His Son as He delivers Him up for our offenses.
R: "God is calling upon all to behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. Christ lifts the guilt of sin from the sinner, standing Himself under the condemnation of the Lawgiver." {ST, April 7, 1898}
T: Same idea. Christ was delivered up for our offenses. He bore our sins in His body that He might bring us to God. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.
R: 5-
Old Tom:First of all, consider Adam and Eve. They ran and hid from God. Why? There's no indication whatsoever that God was angry at them.
R: They knew their disobedience was a crime in God's eyes, and of course they knew God wouldn’t be pleased with it, although, because of His love, they still hoped to escape its punishment.
“Their crime is now before them in its true light. Their transgression of God's express command assumes a clearer character. Adam censured Eve's folly in leaving his side, and being deceived by the serpent; but they both flattered themselves that God, who had given them everything to make them happy, might yet excuse their disobedience, because of his great love to them, and that their punishment would not be so dreadful after all.” {ST, January 23, 1879 par. 6}
T: I was bringing out the impact sin has on the mind. When God asked Adam why he did, he said because he was naked and afraid. Sin brings with it self-condemnation -- a self-loathing -- and viewing God in a false light. This is also seen in Christ on the Christ where He speaks of Himself as a worm and not a man and cries out asking why God was abandoing Him when in actuality God was drawing close to Him. Many more examples of this principle could be shown. Sin does terrible things to the mind, from which we must be healed.
R: 6- Romans 5:12-20 is a unit.
T: Romans 5:12-18 is a single sentence. The thought starts in vs. 12, and then verses 13-17 are parenthetical, and then Paul completes his thought in vs. 18. Of course Paul has a thought in mind throughout the chapter and the letter, so anywhere we split things up is a bit arbitrary.
The theme in Romans 5 is "much more." Paul speaks both of the work which God has done for all, and the benefit it has for all, as well as for the work which is effective in those who believe. For example, it was while we were without strength, His enemies, unrighteous, that Christ died for us and God manifest His love. This is a work Christ did for all. It's effective in those who believe. It's effective from a physical standpoint for all, whether they believe or not.
R: Look at the parallels traced:
v. 18:
Sin - condemnation
Grace - justification
v. 19:
disobedience of one - many sinners
obedience of one - many righteous
v. 21:
Sin reigned unto death
Grace might reign unto eternal life
The whole text revolves around this: as sin brought death to all, grace brought eternal life to all. But how is this so? Paul speaks about this in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Who are these all who shall be made alive? Of course all who are in Christ.
T: There's more to what Paul is dealing with than simply eternal life. Paul is discussing how grace is more than sin. Its scope is a great, but it is more effective in its power. I've already quoted from Waggoner, Jones and EGW on this point. Here's what Wallenkampf wrote:
quote:
There are two modes of justification: temporary universal (or forensic) justification, and justification by faith. Temporary universal justification affords human existence on earth. In confers neighter salvation nor the gift of eternal life. Justification by faith, on the other hand, grants not only temporal life with salvation from sin but also confers eternal life..
Because of Christ's death on the cross, God temporarily treats all as if they were just and righteous. By virture of the cross, all enjoy life through temporary universal (temporal and forensic) justification. All are undeservedly put into a life-giving relationship with God. All sins are covered temporarily by the blood of Jesus....
In this life there is no distinct difference between God's treatment of saints and sinners. Both are under the cover of God's grace; both benefit from Jesus' shed blood for all. (from What "Every Christian Should Know About Being Justified")
The way Ellen White puts it is easily understood: "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life."
R: 7-
Old Tom:I can only think of one area that she disagreed with
R: I’ve not read much of Waggoner, but I’ve found several divergences between what he says and what Ellen White says. This was evident in the thread about the covenants.
T: This is a very strange comment. Here's what Ellen White wrote:
quote:
I told them yesterday that the position of the covenants I believed as presented in my volume 1 [ Patriarchs and Prophets ]. If that was Dr. Waggoner's position then he had the truth. (3MR 421)
quote:
Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds. (1888 Materials 623)
It's evident from these two quotes that Ellen White herself saw what she wrote as being in harmony with Waggoner. She also wrote the following:
quote:
Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones-Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. (1888 Materials 604)
Since you hold to a position which differs from Waggoner's, and assert that her position disagreed with Waggoner's, you are disagreeing with her on two points, since she asserts that Waggoner's position is the same as hers, and that it's a waste of effort to hold a different position from Waggoner's. So this is hardly proof of "several divergences." It's not even proof of one.
As I pointed out earlier, I'm only aware of one area of disagreement, which is the one I pointed out. She preached alongside Waggoner during 1890 I think it was, and made no comments regarding any teachings of his being in error. Instead she repeatedly remarked how God was giving us great light regarding righteousness by faith and how we she take hold of the light God was giving us through Jones and Waggoner (later she would say the same things regarding Prescott). Many of the things we have been discussing are made plain by this light which God has been pleased to give us.
R: 8-
Old Tom:Regarding the concept of corporate justification, it's obvious she endorsed his views, because she parroted them. The language she used in DA 660 is a paraphrase of Waggoner's own words!
R: Is EGW parroting in DA 660 what Waggoner says where? In “The Glad Tidings?”
T: Yes. quote:
So it is that not only every blade of grass, every leaf of the forest, and every piece of bread that we eat has the stamp of the cross of Christ on it, but, above all, we have the same.
R: 9-
Old Tom:If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the interview.
R: It would be very interesting, although if he really knew the subject better than she, she would have had no reason to disagree with him.
T: Yes, which is why she didn't, but instead heartily endorsed it. She said she would be as a little child to soak up all its life-giving rays, which is exactly what she did. She also told us we should lay hold of the light which God gave to us through them.
R: 10-
Old Tom:Ok. God kills people.
R: Tom, in the examples where I see that God does kill people (the flood, Sodom, etc.) you disagree, and then you turn around and say God kills every person who lives on earth? What I’m saying is that in general God does not cause directly the death of people by ceasing to impart life; death is a natural result of the aging process or of the action of some external factor (as a knife, a bullet, a virus, etc.).
T: The subject of this thread is the destruction of the wicked. As far as I am aware, I haven't made any comments regarding Sodom and Gemorrah or the flood. I'm not sure what comment I have made that you characterize as my disagreeing with you. Everyone agrees that in general death is the natural result of the aging process or some eternal factor. I don't know why you would wish to make this point or what bearing it has on the destruction of the wicked.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/07/05 06:00 AM
1- You seem to have the erroneous conception that I and everyone else who holds the classical view of atonement think that God is cruel and Christ is merciful. I’ve never held this view and have never seen such a view defended in any book I read. My conception is that before the world was created, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit covenanted to save man if he sinned. God would manifest the just wrath of the Godhead against sin; Christ would take the place of the transgressor; and the Holy Spirit would impress the hearts of men, so that they could understand and accept the work that was done in their behalf at the cross. Each member of the Godhead had a role and a function to play in the work of saving humanity.
2- About temporary forensic justification. As I have said before, my concept, based on what Ellen white says, is that man should have died the moment he sinned. Christ proposed to take man’s place, therefore God’s wrath against sin was restrained, and man was granted a second probation. That’s the name I give to it: second probation. As to what Wallenkampf says, “God temporarily treats all as if they were just and righteous”, I’ve not yet seen evidence for this either in the Bible or in the SOP.
I consider the justification spoken of in Romans 5 as justification by faith. The word “all” in this chapter is not absolute, and seems to be used interchangeably with the word “many”. Verse 12 uses “all”, v. 15 uses “many”, v. 18 uses “all”, v. 19 uses “many”. Besides, as I said, the meaning of the word is made perfectly clear in 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The first “all” refers to all who are in Adam (a physical relationship), while the second “all” refers to all who are in Christ (a spiritual relationship).
An interesting article about universal legal justification can be found here:
http://www.lmn.org/magazine/169/Ballenger.html 3- The divergences I found between Waggoner and Ellen White in the subject of the covenants are stated in my last post here:
http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000241;p=5 4- The point on which Ellen White agreed with Waggoner in his presentation of the subject of righteousness by faith at the Minneapolis conference was “the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law” (1888 164.3). But that there were points of divergence is also clear, for she said still before the close of the conference:
“
Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman.” {1888 164.1}
What she said some three months later:
“I believe without a doubt that God has given precious truth at the right time to Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner. Do I place them as infallible?
Do I say that they will not make a statement or have an idea that cannot be questioned or that cannot be error? Do I say so? No, I do not say any such thing. Nor do I say that of any man in the world. But I do say God has sent light, and do be careful how you treat it. We want the truth as it is in Jesus.”{1888 565.2}
So the point is that Waggoner must be judged by Ellen White, and not the other way around.
5 - About Ellen White parroting Waggoner, I don’t consider this to be the case, since “The Glad Tidings” was published two years after “The Desire of Ages”, if I’m not mistaken.
6-
quote:
I'm not sure what comment I have made that you characterize as my disagreeing with you.
I understand you disagree (correct me if I’m wrong) that God can send water, fire, or any other external agent to kill people.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/06/05 07:23 PM
Or angels -- and not just the devil's angels either:
"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."
{GC 614.2}
This idea that God does not actively destroy on occasion is the result of a limited, flawed idea of His character, that's out of harmony with the testimony of Inspiration.
It's hard for me to understand why people arrive at such conclusions, when the Bible and SOP are so crystal clear on the subject in so many places.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/07/05 09:32 AM
R: 1- You seem to have the erroneous conception that I and everyone else who holds the classical view of atonement think that God is cruel and Christ is merciful.
T: The "classical" view of the atonement would be what I've been presenting. The view you are presenting didn't come around until 1000 years after Christ's death. It came about due to midieval rationalism, as a revolt against the ideas of mercy, love and passion, which were considered "weak" because of their feminine qualities. The detached view of the atonement, based on legalities, came into vogue. But before the second Millenium, the idea of the atonement was that Christ overcame the powers of sin, death and Satan by His life, death and resurrection. It was a story of good triumphing over evil. It was very similar to the Great Controversy concept which EGW made so clear, with the missing piece that God's character was the major issue that was being fought over.
R: I’ve never held this view and have never seen such a view defended in any book I read. My conception is that before the world was created, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit covenanted to save man if he sinned. God would manifest the just wrath of the Godhead against sin; Christ would take the place of the transgressor; and the Holy Spirit would impress the hearts of men, so that they could understand and accept the work that was done in their behalf at the cross. Each member of the Godhead had a role and a function to play in the work of saving humanity.
T: I understand that all the Godhead works together on the side of man against the common enemies of sin, death and Satan. The wrath of God is His "delivering up", whether it be His Son for our offenses (Rom. 4:25; Rom. 8 somewhere) or the wicked (Rom. 1)
R: 2- About temporary forensic justification. As I have said before, my concept, based on what Ellen white says, is that man should have died the moment he sinned. Christ proposed to take man’s place, therefore God’s wrath against sin was restrained, and man was granted a second probation. That’s the name I give to it: second probation. As to what Wallenkampf says, “God temporarily treats all as if they were just and righteous”, I’ve not yet seen evidence for this either in the Bible or in the SOP.
T: Many items have been presented. "Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race of men to favor with God." That's saying the same thing as Wallenkampf in other words. Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott all presented the idea, as I quoted extensively, and EGW endorsed their teachings on this subject as highly as possible. That there not be any doubt that this subject was explicitly being considered by her, take a look at Precott's sermons at Avondale in 1895 and EGW's endorsements of them. Prescott spoke precisely about this them.
The simple thought that to the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life sums it up simply. If you want to call this "second probation," that's fine. The point is that the second probation is made possible by God's graciously treating men not as they deserve to be treated, but according to the riches of His mercy. All men, even those who reject Christ, are benefited by His sacrifice. All were restored to favor with God. All live physically because of Christ's sacrifice.
R: I consider the justification spoken of in Romans 5 as justification by faith. The word “all” in this chapter is not absolute, and seems to be used interchangeably with the word “many”.
T: The parallel in Romans 5:18 is destroyed if you take that view. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The point is that to as many as Adam's offense resulted in judgment and condemnation, to just as many Christ's rightouesness ( or "act of righteousness" -- it's in the singular) resulted in "justification of life". This can't be justification by faith because only some are justified by faith, not all. Here's how the NIV puts is: "18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." This is very accurate. Young's, a literal translation of the Greek has, "So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;"
R: Verse 12 uses “all”, v. 15 uses “many”, v. 18 uses “all”, v. 19 uses “many”. Besides, as I said, the meaning of the word is made perfectly clear in 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The first “all” refers to all who are in Adam (a physical relationship), while the second “all” refers to all who are in Christ (a spiritual relationship).
T: All in 1 Cor. 15:22 is everybody. That is, all who will be resurrected. Not just the righteous. "In consequence of Adam's sin, death passed upon the whole human race. All alike go down into the grave. And through the provisions of the plan of salvation, all are to be brought forth from their graves. "There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust;" "for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Acts 24:15; I Corinthians 15:22. (GC 544)
R: An interesting article about universal legal justification can be found here:
http://www.lmn.org/magazine/169/Ballenger.htmlT: I read through the article. It had many misleading, to put it charitably, ideas. Waggoner's articles in Romans was published in 1895 I think, so the idea of legal justification was presented by him at least by then. Jones also presented the idea, which I quoted earlier, in the 1895 General Conference builletin, which was also in 1895. Prescott also presented the idea (whom I did not quote from, but can if desired) in 1895. So the idea had nothing to do with Ballenger or events which transpired a number of years later. In 1895 EGW's endorsements of Waggoner, Jones and Prescott were unprecedented. She called Prescott's sermon in Avandale "truth unmingled with error" if I recall correctly. She presented the same ideas as Waggoner, and used almost the same language.
R: 3- The divergences I found between Waggoner and Ellen White in the subject of the covenants are stated in my last post here:
http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000241;p=5T: You wrote:
quote:
This, IMO, does not necessarily mean that she had to be in agreement with Waggoner in every detail of what he presented about the subject.
This is what everyone who doesn't want to agree with what Waggoner taught says. It's just a cop-out. She might as well not have endorsed his view of the covenants at all if this type of reasoning is used. It comes to less than nothing. "I don't agree with this idea of Waggoner's, so that must not be the part she was endorsing."
You took issue with Waggoner's definition of covenant. It should be obvious that Waggoner were wrong on this point, his teaching on the Covenants couldn't possibly be correct. His whole argument follows from this definition. In the Glad Tidings he wrote:
quote:
That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything.
This is Waggoner's teaching in a nutshell. It is, as Ellen G. White wrote, as "clear as sunlight." You may choose to disagree with it, if you wish, but it is disingenuous to adduce this teaching as proof the Ellen G. White didn't agree with all of Waggoner's ideas on righteousness by faith when she specifically said that it was "truth" and that if his position was the same as hers, then it was "truth." Surely if she thought his ideas were different, she could have come up with a better word than "truth" to describe it.
By the way, she uses the same language for covenant, i.e. "promise", in her writings as well. For example, she refers to the Ten Commandments as Ten Promises. She says all of God's commandments are promises, which eloquently summarizes Waggoner's view.
R: 4- The point on which Ellen White agreed with Waggoner in his presentation of the subject of righteousness by faith at the Minneapolis conference was “the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law” (1888 164.3). But that there were points of divergence is also clear, for she said still before the close of the conference:
“Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman.” {1888 164.1}
T: As I pointed out, she disagreed on Waggoner's idea that Christ could not sin because He had perfect faith. This idea is present in a January 1889 Signs of the Times article, which was one of several which ran presenting the lectures Waggoner presenting at the 1888 GC. Ellen White corrected Waggoner, and he retracted the idea from the book "Christ Our Righteousness" (later republished under the name "Christ and His Righteousness" to avoid confusion with A. G. Daniel's book with the same name). This is the only item I am aware of that she ever corrected of Waggoner's in the ten years or so that she endorsed his message.
R: What she said some three months later:
“I believe without a doubt that God has given precious truth at the right time to Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner. Do I place them as infallible? Do I say that they will not make a statement or have an idea that cannot be questioned or that cannot be error? Do I say so? No, I do not say any such thing. Nor do I say that of any man in the world. But I do say God has sent light, and do be careful how you treat it. We want the truth as it is in Jesus.”{1888 565.2}
T: The same thing is true about her. She explicitly denied she was infallible. She wrote that many would look for excuses not to accept the light that God was bringing through them. She wrote that one should not cavil and look for excuses not to accept the light they were bringing, but to ask the question, "Is it light from God?" "I say it is!" she wrote.
She didn't just endorse their message once or twice, but over 1,000 times. She called it "the beginning of the latter rain." "Light that was to enlighten the earth with glory." "The message of God to the Laodecean church." "Light which we otherwise would not have had unless God had sent someone else to bring it." She used language to their message which she did not even apply to her own writings.
The idea is not that the writings of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones (also W. W. Prescott in 1895, 1896) were superior to hears, but they were "a most precious message" which God "in His great mercy" sent to us. Given that God graciously sent us light, we should take it in, as willingly as Ellen G. White herself did. The influence of Jones and Waggoner's message on Ellen White's writings, including the Desire of Ages, Christ's Object Lessons, Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, to name a few, are obvious to anyone acuqainted with Jones and Waggoner's message.
R: So the point is that Waggoner must be judged by Ellen White, and not the other way around.
T: How do you figure that? Both Waggoner and Ellen G. White are to be judged by God and His Word. She never claimed to be greater than them. God gave her a gift, and gave them a gift. He gave light to all of them. We should take hold of all the light God has for us. Not make excuses to reject it.
R: 5 - About Ellen White parroting Waggoner, I don’t consider this to be the case, since “The Glad Tidings” was published two years after “The Desire of Ages”, if I’m not mistaken.
T: The Glad Tidings was not the first Waggoner wrote on the subject.
R: 6-
Old Tom:I'm not sure what comment I have made that you characterize as my disagreeing with you.
I understand you disagree (correct me if I’m wrong) that God can send water, fire, or any other external agent to kill people.
T: Why do you understand me to disagree with you on this point?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/08/05 06:18 AM
Tom,
The Word of God is not a book of systematic theology; doctrines are not clearly systematized there, and it took centuries for Christians to have a clearer view of the truths presented there. It took centuries for people to have a clearer view on the Trinity, on the atonement, on justification, and so on, and this clearer view was generally obtained in an effort to counteract erroneous views that arose from time to time. As to the atonement, the view which prevailed in the early church (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine) was that it was the devil who made the cross necessary (God had to pay a ransom to Satan). It seems it was Athanasius and Ambrose who first referred to Christ as having borne that which the sinner deserves to bear, but this view was fully developed only with Anselm and, in its turn, Anselm’s view was adopted and improved by the reformers.
I found a good and brief summary of all the views of the atonement here:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/ths506a.htmlAs I did this quick search to reply to your post, I verified that Ellen White’s view borrows the phraseology and ideas of all the theories - the satisfaction theory, the moral influence theory, the governmental theory and the penal-substitution theory. Even though she does not borrow much from the ransom theory, which is erroneous, she does say that Christ had to redeem the dominion that Adam had lost to Satan. It is clear that her position is a mix of all these.
quote:
T: Many items have been presented. "Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race of men to favor with God." That's saying the same thing as Wallenkampf in other words. Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott all presented the idea, as I quoted extensively, and EGW endorsed their teachings on this subject as highly as possible.
Tom, as I said, “restored the whole race of men to favor with God” refers to salvation and therefore is provisional. This passage makes the subject clearer:
“Those who claim to be descendants of Abraham have attempted to number Israel, as though the gift of eternal life belonged to a select few. They would have the benefits of salvation limited to their own nation. But God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor, and all are called upon to contribute to God's glory and to the advancement of his kingdom. Individuals and nations will be held responsible for the grace of God given them through Jesus Christ. Christ came eating with publicans and sinners, giving them lessons day by day in his association with them. Leaving the ninety and nine in the fold, he went out into the wilderness after the one lost lamb. He said, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ And his lesson to Simon was, To whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much. {YI, August 5, 1897 par. 1}
“Human selfishness would make a monopoly of the salvation purchased at so great a cost. But Christ died to offer the gift of eternal life to all, and he sends his messengers that they may present the truth, the gift of God's grace, to all. God cannot display the knowledge of his will and the wonders of his grace unless he has his witnesses among men. It is his plan that those who are partakers of this great salvation through Jesus Christ should be his missionaries, bodies of light throughout the world, living epistles, known and read of all men. Their faith and works should testify that they have not received the grace of God in vain.” {YI, August 5, 1897 par. 2}
quote:
T: The parallel in Romans 5:18 is destroyed if you take that view. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The point is that to as many as Adam's offense resulted in judgment and condemnation, to just as many Christ's rightouesness (or "act of righteousness" -- it's in the singular) resulted in "justification of life". This can't be justification by faith because only some are justified by faith, not all.
By the offence of one judgment came upon all man to condemnation, because by transmitting his sinful nature to his posterity, Adam opened the way for all to sin and thus to partake of the same condemnation; on the other hand, through Christ the free gift of God’s grace came upon all men and all can be justified and have life. That not all choose to accept this gift does not invalidate the fact that the gift came upon all.
As the article I referred to you yesterday points out, this was the view of Waggoner himself until 1896, when he made this comment on Romans chapter 5 in an article that appeared in the Signs of the Times:
“The text says that ‘by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.’ Some one may ask, ‘Why are not all made righteous by the obedience of One?’ The reason is that they do not wish to be. If men were counted righteous simply because One was righteous eighteen hundred years ago, then all would have to be righteous by the same obedience. There would be no justice in counting righteousness to one and not to all, if it were in that way. But we have seen that it is not so.” E. J. Waggoner, “The Free Gift,” Signs of the Times, March 12, 1896. (In this same article Waggoner also clearly states that we are not under condemnation for Adam's sin, but rather, because “All have sinned, and, therefore, all are in condemnation.”)
quote:
"I don't agree with this idea of Waggoner's, so that must not be the part she was endorsing."
No. This idea of Waggoner is not in harmony with what Ellen White says, so that must not be the part she was endorsing. I never said I didn’t agree with him without showing clearly where he disagrees with Ellen White. My posts put what he says and what Ellen White says side by side.
quote:
How do you figure that? Both Waggoner and Ellen G. White are to be judged by God and His Word. She never claimed to be greater than them.
This is simply absurd. Ellen White’s writings were already judged and approved by the Word of God. What she says was given under inspiration, while what Waggoner or any other writer says was not. Therefore, if what they say contradicts what she says, it is simply wrong.
quote:
T: Why do you understand me to disagree with you on this point?
I say God is not arbitrary in removing the lives of people directly or indirectly, by any means He deems appropriate. In order to save those who can still be saved, he must sometimes remove the incorrigible sinners.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/07/05 07:11 PM
I admit that unless one has had the desire to actually understand what Tom, John B. or myself have written, all of these posting may seem a bit tedious. Obviously some have drawn hasty conclusions because they have skimmed, hunting for things to attack or be offended by. I seriously think time would be more profitably spent in deflecting Pope Counters, Sanctuary Scoffers, Instant Perfectionists and in helping uncertain Adventists and vistors learn the Bible the Pioneer's way, through prayerful study and Christian gentlemanliness with those who don't see the same way you do .
So perhaps a recap (if I may) will help those who have not had the time, or desire, to read here.
(This is solely my ideas; John B., Tom and I do not "counsel together" about what to write, and do not know each other at all, except through this forum)
1. God the Father is not at odds with the Son; what Christ does is what the Father does. There is no "good cop/bad cop" game with Them. OT and NT agree as to His character.
2. God created man with free-will, and will not violate that. Therefore He will never force His Presense upon anyone where He is not wanted. Sinners get what they ask for: "Leave me alone, Jesus!" However, he will maintain basic lifeforce in sinners as long as there is a faint chance of their repenting.
3. Sin kills because it is anti-Christ, or anti-Life. The Bible usually equates sin as a principlewith leprosy, blindness, deafness, lameness or hemorrhaging. These maladies slowly cripple and kill (Try walking beside the highway blind or deaf) Acts of sin are symptoms of the disease of sin, Satan's children, coming from a stony heart.
4. When humans, singularly or as nations, reject Christ after long repeated attempts by Him to reach them in love by prophets, messengers or His witness in Nature itself, Christ is left no alternative but to leave them to their own desires, or "give them up" or "deliver them up" to the forces they love: Satan's hands.
5. In horrific emergencies, where there were no better ways to keep the bloodline of the Saviour intact, God has allowed rebellious Israel to kill demon-possessed, absolutely unrepentable Satan-worshippers bent on destroying God's people, He has with heavy heart instructed them how to swiftly and mercifully kill. God only knows when this is neccessary, and no human has the ability to discern this in advance. Popes, Puritans and have never had these orders. But Satan will urge them to use these occassions as an excuse.
Mt Carmel, and Elijah are type and anti-type for the Last Days before His second coming.Faithful Adventists are slated as the next victims.
6. Christ died because the accumulated sins of trillions of sinners, past, present and future, He willingly took upon Himself in the Garden and then to the Cross. Only He could take that burden. The Father did not kill Him. That is an accusation that comes from the evil one. The sinful actions of the Jews, Romans and their leaders set Christ on the cross, but the separating cloud of sin is what broke His heart, not the pain of the Cross, nor the Hand of His Father.
7. The glory of God, His recreating and dynamic Power will create a New Earth and simulatantiously destroy all those that hate Light and Truth. Full Light always makes full dark disappear. If souls repent, are truly born again and learn to live in the "fire of His glory" now, the consuming fire will be Life and Warmth, not terror and exposure.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/07/05 11:50 PM
Tom,
The Word of God is not a book of systematic theology; doctrines are not clearly systematized there, and it took centuries for Christians to have a clearer view of the truths presented there. It took centuries for people to have a clearer view on the Trinity, on the atonement, on justification, and so on, and this clearer view was generally obtained in an effort to counteract erroneous views that arose from time to time. As to the atonement, the view which prevailed in the early church (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine) was that it was the devil who made the cross necessary (God had to pay a ransom to Satan). It seems it was Athanasius and Ambrose who first referred to Christ as having borne that which the sinner deserves to bear, but this view was fully developed only with Anselm and, in its turn, Anselm’s view was adopted and improved by the reformers.
I found a good and brief summary of all the views of the atonement here:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/ths506a.htmlAs I did this quick search to reply to your post, I verified that Ellen White’s view borrows the phraseology and ideas of all the theories - the satisfaction theory, the moral influence theory, the governmental theory and the penal-substitution theory. Even though she does not borrow much from the ransom theory, which is erroneous, she does say that Christ had to redeem the dominion that Adam had lost to Satan. It is clear that her position is a mix of all these.
Tom: The site you quoted missed the viewpoint I was presenting, which has been termed "Christus Victor" by Gustav Aulen. This was the classical view held by the early Christians. The idea that Satan was paid off is not essential to the view. The essential idea is that Christ's life, death and ressurrection won the victory over the powers of sin, death and the devil.
I've only been able to find one decent site so far that presents the Christus Victor viewpoint. Here it is:
http://www.sharktacos.com/God/cross1.htmlI agree with your point about the Bible not being a treatise on Systematic Theology. It's ironic that you make this point, because this is an argument the Christus Victor adherents commonly make. The Bible presents the story of the confict of good and evil; the story of Jesus Christ. It is embracing this story that reconciles us to God. The whole purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal the Father that we might be set right with God. Christ won the victory over the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
The noon of the papacy was the midnight of the world, as EGW puts it. I find it interesting that you place your faith in a theory which was developed at high noon.
I agree that Ellen White used references to all three theories to communicate, which is a reasonable thing for her to do, as she was trying to reach different minds. Similarly Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, because those with whom He was communicating had these erroneous views. This does not mean that Christ Himself held these views. There is no Scriptural basis for the satisfaction theory of the atonement. What Waggoner pointed out is true:
quote:
It is the height of absurdity to say that God is so angry with men that he will not forgive them unless something is provided to appease his wrath, and that therefore he himself offers the gift to himself, by which he is appeased.0 "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death." Col. 1:21, 22.
Heathen and Christian Propitiation. The Christian idea of propitiation is that set forth above. The heathen idea, which is too often held by professed Christians, is that men must provide a sacrifice to appease the wrath of their god. All heathen worship is simply a bribe to their gods to be favourable to them. If they thought that their gods were very angry with them, they would provide a greater sacrifice, and so human sacrifices were offered in extreme cases. They thought, as the worshipers of Siva in India do to-day, that their god was gratified by the sight of blood. http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/aor/rom03.htm
There is no idea in Scripture of God's wrath being appeased by the offering of His Son as a sacrifice. This is a pagan idea.
Old Tom: Many items have been presented. "Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race of men to favor with God." That's saying the same thing as Wallenkampf in other words. Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott all presented the idea, as I quoted extensively, and EGW endorsed their teachings on this subject as highly as possible.
R: Tom, as I said, “restored the whole race of men to favor with God” refers to salvation and therefore is provisional.
Tom: How could the phrase "restored the whole race of men" possibly be provisional??? How could she possibly have phrased this in a way that you would accept it as not provisional? Look at the wording "RESTORED the WHOLE RACE". If it were provisional it would say "MIGHT RESTORE" and "THOSE WHO BELIEVE". It seems to me you're reading your own ideas into Ellen G. White's writings here just as you are in Romans 5:18. Both Ellen White and Paul are being as clearly universal as it is possible for language to make one.
R: This passage makes the subject clearer:
“Those who claim to be descendants of Abraham have attempted to number Israel, as though the gift of eternal life belonged to a select few. They would have the benefits of salvation limited to their own nation. But God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor, and all are called upon to contribute to God's glory and to the advancement of his kingdom. Individuals and nations will be held responsible for the grace of God given them through Jesus Christ. Christ came eating with publicans and sinners, giving them lessons day by day in his association with them. Leaving the ninety and nine in the fold, he went out into the wilderness after the one lost lamb. He said, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ And his lesson to Simon was, To whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much. {YI, August 5, 1897 par. 1}
“Human selfishness would make a monopoly of the salvation purchased at so great a cost. But Christ died to offer the gift of eternal life to all, and he sends his messengers that they may present the truth, the gift of God's grace, to all. God cannot display the knowledge of his will and the wonders of his grace unless he has his witnesses among men. It is his plan that those who are partakers of this great salvation through Jesus Christ should be his missionaries, bodies of light throughout the world, living epistles, known and read of all men. Their faith and works should testify that they have not received the grace of God in vain.” {YI, August 5, 1897 par. 2}
Tom: I understand the first statement which states that all are placed under divine favor and called upon to cooperate to God's glory. This goes along with what Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 5:14, 15 where he states that if one died for all, then all died (i.e. all died in Christ) to the end that those who live (by virture of Christ's death) might not live for themselves, but for Him who died for them. In other words, to the death of Christ all owe even their earthly life. All are indebted to Christ for an infinite gift, which they may pack back by giving themselves in service to the One who died for them, which is their reasonable service.
I didn't see how the second quote fit in. The 1SM 343 quote is not provisional, but your quote is.
Old Tom: The parallel in Romans 5:18 is destroyed if you take that view. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The point is that to as many as Adam's offense resulted in judgment and condemnation, to just as many Christ's rightouesness (or "act of righteousness" -- it's in the singular) resulted in "justification of life". This can't be justification by faith because only some are justified by faith, not all.
R: By the offence of one judgment came upon all man to condemnation, because by transmitting his sinful nature to his posterity, Adam opened the way for all to sin and thus to partake of the same condemnation; on the other hand, through Christ the free gift of God’s grace came upon all men and all can be justified and have life.
Tom: This does violence to the Greek text, as well as to Paul's thought. The verb is in the aorist, indicating a completed task at some specific time in the past, as is also the case in Romans 5:12; i.e. all "sinned" at some specific point in the past, namely when Adam sinned; judgment "came" upon all men at a specific time, when Adam sinned. Justification of life "came" (past tense, aorist) upon all ( that is, everyone, not just those who believe) at a specific point in time, which was when Christ died on the cross. It was this act of righteousness which resulted in justification of life for all men.
R: That not all choose to accept this gift does not invalidate the fact that the gift came upon all.
Tom: Certainly not. It's irrelevant, at least to Romans 5:18, which is not making the point that a gift came upon all but that all were justified by Christ, just as all had been condemned by Adam. There's nothing a person can do to invalidate something which was done to them before they were born. Note that all the action in Romans 5:18 (as well as 1SM 343) is in the past.
R: As the article I referred to you yesterday points out, this was the view of Waggoner himself until 1896, when he made this comment on Romans chapter 5 in an article that appeared in the Signs of the Times:
“The text says that ‘by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.’ Some one may ask, ‘Why are not all made righteous by the obedience of One?’ The reason is that they do not wish to be. If men were counted righteous simply because One was righteous eighteen hundred years ago, then all would have to be righteous by the same obedience. There would be no justice in counting righteousness to one and not to all, if it were in that way. But we have seen that it is not so.” E. J. Waggoner, “The Free Gift,” Signs of the Times, March 12, 1896. (In this same article Waggoner also clearly states that we are not under condemnation for Adam's sin, but rather, because “All have sinned, and, therefore, all are in condemnation.”)
Tom: Waggoner wrote this:
quote:
"Justification of Life." "By the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." There is no exception here. As the condemnation came upon all, so the justification comes upon all. Christ has tasted death for every man. He has given himself for all. Nay, he has given himself to every man. The free gift has come upon all. The fact that it is a free gift is evidence that there is no exception. If it came upon only those who have some special qualification, then it would not be a free gift.
If you're really interested in what Waggoner wrote, why not read what he actually wrote, rather than just reading what someone else wrote about what he wrote. Reading someone's writings only second-hand is a very poor way of trying to ascertain what the person actually taught.
Old Tom:"I don't agree with this idea of Waggoner's, so that must not be the part she was endorsing."
R: No. This idea of Waggoner is not in harmony with what Ellen White says, so that must not be the part she was endorsing.
Tom: That's just what I said above! You are assuming you are a better judge of truth than both Waggoner and Ellen G. White. If she wrote that his view was a "clear as sunlight" and "truth", how could it be wrong from beginning to end?
You do recognize that there was a controversy regarding the Covenants, correct? And that Waggoner was on one side, and the leading breathen on the other. EGW endorsed Waggoner's view against theirs. Now you are taking the viewpoint of those who opposed Waggoner, and saying that Ellen G. White, in endorsing Waggoner, was actually thinking along the lines of those who were opposing Waggoner!
Please explain to me what it is about Waggoner's view of the Covenants that differed from those who opposed him which Ellen G. White endorsed.
R: I never said I didn’t agree with him without showing clearly where he disagrees with Ellen White.
Tom: He didn't disagree with her! That would be impossible. She said that if his views agreed with hers, then they were "truth." Immediately after that she wrote that they were "truth." What possible conclusion could one make other than she believed her views to agree with his? There's also the problem I pointed out above, which is that the endorsement of Waggoner's view took place in a context. The context was that there were those who were disagreeing with him (who were arguing the viewpoint you hold). She endorsed his view against theirs (and yours). Finally you stumble at his very definition of "covenant," which would mean you disagree with pretty much every facet of his view on the Covenants. So how can you hold that Ellen White endorsed Waggoner's view while simultaneously disagreeing with it? (Unless you think Ellen White was wrong in endorsing it; that's the only possible explanation I can think of).
My posts put what he says and what Ellen White says side by side.
Old Tom:How do you figure that? Both Waggoner and Ellen G. White are to be judged by God and His Word. She never claimed to be greater than them.
R: This is simply absurd.
T: How is it absurd? She said she would be as a little child. When asked why she didn't bring the light they did, she replied that God had given them a gift that He hadn't given to her. She said she would soak up the life-giving rays, and encouraged others to do so. Where is there anyplace during the time she was endorsing their writings where she claimed her writings were to be held in greater esteem than the message God was giving to the ones she was endorsing?
R: Ellen White’s writings were already judged and approved by the Word of God.
Tom: What does this mean? "Already judged." Already judged when? She repeatedly stated that she was not infallible, and her writings were to be judged by Scripture. She never asserted they were "already judged."
R: What she says was given under inspiration, while what Waggoner or any other writer says was not. Therefore, if what they say contradicts what she says, it is simply wrong.
Tom: That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. She never claimed to be infallible. She also claimed that Scripture is not infallible. We are not fundamentalists.
This isn't even the issue. The issue is whether God gave light to those whom Ellen White endorsed, and she maintained over and over and over again that God did, and that we should lay hold of that light. The way to lay hold of said light is to read the messages God gave us and believe them.
Old Tom: Why do you understand me to disagree with you on this point?
R: I say God is not arbitrary in removing the lives of people directly or indirectly, by any means He deems appropriate. In order to save those who can still be saved, he must sometimes remove the incorrigible sinners.
Tom: I don't recall discussing this subject. I've been discussing the destruction of the wicked at the judgment, and have argued that it is not by an arbitrary act of power that God destroys the wicked, rather they are destroyed because they reap that which they have sown. At first the unfallen angels did not understand this, and they would have misunderstood Satan and his friends as being executed by God rather than suffering the "inevitable results of sin." If the wicked died not because of their sin but because of some action on God's part unrelated to the direct effect of sin, that would be arbitrary. This is what I've said.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/08/05 12:10 AM
I liked your post, Phil, especially #5 which stated a difficult thing to communicate very well, I think. I'd like some clarification on point 6. What does it mean to say "Christ died because the accumulated sins of trillions of sinners, past, present and future He willingly took upon Himself"? (I'm not disagreeing, just looking for clarification as to what taking the accumlated sins of trillions of sinners means -- ty)
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/08/05 03:39 AM
Tom made a salient point: If you're really interested in what Waggoner wrote, why not read what he actually wrote, rather than just reading what someone else wrote about what he wrote. Reading someone's writings only second-hand is a very poor way of trying to ascertain what the person actually taught.
This has been a real candor problem among many SDA pundits since, oooooohhh, 1888. The fear/angst some SDAs display over researching beyond what is on sale at the ABC store, or beyond what someone once whispered to them, or what their pastor told them, is a sad testimony of their faith in the Holy Spirit to actually guide them to "all Truth". A little practical experience is all that's needed; "He is faithful who promised.." to lead us, and no other.
As for Christ's horrific death, by the rolling on Him the mountain of the human race's sins, [see 5BC 1127.1] all at once, spanning all human time, He became the Magnet of the sin disease, as I call it. Only fully God and fully man has the ability to do that. Sin-bearer means that He carried all the species of man's sins, records of sins as well as the actually sin-disease itself. Keep in mind: to cure a leper from peeling skin,nodules, ulcers, white scaly scabs, and deformities, without eradicating the bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae) is no "cure" at all.
It is my contention that Christ was veiled on the Cross by the Father's dark cloud of His attendance (see DA 753.4 through 754.3) in order to spare the onlookers from instant destruction by His glory, as EGW points out, but perhaps to angelic, and other humans through the universe the petrifying sight of Christ actually "absorbing" the wages of the sins in toto. I understand that He experienced all the horrors of sin so that He could in tangible terms know as a Man that "for thy sake [He]becomes sin itself. {DA 755.1}
But I think, Tom you may be asking me how He could take the sins of the yet unborn. Well, it's the same question as "How could He take the sins of the unrepentant?" He didn't take the records of their sins, as they had nothing recorded yet. But He did take the Sin Disease and crush it by providing the vaccine for all time, Himself. He conquered Satan's weapon, Death.
All, while living, have but to ask for the Vaccine, take it as prescribed and stay away from leper colonies.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/08/05 06:34 AM
quote:
But I think, Tom you may be asking me how He could take the sins of the yet unborn. Well, it's the same question as "How could He take the sins of the unrepentant?" He didn't take the records of their sins, as they had nothing recorded yet. But He did take the Sin Disease and crush it by providing the vaccine for all time, Himself. He conquered Satan's weapon, Death.
This is very poetic, especially the underlined part. But I'd still like more info on what saying Christ took our sins means to you. Thank you.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/08/05 05:56 PM
quote:
I agree with your point about the Bible not being a treatise on Systematic Theology. It's ironic that you make this point, because this is an argument the Christus Victor adherents commonly make.
What I mean is that in the Bible, doctrines are not presented in a systematic way. This does not mean that it is wrong to systematize doctrines.
quote:
This was the classical view held by the early Christians.
It was one of the views among many others like satisfaction of law and justice, substitution and satisfaction, etc. This link provides a well-done research on the subject:
http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/4-3/4_CULVER_FINAL.htm
quote:
The noon of the papacy was the midnight of the world, as EGW puts it. I find it interesting that you place your faith in a theory which was developed at high noon.
The theory was not created by Anselm; he just systematized it. In the research above you will see that these ideas were already prevalent in the first centuries.
quote:
I agree that Ellen White used references to all three theories to communicate, which is a reasonable thing for her to do, as she was trying to reach different minds. Similarly Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, because those with whom He was communicating had these erroneous views. This does not mean that Christ Himself held these views.
It is completely different. One single instance may be found in Christ’s teachings which used popular beliefs not held by Him, but this was a parable. Ellen White leans heavily on the terminology and ideas of the satisfaction, governmental and penal views. If these are wrong ideas, her writings are misleading.
quote:
There is no idea in Scripture of God's wrath being appeased by the offering of His Son as a sacrifice. This is a pagan idea.
Who is defending this idea? I know of no SDA writer who defends this idea. This is fighting an enemy that does not exist, like Don Quixote.
quote:
How could the phrase "restored the whole race of men" possibly be provisional???
The race had been debarred from God’s favor in Adam, and it was restored to God’s favor in Christ. As I said, our relationship with Adam is physical, but with Christ it is spiritual. Simple.
quote:
I didn't see how the second quote fit in.
There is no second quote. Both paragraphs belong to the same quote. The whole passage is clearly speaking about salvation when it says that God restored the race to divine favor: “They would have the benefits of salvation limited to their own nation. But God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor[/b]...”
quote:
This does violence to the Greek text, as well as to Paul's thought. The verb is in the aorist...
Which verb in Rom. 5:18 is in the aorist? There is no verb in v. 18.
Anyway, if there was a verb in v. 18, it would be in the aorist because the whole passage is in the aorist. However, the aorist does not always indicate “a completed task at some specific time in the past”. Look, for instance, at v. 21: “so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Both verbs are in the aorist. This does not mean that “sin reigned in death” and “grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life” are “completed tasks at some specific time in the past”, since sin still reigns in death and grace still reigns to eternal life. The aorist only means that these actions began from a certain point.
quote:
Tom: Waggoner wrote this:
First, I don’t have access to the article. Second, Is the quote you provided from the same article? If it is, then he is saying that justification came upon all provisionally, for he would not contradict himself in the same article, unless he was crazy. And what he said was: “If men were counted righteous simply because One was righteous eighteen hundred years ago, then all would have to be righteous by the same obedience. There would be no justice in counting righteousness to one and not to all, if it were in that way. But we have seen that it is not so.”
quote:
You are assuming you are a better judge of truth than both Waggoner and Ellen G. White.
No. I just work on the basis of facts. And what he wrote is contradicting what she wrote.
quote:
Please explain to me what it is about Waggoner's view of the Covenants that differed from those who opposed him which Ellen G. White endorsed.
If I remember correctly, the law, especially as a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster.
quote:
Already judged when?
At the moment she was accepted as a prophet. She is as fallible as the Bible prophets. They made little mistakes in mathematics, in science, little slips in mentioning a prophet as reference when another one should be mentioned, and so on. But they couldn’t make mistakes in doctrine, because the truth which the Lord sends to men cannot be mixed with error.
quote:
I don't recall discussing this subject.
You didn’t. But I thought it was reasonable to conclude that what is considered arbitrary for God to do after the millennium would also be considered arbitrary before the millennium.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/08/05 08:40 PM
Old Tom:I agree with your point about the Bible not being a treatise on Systematic Theology. It's ironic that you make this point, because this is an argument the Christus Victor adherents commonly make.
R: What I mean is that in the Bible, doctrines are not presented in a systematic way. This does not mean that it is wrong to systematize doctrines.
T: Right.
Old Tom:This was the classical view held by the early Christians.
R: It was one of the views among many others like satisfaction of law and justice, substitution and satisfaction, etc. This link provides a well-done research on the subject:
http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/4-3/4_CULVER_FINAL.htmT: I read the article, and it is evident to me that those commenting were reading their own views into the views of the fathers. This is actually quite obvious. For example:
quote:
Harnack once remarked that "Whoever looks away from the formulas to the spirit will find everywhere in the writings of Augustine a stream of Pauline faith."
I don't see anything of "Pauline faith" in Augustine's writings. Augustine's whole conception was wrong from beginning to end regarding God's work in salvation history. Yet to one who shares Augustine's misgivings it will appear that Paul shares the same view. So when one who has been shaped by Augustine, and thus to view Paul in an Augustinian way rather than a Pauline way, see things which are along the lines with which he already thinks, he approves, calling it a "stream of Augustinian faith." This represents a bias on the part of the reviewer. I did not find any such bias in Gustav Aulen, and while there are those who have disputed his findings, I'm not aware of anyone questioning his lack of bias.
The author of the article himself referred to "glimmerings" "shafts of light". The article had the feel of someone looking for something specific and then rejoicing when a "glimmering" was found. Aulen's approach was much more detached, where he looked at what the various author's were saying, without looking to find something in particular as an agenda.
Having said that, a couple of the quotes were interesting, including one by Athanasius and Gregory were interesting. The one by Athanasius, however, was not an actual quote from Athanasius, but a quote from someone else favorable to the point of the view of the author of Athanasius. The same thing applies to the Gregory quote.
So the most impressive quotes were those which were in actuality quoting someone else who was quoting them, and the someone else had an agenda, as did the person making the second-hand quote. So that's not very impressive scholarship.
Aulen, on the other hand, quoted directly from the primary sources, and had a detached approach.
Old Tom: The noon of the papacy was the midnight of the world, as EGW puts it. I find it interesting that you place your faith in a theory which was developed at high noon.
R: The theory was not created by Anselm; he just systematized it. In the research above you will see that these ideas were already prevalent in the first centuries.
T: I didn't see that. Even the author, who was desparately trying to find something, characterized what he found as "glimmerings" no "prevalent." If you relook at the argument, you can see that in no way could "prevalent" be used to characterize the satisfaction idea, even using the findings of the author himself, who was predisposed to the idea. It is also not at all clear that the offering to be given was to God or to Satan. The quote from Augustine was clearly to Satan, so that's not at all Anselm's idea, and the other quotes were unclear. So there were at best a couple of quotes which *might* have had an idea which was similar to Anselm's.
On the other hand, the evidence that they early Fathers held the Christus Victor view is prodigious. Paragraph upon paragraph could be cited of those holding the view, not just a couple of snippets. That this was their predominant view is not in question.
Old Tom: I agree that Ellen White used references to all three theories to communicate, which is a reasonable thing for her to do, as she was trying to reach different minds. Similarly Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, because those with whom He was communicating had these erroneous views. This does not mean that Christ Himself held these views.
R: It is completely different. One single instance may be found in Christ’s teachings which used popular beliefs not held by Him, but this was a parable.
T: We have a lot more material available from Ellen White than Christ, so it's not surprising that it only appeared once. My point was that God works with the false preconceptions of man to communicate truth.
R: Ellen White leans heavily on the terminology and ideas of the satisfaction, governmental and penal views. If these are wrong ideas, her writings are misleading.
T: Only in the same way the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is misleading.
Old Tom:There is no idea in Scripture of God's wrath being appeased by the offering of His Son as a sacrifice. This is a pagan idea.
R: Who is defending this idea? I know of no SDA writer who defends this idea. This is fighting an enemy that does not exist, like Don Quixote.
T: Ok, so you agree with me that Romans 3 which speaks of propitiation is not referring to God's wrath being propitiated? It appeared to me on the basis of previous posts that you were disagreeing with me on this point.
Old Tom:How could the phrase "restored the whole race of men" possibly be provisional???
R: The race had been debarred from God’s favor in Adam, and it was restored to God’s favor in Christ. As I said, our relationship with Adam is physical, but with Christ it is spiritual. Simple.
T: I never disagreed that the Romans 5:18 was dealing with our physical life. I've been asserting that the whole time. "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life." This is clearly dealing with our physical life. So I'm not seeing what it is about the concept I'm presenting that you are disagreeing with.
I'm saying that we owe our physical lives to the death of Christ; that we owe our physical existence to Him, both on the basis of creation and redemption. It appears to me you are saying the same thing (even if you disagree with the application of certain Scriptural texts to the idea, you appear to be agreeing with the idea). If you are disagreeing with it, what is it that you disagree with?
Old Tom:I didn't see how the second quote fit in.
R: There is no second quote. Both paragraphs belong to the same quote. The whole passage is clearly speaking about salvation when it says that God restored the race to divine favor: “They would have the benefits of salvation limited to their own nation. But God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor[/b]...”
T: Being placed under divine favor results in two things:
1) Physical life.
2) Eternal life.
The first is not provisional. The second is. Both were made possible by Christ's death.
Old Tom:This does violence to the Greek text, as well as to Paul's thought. The verb is in the aorist...
R: Which verb in Rom. 5:18 is in the aorist? There is no verb in v. 18.
T: Sorry. I had Romans 5:12 in mind.
R: Anyway, if there was a verb in v. 18, it would be in the aorist because the whole passage is in the aorist.
T: Agreed.
R: However, the aorist does not always indicate “a completed task at some specific time in the past”. Look, for instance, at v. 21: “so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Both verbs are in the aorist. This does not mean that “sin reigned in death” and “grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life” are “completed tasks at some specific time in the past”, since sin still reigns in death and grace still reigns to eternal life. The aorist only means that these actions began from a certain point.
T: Applying this logic to the text under consideration, Rom. 5:18, then we would have:
1) Sin, and its results (condemnation, judgement), began with Adam's act.
2) Righteousness, and its results, began with Christ's act.
I'm suggesting that Rom. 18 is not talking about multiple acts of sin and righteousness, but one specific act of sin and one specific act of righteousness. I see you suggestion as being possible for 1) above, but not 2). The word is in the singular ("rightouesness") and only makes sense, as far as I can tell, to refer this to Christ's death on the cross. Do you disagree?
Old Tom: Waggoner wrote this:
R: First, I don’t have access to the article.
T: Sure you do. I cited the source. It's on the internet.
R: Second, Is the quote you provided from the same article? If it is, then he is saying that justification came upon all provisionally, for he would not contradict himself in the same article, unless he was crazy. And what he said was: “If men were counted righteous simply because One was righteous eighteen hundred years ago, then all would have to be righteous by the same obedience. There would be no justice in counting righteousness to one and not to all, if it were in that way. But we have seen that it is not so.”
T: Waggoner used the word "justification" to mean the same thing as "justification by faith," as far as I'm aware. He communicated the same concept which I've referred to as "corporate justification," but using different words (such as the words quotes). Similarly EGW did not use the term "corporate justification" but communicated the concept in saying "to the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life" and "Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race of men to favor with God." Prescott did use the word "justification" in the sense I've mentioned. Jones spoke of Christ "undoing" that which Adam had done.
Old Tom:You are assuming you are a better judge of truth than both Waggoner and Ellen G. White.
R: No. I just work on the basis of facts. And what he wrote is contradicting what she wrote.
T: Then she would be contracting herself. Because she wrote that if his view agreed with hers then it was "truth", and immediately classified Waggoner's view as "truth." Another possibility is that you are misunderstanding what EGW wrote, and she actually was correct that Waggoner's view was "truth" and "clear as sunlight".
Old Tom:Please explain to me what it is about Waggoner's view of the Covenants that differed from those who opposed him which Ellen G. White endorsed.
R: If I remember correctly, the law, especially as a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster.
T: Could you flesh this out a bit. What does this have to do with Waggoner's view on the Covenants? How does Waggoner's view of the Covenants being "truth" have to do with the law being a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster?
Old Tom:Already judged when?
R: At the moment she was accepted as a prophet. She is as fallible as the Bible prophets.
They made little mistakes in mathematics, in science, little slips in mentioning a prophet as reference when another one should be mentioned, and so on. But they couldn’t make mistakes in doctrine, because the truth which the Lord sends to men cannot be mixed with error.
T: This seems to be a bit restrictive, but I'll let that go. How is the truth that she received any different than the truth Jones and Waggoner received? Given she is a prophet, then mustn't it be the case that the "truth" and "light" which Jones and Waggoner received was "truth" and "light". Given she is a prophet, and she admonisthes us to lay hold of the truth and light which God gave to Jones and Waggoner, shouldn't we do that?
Old Tom:I don't recall discussing this subject.
R: You didn’t. But I thought it was reasonable to conclude that what is considered arbitrary for God to do after the millennium would also be considered arbitrary before the millennium.
T: That's a reasonable conclusion. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread on it.
There are those who are presenting the view on God's wrath and the destruction of the wicked which hold both points of view regarding God's actions in this life. To me they seem like two problems. To some it may seem as one. A. G. Maxwell himself, who is one of the chief proponents of the view we have been presenting, holds to a similar view as you do regarding the flood and Sodom and Gemorrah. So it's not necessary to see the flood and Sodom and Gemorrah the same way to have the same view on the destruction of the wicked. I've chosen up to now to stay out of this other discussion because it's a more difficult one, IMO, whereas the destruction of the wicked at the judgment is a simple one.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/09/05 08:23 AM
"Augustine of Hippo", a semi-converted Platoist philosopher, is hardly a beacon of light for Protestants of any stripe to be following, Roseangela. Despite the pandering of him as a "father of the church", in violation of Matthew 23:9,he is certainly not the father of this church, nor any earlier bands of Sabbath-keepers.
That is an historical fact I will show upon request, but do not want to side-track the thrust of the topic.
I will leave Tom to point out the weaknesses of your points of view, however I must question your usages of the ecumenical Trinity College's "theology"school papers. This is an internet correspondence school and a proud bed-fellow of the Canterbury Christ Church University College, the archbishopric seminary of the High Church of England and yet you seem utterly indifferent to the heaven approved writings of Adventist scholars and evangelists, Dr. Waggoner and Elder Alonzo T. Jones. I am also surprised that you would discard them after admitting you have not read much of their works nor own any, if I remember them correctly.
PS: Canterbury Christ Church University College was founded on the memorial site of the "other Augustine" of the 6th century AD, the genocidal murderer of Sabbath-keeping Britains. He was the bloody stooge of the papacy, who with Catholic French Normans conquered the original Christians of Great Britain, the Remnant Church in the Wilderness.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/09/05 09:30 PM
Ikan,
I found the research objective and unbiased. The source is not important. We must test all things and hold fast to what is good.
Tom,
The church fathers didn’t have a systematized position about the atonement, no work was ever written specifically about it, and all we have are scattered thoughts. Therefore, I question the fact that the early church (at least the church fathers) had a definite position about the atonement. Origen, for instance, proposes at the same time ideas which fit in the Christus Victor theory and in the ransom theory. This Christus Victor idea appeared more frequently than the others because of the social context. As the website you recommended points out, “in the first-century church this view of the struggle of the power of Love to free us from the oppressive and corruptive System was a common theme as the church struggled under the oppressive powers of the Roman Empire.”
Anyway, the fact is that, because the Bible does not have a systematic approach, the edifice of truth was erected little by little, and many contributed to it. The doctrine of justification by faith, for instance, was only systematized at the 16th century. It should be noticed, however, that because we see some truth in a certain position, this does not mean we accept the whole position. We believe in the Trinity, for instance, but not exactly as it is exposed by the CC. As SDAs, we have guidance for Bible interpretation in the writings of Ellen White, and through her writings we can know which interpretations are correct and which are not.
quote:
T: Only in the same way the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is misleading.
In a parable or in an allegory, two dead people can entertain a conversation, trees can speak, animals can represent human beings, and so on. This is not misleading, for every reasonable person knows that these things are not real. But expressing wrong ideas in non-figurative texts is misleading.
quote:
T: Ok, so you agree with me that Romans 3 which speaks of propitiation is not referring to God's wrath being propitiated? It appeared to me on the basis of previous posts that you were disagreeing with me on this point.
I never thought in these terms, of God’s wrath being propitiated.
quote:
It appears to me you are saying the same thing (even if you disagree with the application of certain Scriptural texts to the idea, you appear to be agreeing with the idea).
Yes, of course I agree that all of us, sinners and saints, owe our physical life to Christ. I just disagree that Romans 5:18 is speaking about this.
quote:
I see you suggestion as being possible for 1) above, but not 2). The word is in the singular ("rightouesness") and only makes sense, as far as I can tell, to refer this to Christ's death on the cross. Do you disagree?
No, I agree that it probably refers to Christ’s death. But why do you think it’s not possible for #2? Righteousness and justification did come with Christ’s sacrifice, although its effects are retroactive.
quote:
T: Could you flesh this out a bit. What does this have to do with Waggoner's view on the Covenants? How does Waggoner's view of the Covenants being "truth" have to do with the law being a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster?
The historical context of the Minneapolis conference is this:
The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3, wrote of the "added law" in verse 19, and of the "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," that in verse 24. Among Seventh-day Adventists for two years there had been controversy over which law he meant.{3BIO 387.1}
Butler was deeply suspicious of the work of Jones and Waggoner, and from reports that had come to him he felt certain Ellen White was in their camp. Thus the omens were beginning to appear of what was before them in the more than three weeks of the institute and the conference. To Mary she [Ellen White] wrote: {3BIO 392.7}
“Elders Smith and Butler are very loath to have anything said upon the law in Galatians, but I cannot see how it can be avoided. We must take the Bible as our standard and we must diligently search its pages for light and evidence of truth.”--Ibid. {3BIO 392.8}
For two years the issue of the law in Galatians had smoldered, and when it was taken up, bitterness and accusations were unleashed. {3BIO 399.2}
The focal point was verse 24 of chapter 3, which reads: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." There was no argument among Seventh-day Adventists concerning the believer's being justified by faith, although this vital truth was sadly neglected at the time. In 1888 the sharp difference of opinion, as when J. H. Waggoner wrote on the subject in 1854, was whether the law brought to view as the schoolmaster was the moral or the ceremonial law. Thus two issues were bound up in a study of "the law and the gospel" in such a way that if one topic suffered in bitter debate, both were affected. The great adversary took advantage of this. {3BIO 399.3}
Regarding an early-morning workers' meeting, she [Ellen white] reported: {3BIO 405.3}
“The remark was made, ‘If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith.’” {3BIO 405.4}
Although Ellen White said neither position was completely right, because the law in Galatians 3 refers to both the moral and the ceremonial law, she sided with Waggoner, because the main reference is to the moral law:
"'The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith' (Galatians 3:24). In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and cause us to feel our need of Christ, and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." {1MR 130.2}
Besides, Waggoner said this in the chapter “The Adoption of Sons”: “The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above, we have the law in Christ. In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results; but in the second instance we have the law ‘in the hand of a Mediator.’ In the one case it is what we can do; in the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do.”
This position on the law as a ministration of death and condemnation is very emphasized by Ellen White after 1888 and also seems to have been a new insight to SDAs, and perhaps many felt that this view weakened our position in favor of the observance of the law.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/09/05 10:59 PM
R: Ikan,
I found the research objective and unbiased. The source is not important. We must test all things and hold fast to what is good.
T: I don't think this speaks well of your objectivity. It appears to me the only criterion you are using is whether the source agrees with your point of view (pardon me if I'm incorrectly assessing what you're doing here, but this really is what it looks like to me, for reasons given).
As I pointed out, the "research" you quoted was simply someone who referred to someone else's writings about yet someone else. That's not research, and it's neither objective or unbiased. It's very clear from reading the article that the author had a point of view in mind
before he started his research, and was looking for for what he wanted to find, which he found in third parties that quoted on the parties he should have been looking at himself.
R: Tom,
The church fathers didn’t have a systematized position about the atonement, no work was ever written specifically about it, and all we have are scattered thoughts. Therefore, I question the fact that the early church (at least the church fathers) had a definite position about the atonement.
T: As the article writer pointed out, salvation and atonement were all lumped together. This isn't simply because of a lack of systematification, but due to the way they conceived of the matter. That is, the atonement wasn't conceived of as a separate thing of Christ's ministry.
R: Origen, for instance, proposes at the same time ideas which fit in the Christus Victor theory and in the ransom theory. This Christus Victor idea appeared more frequently than the others because of the social context. As the website you recommended points out, “in the first-century church this view of the struggle of the power of Love to free us from the oppressive and corruptive System was a common theme as the church struggled under the oppressive powers of the Roman Empire.”
Anyway, the fact is that, because the Bible does not have a systematic approach, the edifice of truth was erected little by little, and many contributed to it. The doctrine of justification by faith, for instance, was only systematized at the 16th century. It should be noticed, however, that because we see some truth in a certain position, this does not mean we accept the whole position. We believe in the Trinity, for instance, but not exactly as it is exposed by the CC. As SDAs, we have guidance for Bible interpretation in the writings of Ellen White, and through her writings we can know which interpretations are correct and which are not.
T: With the doctrines of the church in general we perceive a greater light at the time of the primitive church, and decreasing light as time goes on, until the Reformation, at which point we see light increasing, until the movement of the SDA church. The Sabbath, state of the death, Christ's ministry in the Sanctuary are several examples of this. The idea that truth was erected little by little until it found its zenith at the midnight of the papacy doesn't fit with this pattern.
The idea of Christus Victor was that Christ by His life, death and resurrection was victorious over the evil powers of sin, death and the devil. This is a very simple idea, which Christians understood for centuries. This idea appears all over the Scriptures, clearly stated in virtually every book of the New Testament (it's also in the Old, but in less direct ways -- at least to our eyes, not being familiar with their cultures).
Old Tom: Only in the same way the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is misleading.
R: In a parable or in an allegory, two dead people can entertain a conversation, trees can speak, animals can represent human beings, and so on. This is not misleading, for every reasonable person knows that these things are not real. But expressing wrong ideas in non-figurative texts is misleading.
T: It's certainly been misleading for millions of Christians. Not only has it been misleading for millions of Christians, Christ *knew* it would be when He told it. The principle this illustrates is that God will communicate using principles which are not perfect or can be misunderstood. As we know God better, we become better able to make sense out of what God is saying.
Old Tom: Ok, so you agree with me that Romans 3 which speaks of propitiation is not referring to God's wrath being propitiated? It appeared to me on the basis of previous posts that you were disagreeing with me on this point.
R: I never thought in these terms, of God’s wrath being propitiated.
T: So you agree with me that it is men who are propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ is Romans 3?
Old Tom: It appears to me you are saying the same thing (even if you disagree with the application of certain Scriptural texts to the idea, you appear to be agreeing with the idea).
R: Yes, of course I agree that all of us, sinners and saints, owe our physical life to Christ. I just disagree that Romans 5:18 is speaking about this.
T: Your disagreement with me started *before* Romans 5:18 entered into the conversation. I started it on the basis of EGW statements and only later gave the Biblical backing for it.
Old Tom: I see you suggestion as being possible for 1) above, but not 2). The word is in the singular ("rightouesness") and only makes sense, as far as I can tell, to refer this to Christ's death on the cross. Do you disagree?
R: No, I agree that it probably refers to Christ’s death. But why do you think it’s not possible for #2? Righteousness and justification did come with Christ’s sacrifice, although its effects are retroactive.
T: Ok, so you agree that Rom. 5:18 is dealing with the one act of disobedience by Adam and the one act of obedience of Christ, His death. You also agree with the concept that Christ by His death enables us to live physically. You just don't think Romans 5:18 is saying this. It seems clear to me that it is, because Paul is making a parallel between the "all" of the effect of Adam and the "all" of the effect of Christ. This is the whole point of the chapter, and if Christ's effect is only on a subset of those impacted by Adam, the whole argument falls apart. However, given you agree with the concept, whether you see it in this particular verse doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Old Tom: Could you flesh this out a bit. What does this have to do with Waggoner's view on the Covenants? How does Waggoner's view of the Covenants being "truth" have to do with the law being a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster?
R: The historical context of the Minneapolis conference is this:
The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3, wrote of the "added law" in verse 19, and of the "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," that in verse 24. Among Seventh-day Adventists for two years there had been controversy over which law he meant.{3BIO 387.1}
Butler was deeply suspicious of the work of Jones and Waggoner, and from reports that had come to him he felt certain Ellen White was in their camp. Thus the omens were beginning to appear of what was before them in the more than three weeks of the institute and the conference. To Mary she [Ellen White] wrote: {3BIO 392.7}
“Elders Smith and Butler are very loath to have anything said upon the law in Galatians, but I cannot see how it can be avoided. We must take the Bible as our standard and we must diligently search its pages for light and evidence of truth.”--Ibid. {3BIO 392.8}
For two years the issue of the law in Galatians had smoldered, and when it was taken up, bitterness and accusations were unleashed. {3BIO 399.2}
The focal point was verse 24 of chapter 3, which reads: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." There was no argument among Seventh-day Adventists concerning the believer's being justified by faith, although this vital truth was sadly neglected at the time. In 1888 the sharp difference of opinion, as when J. H. Waggoner wrote on the subject in 1854, was whether the law brought to view as the schoolmaster was the moral or the ceremonial law. Thus two issues were bound up in a study of "the law and the gospel" in such a way that if one topic suffered in bitter debate, both were affected. The great adversary took advantage of this. {3BIO 399.3}
Regarding an early-morning workers' meeting, she [Ellen white] reported: {3BIO 405.3}
“The remark was made, ‘If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith.’” {3BIO 405.4}
Although Ellen White said neither position was completely right, because the law in Galatians 3 refers to both the moral and the ceremonial law, she sided with Waggoner, because the main reference is to the moral law:
"'The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith' (Galatians 3:24). In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and cause us to feel our need of Christ, and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." {1MR 130.2}
Besides, Waggoner said this in the chapter “The Adoption of Sons”: “The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above, we have the law in Christ. In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results; but in the second instance we have the law ‘in the hand of a Mediator.’ In the one case it is what we can do; in the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do.”
This position on the law as a ministration of death and condemnation is very emphasized by Ellen White after 1888 and also seems to have been a new insight to SDAs, and perhaps many felt that this view weakened our position in favor of the observance of the law.
T: That's a nice summary. I agree with most of it, but would emphasize that the teaching of justification by faith was very much different between Butler and his group and Jones and Waggoner. Also it's important to understand the EGW conceptualized righteousness by faith as what was the issue at hand, not simply the law in Galatians. That is, while certain combatants viewed the issue at hand as a debate of which law in Galatians was the right one, she perceived that God was giving us light on the subject of justification by faith. Waggoner himself also perceived that he was preaching righteousness by faith, and this viewpoint is evident in his choice of a title for his pamphlet responding to Butler's pamphlet called "The Law in Galatians" -- Waggoner called his "The Gospel in Galatians."
So summarizing the thought here, God was giving light regarding righteousness by faith -- the "third angel's message in verity" -- to Jones and Waggoner, and their preaching was very distinct form Butler's and others.
Back to the Covenants question. Here is Waggoner's view in a nutshell:
quote:
That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything. http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT04RedeemedfromtheCurse.htm
What of this view was EGW endorsing? Why were Butler and Smith so wrong in opposing it? Given that Butler and Smith's view was essentially the same as yours, and EGW endorsed Waggoner's over theirs, how is this not endorsing Waggoner's over yours? If she really agreed with essentially everything of Butler's and Smith's view, but had some minor disagreement, but disagreed with virtually all of Waggoner's view, but had a minor agreement, shouldn't she have endorsed Butler and Smith's view? How could she call Waggoner's view "truth" and "clear as sunlight" while warning Butler and Smither that they were wasting their time to present a view different than Waggoner's?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/10/05 03:30 AM
Roseangla Quoting Augustine, Origen, "the Church Fathers" and the mythical "progressive revelation of truth" under the papacy thumb, with no mention of the church in the wilderness, may earn someone a mail-order degree from Trinity College, but it holds no weight among those of us who from study know the mind-set of "the Beast". The blood of millions has been spilled by "scholars" such as these!
Your sources are tainted beyond your imagination, and I plead with you to give them up and re-focus on Adventist sources more bravely, which we will be glad to make available to you, whether online or hardcopy.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/10/05 01:32 PM
Ikan,
Just an explanation for you. The church fathers were only mentioned in this discussion in passing. FYI, I don't care what they said and what they thought. Ellen White has already made the selection for me of what is truth and what is not. But it is undeniable that she accepted some views of Anselm and others. As she said, the gems of truth are hidden in the midst of the rubbish of error, and they must be restored to their proper place.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/10/05 03:59 PM
1- Tom, for our purpose in the discussion we were having, I found that the research was a good summary. It presented all the positions which appeared in the writings of the early church, as well as the quotes which could be of interest as precursors of Anselm’s position. He didn’t say this position was the prevalent one or the only one in the writings of the church fathers, but showed that it wasn’t completely absent either.
Back to the subject, what can be verified is that there were several scattered ideas and no definite position; Christus Victor and ransom were the two ideas which appeared more frequently, with the others appearing occasionally. Besides, most of the ideas were not opposed to each other but, rather, complementary. That’s why both Christus Victor and ransom were defended by Origen. In fact, I don’t know what your purpose was in introducing the argument that Christus Victor was the prevalent theory in the early church. In fact, Christus Victor is both your position and mine. That Christ defeated His enemies at the cross is obvious; but this position does not deal with the core issue, that is, the role of the cross in man’s salvation. In fact, Maxwell’s view is much more akin to the moral influence theory, systematized by Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm.
2-
quote:
It's certainly been misleading for millions of Christians.
Not so. Christians adopted the pagan view of the soul immortality and then tried to find Bible texts as an excuse to support it, in the same way they did with Sunday.
3- quote:
T: So you agree with me that it is men who are propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ is Romans 3?
Propitiation is, in my view, essentially mediation, or reconciliation. Because of sin, God could no longer approach man and man could no longer approach God; therefore there arose the need of a Mediator. Through Christ, God was reconciled to man and man to God:
“The sin of Adam and Eve caused a fearful separation between God and man. And Christ steps in between fallen man and God, and says to man: ‘You may yet come to the Father; there is a plan devised through which God can be reconciled to man, and man to God; through a mediator you can approach God.’” {AG 154.2}
4- quote:
T: Your disagreement with me started *before* Romans 5:18 entered into the conversation. I started it on the basis of EGW statements and only later gave the Biblical backing for it.
Exactly. I agree that the quote of DA 660 applies to the second probation but disagree that 1 SM 343 can be applied to the second probation. To me, being restored to God’s favor refers to salvation and is provisional. The meaning of this passage to me is the following:
“In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live” (SC 68).
5- quote:
Given that Butler and Smith's view was essentially the same as yours, and EGW endorsed Waggoner's over theirs, how is this not endorsing Waggoner's over yours?
Could you please elaborate this further? How is my view different from that of Waggoner and similar to that of Butler and Smith?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/11/05 06:15 AM
"This link provides a well-done research on the subject:..."
"I found the research objective and unbiased. The source is not important."
"The church fathers were only mentioned in this discussion in passing. FYI, I don't care what they said and what they thought."
Ok...so I will remember in the future when you promote a link, and support it with arguments, that you are just carelessly tossing it in in passing, and really don't care after all, right? I'm not to take your adjectives to references too seriously, eh?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/10/05 08:20 PM
Ikan,
If you want to participate in the discussion you are welcome, but why sidetracking with nitpicking remarks? Tom initiated the discussion about Anselm and the church fathers, so I made I quick search in order to reply to him. To me the summary presented by this research was brief and up to the point. I didn’t mention it as a reference, but just to have a basis for discussion. I wouldn’t have introduced the subject of the church fathers myself, because I don’t really care about what they said.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/10/05 09:28 PM
quote:
Ellen White has already made the selection for me of what is truth and what is not.
This isn't her purpose, nor the purpose of Scripture. Actually, even God Himself doesn't do this.
What you wrote strikes me as very odd. God's purpose is to *teach* us truth, not dictate it. He doesn't want automatons who follow Him without knowing why, but friends who will do what is right because they are convinced in their heart that it is right. The truth sets us free. When we are convinced of the truth, we will act as God wants us to, because it's a part of who we are, integral to our character. Then God will have followers like Paul, who wrote:
quote:
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. (Romans 9:1-3)
and Moses:
quote:
31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. (Ex. 32:31, 32)
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/10/05 10:05 PM
Ikan - I value your participation, but agree with her comments regarding snippiness. It's easy to fall into that when discussing points with which we disagree. I've tried to keep my pwn tone good, and have found Rosangela's tone to be good. We obviously disagree about a number of things, but she has treated me respectfully, and I hope I've done the same for her.
I hope you continue in the discussion.
R: 1- Tom, for our purpose in the discussion we were having, I found that the research was a good summary. It presented all the positions which appeared in the writings of the early church, as well as the quotes which could be of interest as precursors of Anselm’s position. He didn’t say this position was the prevalent one or the only one in the writings of the church fathers, but showed that it wasn’t completely absent either.
Tom: He called it a "glimmering". Your comment, I forget what it was, "prevalent" maybe, implied a great deal more.
R:Back to the subject, what can be verified is that there were several scattered ideas and no definite position; Christus Victor and ransom were the two ideas which appeared more frequently, with the others appearing occasionally. Besides, most of the ideas were not opposed to each other but, rather, complementary. That’s why both Christus Victor and ransom were defended by Origen. In fact, I don’t know what your purpose was in introducing the argument that Christus Victor was the prevalent theory in the early church. In fact, Christus Victor is both your position and mine. That Christ defeated His enemies at the cross is obvious; but this position does not deal with the core issue, that is, the role of the cross in man’s salvation.
T: That Christ defeated His enemies at the cross is the whole point. How does this not deal with the core issue? That is the core issue. Man is saved by Christ's defeating our enemies, which includes His work not just on the cross, but His life, death and resurrection. Man participates in Christ's victory by faith.
R: In fact, Maxwell’s view is much more akin to the moral influence theory, systematized by Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm.
T: I disagree. I has much more to do with the Christus Victor theme. The difference between "his" view, which is really Ellen G. White's, as that's where he got it from (actually it's all over the Bible, but I'm not sure he would have seen it without Ellen G. White's books, that would have to be a question for him) and the Christus Victor view is the question as to what the controversy is about. That is, he views the controversy as being over God's character (and this is so clear from EGW's writings that I won't bother to substantiate it, unless you so request)
I don't see much in common with Abelgard's views and Maxwells. There's a superficial agreement in that Abelgard emphasized the atonement involved man's perceiving God's love, but that's about it. Abelgard's ideas involved an example mentality, where we follow Christ as a good moral example. Our rightouesness is by virtue of being good like Christ was. Maxwell's ideas are poles apart from this. The Christus Victor idea is that Christ obtained the victory over our enemies of sin, death and the devil, ushering in a new reign, the reign of the kingdom of God, and we enter into that kingdom by faith. This is very similar to what Maxwell teaches, except that Maxwell uses the word "trust" a lot for "faith", and the phrase "God's character" instead of the phrase "the reign of the character of God."
R: 2-
quote:It's certainly been misleading for millions of Christians.
Not so. Christians adopted the pagan view of the soul immortality and then tried to find Bible texts as an excuse to support it, in the same way they did with Sunday.
T: The same as the web site did in looking among the early fathers for support for Anselm's views (sorry, couldn't resist
).
I disagree. That parable is misleading, or at least a difficulty. I know, because when I was studying to become an SDA it was an obstacle I had to overcome. I wasn't trying to find Bible texts as an excuse to support a view I was holding, but looking to find the truth. Yet God chose to give this parable, in spite of the difficulties it would bring to future readers. God knows that those who sincerely want to know the truth will plod on until they find it, despite superficial things which apparently seem to contradict the truth.
R: 3-
Old Tom: So you agree with me that it is men who are propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ is Romans 3?
R: Propitiation is, in my view, essentially mediation, or reconciliation. Because of sin, God could no longer approach man and man could no longer approach God; therefore there arose the need of a Mediator. Through Christ, God was reconciled to man and man to God:
Tom: What does God being reconciled to man mean? Does it mean anything different than man being brought into harmony with God, or with man being "set right"? If man were set right with God (e.g. by believing in Christ, the whole point of whose ministry was to reveal the Father), would there be something lacking?
As Waggoner pointed out, the word "propitiation" has to do with an appeasement of wrath. You took issue with my suggesting that this wrath is the wrath of man, yet when I say that your view involves God's wrath being appeased, you say I'm misrepresenting your view. So I'm confused. Whose wrath is appeased by the propitiation? If it's man, then we are in agreement. If it's God, then I was correct when I described your view as God's wrath being appeased by Christ.
Do you agree with this analysis?
R: “The sin of Adam and Eve caused a fearful separation between God and man. And Christ steps in between fallen man and God, and says to man: ‘You may yet come to the Father; there is a plan devised through which God can be reconciled to man, and man to God; through a mediator you can approach God.’” {AG 154.2}
4-
Old Tom: Your disagreement with me started *before* Romans 5:18 entered into the conversation. I started it on the basis of EGW statements and only later gave the Biblical backing for it.
R: Exactly. I agree that the quote of DA 660 applies to the second probation but disagree that 1 SM 343 can be applied to the second probation. To me, being restored to God’s favor refers to salvation and is provisional. The meaning of this passage to me is the following:
“In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live” (SC 68).
Tom: I think they mean the same thing too. The grace which encircles the earth is a real thing which cost the blood of Christ and is not simply provisional. There is a provisional aspect to it, that is true, but it is not *only* provisional.
1 Tim. 4:10 says Christ is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. This is the same idea. Christ *is* the Savior of all men, having saved all men from the death which would have resulted due to Adam's sin had Christ not intervened. Christ's death accomplished something for all men; physical life, and the opportunity for eternal life. Both are involved.
The problem with saying that 1SM 343 doesn't involve the second probation is that it explicitly states that Christ did something for the *whole* race, and what He did was accomplished *in the past*. If it were provisional, it would not be something done in the past. The same thing holds for Rom. 5:18.
But again, whether you agree or disagree that a certain passage in EGW or the Bible has to do with the theme or not seems to me to be of small import, provided you agree with me on the concept, which it sounds like you do. If you agree that the second probation that we receive is made possible by Christ's death, and that this is a tangible benefit for every member of the human race, then we are agreeing on a lot.
R: 5-
Old Tom:Given that Butler and Smith's view was essentially the same as yours, and EGW endorsed Waggoner's over theirs, how is this not endorsing Waggoner's over yours?
Could you please elaborate this further? How is my view different from that of Waggoner and similar to that of Butler and Smith?
T: Waggoner believed the following:
1. The Covenants are promises.
2. The Old Covenant was the promise of the people to make themselves righteous.
3. The Old Covenant was initiated by the people.
4. It was not God's idea to establish the Old Covenant, because He already had a perfect covenant in place, the one He made with Abraham. That covenant only came into place because of the people's unbelief.
5. The Covenants are not a matter of time.
If I'm not mistaken, you disagree, along with Butler and Smith, with these 5 points, which are the essential points of Waggoner's position regarding the Old Covenant.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/11/05 02:41 AM
My apologies if I offended you, Roseangela The Lord knows that my purpose was not offense, but clarity, as I am deeply concerned about "debate" sources, references, and texts being used with a poster's accountability.
I did not intend to "nit-pick" or be "snippy", but since my vocal tone and face cannot be seen, there could have been better ways I could have written what I did.
It's the "gleeming" aspect that Tom mentioned coupled with the source of the links and the fuller knowledge I have gained recently concerning any unfounded respect for Augustine, Origen and the whole motley gang of "Fathers" of the Catholic Church that prompted me to comment on your usages of them.
Again: I have found your willingness to discuss very refreshing.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/11/05 08:27 PM
Apologies accepted, Ikan.
About the word "prevalent", I did use it in the sentece "In the research above you will see that these ideas were already prevalent in the first centuries."
Without consulting the dictionary, I thought it would fit.
Now that you and Tom complained, I consulted the dictionary and it gives the following meanings:
1) To be greater in strength or influence; triumph: prevailed against the enemy.
2) To be or become effective; win out: hoped justice would prevail.
3) To be most common or frequent; be predominant: a region where snow and ice prevail.
4) To be in force, use, or effect; be current: an ancient tradition that still prevails.
5) To use persuasion or inducement successfully. Often used with on, upon, or with. See Synonyms at persuade.
I used the word with the forth meaning, but perhaps it was ambiguous? In all sincerity, the meaning I wanted to convey was that of being already in circulation or in existence. [Portuguese: "em voga".]
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/11/05 08:36 PM
Tom,
When I said that Ellen White has already made the selection for me of what is truth and what is not, I meant that it is useless to try to establish a position different from that which God revealed to her. I have studied and tested in the Bible for myself our positions on the sabbath, on the soul immortality, on the sanctuary, and so on. The conclusion I reached was the following: you can prove by the Bible that the sabbath was abolished, that the soul is immortal, that Christ entered the most holy place after His ascension; you can prove all this using isolated texts. However, if you consider the whole context of the Bible, you will verify that the positions we hold are the correct ones. But how were these positions established? The pioneers studied the Bible with prayer and went as far as they could go. Then there was a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to establish truth. Speaking of these study meetings, for instance, Ellen White wrote:
“We are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us. ... We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. ... The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled to clearly define what is truth and what is error. ... I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me” (GW 302).
This is what I meant when I said that Ellen White has already made the selection of what is truth and what is not. What is revealed in her writings is, of course, truth. Of course she did not reveal everything, and there are new truths to be discovered in the Word of God. But what she did reveal is truth.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/11/05 08:54 PM
Tom,
There are many things I could comment about, but this discussion has been dragging for too long, so I will reply just to the main points.
quote:
Man is saved by Christ's defeating our enemies
What does Christ’s defeating our enemies have to do with our forgiveness?
Tom: What does God being reconciled to man mean?
“Between unholy man, and God, the embodiment of holiness, there can be no companionship. The prophet Habakkuk declares that God is ‘of purer eyes than to behold evil, and can not look on iniquity.’ But Christ ‘gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity,’ and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Christ is the Sin-Bearer. He bears the iniquity of all who repent and believe, all who accept His robe of righteousness. For our sake the Innocent is pronounced guilty, while through His merits the guilty are pronounced innocent.” {ST, May 14, 1902 par. 11}
It means that God is holy and cannot tolerate the presence of sin; therefore, when man sinned he was shut out from God (debarred from God’s favor) for ever. However Christ, through the plan of salvation, imputes and imparts His righteousness to men, so that God can look to them again with favor (approbation).
quote:
As Waggoner pointed out, the word "propitiation" has to do with an appeasement of wrath.
I didn’t say you misrepresent my position; I just said that I did not think exactly in wrath when I thought of the word propitiation, although, thinking better, this meaning may really be implied.
Words associated to pagan concepts were incorporated into the Bible (for lack of a better option), with a related but at the same time different meaning than they originally had (hades, tartaros, hilasterion, etc.)
Hilasterion was the word the LXX used for mercy-seat. Thus, if the word is related at all to wrath, it is because the mercy-seat was the place where the blood was sprinkled to make atonement for the people and turn away God’s wrath at their sins. Thus the mercy-seat represents Christ’s work as Savior.
“The law of God, enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and judgment. That law pronounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was the mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which, by virtue of the atonement, pardon was granted to the repentant sinner. Thus in the work of Christ for our redemption, symbolized by the sanctuary service, ‘mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’ Psalm 85:10.” {PP 349.2}
“The cover of this ark . . . was called the mercy-seat, to signify that although death was the penalty for transgressing the law, mercy came through Jesus Christ to pardon the repentant, believing sinner.” {SD 66.3}
quote:
If I'm not mistaken, you disagree, along with Butler and Smith, with these 5 points, which are the essential points of Waggoner's position regarding the Old Covenant.
But who said the main points of disagreement between Butler/Smith and Waggoner were these? We are told that among SDAs there had been controversy for two years over which law Paul meant in Galatians 3. During the session EGW said: “The remark was made, ‘If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith.’” So, it seems clear to me that the main point of divergence was the law in Galatians. This is again confirmed by Ellen White in this passage:
“Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented… The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had.” --Letter 59, 1890, p. 6. (To Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890.) {9MR 329.1}
As to the points you presented, it’s not that I disagree with Waggoner; it’s that there is clearly a divergence between Waggoner and the Bible and Ellen White.
1. The covenants are promises.
If the covenants were the promises, Paul wouldn’t have made a distinction between the two:
Romans 9:4 “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”
Hebrews 8:6 “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
The Bible is very clear here - the covenant is not a promise, it is established upon promises.
While Waggoner says that a covenant is not "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things", Ellen White says that “a covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word.”
2. The Old Covenant was the promise of the people to make themselves righteous.
The people really promised to obey God, but as a (self-righteous) response to the covenant.
3. The Old Covenant was initiated by the people.
"Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you'" (Heb. 9:18-20).
It was initiated by God and the israelites only consented to obey its conditions:
“Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. ...Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. ... Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God.” {1MR 115.1}
“[Exodus 24:4-8 quoted]. Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. ... When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation.” {1MR 114.2}
4- It was not God's idea to establish the Old Covenant, because He already had a perfect covenant in place, the one He made with Abraham. That covenant only came into place because of the people's unbelief.
Why it came into place:
“But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant.... But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.”{PP 371}
5- The Covenants are not a matter of time.
The covenants were made at specific points in time, but of course the attitudes they represent can be found at any age.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/12/05 08:56 AM
Webster's is a good source for definitions of words. It gives for "prevalent":
[quote]
2 : being in ascendancy : DOMINANT
3 : generally or widely accepted, practiced, or favored :[quote]
The first definition was archaic, so I left it out.
What I first think of when hearing "prevalant" is
"widespread".
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/12/05 11:26 AM
R: Tom,
There are many things I could comment about, but this discussion has been dragging for too long, so I will reply just to the main points.
Tom: That's fine.
Old Tom:Man is saved by Christ's defeating our enemies
R: What does Christ’s defeating our enemies have to do with our forgiveness?
"God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin but reclaiming from sin." (The Faith I Live By 129)
Clearly we could not be reclaimed from sin if Christ had not defeated it.
Old Tom: What does God being reconciled to man mean?
R: “Between unholy man, and God, the embodiment of holiness, there can be no companionship. The prophet Habakkuk declares that God is ‘of purer eyes than to behold evil, and can not look on iniquity.’ But Christ ‘gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity,’ and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Christ is the Sin-Bearer. He bears the iniquity of all who repent and believe, all who accept His robe of righteousness. For our sake the Innocent is pronounced guilty, while through His merits the guilty are pronounced innocent.” {ST, May 14, 1902 par. 11}
It means that God is holy and cannot tolerate the presence of sin; therefore, when man sinned he was shut out from God (debarred from God’s favor) for ever. However Christ, through the plan of salvation, imputes and imparts His righteousness to men, so that God can look to them again with favor (approbation).
Tom: To be reconciled is to repair a damaged relationship. Something happened which caused a rift in the relationship between God and man. That something was that man sinned. The relationship needed to be repaired on the part of man, not God. On God's side, God still loved man, so much so, in fact, that He sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss in order to repair the damage that sin had caused to man.
There was only one side that needed to be fixed. Nothing was wrong with God's side.
You wrote above: "It means that God is holy and cannot tolerate the presence of sin; therefore, when man sinned he was shut out from God (debarred from God’s favor) for ever. However Christ, through the plan of salvation, imputes and imparts His righteousness to men, so that God can look to them again with favor (approbation)."
Christ is as much God as God the Father is. So Christ would have to impute and impart His righteousness to men so that He Himself could look at them with favor. So we have:
1) Man sinned.
2) Christ could not look at them with favor.
3) So He imputed/imparted His righteousness to them so He could once again look at them with favor.
This seems like kind of a wierd way of looking at things, but I suppose it's acceptable. It doesn't mean much different to me than to simply say that God, whether the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit is gracious.
Old Tom: As Waggoner pointed out, the word "propitiation" has to do with an appeasement of wrath.
R: I didn’t say you misrepresent my position; I just said that I did not think exactly in wrath when I thought of the word propitiation, although, thinking better, this meaning may really be implied. Words associated to pagan concepts were incorporated into the Bible (for lack of a better option), with a related but at the same time different meaning than they originally had (hades, tartaros, hilasterion, etc.)
Hilasterion was the word the LXX used for mercy-seat. Thus, if the word is related at all to wrath, it is because the mercy-seat was the place where the blood was sprinkled to make atonement for the people and turn away God’s wrath at their sins. Thus the mercy-seat represents Christ’s work as Savior.
Tom: Once again, Christ is as much God as the Father is. So if His blood was necessary to turn away God's wrath, His blood was necessary to turn away His own wrath.
It appears to me that you're backtracking from what you wrote previously. Previously you said I was incorrect in suggesting that you were saying that God's wrath was appeased by Christ's sacrifice. However, this is what you seem to be saying now. So are you saying that you disagree with my position (which is Waggoner's) which is
quote:
It is the height of absurdity to say that God is so angry with men that he will not forgive them unless something is provided to appease his wrath, and that therefore he himself offers the gift to himself, by which he is appeased.0 "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death." Col. 1:21, 22. http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/aor/rom03.htm
I'm still not clear as to whether you agree with this or not. It seems to me that before you were, but now maybe you're not.
R:
“The law of God, enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and judgment. That law pronounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was the mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which, by virtue of the atonement, pardon was granted to the repentant sinner. Thus in the work of Christ for our redemption, symbolized by the sanctuary service, ‘mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’ Psalm 85:10.” {PP 349.2}
“The cover of this ark . . . was called the mercy-seat, to signify that although death was the penalty for transgressing the law, mercy came through Jesus Christ to pardon the repentant, believing sinner.” {SD 66.3}
Old Tom:If I'm not mistaken, you disagree, along with Butler and Smith, with these 5 points, which are the essential points of Waggoner's position regarding the Old Covenant.
R: But who said the main points of disagreement between Butler/Smith and Waggoner were these?
T: We're talking about the Covenants. The points I laid out were points of disagreement between Waggoner's view on the Covenants and those who disagreed with him.
R: We are told that among SDAs there had been controversy for two years over which law Paul meant in Galatians 3. During the session EGW said: “The remark was made, ‘If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith.’” So, it seems clear to me that the main point of divergence was the law in Galatians. This is again confirmed by Ellen White in this passage:
T: Actually the issue was broader than simply the Law in Galatians. God had given light to Jones and Waggoner on the subject of justificaiton by faith. Ellen White saw this, and that the issues were deeper than what others were seeing. When she was asked about the message the Jones and Waggoner were presenting, she said that justification by faith (the message Waggoner and Jones was bringing) was "the third angel's message in verity" (RH 4/1/90)). At any rate, that the Law in Galatians was a concern doesn't really enter into the question of the differences between the two positions on the Covenants, except to the point that they are inter-related. They are inter-related insofar as the larger issues of righteousness by faith are concerned.
R: “Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented… The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind,
T: Let's stop here a moment. Here we see that it is a waste of time to attemt to produce a position on the covenants which varies from the position Waggoner presented, and the the covenant question is clear to every candid, unprejudiced mind. I agree completely with this. This leads to the question as to what Waggoner's teaching was, and what "candid, unprejudiced" minds should find clear.
(quote continued) but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had.” --Letter 59, 1890, p. 6. (To Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890.) {9MR 329.1}
R: As to the points you presented, it’s not that I disagree with Waggoner; it’s that there is clearly a divergence between Waggoner and the Bible and Ellen White.
Tom: Well this is what I find confusing. It is my understanding that God is the source of all truth. If God gave truth to Waggoner regarding the Covenants, surely that truth must agree with the Bible. So how can there be truth in the Bible and E.G.W. and Waggoner on the same subject which disagrees? How can EGW say if Waggoner's position agrees with hers it is "truth", call it "truth", and not be in agreement with his position? How can truth on the same subject not agree?
R: 1. The covenants are promises.
If the covenants were the promises, Paul wouldn’t have made a distinction between the two:
Romans 9:4 “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”
Hebrews 8:6 “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
The Bible is very clear here - the covenant is not a promise, it is established upon promises.
T: The Old Covenant was established by man's promise to God. The New Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant, or Everlasting Covenant is simply the Plan of Salvation, which encompasses all the promises of God. That the New Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant, is a promise is easily established from Scripture:
quote:
13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)
This is the covenant that God made with Abraham.
quote:
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Pet. 3:13)
Same promise, same covenant.
quote:
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal. 3:17, 18)
To disannul the covenant would be to make the promise of none effect. "Covenant" and "promise" are interchangeble here. In verse 18 it says God made a promise to give Abraham the inheritance, but in Genesis is says God made him a covenant to give it to him.
quote:
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29)
Once again, this is referring to the Covenant God made with Abraham.
R: While Waggoner says that a covenant is not "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things", Ellen White says that “a covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word.”
T: The Scriptures are clear. The Abrahamic Covenant is referred to as a "promise" many times. Ellen White cannot be used contradict Scripture. She's talking about a definition of an English word, but to understand how Paul and Peter understood the word, we need to consider their writings.
Old Tom: 2. The Old Covenant was the promise of the people to make themselves righteous.
R: The people really promised to obey God, but as a (self-righteous) response to the covenant.
T: No, they intiated the covenant.
quote:
"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage. http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/gt/gt5.htm
This is, as EGW states, as clear as sunlight.
3. The Old Covenant was initiated by the people.
"Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you'" (Heb. 9:18-20).
It was initiated by God and the israelites only consented to obey its conditions:
“Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. ...Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. ... Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God.” {1MR 115.1}
“[Exodus 24:4-8 quoted]. Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. ... When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation.” {1MR 114.2}
Tom: As Waggoner points about above, it was the people who initiated the Old Covenant. Just ask the quesiton, is the Old Covenant a good thing or a bad thing? It leads to bondage. (Gal. 4:24) What sense would it make for God to initiate something which would lead the people into bondage? It was His will to deliver them from bondage. This is what the Covenant God made with Abraham did. There was no need for a different Covenant. God already had a perfect one. Why would God initiate a Covenant which doesn't work in place of one which does?
R: 4- It was not God's idea to establish the Old Covenant, because He already had a perfect covenant in place, the one He made with Abraham. That covenant only came into place because of the people's unbelief.
Why it came into place:
“But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant.... But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.”{PP 371}
T: Sure, all these things needed to be taught, and for this reason God taught them these things. But He didn't initiate a Covenant that would lead them into bondage. It took something which the people had initiated out of unbelief, and added His hand to it, making something good out of something which the people had done. God is good at this sort of thing. He resuces us out of situations we have initiated out of our unbelief as well.
R: 5- The Covenants are not a matter of time.
The covenants were made at specific points in time, but of course the attitudes they represent can be found at any age.
T: What this quote of Waggoner is referring to is brought out here:
quote:
Note the statement which the apostle makes when speaking of the two women, Hagar and Sarah: "These are the two covenants." So then the two covenants existed in every essential particular in the days of Abraham. Even so they do to-day; for the Scripture says now as well as then, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." We see then that the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he can not be under the old covenant, because the time for that is passed. The time for that is passed only in the sense that "the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." 1Pet.4:3. http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/gt/gt5.htm
Posted By: John H.
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/12/05 09:19 PM
Tom, it is indeed sad to see you persist in setting your own human ideas above very plain statements of Inspiration.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/13/05 05:36 AM
John, you're being a bit vague. I suppose you're talking about the last post. I can't think of a single thing in that post that is my idea. Almost the whole post was simply restating Waggoner's ideas, which were explicitly endorsed by the Messenger of the Lord as "truth" and "clear as sunglight".
Was there something is specific you were thinking of?
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/13/05 07:36 PM
quote:
What I first think of when hearing "prevalant" is "widespread".
Now that I looked at the dictionary, I see that you are correct. The adjective does not have all the meanings of the verb.
quote:
Clearly we could not be reclaimed from sin if Christ had not defeated it.
Let me be more specific. Christus Victor says on the cross Christ was victorious over the evil powers of the world - the flesh, sin, the law and death. Now, what I mean this theory does not explain is, "By what means did Christ win the victory on the cross?" Did He have to suffer in order to save us or not? If not, why not? If so, why? And in what way did His sufferings accomplish our redemption?
quote:
Nothing was wrong with God's side.
How could God relate to man if sin is repulsive to God? This was wrong.
quote:
Christ is as much God as God the Father is. So Christ would have to impute and impart His righteousness to men so that He Himself could look at them with favor.
Exactly.
quote:
Once again, Christ is as much God as the Father is. So if His blood was necessary to turn away God's wrath, His blood was necessary to turn away His own wrath.
This is correct. God is at the same time wrath towards sin and mercy towards man. That’s what I say - God cannot forgive the sinner without at the same time punishing sin, otherwise He would cease to be God.
quote:
It is the height of absurdity to say that God is so angry with men that he will not forgive them unless something is provided to appease his wrath, and that therefore he himself offers the gift to himself, by which he is appeased. (emphasis mine)
It’s absurd to say that God is angry with men and that He cannot forgive without His wrath against men being appeased. It’s not absurd to say that God is wrought against sin.
quote:
Actually the issue was broader than simply the Law in Galatians.
No, all the other issues emerge from the law in Galatians.
Under the covenant of grace, Christ kept the law for us and thereby fulfilled the conditions upon which God gives eternal life to believers. Believing sinners, justified by Christ's imputed righteousness, will keep the law, but this obedience to the law is not the basis on which God grants eternal life. However, before 1888, what Adventists generally taught was that the Lord forgives past sins and then helps the believer keep the law as a condition of eternal life. But this is nothing but salvation through law-keeping.
Galatians 3:17, 18 says that the ten commandments came out at Mount Sinai 430 years after God promised salvation to Abraham in Christ. So whatever purpose God had in enunciating the law did not void God’s promise to Abraham. The inheritance God promised of a righteous new earth does not come about through man’s law-keeping.
When God spoke His ten commandments from Mount Sinai it was with awesome grandeur, so that they could understand the gospel. The law struck terror in the sinner’s heart, but the law could not deliver them. Who alone could deliver them from the condemnation of the law? Galatians 3:19, 20. The deliverer is the Mediator. Without a Mediator, the law is nothing but a curse, condemnation and death. But God’s law “in the hand of a Mediator” is freedom. In Jesus all of God’s ten commandments are ten promises. In Jesus God’s commandments are the perfect law of liberty.
Galatians 3:21. The law isn’t contrary God’s promises. It is in God’s promises. But the law outside of God’s promise in Christ cannot give life. It can only curse sinners and consign them to death.
Galatians 3:22, 23. the law spoken of here is not the ceremonial law. It is the ten-commandment law. And to be “under the law” is to be subject to its penalties. But when the faith of Jesus is revealed to us and embraced then we are no longer “shut up” “under the law.” We are no longer under the condemnation of the law and subject to eternal death.
Now the apostle Paul explains the function of the law in terms of a correctional officer in the prison system. Galatians 3:24, 25. The law of God is like a correctional officer who locks up those under it in sin. The law cannot release its prisoner. There is no hope under the law. But when the sinner hears about the faith of Jesus and the Holy Spirit convinces him of his own sin and the need for Christ’s righteousness, he is justified by faith.
Galatians 3:24, 25 played a key role in the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference Because the “schoolmaster” was perceived by Evangelical opponents as being the ten commandments being done away with at the cross, our Adventist leaders said it was the ceremonial law. So the leaders assumed with the evangelicals that this was a dispensational text and some law was done away with. But the Adventists couldn’t agree that the law of God was abolished.
When E. J. Waggoner agreed with the evangelicals that the schoolmaster law was the ten commandments, the leadership took strong exception. However, Waggoner did not agree with the evangelicals that the text was speaking dispensationally that the law was abolished with the coming of faith at the first advent of Christ. Waggoner said that the text was describing the experience of every sinner who is driven by the law to Christ. So it was not a dispensational time-oriented text, but an experience-oriented text.
Little else could be said about the covenants, since this subject was already extensively discussed in the past.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/13/05 09:11 PM
Tom, I'm thinking of many things. The way you use E.J. Waggoner as if he outranks an inspired prophet of God. (EGW and EJW did conflict on a good number of points of doctrine, you know.) The unscriptural ideas that you & Phil & John B. have been pushing on the destruction of the wicked. The way you insist that the Old Covenant was not instituted by God. On and on. Merely human ideas that have no basis in Inspiration, in other words; or that are based upon the twisting of inspired statements.
That's what I meant.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/14/05 06:23 AM
John: Tom, I'm thinking of many things. The way you use E.J. Waggoner as if he outranks an inspired prophet of God.
Tom: Truth is truth. The source is irrelevant. If EGW says God gave truth to Waggoner, then if you believe EGW then Waggoner had truth for 2 reasons: because it's truth, and because EGW said so. What more do you need?
John: (EGW and EJW did conflict on a good number of points of doctrine, you know.)
Tom: During the time that EGW was endorcing Waggoner (over 1,000 endorsements spanning about ten years), I'm only aware of one difference, which was a minor discreprancy which Waggoner quickly corrected. In the Jan 1889 Signs of the Times articles which recapped the 1888 lectures Waggoner gave, and were later formed into the book "Christ And His Righteousness" (originally names "Christ Our Righteousness" but renamed because A. G. Daniels wrote another book by the same name) Waggoner wrote the Christ could not sin because he had perfect faith. EGW corrected this to say that it was possible for Christ to sin, and Waggoner correct that.
Apart from this one thing, I'm not aware of any discrepranc between the two. This is the only item I can thing of that she corrected him on, and the fact that she corrected him on this issue shows that she was willing to correct him when necessary, and that if there were largers issues, they would have been corrected.
Actually the right way of looking at things is that *God* would have corrected Waggoner, if he was in error, because God is the One who gave light to him, and the One who was stating, throught EGW, that Waggoner had light. It wouldn't be very cricket of God to proclaim He was giving us light if the light were in error, would it? God, being aware of His responsbility to correct any errors in messages He was deeming as light, took care to do so.
John: The unscriptural ideas that you & Phil & John B. have been pushing on the destruction of the wicked.
Tom: I have provided much Scripture to back my views. For example, to the idea that God's wrath is His giving people up to the result of their choice, we have Deut 31:17, 18; Jer. 33:5; 2 Chron 29: 6, 8; 2 Kings 17:17-20; Ps. 27:9; Ps. 89:46; Ps. 143:7; Hosea 9:12; Lam. 2:5-7; Rom. 1:18-26. All of these Scriptures illustrate this view.
To show that the fire, which is God's glory, gives life to the righteous while slaying the wicked (EGW says this in DA 108) we have:
quote:
Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly (Isa. 33:14, 15)
Foremost we have Jesus Christ Himself, who is the very image of God, and came for the express purpose of making God's character known. When his disciples suggested that fire be rained down from heaven to destroy those who were opposing Him, He said, "You know not of what spirit you are." There is nothing in the life of Christ which suggests that Christ was anything but tolerant and gracious to those who disagreed with Him. When He was spurned, He simply left.
The basic principle involved in the destruction of the wicked is that sin is deadly. There is a lot of Scriptural support for that: "Sin pays its wages: death." "The soul that sins, it shall die." "Sin, when it is finished, brings for death." "All they that hate Me love death." "The sting of death is sin." All these Scriptures bring out this point.
John: The way you insist that the Old Covenant was not instituted by God. On and on. Merely human ideas that have no basis in Inspiration, in other words; or that are based upon the twisting of inspired statements.
That's what I meant.
Tom: Here's what EGW wrote:
quote:
Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds. (Letter 30, 1890)
quote:
Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented. (MR Vol. 9, p. 328)
This is inspired, isn't it? I'd say my assertion that Waggoner's views are "truth" and "clear" and "convincing" have a basis in inspiration, wouldn't you? I'd also say my assertion that if you, or anybody else, tries to produce a position on the covenant that varies from Waggoner's, you are spending your investigative powers for naught has a basis in inspiration too, wouldn't you?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/14/05 07:15 AM
Old Tom:Clearly we could not be reclaimed from sin if Christ had not defeated it.
R: Let me be more specific. Christus Victor says on the cross Christ was victorious over the evil powers of the world - the flesh, sin, the law and death. Now, what I mean this theory does not explain is, "By what means did Christ win the victory on the cross?" Did He have to suffer in order to save us or not? If not, why not? If so, why? And in what way did His sufferings accomplish our redemption?
T: These are excellent questions. By what means is an easy question to answer. The others are more involved. The means is by Christ's life, death and resurrection. Did He have to suffer in order to save us? He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. He could not have experienced the death of the cross without suffering, so yes, His suffering was necessary. To ask if His suffering were necessary are tantamount to asking if His death was necessary.
Not only was His death necessary, but so was His life and resurrection. This is where Christus Victor differs from Anselm, who only emphasizes Christ's death. Anselm sees Christ's death as a necessary payment in order for God's justice to be satisfied. Christus Victor sees Christ's life, death and resurrection as the means by which He obtained victory over the powers of evil: sin, death and the devil.
quote:
As He submitted to the evil of the violent powers rather than meet it on its own terms, He made visible the fact that the rule of God does not depend on violence. The God revealed by Jesus, and the rule of God revealed by Jesus, do not respond to violence with violence (The Nonviolent Atonement, J. Denny Weaver, p. 74)
Does God accomplish the atonement by veans of violence? This is a quesiton gravid with theological and philosophical implications.
quote:
Jesus' death was the rejection of the rule of God by forces opposed to that rule.... Far from being an event organized for a divine requirement, His death reveals the nature of the forces of evil that opposed the rule of God. It poses a contrast between the attempt to coerce by violence under the rule of evil and the nonviolence of the rule of God as revealed and made visible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (Ibid. 44)
Ok, these quotes discuss what Jesus' death was not, which was not a design on God's part to solve our problems by violent means. But they don't address your question from the positive side. The following quote answers your question from the positive side:
quote:
Salvation is to begin to be free from those evil forces, and to be transformed by the reign of God and to take on a life shaped -- marked -- by the story of Jesus, whose mission was to make visible the reign of God in our history. (Ibid 44)
What a wonderful quote! And from a heathen yet (i.e. non-Adventist). One can't help but notice how similar it is to the following from the Spirit of Prophesy:
quote:
The very attributes that belonged to the character of Satan, the evil one represented as belonging to the character of God. Jesus came to teach men of the Father, to correctly represent him before the fallen children of earth. Angels could not fully portray the character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work. The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes....
The Father was revealed in Christ as altogether a different being from that which Satan had represented him to be. Said Christ, "Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." The love of Jesus, expressed for the fallen race in his life of self-denial and sufferings, is the manifestation of the Father's love for a sinful, fallen world....
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son!...
Those who would behold this glory would be drawn to love Jesus and to love the Father whom he represented. Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90)
The purpose of everything Christ did, whether in His life, death, or resurrection, was to reveal the character of God (or what the other author calls the "reign of God" or the "rule of God", or what Paul calls the "righteousness of God"). Through the revelation of God, He sets men right.
This is already long, so I'll answer the rest on another post.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/14/05 07:35 AM
Old Tom:Nothing was wrong with God's side.
R: How could God relate to man if sin is repulsive to God? This was wrong.
T: God relates to man by healing him of sin.
Old Tom: Christ is as much God as God the Father is. So Christ would have to impute and impart His righteousness to men so that He Himself could look at them with favor.
R: Exactly.
Old Tom: Once again, Christ is as much God as the Father is. So if His blood was necessary to turn away God's wrath, His blood was necessary to turn away His own wrath.
R: This is correct. God is at the same time wrath towards sin and mercy towards man. That’s what I say - God cannot forgive the sinner without at the same time punishing sin, otherwise He would cease to be God.
T: Well Christ did it, and He was God. He forgave sinners without punishing them, or their sin. The punishment of sin is death, the second death, and Christ killed no one while on earth, yet He forgave sins.
Old Tom: It is the height of absurdity to say that God is so angry with men that he will not forgive them unless something is provided to appease his wrath, and that therefore he himself offers the gift to himself, by which he is appeased. (emphasis mine)
R: It’s absurd to say that God is angry with men and that He cannot forgive without His wrath against men being appeased. It’s not absurd to say that God is wrought against sin.
T: By "wrought" I assume you mean "wroth." Of course God is wroth against sin. It kills His children, whom He loves.
You haven't answered my question, although I've asked it several times, at least thrice. That is, do you agree with me that God is not propitiated by Christ's sacrifice as spoken by Paul in Romans 3? At first you took issue with my representing your position as saying that God's wrath is propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, but now you seem to arguing in favor of it. So you have me confused.
Old Tom:Actually the issue was broader than simply the Law in Galatians.
R: No, all the other issues emerge from the law in Galatians.
T: No, I think Ellen G. White was correct. The issues was not simply the law in Galations, but righteousness by faith.
R: Under the covenant of grace, Christ kept the law for us and thereby fulfilled the conditions upon which God gives eternal life to believers. Believing sinners, justified by Christ's imputed righteousness, will keep the law, but this obedience to the law is not the basis on which God grants eternal life. However, before 1888, what Adventists generally taught was that the Lord forgives past sins and then helps the believer keep the law as a condition of eternal life. But this is nothing but salvation through law-keeping.
T: So you're saying that before 1888 Adventists preached a false Gospel? Under Paul's admonition, they should be accursed? Where is there any teaching in SDAism before 1888 that men are saved by any means other than by faith in Christ? I've often seen non-Adventist make this assertion against SDA's, but I've never seen proof.
R: Galatians 3:17, 18 says that the ten commandments came out at Mount Sinai 430 years after God promised salvation to Abraham in Christ. So whatever purpose God had in enunciating the law did not void God’s promise to Abraham. The inheritance God promised of a righteous new earth does not come about through man’s law-keeping.
When God spoke His ten commandments from Mount Sinai it was with awesome grandeur, so that they could understand the gospel. The law struck terror in the sinner’s heart, but the law could not deliver them. Who alone could deliver them from the condemnation of the law? Galatians 3:19, 20. The deliverer is the Mediator. Without a Mediator, the law is nothing but a curse, condemnation and death. But God’s law “in the hand of a Mediator” is freedom. In Jesus all of God’s ten commandments are ten promises. In Jesus God’s commandments are the perfect law of liberty.
Galatians 3:21. The law isn’t contrary God’s promises. It is in God’s promises. But the law outside of God’s promise in Christ cannot give life. It can only curse sinners and consign them to death.
Galatians 3:22, 23. the law spoken of here is not the ceremonial law. It is the ten-commandment law. And to be “under the law” is to be subject to its penalties. But when the faith of Jesus is revealed to us and embraced then we are no longer “shut up” “under the law.” We are no longer under the condemnation of the law and subject to eternal death.
Now the apostle Paul explains the function of the law in terms of a correctional officer in the prison system. Galatians 3:24, 25. The law of God is like a correctional officer who locks up those under it in sin. The law cannot release its prisoner. There is no hope under the law. But when the sinner hears about the faith of Jesus and the Holy Spirit convinces him of his own sin and the need for Christ’s righteousness, he is justified by faith.
Galatians 3:24, 25 played a key role in the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference Because the “schoolmaster” was perceived by Evangelical opponents as being the ten commandments being done away with at the cross, our Adventist leaders said it was the ceremonial law. So the leaders assumed with the evangelicals that this was a dispensational text and some law was done away with. But the Adventists couldn’t agree that the law of God was abolished.
When E. J. Waggoner agreed with the evangelicals that the schoolmaster law was the ten commandments, the leadership took strong exception. However, Waggoner did not agree with the evangelicals that the text was speaking dispensationally that the law was abolished with the coming of faith at the first advent of Christ. Waggoner said that the text was describing the experience of every sinner who is driven by the law to Christ. So it was not a dispensational time-oriented text, but an experience-oriented text.
Little else could be said about the covenants, since this subject was already extensively discussed in the past.
T: You brought up the subject. You gave it as an example of EGW's disagreeing with Waggoner, which I said was rediculous, because EGW argued in the strongest terms that she agreed with Waggoner and that Waggoner's position was "truth" "clear" and "convincing".
By the way, your summary of Galatians 3 was pretty good. Keep up the good work!
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/14/05 02:55 PM
Tom, what you are saying about Christus Victor is partly what modern theologians have said and partly your own opinions, but nothing of this was explained by Irenaeus or any other early writer. The part which the early writers emphasized fits both your view and mine - that’s my point. What differentiates us is what really happened at the cross. And in this, each one of us takes sides with either Anselm or Abelard.
The moral influence theory says that, for grace to be really free and unmerited, a loving God must bear the burden of human sin without attaching conditions, such as having to pay off the devil, assuage insults, or exact fines for breaking Divine law. God's unconditional love is so powerfully revealed in the life and death of Jesus that it awakens within sinners a reciprocal response. And this is essentially what you preach.
quote:
R: How could God relate to man if sin is repulsive to God? This was wrong.
T: God relates to man by healing him of sin.
It wasn’t only the sinner, because of his sinfulness, that couldn’t approach God without a Mediator, but God, because of His holiness, couldn’t approach the sinner without a Mediator.
quote:
T: Well Christ did it, and He was God. He forgave sinners without punishing them, or their sin. The punishment of sin is death, the second death, and Christ killed no one while on earth, yet He forgave sins.
Yes, because He Himself was going to suffer the punishment for the sins of these people.
quote:
You haven't answered my question, although I've asked it several times, at least thrice. That is, do you agree with me that God is not propitiated by Christ's sacrifice as spoken by Paul in Romans 3? At first you took issue with my representing your position as saying that God's wrath is propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, but now you seem to arguing in favor of it. So you have me confused.
Of course I have already answered your question. First, it must be clear that we are speaking of the Godhead’s being propitiated. Second, it depends on the meaning you give to propitiation. If by propitiation you mean Waggoner’s definition, no, I don’t agree with the concept he presents. If by propitiation you mean that God (the Godhead) is wroth against sin, and that He could not forgive the sinner without at the same time manifesting His wrath against sin, yes, this is my position. To ascribe one attribute to God as superior over another is to create an imbalanced God. God is perfectly balanced in His attributes. He is no more merciful and gracious than He is holy and righteous.
quote:
T: No, I think Ellen G. White was correct. The issues was not simply the law in Galations, but righteousness by faith.
I made that whole summary just to show that the issue of righteousness by faith in 1888 emerged from Galatians 3.
quote:
T: So you're saying that before 1888 Adventists preached a false Gospel? Under Paul's admonition, they should be accursed? Where is there any teaching in SDAism before 1888 that men are saved by any means other than by faith in Christ? I've often seen non-Adventist make this assertion against SDA's, but I've never seen proof.
Theoretically they believed in righteousness by faith, but not in practice. If they really believed in righteousness by faith, there would have been no opposition to Waggoner’s message. Looking back on the pre-1888 period, Mrs. White herself said that the "doctrine of justification by faith [had] been lost sight of" (Review and Herald, 13 Aug. 1889) and the churches were "dying for the want of teaching on the subject of righteousness by faith in Christ, and on kindred truths" (Gospel Workers, p. 301).
The early Adventists taught that perfect keeping of the Ten Commandment law is the condition of eternal life, which is true, but if you do not at the same time stress that this perfect keeping of the law is Christ's perfect obedience in place of yours (justification) and then covering yours (sanctification), you are preaching legalism.
quote:
You brought up the subject.
What I meant is that it's useless to debate again about the five points you mentioned because they were already extensively discussed in the thread about the covenants.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/15/05 06:16 AM
T: I'm going to answer this in two posts, as we have two different subjects going, which are unrelated, as far as I can tell, or if they are related, I don't remember how.
R: Tom, what you are saying about Christus Victor is partly what modern theologians have said and partly your own opinions, but nothing of this was explained by Irenaeus or any other early writer.
T: Of course the do. That's where the writiers got the viewpoint from, was from Iraneus and others. I quoted from a person who wrote from the Christus Victor perspective to answer your questions regarding that perspective. I wanted to show what it was about. I can quote from Iraneus and others if you would prefer.
R: The part which the early writers emphasized fits both your view and mine - that’s my point. What differentiates us is what really happened at the cross. And in this, each one of us takes sides with either Anselm or Abelard.
T: This isn't correct. The Christus Victor perspective is different than both Anselm and Abelard. It emphasizes that Christ's ministry as a whole -- life, death and resurrection -- defeated the powers of evil. You're wanting to conentrate on just the death of Christ, which is something Anslem and Abelard did, but not Christus Victor. What differs between us is not simply what happened on the cross, but what the perspective one should take on Christ's ministry as a whole. I believe the purpose of His ministry was to reveal God, and that He did this in all aspects of His ministry, although the cross was indeed the clearest revelation.
R: The moral influence theory says that, for grace to be really free and unmerited, a loving God must bear the burden of human sin without attaching conditions, such as having to pay off the devil, assuage insults, or exact fines for breaking Divine law. God's unconditional love is so powerfully revealed in the life and death of Jesus that it awakens within sinners a reciprocal response. And this is essentially what you preach.
T: The moral influence theory states that we are good be being good as Christ was. An essential part of it is the the love of God was revealed at the cross, and I agree with that one part (as I'm sure you do), however it lacks the broad perspective of Christus Victor, which I find in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy. That is, Christ's life, death and resurrection revealed the character of God (Iraneus would have used a phrase like "the reign of God" or something like that, I'll have to check, rather than "character of God". That God's character was really the focal point of the battle did not become clear until Ellen G. White, I don't think.)
Old Rosangela: How could God relate to man if sin is repulsive to God? This was wrong.
Old Tom: God relates to man by healing him of sin.
R: It wasn’t only the sinner, because of his sinfulness, that couldn’t approach God without a Mediator, but God, because of His holiness, couldn’t approach the sinner without a Mediator.
T: But God did do that! He did exactly that in the person of Jesus Christ.
God doesn't need a mediator, man does. Christ is as much God as God the Father is, and this idea that God needs a mediator leads to Catholoicism, where Jesus is so holy, man cannot approach him, so you have Mary, and the saints and all sorts of stepping stones.
Old Tom: Well Christ did it, and He was God. He forgave sinners without punishing them, or their sin. The punishment of sin is death, the second death, and Christ killed no one while on earth, yet He forgave sins.
R: Yes, because He Himself was going to suffer the punishment for the sins of these people.
T: He forgave before He suffered the punishment, and He never referred to the punishment when He forgave. If that were an essential element, you would think He would mention it. Something like, "I forgive you on the basis of my sacrifice" or "Father, forgive them, on the basis of my sacrifice, for they know not what they do." But that doesn't really make sense, does it, since the very thing Christ was asking God to forgive was their putting Him to death.
At any rate, you assert that Christ only forgave because He would suffer the punishment of sin. Where does Christ say that?
Old Tom: You haven't answered my question, although I've asked it several times, at least thrice. That is, do you agree with me that God is not propitiated by Christ's sacrifice as spoken by Paul in Romans 3? At first you took issue with my representing your position as saying that God's wrath is propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, but now you seem to arguing in favor of it. So you have me confused.
R: Of course I have already answered your question. First, it must be clear that we are speaking of the Godhead’s being propitiated.
T: That's not what you said at first. I can dig up the thread, maybe, if you want (it's back a ways). At first you were agreeing with me. When I quoted from Waggoner, you agreed with the quote, and thought it odd that I would think you thought differently than the Waggoner quote.
R: Second, it depends on the meaning you give to propitiation. If by propitiation you mean Waggoner’s definition, no, I don’t agree with the concept he presents.
T: Well you did before. You're entitled to change your mind, however, so that's fine. Perhaps you read it one way at first, and see it another way now. At any rate, thank you for being clear in answering my quesitons. You *disagree* with the concept that Waggoner is presenting (which is what I agree with).
R: If by propitiation you mean that God (the Godhead) is wroth against sin, and that He could not forgive the sinner without at the same time manifesting His wrath against sin, yes, this is my position.
T: This is exactly what Waggoner labeled as absurd, and to which you at first agreed.
R: To ascribe one attribute to God as superior over another is to create an imbalanced God. God is perfectly balanced in His attributes. He is no more merciful and gracious than He is holy and righteous.
T: These attributes aren't in conflict. He is merciful and gracious *because* He is holy and rightoues.
quote:
And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him. (Isa. 30:18)
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/15/05 06:34 AM
Tom,
1- Please understand my position. I don’t agree with the concept of propitiation that Waggoner proposes, that is, that God is angry with men, and agree with his assessment that this is absurd. But, if by propitiation it is meant that God is wroth against sin, and that He must punish sin while forgiving the sinner, that is my position.
(What I said I hadn't thought before was that propitiation involved the concept of wrath; but then, thinking about the original meaning of the word in Greek, I saw that this concept was really involved in the meaning of the word; after all, one cannot simply discard the original meaning of the word in Greek, as Waggoner is doing.)
2- What do you think: Is wrath against sin based on an attribute of God or not?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/14/05 09:16 PM
R: 1- Please understand my position. I don’t agree with the concept of propitiation that Waggoner proposes, that is, that God is angry with men, and agree with his assessment that this is absurd. But, if by propitiation it is meant that God is wroth against sin, and that He must punish sin while forgiving the sinner, that is my position.
T: What you're proposing doesn't make any sense. Propitiation has to do with making right a relationship. God doesn't have a relationship with sin. God is not set right with sin, or sin with God. It is men which are set right with God. Either God or man is propitiated. Those are the two choices.
The idea of propitiation is, you're mad at me, so I get you a gift. Now you quit being made at me. You've been propitiated by my offering.
R: (What I said I hadn't thought before was that propitiation involved the concept of wrath; but then, thinking about the original meaning of the word in Greek, I saw that this concept was really involved in the meaning of the word; after all, one cannot simply discard the original meaning of the word in Greek, as Waggoner is doing.)
2- What do you think: Is wrath against sin based on an attribute of God or not?
T: Yes it is. It's based on the attribute of love. God loves us; sin is harmful to us; so God hates it.
One could also say it's based on the attribute of righteousness or justice. Sin is based on the principle of selfishness, and God's character is utterly against this principle. God's government is based on the principle of self-sacrificing love, so He is utterly against anything which differs from that principle. Because God is a just God, a righteous God, He hates that which is not right, good, just or righteous. Sin is evil. Therefore God hates it. So one could look at things that way as well.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/15/05 02:39 PM
1-
quote:
T: What you're proposing doesn't make any sense. Propitiation has to do with making right a relationship. God doesn't have a relationship with sin. God is not set right with sin, or sin with God. It is men which are set right with God. Either God or man is propitiated. Those are the two choices.
Sin had interposed between God and man. On the cross Christ removed the barrier sin created, so that the relationship could be made right.
2- quote:
The idea of propitiation is, you're mad at me, so I get you a gift. Now you quit being made at me. You've been propitiated by my offering.
Greek dictionaries give the meaning of the word as propitiatory or expiatory gift, that is, a gift with the objective of appeasing wrath. There are two things to be noted here. First, if the meaning of the word really implies the element of wrath, it does not make sense to say that this refers to man’s wrath, neither have I ever seen any writer defend this viewpoint. The Bible speaks of man’s enmity and rebellion against God, but not of man’s wrath against God. Besides, hilasterion was used to designate the ark’s covering, and again there is no relationship between the ark’s covering and man’s wrath. So, if there is an idea of wrath implied here, it must refer to God’s wrath. The second thing to be taken into consideration is that the pagan meaning of a word cannot be compared to the biblical usage. In the pagan usage a gift is offered to turn the god’s wrath into mercy (wrath and mercy are mutable); in the biblical usage God’s wrath and mercy are immutable and God provides a means of being coherent, by manifesting both His wrath and His mercy.
3- OK, God hates sin. Therefore, God must manifest His wrath against sin. Could we say that God loves us more than He hates sin? No, we couldn’t, for God hates sin as much as He loves us. Now, if we sin, what happens?
a) God must forgive us because He loves us; and
b) God must manifest His wrath against sin because He hates sin.
If God doesn’t do (a) He will cease to be God. But if He doesn’t do (b), He will also cease to be God. So, how can He forgive us without at the same time manifesting His wrath against sin?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/15/05 11:26 PM
Old Tom: What you're proposing doesn't make any sense. Propitiation has to do with making right a relationship. God doesn't have a relationship with sin. God is not set right with sin, or sin with God. It is men which are set right with God. Either God or man is propitiated. Those are the two choices.
R: Sin had interposed between God and man. On the cross Christ removed the barrier sin created, so that the relationship could be made right.
T: Yes. The barrier is expressed here:
quote:
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. (Col. 1:19-21)
The barrier is in our own mind, and that barrier is removed by the blood of His cross. When we believe the Good News about Christ, we are healed.
It is *we* who are propitiated by Christ's blood -- not God, and not sin, but us.
R: 2-
Old Tom:The idea of propitiation is, you're mad at me, so I get you a gift. Now you quit being made at me. You've been propitiated by my offering.
R: Greek dictionaries give the meaning of the word as propitiatory or expiatory gift, that is, a gift with the objective of appeasing wrath. There are two things to be noted here. First, if the meaning of the word really implies the element of wrath, it does not make sense to say that this refers to man’s wrath, neither have I ever seen any writer defend this viewpoint. The Bible speaks of man’s enmity and rebellion against God, but not of man’s wrath against God.
T: I'm seen several authors who have defended this point of view, and you are assuming your conclusion regarding wrath. If you assume that it is not God who is being propitiated, but man, it follows naturally that the wrath involved is man's wrath. Even if you take the view that the wrath is God's wrath against sin, the solution remains the same, which is to fix man, in whom alone is the problem. Man is fixed by fixing his mind, in which sin resides, and in which he is an enemy of God.
R: Besides, hilasterion was used to designate the ark’s covering, and again there is no relationship between the ark’s covering and man’s wrath. So, if there is an idea of wrath implied here, it must refer to God’s wrath. The second thing to be taken into consideration is that the pagan meaning of a word cannot be compared to the biblical usage. In the pagan usage a gift is offered to turn the god’s wrath into mercy (wrath and mercy are mutable); in the biblical usage God’s wrath and mercy are immutable and God provides a means of being coherent, by manifesting both His wrath and His mercy.
T: Words are words. There's some exceptions to this, but in general the Bible writers used words as they are normally used, the same as Ellen White wrote in normal everday English, not some sanatized prophetess version of it. Of course we would want to consider carefully how a given word is used by an author, and compare Scripture with Scripture, but there is no reason to assume a priori that any given word is being used in some unusual way not in accordance with the everyday use of language.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying God's mercy and wrath are immutable. They clearly are, unless you are speaking of God's attribute of character rather than His exercizing of mercy and wrath -- which usage would be in contradiction to the example you gave, which was referencing an exercizing of the mercy or wrath, not an attribute of character. God's wrath is exercized only upon those who refuse to respond to His grace. Also God constantly points out the His mercy is availabe for those who desire it. He has compassion on whom He will, as Romans puts it.
If you favor the translation "mercy seat" for "hilasterion" then the whole idea of propitiation may be a moot point. I found this on a discussion of "hilasterion"
quote:
Philo thought of the mercy seat as "symbolon tes hileo tou theou dunameos," "a symbol of the gracious power of God" (Mos. 2.96; cf. Fug. 100). Perhaps this shows that Philo traced the term hilasterion etymologically not to hilaskesthai (to propitiate or expiate) but to hileos, "gracious" or "merciful." http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20000221/001666.html
This idea certainly fits in with the context; in the immediate context, in the context of the chapter, and of the book, where Paul makes the argument that God's rightouesness is demonstrated by Jesus Christ and reconciles those who have faith in Christ.
R: 3- OK, God hates sin. Therefore, God must manifest His wrath against sin. Could we say that God loves us more than He hates sin? No, we couldn’t, for God hates sin as much as He loves us.
T: These are just assumptions. There's no logical reasong that God must manifest His wrath against sin because He hates it. Neither is there any reason to assert that God hates sin as much as He loves us. I'm not arguing that what you wrote is false (although I think the second assertion is absurd -- of course God loves us more than He hates sin; He loves us so much He gave His Son on our behalf -- He didn't give us His Son because He hates sin), but that there's no logical basis for the assertions. You wrote "therefore" where no logical conclusion exists. The fact is that God's hatred against sin is constant, but He does not constantly exercize wrath against it.
R: Now, if we sin, what happens?
a) God must forgive us because He loves us; and
b) God must manifest His wrath against sin because He hates sin.
If God doesn’t do (a) He will cease to be God. But if He doesn’t do (b), He will also cease to be God. So, how can He forgive us without at the same time manifesting His wrath against sin?
T: When we sin:
1) God must save us from it, or it will kill us.
2) God must *not* manifest His wrath against it, or we will die.
If God doesn't do (1), we will cease to be. If He does the converse of (2), we will also cease to be. God will continue being God in any case. God doesn't *have* to forgive, but we need His forgiveness to live. It is our existence which is conditional, not God's. And the enemy is sin, not God or His wrath.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/16/05 12:51 AM
quote:
It is *we* who are propitiated by Christ's blood -- not God, and not sin, but us.
Isaiah 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.
quote:
T: Words are words. There's some exceptions to this, but in general the Bible writers used words as they are normally used, the same as Ellen White wrote in normal everday English, not some sanatized prophetess version of it. Of course we would want to consider carefully how a given word is used by an author, and compare Scripture with Scripture, but there is no reason to assume a priori that any given word is being used in some unusual way not in accordance with the everyday use of language.
Tom, then you must believe that the word hades designates the part of the underworld where the souls of the dead are burning, and that the word tartaros designates the part of the underworld where the demons are bound, for this was the original meaning of these words. Believe it or not, these concepts are defended by many Christians.
quote:
God will continue being God in any case.
Since God is unchangeable, His character and attributes are unchangeable. God loves His creatures and hates sin. Saying that God does not always have to manifest His wrath against sin makes so much sense as saying that God does not always have to manifest His love toward His creatures. He has to do this because of His own nature, not because of any external factor. If God does not have to manifest His wrath against sin, then His manifestation of this wrath (either at the cross or at the last day) is completely arbitrary.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/16/05 03:30 AM
Old Tom:It is *we* who are propitiated by Christ's blood -- not God, and not sin, but us.
R: Isaiah 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.
T: In context the verses say:
quote:
1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. 4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. (Isa 59:1-3)
The separation is caused by iniquity. The only solution is faith in Christ. Faith comes by hearing the Good News.
It is the revelation of Christ which sets us right with God. Apart from God we can do nothing but sin. It's not that God won't heal us, but if we refuse to respond to Him, what can He do? Will He force us against our will?
God so loved the world that He gave His Son. God needs no healing, no help, no propitiation, no nothing. It is we who are in need of everything, and out of mercy God has given us what we need, which is Christ.
Old Tom: Words are words. There's some exceptions to this, but in general the Bible writers used words as they are normally used, the same as Ellen White wrote in normal everday English, not some sanatized prophetess version of it. Of course we would want to consider carefully how a given word is used by an author, and compare Scripture with Scripture, but there is no reason to assume a priori that any given word is being used in some unusual way not in accordance with the everyday use of language.
R: Tom, then you must believe that the word hades designates the part of the underworld where the souls of the dead are burning, and that the word tartaros designates the part of the underworld where the demons are bound, for this was the original meaning of these words. Believe it or not, these concepts are defended by many Christians.
T: Did you notice the "in general" in my quote? I hope so. What you've written here in no way follows from what I wrote. Inspired writers use words in general (Note, "in general") the same way non-inspired writers do. If they didn't, communication would be impossible.
Old Tom:God will continue being God in any case.
R: Since God is unchangeable, His character and attributes are unchangeable. God loves His creatures and hates sin. Saying that God does not always have to manifest His wrath against sin makes so much sense as saying that God does not always have to manifest His love toward His creatures.
T: It's obvious that God doesn't always manifest His wrath against sin. God became flesh and lived among us. Was Jesus always manifesting His wrath against sin?
R: He has to do this because of His own nature, not because of any external factor. If God does not have to manifest His wrath against sin, then His manifestation of this wrath (either at the cross or at the last day) is completely arbitrary.
T: God manifests His wrath only when His Spirit has been so resisted that no other appeals would accomplish anything but cause needless pain to His children.
quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. 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 rejectors 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. (GC 36)
This explains the principle. God's wrath, which is His giving the wicked over to the results of their choice, is only manifested "at last" after the Spirit has been "persistently resisted."
Again, it's obvious from the life of Christ that God does not always manifest His wrath against sin. God forgives whenever possible. Wrath is only a last resort when every option has failed. Even with Satan we see the same principle at work. Satan sinned against God, rebelling and lying, for a long time. Yet God bore with Him patiently, convincing him of his error, so that many times Satan was ready to admit his error. But he refused to do so, and eventually he hardened his heart to such an extent, it was no longer possible for him to be restored.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/16/05 02:35 PM
quote:
Inspired writers use words in general (Note, "in general") the same way non-inspired writers do. If they didn't, communication would be impossible.
What I’m saying is that we must be careful how we interpret specific religious terms imported from paganism.
quote:
T: God manifests His wrath only when His Spirit has been so resisted that no other appeals would accomplish anything but cause needless pain to His children.
This has to do with the moment when God manifests His wrath, not with the reason why God manifests His wrath. Does God manifest His wrath against sin because of sin itself or because of man? I believe that God manifests His wrath against sin because of sin, and this has nothing to do with man’s response to the work of the Holy Spirit. Because of His mercy for man, God postponed the manifestation of His wrath against sin, but He will manifest His wrath against all the sins which were committed, from the first one in heaven to the last one on earth. And this has nothing to do with man or his response to the gospel, but with His own nature and the nature of sin. So it does not make sense to say that God will manifest His wrath only for the sins of the wicked and not for the sins of the righteous.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/17/05 12:22 AM
Old Tom:Inspired writers use words in general (Note, "in general") the same way non-inspired writers do. If they didn't, communication would be impossible.
R: What I’m saying is that we must be careful how we interpret specific religious terms imported from paganism.
T: What I wrote was that in general inspired writers use words the same way everybody does. You took exception to this. I don't know why. It's obviously true.
Regarding the specific word we were discussing, I wrote:
quote:
If you favor the translation "mercy seat" for "hilasterion" then the whole idea of propitiation may be a moot point. I found this on a discussion of "hilasterion"
Philo thought of the mercy seat as "symbolon tes hileo tou theou dunameos," "a symbol of the gracious power of God" (Mos. 2.96; cf. Fug. 100). Perhaps this shows that Philo traced the term hilasterion etymologically not to hilaskesthai (to propitiate or expiate) but to hileos, "gracious" or "merciful." http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20000221/001666.html
This idea certainly fits in with the context; in the immediate context, in the context of the chapter, and of the book, where Paul makes the argument that God's rightouesness is demonstrated by Jesus Christ and reconciles those who have faith in Christ.
If you'd like to comment on this, I'd be interested.
Old Tom: God manifests His wrath only when His Spirit has been so resisted that no other appeals would accomplish anything but cause needless pain to His children.
R: This has to do with the moment when God manifests His wrath, not with the reason why God manifests His wrath.
T: You wrote:
quote:
Saying that God does not always have to manifest His wrath against sin makes so much sense as saying that God does not always have to manifest His love toward His creatures.
This is not discussing reason, but time. It talks about God "always" manisfesting love (which is true) and God "always" manifesting wrath (which isn't true).
R: Does God manifest His wrath against sin because of sin itself or because of man? I believe that God manifests His wrath against sin because of sin, and this has nothing to do with man’s response to the work of the Holy Spirit.
T: God gives man up to the result of his choice. God "delivers Him up". As He does this, He cries out, "How can I let you go?" He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. It is His strange act. He would save them if He could, but they have unfitted themselves by a lifetime of resistance to the Holy Spirit, to the point that they form characters so out of harmony with God that He becomes to them a consuming fire. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.
R: Because of His mercy for man, God postponed the manifestation of His wrath against sin, but He will manifest His wrath against all the sins which were committed, from the first one in heaven to the last one on earth. And this has nothing to do with man or his response to the gospel, but with His own nature and the nature of sin.
T: If man responds to the gospel, then man is healed of sin, and there is no need to give man up to the results of his sin. Rather than the light of God's glory destroying him, it comforts him -- it gives him life. The result of sin will not occur where there's no sin. Get rid of the sin, and you get rid of the problem.
quote:
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).
R: So it does not make sense to say that God will manifest His wrath only for the sins of the wicked and not for the sins of the righteous.
T: God manifest His wrath against sin for all sin, regardless of who committed it, in Christ. Christ was delivered up for us all. In legal language, there is no sin which can be committed for which Christ has not made satisfaction.
Away from the legal language, sin causes death, as the following makes clear:
quote:
The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36.
God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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. (DA 764)
If one will allow oneself to be healed from sin, then one need not die. As the bite of sin was healed in those who looked to the bronze serpent and live, so those who look to He to whom the bronze serpent pointed are healed and live.
Sin brings death, as Christ brings life. Not arbitrarily, but due to their respective essence.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/20/05 05:04 PM
quote:
T: What I wrote was that in general inspired writers use words the same way everybody does. You took exception to this. I don't know why. It's obviously true.
No, my comment had been made in a post previous to that of yours. I had said that the Greek word was used for a gift offered to turn the god’s wrath into mercy, but this exact meaning obviously couldn’t apply to the God of the Bible. In fact, it is not clear if in the biblical usage the word carries the idea of wrath. That’s why I said in my post of June 15, 2005 08:39 AM, “So, if there is an idea of wrath implied here...”
As to the quote you presented, I’m not exactly a Greek expert, but the point the writer is trying to make does not seem to be valid, since all the three words involved, hilasterion, hilaskomai and hileos (hilaos) are, according to the Greek lexicon, related to propitiation. Here is the analysis for hileos:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2350332
quote:
This is not discussing reason, but time. It talks about God "always" manisfesting love (which is true) and God "always" manifesting wrath (which isn't true).
Since God on the cross manifested His wrath for all sins, it follows that He “always” manifests His wrath against sin. This does not mean He must manifest it continually.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/21/05 06:02 AM
Sorry, Roseangela but expressions like yours below are more "Greek" to me than the Greek source at Tuft's:
"Since God on the cross manifested His wrath for all sins, it follows that He “always” manifests His wrath against sin. This does not mean He must manifest it continually.
Do you mean to say a brooding, bubbling below the gracious "face" He continually is wrathful?? Do you mean that He has been building up "steam" for 6000 years and soon He is going to go wild on humanity because He can't take it anymore?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/21/05 06:56 AM
What's the difference between "always" and "continually"? Do you mean like once for all time? You're using language in a strange way. If I write, "That guy is always angry" that means precisely the same thing as "That guy is continually angry."
I don't think the Greek argument is worth pursuing. As I understand your post, you were saying that the word may not have to do with propitiation at all. I provided evidence which agrees with your point. So there's no point in pursuing an argument where you are disputing evidence which agrees with the point you were wishing to make.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/20/05 10:13 PM
Are you guys sure you know English?
One of the acceptations of "always" is "invariably; without exception". If you say, "It always rains in September", always does not mean "continually", nor "once for all time". It means "invariably".
If I say God always manifests His wrath against sin, I mean He will not let sin go unpunished, even if He postpones the punishment for a time.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/21/05 02:24 AM
Ok, Rosangela, I see that what you said could be taken the way you said. That's not the way one would ordinally take it, IMO. You could ask others what they think if you're interested. Even using the synonyms "invariable" or "without exception" would not be clear, because God does not invariably or without exception manifest His wrath against sin. Just looking at this world, it's clear to see this is the case.
Eventually God's wrath will be manifest against sin. IMO this statement is clear:
quote:
He will not let sin go unpunished, even if He postpones the punishment for a time.
This does not mean the same thing to me as "God always manifests His wrath against sin" but again would suggest you get other's opinions on this (My experience in issues like this is that my interpretation of English is usually agreed upon by others, for what that's worth.)
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/21/05 01:16 PM
Yes, Tom, the main reasons why this happens are, first, because language itself is imperfect, and second, because communication in a language other than one's own may not be so clear as one would wish.
Posted By: John H.
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/22/05 02:07 AM
Here's a passage to chew on:
"The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though He executes judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, He must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: 'The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do his work, His strange work, and bring to pass His act, His strange act.' The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love.
{ST 08-24-82 para. 15}
"Again, the divine message comes to Ezekiel: '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.' The very fact of God's unwillingness to punish sinners shows the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments. And yet to every transgressor of His holy law is addressed that earnest, pleading call, 'Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?'
{ST 08-24-82 para. 16}
"The record of sacred history declares that while God is a God of justice, strict to mark iniquity, and strong to punish the sinner, He is also a God of truth, compassion, and abundant mercy. While He visits judgments upon the transgressors of His law and the enemies of His people, He will protect those who respect His statutes and show kindness to His chosen."
{ST 08-24-82 para. 17}
And another:
"The value of man and the measure of his accountability can be known only by the cross of Calvary. He who presents Himself to the sinner as the One strong to deliver, will prove Himself mighty to execute wrath and judgment upon every unrepenting son of Adam. He who holds the worlds in position, who weighs the hills in scales, and the mountains in a balance, who taketh up the isles as a very little thing, will show Himself mighty to avenge His unrequited mercy and spurned love. Those who flatter themselves that God is too merciful to punish the sinner, have only to look to Calvary to make assurance doubly sure that vengeance will be visited upon every transgressor of His righteous law."
{ST 04-03-84 para. 5}
And a third:
"Jesus, in His explanation of the parable [of the sower; Matthew 13:3-8, 18-30], brings distinctly before His disciples the great difference between the treatment of the wicked and the righteous in that time when men shall be judged for their deeds. Reaching down to the end of time, He corrects the false doctrines of those who rise up to deceive the people. He would teach men that God, who rained a fiery tempest upon the cities of the plains and destroyed them because of the iniquity in their midst, will surely punish the sinner. He holds the destiny of men and nations in His hands, and He will not always be mocked. Jesus Himself declares that there is a greater sin than that which brought destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah; it is the sin of those who see the Son of God and listen to His teachings, yet turn from His salvation, and reject His offered mercy. But the righteous shall be rewarded with the eternal life."
{2SP 250.2}
God is merciful, yes. But He also will destroy sinners, in His "strange act." The language above from His prophet, in today's English, admits of no other interpretation. It's just as Isaiah wrote so long ago:
"Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and He shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it." Isaiah 13:9.
That's not figurative, it doesn't mean God will allow Satan to do that, or some other such alternative explanation. It means just what it says, just as it plainly reads.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/22/05 03:19 AM
Ye, John Howard chewed an swallowed! But one must be willing to see both types of statements from the Bible and SOP, no prefering one set over another.
Any Bible reader would say that there are tons of statements which are understood as saying God punishes, destroys or liquidates.
Here are a few listings:
Bible
Genesis 6:5-7, 17; 19:24,25; Exodus 4:21; 7;3,13; 32:27; Joshua 10:11; Matthew 22:7
The Spirit of Prophecy
PP 491.2; SDA Bible Commentary 1:117; COL pp 307 to 309
There are many more, naturally.
These are many folk today who read these texts, interpret them according to long-accustomed methods, and are quite satisfied to believe that God does behave as an executioner to those who refuse to obey His laws.
But in doing so they have to ignore several things.
Sadly, I have yet to see anyone address these things here.
Firstly, there are quite a number of statements which say the opposite from what these statements are interpreted to mean.
Secondly, there are the great Ten Commandments principles which are embodied in the constitution of God's government. These I have attempted to address in the "Perfection of the Law" thread.
Thirdly, there are the terrible implications of holding such beliefs about God.
These will be considered in turn as we proceed, but firstly let a list be made of what some would call counter-statements. In reality they are not and cannot be counter-statements for there is no such thing as a contradiction in God's Word.
Here are some examples of such statements:
(Those who wish to skip all heavenly admonitions or proofs that might disturb their settled conclusions can scroll to the bottom and look for the bold *)
"The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works." "Thy testimonies [commandments or laws] that Thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful." Psalms 145:17; 119:138.
The Lord is righteous and the law is righteous. Therefore God is what the law is. It is the "transcript of His own character," Christ's Object Lessons, 315, and that law declares "Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13. Therefore, if it is not in the law to kill, it is not in the character of God to kill.
So, "God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." Christ's Object Lessons, 84.
"God destroys no one." Testimonies 5:120.
"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 Great Controversy, 36.
"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree corning upon the earth, and why? The Lord's restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest." Testimonies 6:388, 389.
"This earth has almost reached the place where God will permit the destroyer to work his will upon it." Testimonies 7:141.
"God keeps a reckoning with the nations. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. Those who work evil toward their fellow men, saying, How doth God know? will one day be called upon to meet long- deferred vengeance. In this age a more than common contempt is shown to God. Men have reached a point in insolence and disobedience which shows that their cup of iniquity is almost full. Many have well-nigh passed the boundary of mercy. Soon God will show that He is indeed the living God. He will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of their iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of wickedness to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work." The Review and Herald, September 17, 1901.
When Jesus was asked to destroy the Samaritans who had rejected Him, He replied to His disciples, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." Luke 9:55, 56.
"There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." The Desire of Ages, 487.
"Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power." ibid., 759.
"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority." ibid., 22.
We know that God does nothing that is contrary to the principles of His government. Therefore, He does not use force.
"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.
*
Here is a compilation of statements, emphatic and clear, asserting that God is not an executioner, does not punish, and destroys no one. How unsettlingly confusing!!!
When these and the first set are viewed side by side, there appears no possibility of their being reconcilable.
These apparent contradictions present the Bible student with a problem. For unbelievers and skeptics, it is "solved" by simply discarding faith in the Word of God, charging it and its Author with duplicity and inconsistency. I get this all the time from Muslim "thinkers" and others here in Asia.
Others simply ignore the words which they are unable to understand or do not really desire to accept, while they carefully collect the opposite set, building their faith accordingly.
This was the course adopted by the rabbis and Jews prior to and at the first advent.
In the Old Testament there were many prophetic statements describing both the first and second coming of Christ. One set naturally spoke of His coming in obscurity, shame, ignominy, rejection and to final crucifixion. The other set described a coming in indescribable power, glory and triumph in which all His enemies would be totally annihilated.
To the Jewish mind, especially as it lost the Spirit's illumination, it was impossible to reconcile these seeming contradictions. Their solution was to ignore every statement which spoke of humility and obscurity and to dwell heavily on those which spoke of power and glory.
Once they had embarked on that wrong principle of interpretation, then, the more they studied their Bibles, the more conditioned they became to reject the Saviour when He appeared.
He came exactly as the Scriptures said He would, but not as they had read the prophecies. Therefore, because He did not fulfil the set of prophecies they had gathered, they rejected Him and thus lost their eternal lives.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/22/05 08:19 AM
quote:
Those who flatter themselves that God is too merciful to punish the sinner, have only to look to Calvary to make assurance doubly sure that vengeance will be visited upon every transgressor of His righteous law."
Yes, the cross of Christ is the key. Did God kill His Son? That's the subject of another thread, but the answer is no. The Bible attributes Christ death to man, to sin, and to the devil, but never to God, except in the sense that He permited it to happen. E.g.
quote:
Because of our sins he was given over to die, and he was raised to life in order to put us right with God. (Rom. 4:25 GNB; very good translation of this verse BTW)
quote:
He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? (Rom. 3:32 NRSV)
Note how similar this is to the fate of the wicked:
quote:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. (Rom. 1:18-25)
In spite of the fact that the Bible is clear that God did not kill His Son, many insist that He did. But the Scriptures are clear that *we* killed Christ. Consider the following from Isaiah 53:
quote:
4 Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed.
We accounted Him stricken, struck down by God, but He wasn't! He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities.
It is we who are responsible for Christ's death. Why do we not choose to accept this? Because it's more palatable for us to lay the blame on God. In that we we do not need to face the ugly truth about ourselves, that we are murderers of the Creator. The uglier God is, the better we look.
George Fifield (from the thread God is love -- note explanation of mystery Phil) expressed it well:
quote:
The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely. Thus Satan has transformed the truth of God’s love into a lie, and even infused this lie into the very doctrine of the atonement.
The Spirit of Prophesy also recognized the relationship between the death of Christ and the destruction of the wicked. Regarding the destruction of the wicked, in the chapter "It Is Finished" which discusses the meaning of the death of Christ, she writes:
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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. (DA 764)
What an irony! God allows sin to continue for the purpose of showing that it, and not He, causes the destruction of the wicked, and the very means by which He used to prove this fact (His giving up His Son for our sins, which resulted in His death) is misinterpreted as His doing the very thing that death was designed to disprove!
Rather than Christ's death being rightly understood as the outpouring of His wrath in giving up His Son, and a sure demonstration of the fact that He will pour out His wrath upon the wicked by giving them up as well (in sorrow, crying out "How can I give you up?!?") it is misunderstood as His torturing and killing His Son, and a sure sign that He will torture and kill the wicked.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/22/05 03:58 PM
"It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief."
"Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is My fellow, saith the Lord of hosts."
When we say that the penalty or punishment of the law is death, this means that the penalty or punishment of the broken law is God's wrath against sin (since this wrath represents the sure death of the sinner).
"He [Christ] endured our punishment--the wrath of God against transgression." {UL 90.5}
In other words, when you sin, there is no way you can escape God's wrath for that sin:
Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men"
The only way to escape this wrath is if someone takes your sins upon him and suffers the wrath of God for these sins in your place. But the only One who could do this was God Himself, who is the Creator of man and the Author of the law which man transgressed. Thus, one of the members of the Godhead became a Mediator and our Substitute.
"As man He [Christ] must suffer the consequences of man's sin. As man He must endure the wrath of God against transgression. Christ was now standing in a different attitude from that in which He had ever stood before. His suffering can best be described in the words of the prophet, "Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is My fellow, saith the Lord of hosts." Zech. 13:7. As the substitute and surety for sinful man, Christ was suffering under divine justice. He saw what justice meant. Hitherto He had been as an intercessor for others; now He longed to have an intercessor for Himself." {DA 686}
"The God of justice did not spare His Son. In the secret place of the Most High a voice was heard: "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts." The whole debt for the transgressor of God's law was demanded from our Mediator. A full atonement was required. How appropriate are the words of Isaiah, "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief." His soul was made "an offering for sin." "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities." Jesus suffered the extreme penalty of the law for our transgressions, and justice was fully satisfied. The law is not abrogated; it has lost not 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." {18 MR 335, 336}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/23/05 02:46 AM
God's wrath against sin occurs when He reveals Himself to them after the resurrection. This is the destiny of all (save the few exceptions who aren't resurrected). If they have been healed from their sin, then their is no sin, suffering, pain or death when they are resurrected in the first resurrection. On the other hand, for those who have not been healed, their is weeping and gnashing of teeth when God reveals His goodness to them.
God is not arbitrarily keeping tabs on sins, and marking books. He is trying to heal people from the damage of sin, and prepare them so that when they meet Him, they will be happy, rather than destroyed. It is a person's own sin which causes their suffering and death, not an arbitrarily imposed action on the part of God because of His displeasure.
The light of the glory of God which gives life to the righteous slays the wicked.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/23/05 04:56 AM
May I clarify a point, please Tom?:
There are recording angels, "writing" (could be much more advanced then feather and parchment, actually) down every deed, good or bad. Each of us is assigned one.
So who are they for? God needs no book-keepers; He knows all as soon as it happens. Therefore they must be for:
1) The trillions of beings (angelic and not)who are pinning the continued hope of the universe that God will win the Great Battle against His character's accuser, Satan. They will need proof they we the human survivors are utterly sanitary from the Sin Disease, body and mind before they would feel safe re-admitting the Earthly race into the normal streams of eternal union with them and Him.
2) For ourselves. Humans forget very quickly, a symptom of sin.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/23/05 05:15 AM
Certainly. I was speaking of for the purpose of punishment, so He could inflict the appropriate amount of pain for each given offence.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/23/05 09:37 AM
Gotcha! I'm trying to keep folks from thinking you were saying there were NO records; you were detailing their true purposes, as was I.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/23/05 03:56 PM
So will God's opposition to sin and revulsion against sin start to exist only at a specific moment in time _ that is, the second resurrection?
Posted By: John H.
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/23/05 05:08 PM
Phil,
quote:
Others simply ignore the words which they are unable to understand or do not really desire to accept, while they carefully collect the opposite set, building their faith accordingly.
Precisely so, and that's exactly what you've done with your "God does not kill" ideas. He does leave us to our choices, but in the end He will perform His "strange act." At times prior to then He has killed also, or has commanded His (unfallen) angels to do so. There are so many crystal-clear statements to that effect that none need err as you're doing.
You're taking statements such as the ones you've quoted above, and are using them to try and negate many others that show that God does indeed kill (not murder), and will do so at the end of the millennium. What we need to do is to harmonize all of the statements on the subject, but this you simply refuse to do.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/23/05 07:28 PM
quote:
So will God's opposition to sin and revulsion against sin start to exist only at a specific moment in time _ that is, the second resurrection?
No, the pain to God's heart has been there since sin's inception, and He has been fighting to bring it to an end as quickly as possible since it originated. The judgment will show that God at every step of the way did all that He could to bring sin to an end as quickly as possible.
As we learn and share the truth about God, we join in Him in the battle to defeat evil and bring sin to an end.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/24/05 03:17 AM
John To accuse the ones who are posting the many many apparent "conflicting" Scriptural/SOP statements of ignoring them is pretty far-fetched! I'm afraid it is you and others who are having a hard time discussing them, not those of us that are willing to face them.
Again you state that we are pushing "God does not kill"; this shows your lack of comprehension of this topic. We have never said that, but have attempted to show that He does not kill in the human manner, the human blood-thirsty revenge heart, the legal "eye-for-an eye" method of enraged kings and despots. Granted, the ancient linguistic manner and translational/cultural syntax often appears quite savage, but to us, the only acid test of the Father's actions, the Holy Spirit's actions is how Christ Himself acted on earth.
If you would please at least comment on these SOP "counter statements" about destruction, you may gain much:
"God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." Christ's Object Lessons, 84.
"God destroys no one." Testimonies 5:120.
"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 Great Controversy, 36.
"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree corning upon the earth, and why? The Lord's restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest." Testimonies 6:388, 389.
"This earth has almost reached the place where God will permit the destroyer to work his will upon it." Testimonies 7:141.
"God keeps a reckoning with the nations. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. Those who work evil toward their fellow men, saying, How doth God know? will one day be called upon to meet long- deferred vengeance. In this age a more than common contempt is shown to God. Men have reached a point in insolence and disobedience which shows that their cup of iniquity is almost full. Many have well-nigh passed the boundary of mercy. Soon God will show that He is indeed the living God. He will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of their iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of wickedness to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work." The Review and Herald, September 17, 1901.
When Jesus was asked to destroy the Samaritans who had rejected Him, He replied to His disciples, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." Luke 9:55, 56.
"There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." The Desire of Ages, 487.
"Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power." ibid., 759.
"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority." ibid., 22.
We know that God does nothing that is contrary to the principles of His government. Therefore, He does not use force.
"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/24/05 07:01 AM
quote:
Granted, the ancient linguistic manner and translational/cultural syntax often appears quite savage, but to us, the only acid test of the Father's actions, the Holy Spirit's actions is how Christ Himself acted on earth.
Indeed, this is the bottom line. All other comparisons pale. No one has seen God at any time. The one who knew Him best, who was at His very side, has shown us what He is like. When we have seen Jesus, we've seen the Father. The whole purpose of His ministry was to set us right with God by revealing His character. All that He did and said is what He saw His Father do and say.
Oh that we might have His eyes to see what He saw! And a willing heart to do and say as well.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/24/05 04:45 PM
quote:
No, the pain to God's heart has been there since sin's inception
OK, but by saying "the pain to God's heart" are you referring to His wrath or not? IOW, is God's wrath against sin, His abhorrence for sin, something which exists today?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/25/05 06:13 AM
Roseangela: Will you please give me your opinion about these clear statements?:
""Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power." DA., 759.
"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority." ibid., 22.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/25/05 01:31 AM
quote:
OK, but by saying "the pain to God's heart" are you referring to His wrath or not? IOW, is God's wrath against sin, His abhorrence for sin, something which exists today?
God's wrath against sin exists today, but is only sometimes manifest, usually not. This is God's giving sinners over to the results of their sin, which sometimes happens in this lifetime, and sometimes not (Job's a perfect example of the not. David also mused about many of the wicked, who also are not).
God's abhorrence for sin is constant, however. God hates sin because it causes pain, suffering, misery and death to His children, whom He loves.
Regarding the pain in God's heart, I meant simply that. That is, sin causes God suffering, because it harms those whom He loves. God's righteous character demands that He hate something which harms, hurts, destroys, causes pain and so on to those He loves.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/25/05 07:03 AM
True: God has recorded in minute detail those occasions when His wrath has been manifested. The Bible is full of them, human history books are void of them...except insurance books which label all disasters an "act of God".
The Bible uses the terms "giving up" "gave them over" and many other similar expressions which are very revealing in the matter of God's wrath.
As I have stated, I see an aspect of "wrath" as the "God's turning away in revulsion from man for the hardness of their hearts."
2 Chronicles 30:7 "And be not ye like your fathers, and like your brethren, which trespassed against the LORD God of their fathers, [who] therefore gave them up to desolation, as ye see.
30:8 Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers [were, but] yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into His sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of His wrath may turn away from you."
Psalms 81:10 I [am] the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
81:11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.
81:12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: [and] they walked in their own counsels."
I could go on...however "two witnesses" should be enough.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/26/05 08:05 PM
Tom and Ikan,
God’s wrath against sin exists since the moment sin began to exist, and will last till sin is eliminated from the universe. God is restraining His wrath for a time, but He must eliminate sin, for sin is an evil ruinous to the universe. Eliminating sin is a deliberate act of God but it can in no way be classified as an act of force. God’s act is primarily against sin. The sinner will be destroyed because he is identified with sin. Sad, but unavoidable.
[ June 26, 2005, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Rosangela ]
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/26/05 08:59 PM
Restating one's beliefs while refusing to answer a candid set of questions for weeks on end,
Avoiding trains of direct responses to your own posts, these don't fair well for Berean discussion.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/27/05 04:41 AM
R: God’s wrath against sin exists since the moment sin began to exist, and will last till sin is eliminated from the universe. God is restraining His wrath for a time, but He must eliminate sin, for sin is an evil ruinous to the universe. Eliminating sin is a deliberate act of God but it can in no way be classified as an act of force. God’s act is primarily against sin. The sinner will be destroyed because he is identified with sin. Sad, but unavoidable.
T: If by "wrath" you mean "anger" or "hatred", it's true that God has always hated sin. He must, since it causes pain, misery and death to His children, whom He loves. Scripturally God's wrath is not constantly exercized, but is manifested when He "gives up" those against whom it is exercized to the results of their choice. (Deut 31:17, 18; Jer. 33:5; 2 Chron 29: 6, 8; 2 Kings 17:17-20; Ps. 27:9; Ps. 89:46; Ps. 143:7; Hosea 9:12; Lam. 2:5-7; Rom. 1:18-26)
You're correct that God's elimination of sin is not an act of force. It is His "giving up" those who have rejected Him to the results of their sin.
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. 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. (DA 764)
An interesting and important point is that it is the same thing which gives life to the righteous which causes the death of the wicked:
quote:
The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. (DA 108)
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/27/05 12:44 PM
Don't you mean "Phil: You're correct that God's elimination of sin is not an act of force. It is His "giving up" those who have rejected Him to the results of their sin."
I don't think Roseangela endorses this concept, and your post was written so that it looks to the "skimmers" that she had.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/27/05 05:15 PM
Ikan,
I have already stated my position over and over again in the several discussions about this subject. Anything else I might say would be just a repetition of what I have already said, but since you insist, I'll comment on the passages you quoted. Of course, like you, I don’t think that God kills with a blood-thirsty revenge heart. God is love, and there is no hatred in His heart except for sin. But sin is an evil ruinous to the universe, and He has fixed a day (Acts 17:31) on which He will eliminate it from His kingdom. Of course sin does not have an independent existence, but resides in the mind of sinners, and when God manifests His wrath against sin, which has been restrained for so long, sinners will be destroyed. God’s wrath against sin won’t affect negatively the righteous, because, like God, they also hate sin, but it will produce an unbearable agony in the wicked, which will cause their destruction. At the same time, externally, “the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Pet. 3:10), and this fire will obviously consume the wicked. If it is your opinion that this is an arbitrary act on the part of God, or that by so doing He is using compelling power, I’m sorry but you will have to live with this, for this is what will happen.
Another thing is that you take some texts and apply them out of context.
First, when Ellen White speaks about force, she is no doubt referring to coercive or compelling power, as the passages you quoted make clear:
"Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power." ibid., 759.
"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority." ibid., 22.
On the other hand, she says that
“The power and authority of the divine government will be employed to put down rebellion; yet all the manifestations of retributive justice will be perfectly consistent with the character of God as a merciful, long-suffering, benevolent being.” {GC 541}
It is also true that it is written “God destroys no man”. But which is the context of these statements? In every single stance they are related to the case of pharaoh and all those who commit the sin against the Holy Spirit. What she means is that the sinner is responsible for the destruction of his own soul. The sentence that "God destroys no man" is followed by explanatory statements like, “The responsibility rests upon the sinner. By resisting the Spirit of God today, he prepares the way for a second resistance of light when it comes with mightier power; and thus he will pass from one stage of indifference to another, until, at last, the light will fail to impress him, and he will cease to respond in any measure to the Spirit of God” (RH, February 17, 1891). “ God did not compel Pharaoh to be lost. Every man who is lost destroys himself. When a man turns from the light given of God, and refuses to walk in it, that light becomes darkness to him.” (PH152 10.1). “The sinner destroys himself by his own impenitence. ... We want all to understand how the soul is destroyed. It is not that God sends out a decree that man shall not be saved. He does not throw a darkness before the eyes which cannot be penetrated. But man at first resists a motion of the Spirit of God, and, having once resisted, it is less difficult to do so the second time, less the third, and far less the fourth. Then comes the harvest to be reaped from the seed of unbelief and resistance. Oh what a harvest of sinful indulgences is preparing for the sickle! (5T 120.2)
On the other hand, she says clearly that
“A great price has been paid for the redemption of man, and none who are untruthful, impure, or unrighteous can enter the kingdom of heaven. If men do not make Christ their personal Saviour, and become true and pure and holy, there is only one course for the Lord to pursue. He must destroy the sinner, for evil natures cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Thus it is that sin, if not destroyed, will destroy the sinner, just as Satan designed it should.” {16MR 273.3}
"But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. ... The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked." {DA 107}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/28/05 06:23 AM
Thank you for your patience, Rosangela. It's true you have stated your position many times, but what you are writing now is a bit different than what you've written before. And there's nothing wrong with this. We've been dialoging back and forth, and if we have open minds, it's only natural that our positions should evolve. This is a good thing, and I'm not speaking only of you, but will include myself as well.
On the first paragraph you wrote, I agree with everything you wrote. I'm having some difficulty seeing what it is we disagree on, provided you hold:
1) There will come a specific time when God will act to do away with sin, which He does for the good of the Universe.
2) How He does this can in no way be classified as a use of force.
quote:
Eliminating sin is a deliberate act of God but it can in no way be classified as an act of force.
3) The earth will be burned up and the wicked will be consumed.
4) The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.
I believe these 4 things to be true, and based on your post, and the previous one to it, it appears to me that you do as well. So it seems to me that we have a lot of common ground (and, indeed, it is a bit unclear to me what our uncommon ground is, if we agree on these 4 points).
The key to this, it seems to me, is point 4, which makes it clear that THE SAME THING which gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked. If we get this one point, it seems to me, we won't be off on the big picture.
Posted By: Rosangela
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/28/05 05:55 PM
Tom,
Sometimes I also get confused, but there are points of disagreement, otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing for such long a time.
It seems to me there is a difference in our perspective. Your position is that it is sin which kills (with God having a passive role), while my position is that it is God who kills (although reluctantly), because He has to destroy sin.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/28/05 07:38 PM
I don't see a distinction here, Rosangela. You've said yourself that you believe that sin destroys, so we agree on this point. I also agree that God will act at a specific point to bring sin to an end. He does this by being good to His enemies, just like it says in Romans 19:21, He will overcome evil with good.
As long as you agree with the principle that the same thing which imparts life to the righteous is that which slays the wicked (which is the light of God's glory -- His glory being His goodness, His character Ex. 33:19) we have common ground.
This principle, that the same thing which gives life to the righteous is that which destroys the wicked, to me seems to be the crucial point to grasp. Understanding this enables us to see that it is not an arbitrary act of power on the part of God which causes the sinners death, but a defect in themselves, caused by their own choice, thus the blame belongs to sin and the choice of the wicked, not to God, who does nothing other than be good.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/30/05 09:58 AM
Ok, Tom I'm in full agreement.
So what does this post of yours lead us to?:
"This principle, that the same thing which gives life to the righteous is that which destroys the wicked, to me seems to be the crucial point to grasp."
Consider:
At the exact moment of the destruction of the wicked, the saints will have already been re-animated from the graves or translated and been alive for 1000 years. They have a much rich portion of Life than they have ever had before.
Therefore Christ must be performing some other act of "giving life" in order for the wicked to be destroyed by it.
To whom and/or what is this new infusion of the creation power to be given?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 06/30/05 07:01 PM
quote:
At the exact moment of the destruction of the wicked, the saints will have already been re-animated from the graves or translated and been alive for 1000 years. They have a much rich portion of Life than they have ever had before.
Therefore Christ must be performing some other act of "giving life" in order for the wicked to be destroyed by it.
I'm not following this. Why must Christ be performing some other act? If the wicked had been raised at the first resurrection, the same thing would happen then instead of at the second. Similarly if the righteous weren't raised until the second resurrection, they would be imparted life at the same time the wicked would be slayed.
So I'm not seeing what the difference in timing has to do with anything. I'm not following your thought.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 07/01/05 03:43 AM
Whoa...we are getting our resurrections mixed up, sorry.
When the redeemed return to earth after a 1000 years in Heaven with Him, then the wicked are raised, correct?
Since the life-giving powers of His glory have already raised the redeemed, and then 1000 years later raised the wicked, who during a certain period of time will be stirred up by Satan to attempt to "storm" the New Jerusalem, next comes the Exposure of the destiny of the wicked, and then Christ's power to re-create the earth from the chaos of the past, is this then a fuller manifestation of His glory?
In other words, what recreates the earth to the full glory of the New Earth, Christ's glory/power, cleanses literally the planet, and destroys the evil ones at the same time. Or?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 07/05/05 09:14 AM
I think the same thing (namely God's glory) destroys the wicked, and the earth, and re-creates the earth. I also think that's the order. I don't think the wicked are killed by the literal lake of fire, but are already dead by the time they are consumed by it, having been slayed by God's glory.
I was at the GC for a couple of days, so have lost the thread of this a bit. It's the first one I've been to (the fifth for my wife, whom I met indirectly because she came to the U.S. for the GC in Indianapolis). The messages were depressing, but I liked everything else about it (i.e. the music, the booths, getting so see people I hadn't seen in a long time). Well the food wasn't very good, so I guess that goes along with the messages. Actually I only heard two messages, and one wasn't bad, so I shouldn't complain.
Posted By: Daryl
Re: Destruction of the wicked - 05/21/06 05:06 AM
The following EGW quote shows they were
not already dead until they are completely consumed in the lake of fire:
Quote:
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}