Justifiction, sanctification and the Grace of God

And how does justification relate to sanctification?
And how is everything directly linked to God's grace?
And how exactly does it relate to me, and every other human being, as we all stand in need of salvation.

Sanctification is the result of justification applied throughout time. Both justification and sanctification are by faith.

Everything is related to God's grace in that if we'd be dead if it weren't for God's grace. God's grace makes it possible for us to physically live, as well as making it possible for our will to operate to the point that we can choose either good or evil. Apart from God's grace, we would be unable to choose good. God's grace also enables us to do the good that we choose to do.



I didn't understand what this is asking.

Thanks for opening this topic, Dedication: interesting expansion of my points, and helpful, too.

Firstly, how about justification (J) and sanctification (S) encompassing the new birth (J) Jesus told Nicodemus about, and then using (S) that renewed mind to do righteousness? The new birth is being made righteous, btw, isn't it?

The part of grace generally is all pervasive, isn't it?

The link of grace by God to us, and all mankind...: this is the most contentious issue of Christian history outside of the nature of God, I think! Between predestination and total, free will among men - who, contrary to Calvinist predestination, appear not to be saved till they believe, surely it's just Christ himself linking the world to heaven by his humanity and his cross, so that any may believe that he has saved them by his actions.

If that went over anybody's head - and I was compressing a lot there! - isn't it Jesus' incarnation that accomplishes the link of grace from God's throne to every man, woman and child down here? That link, as taught uninmously by our church for a century - 1848-1948, as documented by the late Prof Jean Zurcher of our Collonges seminary in France in his "Touched with our Feelings", involves God's Son taking sinful, degraded, fallen, but uncorrupted humanity to be made flesh. This is now disputed - as that book shows, but a link of grace from God to all mankind (without us initially linking to him by faith - which we do do of course once we hear of and believe in Jesus) must involve the Messiah taking that humanity in common with the race he is linking to to save by his life, death and resurrection in that human body as the pre-existing Son of God. Jesus' life history on earth effected salvation of "all men", so something about him made that accomplishment possible.

We start our faith walk with that renewal of righteousness in the mind, filled with the Spirit, that is "the mind of Christ"; his life record is what we receive in using our new minds to build Christlike characters; and his humanity itself made saving the world outright by his action alone possible at all. Yes, becoming the Saviour in fact without anyone believing yet...

Thus, in Rom 8 there's mention of being predestined to a life of faith should one opt for it, and all the things mentioned in that chapter in the path of salvation from this world of sin.

That'll get this thread going, or maybe not!

To put it more succinctly, "What He has not assumed, He has not healed."

Yes, Colin, you touched on a lot of points! Valid points.

I'm going to try to make it a little simplier (hopefully -- though what's simple for me isn't always so simple to understand for others.

Turning to Romans we find in Romans 4 and 5 Paul's strong statements on justification. How absolutely essential it is in our being reconcilled to God, and how utterly impossible it is for us to justify ourselves by anything we do, no works of the law will ever justify us. It is only by Christ's sacrifice and blood.

But I want to start with Romans 6 as it deals most fully with how justification not only deals with our past sin, but also "renews the mind" and starts us on the walk of sanctification.

(Though the study will have to wait till later tonight, as I've an appointment right now --)
It will be on Romans 6:3-11

How does Christ's sacrifice and blood reconcile us to God?

Romans 5:6,8-9
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly....God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being NOW JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH of His Son, much more, BEING RECONCILED, we shall be saved by His life.



The genitive absolute: "we still being sinners"
"we" without strength being lost and helpless in our sins.
Christ died in our behalf, in our stead.

Verse 6 shows this was done for all. Verse 8 focuses in on the believers, who were ALSO lost sinners, lost and helpless in their sins. Christ's voluntary sacrificial death for us while we were in our ungodly sinfulness is the height of God's love. The supreme result and effect of this sacrifice is the justification and reconciliation of believers to God.

So important is this truth that Paul states it over and over.
In verse 10 he states it more fully.

"We being enemies"
this shows the rebellious nature of sin, and
echoes Paul's former phrase. "while we were yet sinners"
Our natural enmity toward God's law and righteousness, our sin, our ungodliness placed us in a position where we deserved nothing but wrath -- God owed us nothing.
But Christ taking our sins upon Himself, and dying in our place changed our status.
This, Paul writes, is the active transitive point in our reconciliation to God.

Now, God has always loved the world -- He sent His son (as per John 3:16) God didn't need to be reconciled. The trouble was with us -- we being the "enemies", our treason demanding our death. We were wrong, we alone, but we could do NOTHING about it.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH of His Son"

Notice the progress:
Christ's sacrificial death brings
Our reconciliation to God
and then
"BEING RECONCILED, we shall be saved by His life."

Next let's go to Romans 6:3-11
the key as to how this fits together and also answers how Christ's sacrificial death and blood reconciles us to God.

ROMANS 6:3 Don't you know, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

This isn't speaking of baptism as an end in itself, but showing a much deeper meaning?

Baptism connects us with Christ our Savior, and this means being connected with His death. To be buried, or entombed with Christ involves that in our baptism we died with Christ.

Let's look at a text from 1 Peter 2:24 [Christ] Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

What does all this mean?

Christ took OUR SIN, OUR SINFUL NATURE, upon Himself, upon His sinless nature, and died. What does that mean to us?
Brothers and sisters - it means because HE died to our sin, we died to sin. Therefore it is apparent that our dying to sin is not something we do, but something Christ has done, and is something that is accounted to all who are united with Him!

6:11 Likewise reckon (or account) ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We are indeed to reckon-- consider -- ourselves dead to sin.

This is a whole NEW IDEA --
We are NOT to think that once we've overcome all sin then we can finally count ourself dead to sin. NO! When we accept Christ and His DEATH in our behalf, we, by uniting ourselves with Him, count ourselves dead to sin.

We ARE to count or consider ourselves DEAD to sin, the minute we unite our lives to Christ.
This is a major shift for many people -- from the negative, to the positive.

Of course this doesn't mean sin will never again touch us.
Verse 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. means because we are dead to sin through our union with Christ, we are not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies.




6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

Freed from sin!
This is what Christ's sacrificial death has done -- FREED US FROM SIN!
Clothed us with HIS righteousness.
JUSTIFIED--

Of course the next step follows' as we died with Christ so we shall rise and live with him.
Thus this is not only applying Christ's death and its benefits to us, but equally giving us a whole new outlook on life! It's a SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION!

But how do we understand this in a more practical sense?

Going back to the beginning -- we were born into a kingdom of sin, slavery and death. We were SLAVES to sin, bound by sin.

But by uniting our lives with Christ Who took our sins and died to this realm of sin, we have been set free from sin (Romans 6:18). We have been rescued from the dominion of darkness (see Col. 1:13) Even if we were pretty good people, we lived in the kingdom of sin, or as Paul Bunyon's Pilgrim depicts it -- we lived in the "city of destruction".

When we accept Christ and join Him in baptism, we die inwardly to this sinful kingdom. Yet that death depends entirely on Christ's sacrificial death upon the cross as Christ takes upon Himself our "old man of sin" and it is nailed on the cross with Him.

Our connection to Christ and His sacrifice is so real that it carries "our old man" to the very cross of Christ in a spiritual crucifixion that kills our old selfish self and we are BORN AGAIN, raised to newness of life WITH CHRIST!

No longer members of the kingdom of sin,
BUT CITIZENS OF THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM!
Sons and daughters of God.

This is JUSTIFICATION!


Now, we walk the life of sanctification.
There will still be a struggle with sin -- but OUR WHOLE OUTLOOK HAS BEEN CHANGED. The renewing of the mind.




6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.



Now, we walk the life of sanctification.
There will still be a struggle with sin -- but OUR WHOLE OUTLOOK HAS BEEN CHANGED. The renewing of the mind.

But sanctification is for another study.

Sanctification is not the work of a moment, an hour, a day, but of a lifetime. So long as life shall last, there will be no
stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained. Sanctification is the result of lifelong obedience. {AA 560.3}

Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

In what way? You point out later that God had no need to be reconciled to us (agreed!), so what changed must be something that happened to us, right? So how did Christ's taking our sins upon Himself and dying in our place change us?



Peter said that Christ died to "bring us to God." That seems to me very simple and easy to understand. I'm having more difficulty understanding your idea that dying to sin is not something that we need to do.



It seems clear to me that the way we die to sin is by faith in Christ, which is something we do (we exercise faith in Christ). Is this a case of saying the same thing in different ways, or are you disagreeing with my point here?

I'm still not understanding how you understand that Christ's blood and sacrifice reconciles us to God. Could you explain it simply in a few sentences please?

I don't want to "just explain" it.

I want to see it from scripture.
Did you study Romans 6:3-11?

Don't you believe it is Christ's blood and sacrifice that reconciles us to God?

The wages of sin is death...

When Adam sinned he sold the whole human race into the hands of satan, sin and death.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


The law -- God's moral law -- demands the death of the transgressor.
Without the shed blood of Christ, the law is only an instrument declaring that we deserve death, for we have transgressed that law.

Jesus' blood is the central theme of the entire Word of God, from the blood of Abel's slain lamb to the blood of the Lamb (Jesus) in Revelation 7:14. Hebrews 9:22 declares that there is NO remission of sins without the shedding of Christ's blood. The blood of Jesus is the ONLY way for our sins to be forgiven...

"In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" —Colossians 1:14

...and for us to have access to the Father's throne.

Heb. 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holies by the blood of Jesus,


It was only because the plan of the SUBSTITUTIONAL SACRIFICIAL DEATH by Christ Who stood as surety for mankind, that Adam and Eve continued to live after their sin.

To teach them, God, instituted the scarificial system immediately.

You will notice in Genesis, that the robe of light departed and they realized they were naked.

Gen. 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Sin robbed them of the cloak of innocence, and they tried to make coverings out of leaves. They tried to make themselves presentable, but it didn't work.

God comes to search for them. God promises a Redeemer Gen. 3:16

Then " Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Coats of skin-- can only be made when an animal dies.
This is significent. The clues are all in that God promised the coming of the Redeemer, then the very first sacrifice was made, the Lambs, depicting the death of Christ, and the skins of the animals was made into clothes -- God clothed them with the skins.
A robe of righteousness to cover their nakedness.

The symbolism is powerful. Sin-- leaves one naked of righteousness. This can be remedied only by the death of the substititude, Who then clothes us with His own robe of righteousness.

Upon Christ as our substitute and surety was laid the iniquity of us all. He was counted a transgressor, that He might redeem us from the condemnation of the law.



It changed our status--
Without the sacrifice of Christ, we are not members of God's kingdom, but members of satan's kingdom, enslaved there till death causes us to perish forever.


Ephesians 2:2-5 tells the same thing as Romans 6:2-9

2:2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience:
2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ, (by grace you are saved;)
2:6 And has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:


We have to unite ourselves WITH Christ in His death.
Christ took OUR SINS and our sinful nature upon His sinless nature and DIED. And we are RAISED WITH HIM, to fellowship with Him in heavenly places.

Do we now accept, and count our old natures DEAD?
Do we now accept Christ's robe of righteousness?
Do we now believe we are citizens of Gods' kingdom?

If we consider the old nature DEAD, do we continue to feed it? NO! it's dead
If we accept Christ's robe of righteousness and realize we are accepted in the beloved, how do we respond?




You added a word.

Read on -- I also wrote:
"When we accept Christ and join Him in baptism, we die inwardly to this sinful kingdom. Yet that death depends entirely on Christ's sacrificial death upon the cross as Christ takes upon Himself our "old man of sin" and it is nailed on the cross with Him.

Our connection to Christ and His sacrifice is so real that it carries "our old man" to the very cross of Christ in a spiritual crucifixion that kills our old selfish self and we are BORN AGAIN, raised to newness of life WITH CHRIST!

"Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world."
This is Jesus the Son of God, Who shared the glory and power of supreme glory with the Father He is the Creator of the universe, standing there "a lamb as when it is slain" He is the sacrifice.
"Come," Jesus calls, "Place your hands upon my head and confess your sins." Trembling we place our hands on the head of Him who has never cherished an evil thought, and confess all our dark imaginings, we look in the face that has only love and goodness, and confess all our hate and evil. We acknowledge specific sins and shortcomings, knowing that He has never sinned. And as our attention is drawn to the cross to see what our sins did to Jesus, something happens inside. All our pride and selfishness is stripped bare, and we ask, "What is sin, that it should require such a sacrifice?"

Suddenly the horror of sin is revealed to us. Those little sins that we thought we had a right to hang on to don't look so innocent anymore, and we experience what is know as repentance. Repentance includes sorrow for sin and a turning away from it. True repentance does not happen apart from Christ and the cross. We may experience regret for the consequences of sin, we may even change our lifestyle, but only as we contemplate the cross and allow our old nature to DIE WITH CHRIST, can we experience true repentance, which is so necessary to the Christian life.
As we see what our sins did to Jesus and how He took our punishment because He loved us, we will have a change of heart and mind. Gladly we surrender all our cherished idols--everything that stands between us and Christ we place on the alter and even more, we give ourselves to Jesus by the mercies of God, we present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy , acceptable unto God. (Romans 12:2)

Great emphasis! Wonderful truth and food for our tired and starving souls. It made me think how the "daily" sacrifice was the foundation and made acceptable all other sacrifices.


Yes, this is quite essential. May I add that the "Born Again" (also referred in the Bible as the indwelling spirit or the mystery of God) is how we abide in Christ and He in us. This is how we become victorious daily.

The righteousness of Christ given to us as a free gift draws us to the cross and to receive the grace. Without it, we couldn't gone to the cross.

Like you said, it is the seed of rebellion that is the root of sin. These seeds needs to be plucked out of our heart and only Christ can do this work. Our part is to come to him daily and confess His great Love and Grace and our need of him. Then 1 Jn 4:15 happens in our heart "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. "

When Jesus is dwells in our heart then "For it is God which worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of [his] good pleasure." Phil 2:13 This is only possible through the true confession of faith -- DAILY.

Tom, as I recall, you don't interpret shed blood and forgiveness in Heb 9:22 and Eph 2:14 as a legal connection, but as relationship restored: the love of God displayed in Christ's death reconciles us to God since we believe he is love, and did not do so before. There is no legal requirement of shed blood for forgiveness for us - just the love to be believed in?

Am still not crystal clear on your reasoning on shed blood and forgiveness, but am clear that clarifying the character of God in our minds and those of the rest of the world is paramount for you. How do you think Christ's death and shed blood change us, and what legal element is there in that?

Dedication, I like your Bible study. It's got pretty much the full detail. It's the "old man" indeed of the sinful mind that Christ put to death in his body on the tree: that's how his death substituted for ours - we acknowledge it by baptism, but by grace when "one died for all, then were all dead".

Why did it change our status? If this change is something which has nothing to do with us, it would impact every human being equally, wouldn't it? Are you saying that it changed the status of everyone, making everyone a member of God's kingdom, and taking everyone away from Satan's kingdom?



So this is something we do. I think I may be agreeing with what you're trying to say, it's just the manner in which you're saying it that I'm having a little trouble in following (for example, asserting that dying to sin is not something we do).

Let's see if you agree with the following. The cross of Christ reveals the love of God, and in so doing, reveals to us our own inadequacies and need for God's love, grace and forgiveness. When we respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit, who fixes our attention on Christ, this results in our being brought into harmony with God, which is to say, reconciled.

Do you agree?

Here's something Waggoner had to say about this question:



I don't agree with the idea that there is no legal requirement; I just don't think that the legal requirement is along the lines that Anselm or Calvin conceived of it (although I agree with how Waggoner conceived of it).



I don't think this is just "for me." For example:



This says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission on earth (which must surely include His death) was to set men right through the revelation of God. "Whole purpose" sounds like something paramount, doesn't it?



I think I'll quote Fifield here. This is a good and important question.



Another quote:



The cross changes us by revealing the height and depth of God's love. By beholding His character man can be drawn back to God.

Regarding the legal requirement, I agree with Fifield. I think it's a mistake to view the legal requirement as something arbitrary that God requires as opposed to a description of reality (Waggoner also expressed this idea).

Basically I think a proper understanding of the whole issue is easily obtained if we ask the question as to what the problem is that needs to be solved. From "The Desire of Ages":



If we accept the proposition that sin is lethal, destroying its victims by instilling false ideas regarding God's character, leading one to form a character incapable of being in the life-giving presence of God, then we can perceive God's character and actions as One who is doing everything possible to save us from the life-taking properties of sin. Since sin achieves its power chiefly by the misrepresentation of God's character, the solution must be the revelation of God's character.

Expressing things in terms of a legal requirement is simply another of expressing the same truth in other words. For example, "the law requires perfect obedience" simply means that our thoughts and behavior must be in harmony with God's character if we wish to live; not because God will do something to us if we don't, but because the principles of sin are not possible of sustaining life.

Indeed, once we come to the cross and see in Christ's death, the death of our "old nature" which He took upon Himself and died in our place: as we through Christ, die to the old nature and count it as dead, we, with Christ rise to newness of life.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

From what I've noticed, and I could be wrong, but a lot of points seem to indicate that Tom is following the teachings of men like Michael Clute and F.T. Wright.

These men don't believe in the sacrificial system at all.
They will take a verse from Gal. 3:19 and make it say that satan gave Israel the ceremonial law, not God. "Satan and his angels were allowed to give Moses this law which Christ abolished at Mt. Olivet and Mt. Calvary. They wanted to kill animals." (from p. 73 "The Wonderful Truth about our Heavenly Father") Which of course would mean that a large portion of the first five books of the Bible were inspired by satan not God.... Scary doctrines these!

Then there's also the "gospel according to G. Maxwell" that has gained alarming ground in Adventist circles. It pretty much does away with the substitutional death as well, and thinks of the cross only as a demonstration.

Dedication, please don't make assertions like this without providing any evidence. There's all too much of this here.

First of all, if I'm not mistaken, Michael Clute is a Universalist. I'm not.

Secondly, what makes you think F. T. Wright did not believe in a sacrificial system? You're way off base on this. If you wish to dispute this, I'd be happy to quote from him to establish this.

Finally, if you want to know what writers have influenced my thoughts, rather than just guessing, you could try just asking!

The following statement from Ellen White has influenced my thinking greatly:



This says the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth (which surely includes His death) was "the revelation of God" for the purpose of setting men right with God.

Our understanding of how Christ's sacrifice solves our problem has to involve what we think the problem is. The first chapter of "The Desire of Ages" says:



Satan's power to deceive in his ability to misrepresent God's character. To break Satan's power, it was necessary that Christ reveal the truth. This was the "whole purpose" of His mission.

I agree with all that I've read of Waggoner on this subject. He's helped shape my thought. Outside of Ellen White, of those who wrote during her time, George Fifield has had the most influence. I quoted a sermon of his awhile back. I'd be happy to do so again, if desired. It's an amazing sermon.

Regarding modern writers, I agree with almost everything Ty Gibson writes, and he's influenced by thought. Regarding Maxwell, I appreciate very much his overall framework in terms of what the issues of the Great Controversy are and how God has gone about solving these issues. In particular, I like his emphasis on God's willingness to have Himself and His government investigated.

One other modern writer I'll mention is Robert J. Wieland. I appreciate tremendously his thoughts on the cross, and agape, and faith.

the worst thing i could say about tom is that i dont always agree with him and that he may not state his thoughts real great.

in my opinion it is much better to be sure of where a person is coming from before throwing out any potentially damaging statements regarding their them.

if we are going to defend the "law" we should really search ourselves to make sure that we are not breaking it at the same time. otherwise we just give unbelievers a really good laugh at our expense, as well as driving them far from the Lord. as i see it.

This made me laugh out loud: "he may not state his thoughts real great." There's irony!

Michael Clute quotes Ellen White extensively.
He was not a "universalist" -- at least not when he wrote the book that found it's way into a lot of Adventist homes.
Universalism refers to the belief that all humans will eventually be saved through Jesus Christ and come into harmony in God's kingdom.
In the book, Michael Clute teaches that "sinners are destroyed by that which comes from inside themselves-- sin brings forth 'a fire from the midst of them and that fire consumes them." (p. 354 "The Wonderful Truth about Our Heavenly Father")

In Clutes book, the focus is on "God does not kill", (there is an exceedingly long thread on this subject on this forum, where it appears you are promoting the same thing????) In his book he explains everything in the Bible that might indicate that God brought punishment upon people, in a way that takes the responsibility of the direct action, off of God.

And I did quote from his book as to what he thought of the sacrificial system. I was not "way off base" there.

If he has now moved into universalism, it might be a WARNING as to where this type of thinking leads.




It does seem I was right that you do value F.T. Wright's writings.

I didn't see anything on the sacrificial ceremonies in my looking through his book, "Behold Your God" just now-- (after all it's more than 400 pages) however, all his "principles" would be in contradiction to the ceremony, for it requires a lot of killing. Those animals didn't just die because sin was placed upon them, they were killed.
Seems I remember something about the Levites being given this service because they had executed with sword the rebellious at Mt. Sinia, instead of asking the Lord to take care of them.

Maybe it wasn't him --
there are at least three main men, who promote these ideas that God destroys no man, who have flooded Adventism with with this teaching.


Their view of the cross differs somewhat, but the principle is the same in all three -- namely that Christ's blood didn't have to be shed for the forgiveness of sin, and that the cross was a demonstration of sin crushing the life out of person, and a demonstration of great love.

And a lot of that is also discussed on that other thread. No -- I probably shouldn't have said you were a follower of ....(these men)
as everyone adapts things to their own understanding as to what they see as truth.

Yet, it gives me a clue as to where you MIGHT be coming from.

But we need to get back to the Justification/Sanctification topic.

Not sure how this relates to what I wrote:
But anyway --

1. Christ's substitutionary death opened the door of salvation for every person. His sacrifice is sufficient to save every last person that ever lived BUT

2. Until we go to the cross (figuratively speaking) and voluntarily place our sins upon Jesus, and through serious reflection on the scenes of Calvary believe Christ died for those sins, thus the "old man of sin" is dead, through Christ, and we consider "him" dead --- until we experience this, and when possible demonstrate our belief through baptism, then no our status would still be in the "city of destruction". It's this experience identitifying ourselves with Christ's death, that we gain a new status --

Given a robe of righteousness
Become Sons and Daughters of God.



It depends upon what you mean by "something we do".
It is Christ Who literally died, it is He Who took our sins upon Himself. But for it to be effective in our lives, we must acknowledge this, we must believe it, we must see what sin did to Christ, and we must BELIEVE, or consider, that we are now dead to sin. We can't "kill" the "old man of sin" that reigns in our members. Something outside of ourselves must take hold of our thoughts.
I guess another word is "surrender", and see what our sin did to Christ, in order that we might live.





There is more. Yes, the cross is the ultimate revelation of love, and draws us to Christ, yet
the cross is more than a demonstration of love.

Our problem is much more than mere "inadequacies" we are DEAD to righteousness and thoroughly self centered in the carnal state. A state where we are at "enmity with God" and can't please Him. We need a "new birth" just to start our walk of sanctification.

There is the covering of our sins by the blood of Christ.
The actual putting of our sins upon Christ, and understanding that OUR SINS caused His suffering.

It is His death and blood that alone can cover those sins.

Yes, sensing Christ's great Love is very much a part of it, very much part of it.

But also very important in this is the JUSTIFICATION.

It's this being JUSTIFIED that reconciles us to God.
Christ's blood covering our sins, His robe of righteousness that reconciles us to God.

In the texts I quoted
Reconciliation comes first
Then being reconciled we walk in faith, in a life of sanctification.

Quite right, Dedication, and here's the confusion in Tom's comment.


Tom, tell me you didn't misquote her, in your statement quoted, first, here, by taking her out of context. I do discern you don't support the idea of Christ dying our death to sin for us, so we can escape it by his bodily death, and thereby be justified?

Rom 7:1-6 (look it up yourselves; no more space for all that here!) teaches Christ substituting his body in death for ours, bound by the law to die as our bodies are, and we rising to newness of life because he is risen. Thus we don't physically die to sin, Tom, we have a substitute: Praise the Lord, Amen! Without Jesus we are bound by the law to die.

Don't think Tom's trying to confuse you this time, Dedication He's alluding to the legal element of the cross which I believe in, but he explains without legality (and we differ there, he and I).

That the cross is sufficient for every man means that Jesus is Saviour of every man. That sufficiency is rooted in his person, by which body we are indeed redeemed from the eternal death of God's judgement against sin. The testator's will of Heb 9 is it, ratified by death alone, changes our status - "in him". That's the accomplishment of grace, best stated in 2 Cor 5:14


...as I quoted in the other post. Simply put, in Jesus' resurrected body our changed status is based and true. Thus we may believe in a change of heart and life. Do you follow that?

I did the other two posts separately as they warranted their own space, since justification by faith is what we're after here and those (my) two other posts are background to that.

Rom 4:25 says it very well


Now, I have in on authority of greek scholars that that translation can be improved, while also read both as it is and as improved! Both "for" words can equally mean, also in this context, "because of": it's linguistically, legally and theologically accurate to read it that way too.

Our rebirth of heart by faith is because of our justification by grace in Christ, expressed in that verse. That chapter ends with Abraham's example of believing God's promise and being made righteous thereby, and the chapter ends with this verse.

We are changed inside by justification and faith - it's so good to hear you argue that, Dedication...: when last did you hear that preached anywhere on planet earth - any denoination, let alone any SDA church??! I've found where the church has written it down and hidden it away, so it's approved, but never stated! But it's oh so true!

Yes, Christ's robe of righteousness is our new heart itself: "The mind of Christ." Only imputable once we accept as ours our death to sin and our sinful nature in Christ. As Rom 4:25 lines it up, first our death to sin in Christ's bodily substitutionary death, then our justified rising to newness of life: the sanctified life itself.

You were off base in bringing him up at all. Don't you see that? I know nothing of the book you are referring to, and I said nothing in reference to it, nor anything resembling what you quoted.



At least you're mentioning someone who's written something I've actually read. From what I understand in regards to F. T. Wright's ideas regarding the atonement, we see things differently. In regards to modern writers, I agree with what Ty Gibson has written on this subject.



Probably?



As I pointed out, you'd get better clues by simply asking me.

In terms of non-Scriptural influences, my first thoughts regarding righteousness by faith came from Ellen White. I became aware of her statements regarding Jones and Waggoner, and read much of their writings, which had a tremendous impact on my thoughts, especially Waggoner, in terms of the thoughts we are discussing on this thread.

By accident, I came across Fifield's sermons in the 1897 GCB (I bought it because I was interested in what Waggoner had preached regarding Hebrews), and fell in love with them. Of the "old guys," he most expresses himself in language that resonates with my soul. His Sermon #1 on Isaiah 53 is wonderfully beautiful and profound.

In terms of modern day writers, I can't think of anything Ty Gibson has written on the subject we are discussing on this thread that I disagree with, and his insights have helped me a great deal. I've also appreciated what R. J. Wieland has written very, very much. He expresses some things a bit differently than I would, but I think our differences are semantic, based on having discussed this at length with him.



Agreed! Let's stop making off topic false accusations! Good thinking.

To my way of thinking justification = reconciliation = born again. They are simply different words or expressions for communicating the same thought.

If you see these as different things, please explain what you think justification is, and when it occurs, and the same for reconciliation and being born again.

To answer this question myself, I think these things happen simultaneously the moment a person believes in Christ, accepting Him as Savior. I'll also add that I believe "forgiveness" is also another word which could be used (that is, that "forgiveness" and "justification" are also describing the same event).

I quoted the following:



I don't think this is quoting her out of context, as I included several paragraphs, not just a sentence or a phrase.

Regarding your other question to me, I don't understand what you're asking. I agree with what Waggoner has written regarding Romans, if that helps.

δια + accusative (this is what both "for's" are) can be translated in a wide number of ways. A common "default" is "on account of."

This is quite interesting. I would not have expected "for our justification" to have been expressed this way in the Greek. (I would have expected an expression meaning "in order to bring about" as opposed to "on account of"). "Justification" could also be translated "acquittal," so the following is possible:



Not sure this makes sense though.





Yes, this is key. Waggoner especially brought out that this is what justification by faith entails.



Agreed, and this is a nice way of putting it.

The quote I referred you to had you picking out the italised phrase as in its original here and quering it, while the quote you're thinking of here had you quoting the full passage you have but adding a word "need" between "we" and "do" when asking about it which Dedication politely pointed out to you - an addition which completely changed her position. Both times you failed to note the context, which renders your repeated question a failure to read the plain text.

It was stated that Christ died for us, and we died in him and experiece that death by faith in him. Yet you asked whether we think we die or even need to die to sin??! Being kind here, you clearly didn't read the text, as it was plainly stated.

OTOH, do you believe in Christ's substitutionary death to & for sin for us, or just his demonstration of love to persuade us to believe? Justification is rebirth from death to sin, both by faith in Christ. I haven't heard you state support for us dying in Christ our substitute, by grace for faith: Do you think: did Christ die to sin on the cross for us, or just show us agape as clarification, such that by agreeing with that truth we are reconciled to him?

In what way does it change her position at all? If she said that "dying to sin is not something we do" instead of "dying to sin is not something we need to do" what's the difference? If it's not something we do, clearly it's not something we need to do. This seems like straining at gnats. It's certainly greatly overstating things to say that this completely changes her position. I disagree just as much with the statement that dying to sin is not something we do as with the statement dying to sin is not something we need to do, and for the same reason, which reason I pointed out.

All I was trying to do was understand what her point is. I rephrased what I thought she was saying in my own words, and asked if she agreed with it. Surely if there was any ambiguity in what I was asking in regards to her statements, that should have cleared up my things!



On the other hand of what? I think you mean, "additionally."

Regarding the question, it looks like both sides of the "or" have problems. Christ's substitutionary death for us is fine, but His substitutionary death to and for sin doesn't make sense to me, especially that "to" part (I can see that "substitutionary death for sin" could mean "substitutionary death because of sin -- although I think "substitutionary death for us" would have covered that -- but I don't know what "substitutionary death to sin" would mean).



Both what? You say "justification is" something, and then say "both" by faith in Christ, although there's only one subject mentioned, "justification."



I've stated many times I believe Christ died as our substitute. I just don't believe this means what Anselm or Calvin had in mind. From "The Desire of Ages"



I think this eloquently describes Christ's substitutionary death for us, and does so in a way that I am in full harmony with.

Regarding Christ's dying to sin for us, if you mean "for" as in "for our sake" or/and "so that we could follow in His footsteps and do the same" I agree with that.

The Atonement theory you are describing (in regards to the position I've been expressing) seems most akin to the Moral Influence theory, first described in detail by Abelard. What I've been describing is more the "Christus Victor" theory, which predates both Abelard's theory and Anselm's (or Calvin's). What you believe is in some respect like Anslem's and Calvin's, but in some respects different, because of the corporate aspects.

I think some might have gotten the wrong impression that you agree with the position others have expressed, when your position on this forum is unique, to the best of my knowledge. It seems very similar to Sequeira's.

As I stated, I agree with Ty Gibson's ideas on the Atonement, so I'll quote from him (after this post).

Ty Gibson on the Atonement.

The law is not an arbitrary set of rules made up at random by God to prove His authority over us, but rather a practical explanation of what love looks like in real life…Sin is anything contrary to the character of God; more specifically, anything contrary to His love…

Love is God’s law, the principle by which He lives. It is a law because it is not arbitrary, but based on reality as it is, governing life by its righteous principles. Love is the law by which God made and sustains life….

Sin is the opposite, antagonistic principle at war with the law of love. Do not view sin as merely an alternative way of living, which happens to be harmlessly different from God’s way. God’s way is the only way to live, not because He happens to be more powerful and can arbitrarily punish us if we don’t comply, but because life is actually, intrinsically present only in God’s way, which is the way of love. The problem with sin is that it is wrong, actually, essentially, inherently wrong. And it is wrong for good reason, not just because the One in charge doesn’t like it. To be sure, God does not like sin, but He doesn’t like it because of what it does to is victims, not because He is a picky control freak who decided to come up with a list of arbitrary rules to keep us under His thumb. Sin, by its very nature, is anti-life. It is intrinsically destructive. Hence the Bible calls it the “law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

Once the nature of sin is understood, it is easy to see why sin is a law of death: sin is selfishness, the antithesis of love. As such, it leads inevitably to the exclusion of, and isolation from, the sustaining love and support of all others….

Because God’s love is the law of the universe, by which He created and sustains all things, the principles of that law are designed into our very natures. Within our psycho-emotional makeup, love is encoded as the law of life. When we violate that law, a malfunction signal issues a warning in the form of guilt. That part of our minds we call *conscience* senses discomfort with sin and identifies it as a destructive virus in the computer system, so to speak. Guilt is not arbitrarily imposed by God any more than His law is arbitrary. He is the Architect of conscience, but He is not the source of guilt. He made us with the capacity to feel guilt as a merciful and wise deterrent to sin, desiring, of course, that we would never experience its pain….

While God does not desire that anyone ever experience physical pain or the psychological pain of guilt, even more so He does not desire our utter destruction. Pain is a built-in mercy mechanism intended to aid in the preservation of life. Pain is not an indication that God is exercising some kind of power above, beyond, or contrary to His law of love in order to inflict suffering as an arbitrary punishment for sin. Punishment is organic to sin itself….

It is commonly thought that the connection between sin and death is imply that if we don’t repent of our sins God will kill us. Often no actual, intrinsic relationship is discerned between sin and death. But even a casual consideration of Scripture on this point persuades us otherwise. Notice just these few examples (quotes Gal. 6:7, 8; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; Rom. 8:6; Rom. 8:13; Prov. 8:36; James 1:15)…

So, when Paul says that holiness results in eternal life, he is not removing God from the equation and making life a mere naturalistic cause and effect matter. He is simply describing *how* God gives us eternal life….

God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”…

(quotes Rom. 5:11; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:24, 25; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15)
Please not the recurring point in the preceding verses:
• Through Christ we receive “atonement”; we are made one with God.
• The purpose of the substitutionary death of Christ is to “bring us to God”; not Him to us. God has demonstrated His reconciled position toward us in Christ.
• Through sin we have gone “astray”; but through the sacrifice of Christ we “are not returned” to God.
• The love of Christ, revealed in His death, causes us to cease living for self and to start living for Him; we are reestablished in the circle of selfless, other-centered love through the atoning death of Christ….

(discussing the three-party picture of the atonement)
1. The sinner, who has aroused the anger of God.
2. A wrathful God, who needs personal satisfaction that can only be derived from inflicting suffering and imposing death; only then will He even consider letting us off the hook with forgiveness.
3. A third-party victim, who is made to suffer and die as a substitute for the sinner.

There are a number of serious problems with the three-party picture, foremost of which is that it makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer. If such an arrangement could actually satisfy God, then we would be forced to conclude that His law and His wrath are irrational and arbitrary, meaning there is no actual relationship between law and sin and death. If God’s wrath can be appeased by venting rage on an innocent third party, then it follows that there is no real problem with sin other than the fact that God doesn’t want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we had better suffer ourselves or find a whipping boy to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

Biblical Christianity proclaims, in extreme contrast to the third-party view of substitution, that God has given Himself as our Substitute, to bear our sin and its inherent, divinely-ordained penalty. Hence there are only two parties involved in the atonement: 1. The sinner, who has aroused in God a painful tension between a holy, rational anger against sin and an equally holy, rational mercy toward the sinner. 2. An infinitely just an definitely merciful God, who loves us so selflessly that He has chosen to give Himself to suffer and die as our Substitute….

So what actually happened on that hill far away as the Son of God hung between heaven and earth? Did Christ bear the wrath of God at Calvary? What part did the Father act in the suffering and death of Christ? A number of Scriptures bear a consistent testimony to answer these questions:

(quotes Acts 2:23, 24; Acts 4:24-28) ….

Did the Father cause the suffering and death of Christ?

Yes and no!

Yes, if we mean He delivered Him over to suffering and death according to His own wise purpose of grace. Yes, if we mean that the Father gave up His Son to experience the tormenting psychological agony of our guilt.

No, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son. No, if we mean that the Father assumed a position of vicious hostility toward His Son. Christ suffered and died at *our* hands, under the burden of *our* sin, by the gracious, self-sacrificing purpose of the Father….

In holy hatred of sin and unrelenting love for the sinner, the Father handed over His Son to bear the guilt inherent in our sin and to endure the selfish, murderous rage lashing out from our sin. This fits perfectly with Paul’s definition of divine wrath. He explains that it is God giving sinners over to receive in themselves the penalty inherent in their sin (Romans 1:18-28). Christ felt “forsaken” by God, “delivered” up to suffer all that sin ultimately is, not pounced upon with hostility.

The Father was right there with His Son all along, behind the darkening veil imposed by our sin, feeling the pain of the agonizing separation.

I can love a God like that. I am so glad He is that kind of God. You can love Him too. I know you can, because your heart, like mine, yearns to love and be loved with such passionate grace.

"Dying to sin is not something we do" means it is not done by us - so it either doesn't happen at all or we have a substitute to do for us: Praise God for Jesus. "Dying is not something we need to do" is indeed obviously denying there is a requirement to die to sin!! Therefore there is no substitutionary death required for us!!! Such notions are contrary to what Dedication had already plainly stated, under option one above.

Is that clearer for you?

Christ's sacrifice for us is both the sacrifice for sin of Rom 8:3 and perfecting his personal denial of his human self as he exemplied and did die to sin. The complete sacrifice for and indeed as us, required by the law (Rom 7:4), after which we are to be living sacrifices (Rom 12:2).

The "OTOH" was informed by your apparent lack of mention of substitutionary atonement, which you are still unwilling to go into in much detail that "Christus Victor": elements of all atonement theories are helpful, and no one is probably wholly correct, as they say, but I'm not worried about scholastics on that since Christ is my Saviour from sin, being the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.

Justification isn't purely an experience of coming into harmony with God: it is firstly a death to self and sin - mentally and naturally, that is selfishness and sinful nature. Rom 4:25 rightly lists Jesus' death first. It paves the way for our justification - also in that verse, which Jesus' righteousness is. Therefore, justification involves death to self and sin so that we can be reborn: thus baptism symbolises both events, which are separate, as life and death are separate.

Without death to sin we cannot be reborn: thus, without the first, which I hear practically nothing about from you, contrasted with Dedication's studies here on salvation, we cannot enter the kingdom. But...., you do believe in substitutionary atonement? Why not say so without being prodded? Your silence on that raises doubts that you hold that belief.

No, this wasn't very clear. However, I think Dedication can explain her meaning fine, and that I shouldn't have trouble understanding her.



I quoted several pages from Ty Gibson. I quoted from the Desire of Ages. I've written pages upon pages upon pages on the subject. Your assertion that I'm "unwilling" to go into much detail is turning a blind eye to the literally hundreds of posts I've written on this subject! Why would you do this, Colin?



Certainly being reconciled to God would involve turning away from self/sin, as these principles are contrary to agape, the defining characteristic of God's character. Here's something from "The Desire of Ages" that I've quoted many times which I think well describes the process of justification:

Sorry, Tom, I don't see you typically supporting our "dying to sin" through the death of Christ, by faith in him or any other way. A change of mind, true, is new life, but you never quote the statements of the old life being put to death, in support of Rom 6:3-11, especially v.7. Not that I've seen, and not in this thread. Quite the contrary!

Indeed, actually, on page one of this thread you allude to turning by faith to God's character revealed in Christ's death as justification as an alternative to us dying to sin by faith in Christ's death for us. That was Dedication's position, which I share with her and spotted in one plain reading of her words. You were trying to understand and offering your alternative, for her: your failure to understand is alarming.

Your alternative didn't then and doesn't generally mention spiritually dying to self/sin by faith in Christ's death for us, just a choice to switch from it to agape. That simple choice is impossible without the death you don't speak of, should it qualify for entry to the kingdom of God.

Thus, your typical, recognisable argument is changing one's attitude to God on evidence he is agape, but no death by faith to self, merely "turning away from self/sin". You never deal with that whole context - death to life, so how can you support that whole teaching? Nicodemus' lesson of being born from above goes hand in glove with the death of the mustard seed parable: you don't put the mustard seed into the glove of that lesson.

Though each word means something different,
Yes, they all work together, to completely change a persons status from "dead in sin" to "alive in Christ".

Forgiveness
'to grant pardon and give up all claim on account of an offence or debt'
Forgiveness is God absorbing the damage caused by our sin.
Forgiveness is illustrated in Christ's parable in Matt. 18. A king has a servant who apparently mismanaged a lot of the king's money. This servant's sin was against the king. The king absorbs the loss, suffering the results of the servants mismanagement, and the servant is free from his debt.

Justification
Justification includes forgiveness but goes beyond it. Not only is our sin debt absorbed by Christ, and He reaps the penalty demanded by the transgressed law, but justification is also a judicial act of God, by which, the meritorious work of Christ is credited to the account of the contrite sinner and received by him through faith.
This faith vitally unites the contrite person to Christ, his substitute and Saviour. Justification credits a person with Christ's righteousness. Justification declares the sinner is free from the demands of death by the broken law. He/she is accounted as RIGHTEOUS! By a divine reckoning one is justified.


NEW BIRTH
The birth of spiritual life. Spiritual birth isn't something one produces, it's something that happens to a person.
"Except one be born of water and the Spriit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God John 3:5



This points us again to Romans 6:3-9 and the full meaning of baptism.



--------------

Sorry -- I'm trying to answer, but I keep falling asleep!!! Answer is incomplete. Worked all day and need to sleep, I'll try again tomorrow.

Well said! Justification has its legal aspect, and its paperwork accounting on our record in heaven. Unless it incorporates the new birth in its remit, so we are "made righteous", any paperwork doesn't match the reality, does it?

We agree on both occurring, but they are not generally understood or taught in our church - so it appears anyway, as being the same faith event. I've heard and read all over the place and from all manner of church leaders that sanctification, if only be default but not just, is the location of the new birth. Let's spread the word of truth on this, hey?

As I stated, I don't know what you mean by this, and since you've simply repeated it, rather than explaining your meaning, I can't comment beyond this.



I've stated I agree with what Waggoner wrote on Romans. The posts I write are already detailed. It's not possible to cover every possible point in every post.

I quoted what Ellen White wrote in the Desire of Ages in the chapter "Nicodemus." It seems to me what I quoted covers these points.



I believe it's impossible that I did this, as I cannot conceive that this is language I would have used. Please quote what I actually said, Colin.



Again, Colin, it seems to me that the passage that I quoted from the chapter "Nicodemus" covers this. If you see this as somehow lacking, please explain how.

All you're saying here seems like nonsense to me, Colin. As you've pointed out yourself, you and I agree regarding the corporate aspects of Christ's work. We also agree that justification by faith involves the making righteous of the one who believes, making effective individually what Christ first effected corporately. The things you're taking me to task on here are not things regarding which we disagree.



Again, doesn't the passage I quoted from Nicodemus cover this, Colin? I find it "alarming" that you don't understand this!

I think justification and forgiveness are one and the same thing.



Unless you wish to argue that "pardon" is not the same thing as "forgiveness," the above quote establishes my point.

This can also be seen from Scripture, in Romans 4, where Paul presents David as an example of rightouesness by faith:



Waggoner discusses this point in "Christ and His Righteousness"

As I understand it, justification involves God covering our past sins and our present sins of ignorance with the blood and righteousness of Jesus. It is the grace and goodness of God that motivated Him to live and die as a man so that He can pardon and save penitent sinners. Such love is what motivates some sinners to repent and to love and obey God.

1. The relationship between justification and sanctification is two sides of the same coin. We can't have one without the other. First we are justified and then we are sanctified. Justification deals with the problem of sin, whereas sanctification deals with righteousness, with those aspects of salvation that enable justified sinners to be like Jesus, to mature daily in the fruits of the Spirit.

2. Without the grace and goodness and compassion of God, the human race would have ended with the immediate death of A&E. But because of these righteous attributes of God penitent sinners can repent and live righteously.

3. It relates to each and every one of us in that none of us would be here now if God hadn't implemented the plan of salvation. Also, none of us would be able to repent and be like Jesus.

God doesn't need blood in order to be able to forgive. It is we who need the blood, not God.



When Jesus met the paralytic, He forgave his sins. He didn't need blood to be able to do so.

2. and 3. are good points.

Here is where the failure to understand seems to be located.
Do you believe God can forgive sin without the "blood" of Christ?

No, He can't!
Because if He did, He would not absorb the demands of the law Himself. The demands of the law would not be meet.
To forgive without the blood would be set aside the law.
So yes, God needs the blood in order to forgive and maintain the law.

I read through the Ty Gibson post and saw that he swung from one extreme to the other.
His two options were -- 1) God is angry and needs to be appeased by blood.
2) God is love and simply draws people by demonstrations of what sin is and what His love is.

He totally missed the truth as Paul writes it.

That the LAW demands death of the transgressor.

Without that demand being met, any forgiveness means setting aside the law, which God could NOT do.
To do so would be to concede that Lucifer was right, that created beings were smart and "holy" enough to know what was good and right to do without God's law.



Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his (Abraham's) sake alone, that it was imputed (reckoned, put on his account) to him;
4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed (reckoned,put on our account), if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
4:25 Who was delivered for our transgressions, and was raised again for our justification.


"Blood" not merely "death" means sacrificially shed blood.
"Delivered up" means as a sacrifice for our transgressions, our offences.

The Jewish nation, as a nation rejected this, because they thought their own righteousness and works (even their misconception of the temple rituals as their works) could bring them forgiveness. They had lost the promise of "Lamb of God". All the modern descendants of moralists (which Paul was combating in his writings -- Paul was NOT combating obedience to God's law, but he was strongly combating the moralist view that denied the need of the blood, so prevalent in his day.)

Christ was delivered for OUR TRANSGRESSIONS. They are not called merely sins, but transgressions. This puts it into the "legal" realm -- we transgress against God's law -- a law that demands death if transgressed. Transgression cannot be forgiven without setting aside the law.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:





Yes, He did need the blood.
And that's where the other thread comes in.

All sins forgiven prior to the cross rested totally upon the promise of Christ's sacrificial death in the future.


Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Before faith came = before Christ came for it was Christ to be revealed. Abraham certainly had faith, so this is speaking of Christ the fulfilment of that faith. Before Christ came all the forgiveness and justifying granted to transgressors, existed only in promise and was embraced by faith as the sure promise of God. Then Christ fulfilled the promise by His death and resurrection. THE FAITH. The law could not bring justification to the sinner. The law held no hope for the transgressor outside of the promise that Christ would come and fulfil that promise.

This is from "The Great Controversy"



The condition of forgiveness was repentance and submission. Blood is not something God needs, but we do. Satan didn't need the blood to repent, so no blood was necessary in his case.



Why is it that God was willing to forgive Lucifer without blood, but blood was needed in man's case? Because the blood was necessary for man's to *receive* God's forgiveness, whereas for man it wasn't necessary. As eloquently stated by George Fifield:



If, as you are asserting, the law demanded blood in order for God to pardon, He couldn't have pardoned Lucifer, as the law would have required it just as much for him as for man.

There's a lot more evidence that this way of understanding Paul is incorrect. I'll mention two historical points. First of all, the idea of sacrifice you are suggesting simply did not exist in the time of Christ. It's another example of reading into the writings of Scripture ideas which didn't exist at the time they were written (i.e., like reading in Hellenistic ideas regarding the future being determined/God's foreknowledge). Paul explains the meaning of sacrifice here:



This is the understanding that the cultures of Paul's time had of sacrifice. The idea that blood was necessary in order for God to forgive wasn't developed until many centuries later.

Here's evidence of the truth of this point. The Eastern Orthodox church, to this day, does not hold to this idea of Christ's sacrifice. Why not? Because they broke off from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm developed the idea in the 11th century. If the idea had been developed before that time, it would have been a part of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, just as it's a part of the Roman Catholic tradition.

Another point to consider, which is what Ty Gibson was really getting at, but either was missed, or its importance not seen, is in regards to the problem of sin. What is the problem that sin causes?



Given this sin is deadly to us, it behooves God to save us from it. Thus we see, in the DA quote above, God was willing to do whatever it took to bring man back to Himself, so man could be freed from sin, which would destroy him. If we perceive the deadliness of sin, everything else falls logically from that.

Regarding your analysis of Galatians, that before faith comes = before Christ comes, I'll quote from Waggoner:



Both "The Glad Tidings" and "The Gospel in Galatians" by Waggoner are wonderful for understanding Galatians. I think I've read just about every Commentary there is on Galatians (at least in English) and none comes close to Waggoner's works in terms of bringing Galatians to light. The "most precious message" which God gave to us through he and Jones is precious indeed.

It is because law and justice require death for sin that Jesus lived and died for us. Death must happen in consequence of sin. The death penalty cannot be disregarded. The honor and integrity of law and justice depend on God upholding the death penalty. So does the security of the Universe. Ellen wrote:

Fallen man, because of his guilt, could no longer come directly before God with his supplications; for his transgression of the divine law had placed an impassable barrier between the holy God and the transgressor. But a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a Substitute. In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Thou shalt surely die." And the flowing of the blood from the victim would also signify an atonement. There was no virtue in the blood of animals; but the shedding of the blood of beasts was to point forward to a Redeemer who would one day come to the world and die for the sins of men. And thus Christ would fully vindicate His Father's law. {Con 21.3}


Jesus is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." He was able to forgive sinners because His blood has been efficacious since the fall of A&E.

Your conclusion is nothing more than an assumption.
True Lucifiers condition for forgiveness was repentance and submission.
But the rest of your argument is simply an argument on silence. No information is given as to HOW God would reinstate Lucifer, because it didn't happen.

Building an argument on NOTHING is pretty shaky ground, don't you agree?

That sin is a terrible thing that God wants to cleanse out of our lives is true.

That we are justified by grace outside of the works of the law is also true

It seems we are getting bogged down into the age old battle of pitting the justifying without works of the law, against the work of the Holy Spirit in cleansing our lives.

It's the age old battle of turning this into an either/or confrontation. When two truths are pitted against each other, error soon gains.

Right now, we are trying to establish the meaning of justification when a person first comes to Christ.

Personally I'm not totally comfortable in accepting what Waggonner or Fifield, said as the final word. Waggonner had precious truth in 1888, but Waggonner also had pantheistic concepts that were NOT TRUTH by the mid 1890's. This transition didn't occur suddenly but crept in gradually. If I remember correctly "Glad Tidings" came out in 1900, 12 years after 1888. When it was re-published more recently, the more obvious "pantheistic" concepts were edited out. So, while a lot of the "precious truth" may still be there, there is also NON-TRUTH in that book.
Fifield, I don't know about, according to EGW his preaching was blessed by God in 1890 -- his book was published in 1897 -- he could have been mislead by the subtle pantheistic ideas that flourished in Battle Creek in the late 1890's as well -- I DON'T KNOW.

But it appears to me that any teaching that denies the need of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins has moved from truth into something else.

We are not speaking of the PAGAN CONCEPT here, of a vengeful God that has to be appeased by spilt blood.

Again this is not an either/or situation,
It's not -- either it's the pagan view, or the "blood not needed for forgiveness" view.

We are talking about God Himself, for God the Father was suffering along with Christ, taking the penalty and making the sacrifice demanded by the transgressed law in man's behalf.



"Gen. 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Eph. 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the beloved.
1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Col. 1:13 Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

What do we see in these statements:

Christ has redeemed us through His blood.
That redemption through His blood gives us forgiveness.
Christ's death brings eternal life to those who lived under the first or old testament.

It is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Lev. 17:11.

Now if there was no heavenly need for the blood in order to forgive sins -- why this--

Heb. 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Yes, there is the part that deals with cleansing our conscience, but still -- WHY did Christ enter the HEAVENLY SANCTUARY with His blood? And considerable emphases is placed on the fact that He entered the sanctuary with the BETTER BLOOD.

QUOTES:

"He is our interceding High Priest, making an atoning sacrifice for us, pleading in our behalf the efficacy of his blood."

"It was the work of the priest in the daily ministration to present before God the blood of the sin offering, also the incense which ascended with the prayers of Israel. So did Christ plead His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners, and present before Him also, with the precious fragrance of His own righteousness, the prayers of penitent believers. GC421

The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, GC 421


Mercy and forgiveness are the reward of all who come to Christ trusting in His merits to take away their sins. We are cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ Jesus our Saviour. Letter 216, 1906,

Their sins will have been blotted out by the atoning blood of Christ, and they cannot bring them to remembrance. . . . {CC 69.2}

Then I saw Jesus lay off His priestly attire and clothe Himself with His most kingly robes....and now there was no atoning blood to cleanse the guilty, no compassionate Saviour to plead for them, EW 281

You have been redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb. Plead before God the efficacy of that blood.{FLB 100.4}

By faith he pleads the atoning blood of Christ, and grasps the promise of pardon.[FLB 148}

Let perishing souls come to Him just as they are, without one plea, and plead the atoning blood of Christ, and they will find acceptance with God, who dwelleth in glory between the cherubim above the mercy seat. The blood of Jesus is a never-failing passport, by which all your petitions may find access to the throne of God. --"Christian Education" (Supplement), 1893. {FE 251.2}

Thank God that He who spilled His blood for us, lives to plead it, lives to make intercession for every soul who receives Him. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. It speaketh better things than the blood of Abel, for Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us. We need to keep ever before us the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. That life-cleansing, life-sustaining blood, appropriated by living faith, is our hope. We need to grow in appreciation of its inestimable value, for it speaks for us only as we by faith claim its virtue, keeping the conscience clean and at peace with God. {OHC 47.4}
This is represented as the pardoning blood, inseparably connected with the resurrection and life of our Redeemer, illustrated by the ever-flowing stream that proceeds from the throne of God, the water of the river of life. {OHC 47.5}

Colin was right -- it did change my whole position.

Actually I don't think Tom even understood what I was saying, he just reacted to one phrase that he also misunderstood.

Here is the context:



What Tom seems to see in this is the opposite of what I'm saying -- He seems to see it saying that since Christ died to our sins we can go on being alive to sin.

But it's saying the opposite.
In baptism, we unite ourselves with Christ, as we are buried in the waters of baptism it is symbolic of dying with Christ to sin. But it isn't we who literally die, Christ literally died bearing our sins and our sinful nature into the tomb. It was He Who took our sinful natures upon His sinless nature and died the death.

As He was raised to life so we are raised to newness of life through Him.

There is absolutely no way that we can do this ourselves, Christ does it for us. You'll find it all through Paul's writings. BUT OUR PART IS TO RECKON OR CONSIDER OURSELVES DEAD TO SIN.

We must have faith in the fact. The wonderful truth of what Christ did on the cross must be embraced by us by faith.

We are to live a life that considers self dead to sin. Something that is dead is no longer fed. Now obviously sin will still be pulling at us. Sinful habits don't just drop away. Paul continues to admonish the believer --
"Let not sin reign in your mortal body so as to obey the lusts thereof, neither present your members as instruments of unrighteouness to sin. On the contrary, present yourselves to God as alive from the dead and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."
So now, because we RECKON or account ourselve dead to sin, and alive in Christ we make the choice not to let the sin reign anymore. Our will is motivated by the fact that we are "dead to sin" through Christ Who took those sins and died in our place.
Our will is motivated because we know Christ has raised us up with Himself to newness of life.

Christ has picked us up out of the mirey pit of sin, washed us clean with His sin pardoning blood, given us spiritual life.

We have changed masters. We have changed our citizenship.
Before we were servants to sin, but now being freed from sin we become servants of righteousness.



But even though freed from sin, yet sin is constantly trying to get at us and cause us to lose our way. Those who are justified are delivered from the domination of sin and are no longer sin's slaves, but the tyrant still harasses them.

To illustrate --
A tyrant is in control of a castle.
A strong man comes and casts him out of the castle, but the tyrant still attacks the castle from the outside.

When we accept Christ's death to OUR sins, as our own death to sin, and are alive in Christ, renewed in our minds to spiritual life, we have by the power of Christ's death ousted sin from our control center. But the mortal body still clamors to indulge. Thus the command, don't let sin reign in your mortal body.

We must remember, we are DEAD to sin through Christ, and ALIVE in Christ. Thus we must not let sin reign in our mortal bodies.

I don't think it's quite that bad, as far as I can make out. Whatever appearances are at the moment - in this thread, it could be that Tom means we turn from sinfulness to righteousness by a conscious choice agreeing that God in Christ is love, but without actually dying to sin spiritually by faith. That's how he appears to interpret his favourite quotes, which though they say pretty much the same thing, are, at least in EGW's case, only half the story she herself tells - as Dedication has just proved.

It could be he supports Christ's substitution for us including our death to sin, since he managed to say he believes in that substitution: just not clear what he believes that substitution does.

Yes, I know sinners cannot turn from sin to God and be made righteous by justification by faith without dying to sin by grace through faith in Christ's death. Tom just doesn't argue that at all, offering the alternative of being convinced of God's love in Christ and being reconciled, that is justified, by that conviction. This lacks all the content of those miriad of texts Dedication supplied just now....

We remain somewhat confused.

I'm also not sure how Tom's view differs from that of the moral influence theory. He says it does, but I'm not sure how. Perhaps, Tom, you can spell it out. Thanx.

No -- I don't think Tom believes we can go on being alive to sin. What I was saying above is that is what it seems Tom was thinking I was saying, but which I was NOT saying.

However it does create concern, -- his misunderstanding that it is Christ taking our sins and our sinful nature upon His sinless nature and dying in our place; which when we accept and experience in its reality, allows us to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ, and frees us from the dominion of sin.

Colin, as I pointed out, I don't think there's any difference in what we believe regarding both what happens individually and corporately. Where we differ, as far as I can tell, has to do with the legal question. I don't see that God did anything He wouldn't have done anyway because of any legal issues.

I don't know why you should be confused, when I believe the same thing you do. That has me confused.

You've read "Christ Our Righteousness," haven't you? You agree with what Waggoner writes, don't you? So do I.

No, it was based on what was stated, which I quoted. I'll quote it again:





This is false twice. First of all, it's logically false. You're saying that because that Lucifer wasn't reinstated means no information is given as to how God would reinstate Lucifer. This is a logically false argument. There are plenty of counter-examples to disprove your argument. To name one, in Deuteronomy, God gives detail as to what would have happened had Israel had they been obedient. So there's an example of information being given regarding an event even though it didn't happen.

The other reason that it's false is that God did give information as to how Lucifer would have been reinstated. In 4SP, I think.



I think turning a deaf ear is pretty shaky ground.

The facts don't support this. Ellen White continued to endorse both Jones and Waggoner strongly throughout the mid-1890's.

For example, she speaks of "the messages sent from heaven" and "the truth of the heaven-sent message." in what looks to be 1898.

Regarding "The Glad Tidings," it's been alleged that there is pantheism in that book, but simply alleging something doesn't make it true. I haven't seen any evidence of it. If you want to produce some passage you think it pantheistic, we could discuss it.

In regards to the subject we were discussing, in Galatians 3, the same arguments were presented in the pamphlet Waggoner passed out to the 1888 delegates, "The Gospel in Galatians."



There's no reason not to know; just read what he wrote:





It's possible to see something in a different way than you do and not be denying truth. For example, neither Waggoner, nor Fifield, nor myself denies the need of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sin. I just don't think Anselm had the right understanding as to why. I think Fifield did.



The pagan concept extends beyond the narrow formation you're giving to it. Here's a comment from Waggoner:



I agree completely with Waggoner. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible. Take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God.

No, Tom, I don't swear by Waggoner's literature, to quote it instead of speaking for myelf. On any good, reliable scholarship, in our church, I learn from it and speak for myself.

When do you speak for yourself, instead of relying on select quotes from a select few authors, as especially EGW can be swisted if not quoted thoroughly.

Where's your Bible study, like Dedication has done, here, proving her case, which I fully support with MM..., but you can't seem to understand?!

On the conditions of Lucifer's repentance..., who is Michael in the Bible? Michael was suggested to me by another...

The law of God isn't just enforced against sinful man; it is the written code of heavenly society, too, where holiness reigns among all, that code written in the heart, just like with us, already, as we prepare for heaven. Lucifer wasn't just asked to repent and submit: that's the obvious terms of fairness - quite logically. The reality is far bigger than that, as was well known among all the heavenly host.

Hence, who is Michael, and is he relevant here at all?

Then you're both wrong.

That we require the sacrifice, since we require reconciliation with him, does not dictate the meaning of the sacrifice God offers for us

Waggoner contradicts himself, first noting that "propitiation" means a sacrifice given to appease wrath, and then saying that the Bible is devoid of the actual meaning of "propitiation". That's not on. The Bible is replete with God uttering his wrath in judgement against certain instances of sinning, and it couldn't be clearer. Thus propitiation retains its meaning in the Bible, especially because Biblical propitiation involves God appeasing his own wrath by the sacrifice of his Son!

Amen, hallelujah!

How can one object to God's wrath needing to be appeased by the Lamb of God for us, and then God actually providing us with the Lamb of God, his only begotten dear Son?

If you want textual proof, Dedication may have a better list than me, but where's your biblical proof that what Waggoner opines in your quote is correct on Rom 3:25?

I removed "need to" from between "we" and "do." This certainly seems like flogging a dead horse, as I don't see the difference, but let's leave it like this.

The phrase I was asking about was this one: "Therefore it is apparent that our dying to sin is not something we do." I asked about this because "dying to sin" *is* something we do, as opposed to something we don't do because it is something Christ has done. Christ died to sin, and we die to sin. We die to sin when we appreciate what He did for us.



Or "not intending to say," which seems more accurate.



I'm not understanding what it is you think I'm misunderstanding. What is it you think I don't think is the case?

I'd really appreciate it if you would quote something I've said.

I stand corrected on what you said about Tom...

That he misunderstands your statement generally, does indeed create concern.

This reminds me of a story my Mom told me. My grandfather, on my father's side, liked to argue. He was arguing about something, trying to goad my Mom into joining in, but she had decided she wasn't going to argue with him, so she just kept quiet. Eventually Grandpa started arguing the opposite position as to what he was arguing in the first place. He wasn't interested in the position he was discussing, but just wanted to argue!

It seems like no matter what I do, Colin, you find fault, even when our positions agree! I can speak in my own words, quote other authors, quote Scripture, or quote Ellen White, and the reception is the same.

Since you asked for a Bible Study, I'll try to oblige.



The serpent was subtle, and used a subtle approach, which was to instill doubt regarding God's character. Satan led man to distrust God, not believing that God had man's best interest in heard. For example:



This is implying that God does not have our best interests in heart. By believing the serpents lies involving God, man was led into sin. The fundamental problem facing man is not knowing the truth about God.

Continuing in the Gen. 3 account, we see the effect of sin. Adam and Eve ran and hid. Why? Because they felt ashamed and were afraid of God. Why should they have been afraid of God? God had done nothing that they should feel that way towards Him. I'm sure it must have broken God's heart to have His children running away from Him in fear.

God cried out, "Where are you?" He did so so that they could hear the sound of His voice, and know it was safe to come out and present themselves. They evidently did perceive the love and lack of anger in God's voice, and did come out from their hiding place.

From this episode we learn an important truth: Sin causes us to believe things about God which are not true.

Because of our sinful natures, because of centuries of lies about God being ingrained in us, because of the influence of Satan in our culture, the lies about God are thoroughly etched into us.



I really like the following translation of this verse:



This theme permeates Scripture, especially John. It permeates Paul as well, but is easier to perceive in John.



What does it mean to believe in Christ? Jesus compares it to seeing the serpent raised in the wilderness, thus making clear the principle "look and live," or, we could say, "look to live." A common phrase is "seeing is believing," but here we could say it's, "believing is seeing."

The love of God shining from the cross reveals the truth to us about God. As we take in this love, believing the truth we see in Christ, the goodness of God leads us to repentance, and we are reconciled to God.

Paul tells us that therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God. Peter tells us that Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. Different ways of bringing the same truth.

Ok, please show where Waggoner is wrong. Where does Scripture teach that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness?



Yes, this is what I've been saying. Usually this is the argument that people give to "prove" the propitiation idea. Something like, "Scripture says, 'Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin,' therefore God needs to have Christ die in order to be able to forgive us."



He didn't say the Bible is devoid of the actual meaning of "propitiation." He said, "The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible." It's a mistake to think these two things are the same.



Do you have something like Sodom and Gomorrah in mind? Are you saying that S & G show God's wrath in judgment, which makes clear that Christ had to die in order to appease God's wrath?



There's a lot of reasons why one would find this view objectionable. To name just one, it pits God the Father against Christ. Instead of the work of redemption being God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself it becomes Christ's appeasing the wrath of the Father so He'll forgive us.



Waggoner said, "The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible." He's saying there's nothing in Scripture which says this. If there were something in Scripture which taught this, then Waggoner would be incorrect. But since there's not, Waggoner isn't, and to ask for something from Scripture to prove Waggoner is correct doesn't make sense.

It's like if Waggoner claimed, "There is no text in Scripture which teaches that man should keep Sunday" and you asked, "where's your biblical proof that what Waggoner opines in your quote is correct?"

Isa. 53:4, 5 is a good text to confirm Waggoner's thought, however:



We esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. This is what we thought it. But (the truth!) He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

I recently grabbed my copy of Waggoner's commentary on Romans. Started at chapter 5 (looking for something in particular). Interesting stuff.

That might have something to do with this thread. Or maybe not. It will take some time to ramp up, as I'm still in the process of moving to a new residence.

i dont understand. are you saying God was angry with us but took His anger out on His Son?
this is from john wesleys commentary. is this how you see it? just trying to understand, here.

I may be doing that soon (High probability). Looking forward to it, but lots of work.

How's it going?

more than that we see how we should treat God and our fellowman as opposed to how we do now. we see more clearly how far from true Godliness we are.

but that depends entirely on what our picture of God is.

There are actually quite a few models for the Atonement. There's the Penal Substitution model, of course. There's Christus Victor (several versions), the Healing Model, Moral Influence Theory, and others. I think there's truth in all of them, except I think Anselm's ideas were greatly flawed.

Here's the definition of the Moral Influence Theory from Wiki:



Certainly Christ's death serves as an example, but I think is not nearly so important as it's revelation of the truth. If we look through the chapter, "It Is Written," we say this theme fully represented in its seven pages. Christ demonstrates the truth about God, about Satan, about sin, and about ourselves. The power of the enemy to deceive us, is his power over us. The truth sets us free.

God and Christ are "one"

The wrath of God
is the same as
the wrath of the Lamb.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;


The Love of God the Father
is the same quality as
The LOVE of Christ.

Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

We must be careful when dealing with the concept of "wrath", God's wrath is not like human wrath.

Thanks Teresa, for that very good question.

God is wrath against sin itself, not against sinful people. thus a Saviour from our sinful nature and its fate is viable: were God wrath against sinful people themselves - so, like you are asking, us ourselves, there's no scope for saving us by a Saviour substituting himself for us. Jesus didn't redeem that which suffered the wrath of God - sin and our sinful nature, but redeemed us from that which did suffer it.

Equally, Bibically, Jesus doesn't atone for our sin, but for us. Any reference in literature to God's gift of Jesus atoning for sin is at best a slip of the tongue, for it is unbiblical error.

It's sin and sinful nature itself which is condemned by God's love and law, and Jesus substituted our sinful nature that he took as his own in addition to his divine nature - producing salvation merits for us by "the faith of Jesus" - to save us from it, since it is due God's wrath, not sinners who accept it's substitution for them.

He took the judgement of God against sin and our sinfulness - condemned to eternal death by the law - for us, that we may be saved by his death and resurrection from the sinfulness of our nature. That's what Rom 7:1-6 says.


Interesting you quote from Wesley! His Methodism is the historical roots of salvation teaching our church is based on: we aren't Lutheran or Calvinist...

"Propitiation" is the word..., and it means God is wrath against sin, thus a propitiatory sacrifice he gives us for us.

Some theologians and indeed Bible translations interpret that word in that place and elsewhere in the NT as "expiation". I understand from Christian literature that "expiation" excludes divine wrath needing appeasement from the meaning and purpose of an expiatory sacrifice. It seems those who support this word instead dislike any possibility of the Greek religious world's idea of a god needing to be assuaged of wrath against men, and so cancel altogether the possibility for God. I've yet found - no time to find either, really - anything they themselves say about their selection of "expiation", but its definition speaks volumes already.

"Protitiation" is the right word, and the Bible does say God is wrath against sin, but loves sinners. Thus we are able to saved by Jesus from our sinfulness. Sorry to throw so much at you, but it has helped, hasn't it?

Amen, Sister Dedication: divine wrath is against sin of men, not against men. There is therefore no excuse for refusing grace, which has been revealed and given to all men.

Oh dear, Tom, for a moment I thought you hadn't stated your own position. Having already checked both sides - one of which you quoted a tit bit of - on Wiki, I did on 2nd reading recognise your own position.

Your Bible study of the Fall in Genesis is hardly disputed!!

Defeating the Devil's deceptions about God's truth is only dealing with the power of sin. That's surely not the limit of your version of the Christus Victor atonement theory??! How do you square overcoming the natural inclination to sin we have with there being no legal issues involved in our salvation?

eg. you avoid the requirement of obedience by dealing with character building in harmoney with God rather than obedience to God by the faith of Jesus. What's the basis of that character development?? What's the basis of Jesus' character, perfected by the Son of man, born under the law?

We know now you support the substitutionary death of Christ for us, but how does it constitute death to sin for us in any way? Oh, you avoid "death to sin" for Christ - he "died for sin", but we have to do it, don't we? How do we do it without physically dying? How do you interpret Rom 7:4?

That's good. I wasn't looking to produce something that would be disputed.



No, I didn't feel like writing a twenty page post. It was just a few thoughts.



I didn't say there were no legal issues involved in our salvation. I've never said that. I've said the reverse many times. I've said I don't agree with Anselm's or Calvin's formulations of these issues. I've also said I don't believe the law *added* any issues that weren't there already. Or, to put it another way, anything that can be stated in terms of the law can be stated in terms of God's character, as the law is a transcript of God's character.



The basis was faith. Regarding Jesus' being born under the law, as you know, I agree with you on this point, and have written many posts explaining that Gal. 4:4 is not saying Christ was born subject to the law, like a Jew, but under the law, as all fallen humans are, meaning He came in sinful flesh. But, again, there's only so much one can right in one post, so I chose to present a few ideas I feel are fundamental.



That's good! I've only had to say this for 5 years for you to "now know"!



Colin, you need to avoid casting things in terms of "avoiding." I'm not trying to "avoid" anything. If I wanted to avoid things, I wouldn't respond to posts. I always respond to posts (unless I simply overlook the post).

Putting things in terms of "avoiding" makes the posts confrontational. Why can't we look at our discussion as a mutual investigation of truth? While there are things I disagree with you on, I always read your posts with an open mind (and those of others as well) as just because I disagree with you on one point, doesn't mean you won't have insightful observations or questions on other points. That makes the experience a learning one, even in disagreement.

You and I agree regarding the corporate aspect (including Christ's taking sinful flesh) and that justification by faith involves being made righteous. I think we're the only two on this forum who do. It strikes me as odd that you take such a controversial approach to my posts, while taking a much friendlier one to others with whom you are theologically further apart. Why not be as friendly in tone with me as you are with the others?

Regarding Christ dying "for sin," did you have Romans 8:3 in mind? If so, it seems to me to mean the same thing as Romans 4:25, which is to say that Christ died on account of sin.

Regarding Christ dying to sin, I understand this to mean that Christ could not be tempted to sin even by a thought; that He was did to it in the sense that it had no power over Him. I understand for us to "die to sin" means the same thing, as in the following quote:



An interesting topic to pursue in this thread is how the death of Christ benefits us, even before we accept Him, and how Romans discusses this (viz. Romans 5).

so how do you prove that from the bible? the reason i ask, is because i know someone who "proved" from the bible that God will hate the lost for eternity.

so you see Gods wrath as vindictive justice? does God have a vindictive "bone in His body"?

Only if one has an odd idea of what "atone" means, I think. For example:



Ellen White is using the expression "atonement for sin" Biblically, I think. Note how she relates the "atonement for sin" to Christ's drawing ourself to Him. Our whole problem is that sin separates us from God. It does this by causing us to believe things about God which are not true. So God reveals the truth about Himself through Christ, drawing us near to Him, an atonement for sin.



"At-one-ment" is what the atonement is all about -- bringing us to God, as Peter puts it.



A "propitiation" is an offering of peace. It doesn't mean "God is wrath against sin." As Waggoner points out, God provides the propitiating sacrifice *for us*. We are the ones who need to be brought to Him.



I'm sure you're aware of Ellen White's wonderful endorsements regarding Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith. Waggoner is dead right here, Colin.



The word is "hil-as-mos" which, I believe, is actually "covering."



The word "hilasterion" refers to the mercy seat, a covering. The word "merciful" is hilaskomai, which has the same root.

The word has to do with mercy, not wrath.

Regarding God's wrath, it is against people. There are many examples of this usage of this in Scripture. Here's one:



The wrath of God against people is expressed by His giving them up to the results of their choice.

So are you saying, we are saved by our knowledge of truth about God, we are NOT saved in Christ through "whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"?????

You're reaction of simply stating I was wrong, when I pointed out that this argument is built on SILENCE, did not in the least convince me that it is therefore an established fact that no sacrifice was required for God to reinstate Lucifer.

Christ stood as surety for all His created beings.

Also we must ask at what point did Lucifer descend into sin. We know many of the sinless angels also had some doubts, they were confused by Lucifer's talk (God allowing the Controversy to run it's course was to remove all doubt), yet they were still "sinless". So simply having questions was not sin. It's the point where a decision is made to go against God.

From GC 494 we find that Christ reasoned with Lucifer talking about the justice, goodness and greatness of God. Warning him that he was heading into sin. Sin was an unknown thing at that point, Lucifer himself didn't understand whereto he was drifting. Thus before "condemnation" could be in place, the conditions were established.
What all did Christ say to Lucifer -- we don't know.

Ellen White does mention Lucifer twisted what Christ told him, "accusing the Son of God of a design to humiliate him before the inhabitants of Heaven." GC 496

So this argument (which by the way is very popular amongst the moral influence Adventist) really doesn't prove the point they wish it to prove.
First because there is a point where questions are not yet sin
Secondly because nobody knows all the facts.



Your statements raise questions --

the only way it could be considered true, is that the Israelites had lost sight of the meaning of the sacrifices, and indeed were trying to earn their merit before God by going through strenous rituals.

Have you studied the sacrifices?
The Passover
The Day of Atonement

Lev. 4:17 And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, ....
4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Lev. 4:25 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger,...
4:26 ...and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

4:35 ...and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

Lev. 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

Lev. 5:9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it [is] a sin offering.
5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
I could go on -- but that should illustrate the meaning of the sacrifices.

Paul isn't giving a meaning of the sacrifice of Christ in Romans 12:1 Nor is he now speaking of "justification" or what was need to justify us, he is telling us what our response to Christ should be. BECAUSE OF GOD'S GRACE and salvation which was elogantly laid out in the earlier chapters of Romans, our reasonable service is to present ourselves to God as living sacrifices. This is the life of sanctification.

Our knowledge doesn't save us, but our response to the Holy Spirit's pleading can result in our salvation. Surely anyone with any sense would ascribe the credit for our salvation to God, though. If you need money, and someone gives you a million dollars, you'd be pretty nutty to give yourself credit for accepting the money you were given.

I've quoted the following many times (I think on this thread) as I think it describes the process of salvation wonderfully:



How, then, are we saved? Let's examine!

1."As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. (Look and live is the key).

2.The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God.

3.If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour.

4.Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. (Then follows more things God does in the process of giving us life.)

So what is our part? To believe! If we do not repent, we *will* be led to repentance, and believe in Christ, resulting in our salvation, the cross being instrumental in this process. The credit, from beginning to end, belongs to God.

I didn't do this. I explained why the argument was not one of silence. It was based on a quote from the SOP:



Here's another one:





He had already headed into sin.



This is sin.



It doesn't matter for the point that was made. Satan sinned, and was offered pardon, again and again. He was given the opportunity to confess his sin. Had he repented and submitted, he would have been restored to his position as archangel. God doesn't need blood to forgive. We need the blood!



Since Lucifer understood the character of God, and His goodness, the sacrifice of Christ would have done nothing for him. So he was simply offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. However, simply offering us such pardon would have done us no good, because we didn't know the love and character of God. We needed Christ to reveal it to us. By beholding His character we might be drawn back to God.

As Fifield so succinctly and eloquently put it:





I've never seen this argument presented by anyone but me. If you could provide me with a link to someone else presenting it, I'd certainly like to see it.

The argument does really prove the point. God offered Lucifer pardon without blood; that's clear for anyone to see.



It doesn't matter when Lucifer sinned to establish the point. He was offered pardon. He couldn't have been offered pardon unless he had sinned. He was given the opportunity to confess his sin. He couldn't have confessed his sin unless he had sinned.

We don't know all the facts about anything relating to God. Using this logic, one could reject any argument whatsoever.

We don't need to know all the facts; just enough relevant ones to establish truth.



You're assuming your conclusion. This isn't the only way it could be considered true. It could also be considered true if your assumption is incorrect that the meaning of the sacrifices is such as Anslem explained.

The Eastern Orthodox church does not understand the sacrifices the way you are laying out. Why not? Because they split from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm.

Before you were trying to say I was making an argument from silence (when I wasn't, since I presented evidence by way of quotes to support my position) but now you really are presenting an argument of silence. You are arguing that if the Jews understand the sacrifices the way that Paul laid out in Romans 12:1, this could only be possible if they had forgotten their true meaning.

Present any evidence at all that the Jews *ever* had the understanding of the sacrifices that Anselm had. Or anyone else for that matter. This way of understanding sacrifices simply didn't exist in the time of Paul, anywhere in the world.



What Paul is setting out in Romans 12:1 is simply the meaning of sacrifice that everyone already understood. This can be established by simply seeing how contemporary cultures, including the Jews, in Paul's time understood sacrifice. The offering of a sacrifice was a sign of dedication. God, in giving us Christ, gave us His all. We, by giving of ourselves, give all we have in return. God sacrificed for us, and we, if we respond to the Holy Spirit, sacrifice ourselves back to Him, in loving service to Him and our fellows.

Yes, we NEED to die to sin, but

We don't just die to sin by "appreciation".
It takes more than that.
We need to accept the fact that Christ credits His death to our sin as our death to sin, or we will never experience "living in newness of life" with Him.


Your version seems to see us doing all the doing.
When we get to heaven we go up to Christ and say, "thanks for the great demonstration, it helped me to die to sin and make myself fully presentable to enter your kingdom.

But Paul says

Romans 3:26 To declare, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

And Paul explains it so beautifully in Romans 6
Go back to page one of this thread )

We are NOT to think that once we've overcome all sin then we can finally count ourself dead to sin. If we think that way we'll see the whole process as a hopeless struggle (or turn into Pharisees).


NO! When we accept Christ and His DEATH in our behalf, we, by uniting ourselves with Him, count ourselves dead to sin.
His death to our sins, is counted as OUR DEATH to sin. And, as Paul says, Reckon, or count yourselves as dead to sin.

Do you understand the difference.

The first view starts the Christian walk focused on all the sins he has to overcome before he can be counted as dead to sin and accepted in Christ.

The second starts the Christian walk praising God that he can count himself dead to sin, because Christ took upon Himself our "old man" and died in our place. The "old man" is to be considered DEAD!

"When we accept Christ and join Him in baptism, we die inwardly to this sinful kingdom. Yet that death depends entirely on Christ's sacrificial death upon the cross as Christ takes upon Himself our "old man of sin" and it is nailed on the cross with Him.

Our connection to Christ and His sacrifice is so real that it carries "our old man" to the very cross of Christ in a spiritual crucifixion that kills our old selfish self and we are BORN AGAIN, raised to newness of life WITH CHRIST!

And now -- instead of working to earn our justification, we walk in humble obedience with God.

Through our union with Christ in His death we are delivered from the dominion of sin. But we still find sin struggling to come back to life. Romans 7 depicts this struggle. The mind now delights to do God's will but the ingrained sinful tendencies work against this desire.

Now, can we still believe we are dead to sin? Yes, it is imperitive to believe it. Through Christ's sacrifice we are dead to sin, therefore DON'T LET SIN REIGN IN YOUR MEMBERS.
We are bought with a price, we are God's sons and daughters, thus we come at this struggle with A POSITIVE outlook that we are accepted in Christ, and want to glorify HIM! Not bring shame to His name.

If we forget that it is in Christ that death to sin is reckoned, or credited to us, we will sink in the swamp of discouragement depicted in the latter part of Romans 7.

But Romans 8 tells us that "therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Just walk with Christ in humble obediences, don't focus on striving to overcome sin, just WALK IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE with Christ, studying His Word, listening to His Holy Spirit, and "through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body,".

When we do this there will be REAL overcoming, not because we've focused on it, but because we walked in obedience with Christ on a daily, hourly basis.



Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;

But you still leave out the fact that we are CREDITED with Christ's dying to our sins, and giving us His righteousness.

None of those quotes say there would have been no need for an atonement. All it says is that Lucifer was not immediately cast out, that he was given space to repent. It's still an argument built on silence.





That is built upon your concept that the wages of sin is not death. That death can be averted simply by turning away from sin at some point. I don't agree.



I'm really not that interested in Fifield.

He is in conflict with scripture and EGW.



It was first presented to me when I was a student in an Adventist University, quite a few years back, by a professor who required us to read G. Maxwell's book and another book by some guy whose book I found anything BUT edifying (can't remember his name, which is probably a good thing) -- this isn't the first time I've been exposed to this reasoning -- it's being taught in our higher Educational systems.



When a person builds a whole theology upon a certain premise that premise should rest on KNOWN facts not on SILENCE.


I have no idea who Anslem even is.
My beliefs don't come from any "Anslem".
I gave you SCRIPTURE that clearly point out the meaning of the scrificial system, you skipped over them as if they were written by Anslem??????

QUOTE:
In the sacrificial offering, offered by the Jews, was seen a symbol of Christ, whose blood was to be shed for the salvation of the world. In the sacrificial system the truth of the atonement was to be impressed upon the world, that all might know that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Many have wondered why it was that God appointed so many sacrifices in the old dispensation; but it was to teach the world in ever-bleeding sacrifices concerning Christ, the victim of man's transgressions. The offering for sin was a most solemn, sacred offering, and was placed upon the altar with impressive ceremony, and every detail was explained by the priest to the people, that they might understand that the Son of God was to be made an offering for their sins. This is the central truth of the plan of salvation, and it should be often repeated in the hearing of both believers and unbelievers. {ST, August 28, 1893 par. 8}.

There's no way this can be true. I'll demonstrate this a couple of different ways. First of all, let's look again at the DA statement:



This talks about the light shining from the cross revealing the love of God, and how the love draws us to Himself. Here's the other DA quote I mentioned:



The talks about there being "hope in a knowledge of God's love." "By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God."

Paul says that the goodness of God leads us to repentance.

Nowhere does Scripture, or any other inspired statement, say that "We need to accept the fact that Christ credits His death to our sin as our death to sin, or we will never experience 'living in newness of life' with Him."

Here's another way of seeing this can't possibly be true. This formulation of things (i.e. Christ crediting His death to our sin as our death to sin) is a relatively recent theological formulation; even Anselm didn't have this. Certainly no Old Testament saint thought in terms in any way resembling this. Yet they were saved.

How were they saved? Exactly in the way the DA quote points out. They were drawn to repentance by the love of God revealed through Christ.

I find it ironic that you expressed dismay at what you characterized as an expression on my part that we were saved by knowledge that we have, and here you say that we must "accept the fact that Christ credits His death to our sin as our death to sin" in order to experience newness of life with Him. Just comprehending the concept you are talking about is not easy, and is certainly beyond the ability of many who are children of God.

Tom, why do you appear to be ignoring Rom 6:4, not forgetting its context?


You speak of learning the truth of God's love and being drawn to him by his self-revelation of agape, but that's all you say. this Bible text is crystal clear that we aren't saved by knowledge of divine revelation alone, but by participating in Christ's death to sin by faith in him so we thereby attain newness of life in the Spirit.

Unless we are baptised into Christ's death there is no newness of life from God for us. If you agree, then why your last post?

No, this isn't the case. I'd suggest considering what I've been quoting more carefully. Again, from the Desire of Ages:



1.The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself.
2.If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour.
3.Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul.
4.The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself.
5.Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart.

1, 3, 4, and 5 are all God's doing, and even 2 (repentance) is a gift of God. (Acts 5:31). So those in heaven can say to God, "Thank you for giving Me your Son. Thank you for revealing me your love, for drawing me to yourself. Thank you for creating a new life in my soul. Thank you for creating anew my heart and mind in your image. Thank you for writing your law in my mind and heart. Thank you for the gift of repentance."



I haven't said anything like this. This is a straw man.



Of course. Do you understand I haven't written anything like what you're arguing against?



I've never said this.



I don't know what you mean by this, but what I would mean, if I said this, is that the love of God constrains us to live for Him who died for us because if one died for all, then all were dead. This is also Paul, of course. If you have this in mind, I agree.



The whole concept of working to earn justification is based on a false view of God's character. When we recognize the truth about God, we will have no desire to try to earn His favor.



Out of curiosity, do you see Romans 7 as dealing with one's experience before being born again, or after? (or both/either).



I think what causes us to sink into discouragement is not understanding what God is like.



I think real overcoming follows from believing the truth about God, that He really is like Jesus Christ.

The power of sin and Satan is in deception. Satan gained his power by causing people to think things about God which are not true. Sin has the same effect. In order to be set free, we need to understand and believe the truth.

This is OK, but I understand this along the lines of what Waggoner explained, not Anselm.



No, it's not. What I said was that the condition for pardon was repentance and submission. This is in the quote.



I underlined it to make it easier to see.

It would be an argument from silence if there weren't quotes stipulating what the condition for pardon was.



?

I quoted from Ty Gibson, which I'm sure you read. I'll requote from it, the relevant portion to this point:



You can see that Romans 6:23 is one of the verses quoted, so it's hardly fair to assert I deny this. The wages that *sin* pays is death. It is sin that pays the wages. I've asserted this truth over and over again.



Ellen White was interested in Fifield. She had her book that I quoted from as a part of her bedside reading. Have you considered the possibility that you might be in conflict with scripture and EGW, as opposed to Fifield? Just a thought.



I've not heard anyone present it, although I'm not surprised someone else might have thought of it, as it's pretty straight forward to see.



I don't understand why you keep asserting this.



This is not silence. This says Satan was offered pardon "on condition of repentance and submission." This couldn't be clearer.



If you are ignorant as to who Anselm is, or what he taught, you could hardly know if he was the origin of your beliefs or not. Not unless you could show that Anselm got his beliefs from some common ancestor (common ancestor to your beliefs and his)



What Scripture are you thinking of? You quoted several. There are no Scriptures that affirm that Christ's sacrifice was for the purpose of enabling God to be able to pardon.

This is a fine quote, but there's nothing in here about God's needing a sacrifice to be able to pardon.



This quote says the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission (which must include His death) was "to set men right through the revelation of God."

Oh, but it is true PRAISE THE LORD.

Christ took our sins upon Himself and became sin for us and died the death penalty in our place.

Why do you think a "snake" was placed on that pole.
The Bible is explicite as to what the "serpent" symbolizes.



Israel had sinned and were dying -- the poisonous serpents rightly represented Satan and his demons filling them with the poison of distrust and sin.

Why would Moses lift up a brazen serpent?
Because CHRIST BECAME SIN FOR US and died in our place,
AND BY ACCEPTING THAT we live!



Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that does them shall live in them.
3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree:

When a person refuses to accept Christ's death to sin as their death, when they refuse Christ's merits, then they are attempting to be saved by their own merits in their own rightoeusness.

Gal. 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.
5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

You see -- I don't disagree with you that we need to look to Jesus, to KNOW Him in a personal way, through study, prayer etc.

I don't disagree with you that God's great love draws us to Him.

I don't disagree with you that we are to live AS sons and daughters of God in obedience to His will.

I don't disagree with you that our lives must be cleansed and brought into harmony with God's will.

But we MUST RECOGNIZE that it is never OUR righteousness that grants us salvation, we must accept Christ's righteousness. We must accept Christ's atoning death FOR OUR SINS, for there is no forgiveness anyway else.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Heb. 19 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, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.


Romans 4:25 (Christ) Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:


Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the beloved.
1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins

God revealed to Moses that through a sin offering the guilt of sin could be taken away.

“For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11).

Lev. 4:17 And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, ....
4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
Lev. 4:25 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger,...
4:26 ...and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

4:35 ...and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

Lev. 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

Lev. 5:9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it [is] a sin offering.

5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

I think you may not have understood what "it" is. Here's what you said:



The last sentence is what I was demonstrating cannot be true. There are many who are saved who do not have the idea that "Christ credits His death to our sin as our death to sin," many who would have no clue as to what this even meant. No way is it necessary to accept this fact to experience living in newness of life. There are no inspired statements that suggest this.

The serpent question is an interesting one. The common idea is that the serpent on the pole represents sin. I have a friend who thinks the serpent on the pole was actually crushed, a la Gen. 3:15, and that the representation was one of the serpent being crushed by Satan. I know we have a mental image of the cadusis symbol, but I'm not aware of anything in inspiration to back that up.

Regarding what the snake being lifted up represented:



The lifting up of the snake pointed to the healing that one would receive from its deadly bite through Christ. Sin is like poison, killing its victim. By beholding Christ, we are healed from its deadly sting.



This is right! Sin is a poison that kills us. As such, it's hardly necessary for God to do something additional to punish those who do it. This would make about as much sense as punishing someone for taking deadly poison by burning him.

Once we understand that sin is lethal, everything falls into place. This is the point Ty Gibson was making.



The circle of selfless, other-centered love is what Ellen White refers to as "the law of life for the universe" in the first chapter of "The Desire of Ages."



No, not by accepting that, but by accepting Him.



"His love is drawing us to Himself." It is Christ that heals us, not believing is some specific theory of the atonement.



We receive Christ's righteousness by receiving Him. He is "the Lord our righteousness." We don't need to adhere to some specific view of the atonement to receive Him.



We don't have to hold to some specific view of the atonement to do this. The love of God shining from the cross leads us to repentance. If we respond, God saves us; it's as simple as that. There's no need for some specific theology on the atonement to do this:





which means just what DA 176 lays out.

This just begs the question as to how the blood atones. You don't think it's the literal blood of Christ that takes away our sin, do you? It's not that Christ is in heaven, with several pints of His actual blood. That the blood takes away sin represents spiritual truth, which is the subject of our conversation.

The very verse gives us a clue as to the meaning. It says that the life is in the blood. The significance of the blood is that it represents that life. Christ gave Himself for us. He died for our sins. That's what the blood represents.

So how does Christ's giving His life for us save us? It does so by drawing us to God.



By beholding God's character, we are brought back to Him. From ST 1/20/90 we see that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God that we might be set right with God. If we are right with God, we don't need anything else.

Regarding the verses in Leviticus, these verses were around for many centuries without a soul on the planet ascribing the meaning you are to them.

How could one man die for the sins of millions?

The answer:
One created man couldn't, for no created being, not even an exalted angel could have taken that penalty and offered justification to all who come in repentance.

But the ONE Who created and sustains those millions can.

John 1:3 [Christ, the Word) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,....

So the ONE WHO created mankind, gives life to them, sustains them, He alone can take their sins upon Himself and die for them.

He is responsible for their very existance, He can take the penalty for their transgression.



This is also a revealation of God's character, it is not in opposition to it. For only love would put aside His glorious existance, take on humanity to open a way for mankind to to be restored! If God were vengeful he would merely have wiped out the rebellion and started over again, not offered to take the penalty upon Himself!

THAT IS THE ISSUE -- CHRIST TOOK OUR PENALTY so we could partake of His righteousness.

It's DEFINITELY NOT against our need to accept Christ in our lives in order to be saved -- of course WE NEED TO ACCEPT CHRIST, we need to accept HIM and HIS MERITS, and HIS death in our place, and His resurrection. "There is no other name by which we must be saved."



John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
2 Cor. 5:21 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Isaiah 53:6,8 ..the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all... for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Yet, if Christ had remained in the tomb, all would still be lost.

1 Cor. 15:17 But if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins.
15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Romans 4:25 (Christ) was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

6:1 Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?


Now Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary, which He entered WITH HIS OWN BLOOD to minister as High Priest.

Hebrews 8:1 Now...We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
1:3 when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb. 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them.

You still ignore the part that Christ took upon HIMSELF our sins, and died in our place. His death makes forgiveness possible. His resurrection brings justification.
Your concepts are only HALF of the picture.

yes! yes! yes! that is what was missing!! ive been reading various articles by egw tonight and they are so full of Jesus. it is studying all that Christ has done for us, from coming down from heaven to the cross that saves us if we surrender/submit to Him.

cold, dry presentations of symbols and theories do not, can not touch the heart. they dont show us anything better than ourselves. they dont show us how far superior God is to us and how far, so very far, we miss the mark!!

Do you think looking to the cross and seeing Christ taking our sins upon Himself and dying in our place so "justice and mercy" both remain as part of God's character, is "missing" Jesus?

Is accepting Christ's death and merits in our behalf, and seeing it as HIM opening the door to us for salvation, releasing us from the condemnation of the law which our transgressions incurred, as "missing Jesus"?

Is looking to Christ as our heavenly High Priest Who is interceding for us, "missing Jesus"?

Is spending time at the cross and knowing there Christ has freed us from the bondage of sin, and that we can now consider ourselves dead to sin, because He took our sins and died, and realizing we are alive in Him raised with Him to newness of life, "missing Jesus"?

Is the new live of walking daily in humble obedience and submission to His will, relying upon Him each hour of each day, "missing Jesus"?

Are you agreeing with Tom, who denies that the blood Christ shed was not necessary for God to grant FORGIVENESS of sin?

Are you agreeing with Tom who disagrees that we account ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ, because Christ died our death, and rose again to give us that new life.

What does it mean to "look to Jesus our Savior" if all there is at the cross is a "demonstration" of love, IF it really wasn't needed to forgive sin?

I believe it was necessary.

Think of the millions before the cross -- they didn't have that demonstration, yet there were many who still had faith in God and knew God in a way that we would do well to emulate!

For further insights into the moral influence theory try

http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=6727

Go to page 6 of that issue.

i dont know how you read this to warrant your response.

Don't be silly, Tom: we know of those who'll be saved without ever hearing of a Bible, let alone Jesus, because God himself knows their conscience and gives them adequate light which they accept and believe.

But even they cannot be saved without Jesus being their Saviour, in God's eyes, since God views Jesus as their substitute.

How do you propose, otherwise - since you are either completely cancelling Dedication's last sentence you quoted or possibly limiting it to people who've studied a Bible, etc, that we die daily to sin & self as we follow Jesus? You said her statement "cannot be true", so how are we to die daily????...Does her statement even apply to Bible students - ie. any normally-informed believer?

You know appreciating God's love in Christ isn't dying daily - it's just knowing the truth of God: the Devil does that, too, but it does save him!

Teresa, dear Sister, you applauded one small, true piece of the discussion, here, while the dispute by Tom is over how surrendering to Jesus is related, if it is at all, to our daily death to self & sin.

Tom's arguing for one atonement theory over all the others - and allowing bits of each theory, too, to be fair - while Dedication and I are pointing to Scripture itself and saying that eg. Rom 6:4, with eg. 2 Cor 5:14b, teaches surrendering to Jesus is dying to sin by his death on the cross, experienced by us - heart of stone for heart of flesh - by grace through faith. Tom objects, it appears, pretty firmly too.

What of this spiritual, leaving sin, angle to justification and newness of life? Do we, can we actually link to Jesus by faith without dying to sin and self by his cross?

On the contrary, Colin. I've affirmed several times that I've been agreement with what your ideas on justification by faith, except for the legal points, right? I asked about the phrase about dying to sin not being something we do, but that's the only thing I commented on regarding this that I recall.

Also, regarding the atonement theories, I wrote to MM that I thought all the atonement theories had elements of truth to them, although I disagree with Anselm's ideas. I think the Christus Victor theory, which I posted separately on another thread, provides a framework into which all these other truths can be fit.

If you read the post, you'll see that the Christus Victor framework is basically simply what we, as Adventists, would call "The Great Controversy."



My opinion is of course not, and the quotes I provided address this.

This being the case, what D affirmed cannot be true (I'll repost it a bit later).



Of course they cannot be saved without Jesus ("the Savior of all men") being their Savior. Why are you making this point? D didn't say anything about this. Also, why do you add "in God's eyes, since God views Jesus as their substitute."? (it seems to me simply saying "they cannot be saved without Jesus being their Savior" would be sufficient.)



She also seems to have misunderstood what she said that I was taking issue with, so I responded as follows:



We don't need to adhere to some specific theory of the atonement in order to experience living in newness of life in Him.



I defined what I meant by knowing the truth of God. Leaving out what I said and casting it to mean something I did not intend is not fair.

I'll requote the statements from "The Desire of Ages." The points I've been making are right there.





Anyone who reacts as described above in these quotes will die to sin. The catalyst to the whole thing is the revelation of the love and character of God. This leads a person to repentance. If a person does not resist the drawing of the Spirit, everything else follows from there: God writes the law in the heart, the person is brought into harmony with God, etc.

Which is what? Is it death, or something else? If it's death, this is exactly what I see happening. Sin resulted in death in the person of Christ (in His humanity), thus demonstrating the truth that God had been saying all alone, the one who sins will die. We also see what that death looks like in Christ's experience; not a fire-ball from heaven burning Him up, but His heart melting like wax.



Why would it mean death if one had to bear one's own sin?



It would crush us. Christ, during this life, bears the sin of every human being, so that they are not crushed, but have the opportunity to make a decision for or against Christ.

In the second resurrection, those who have chosen to reject Christ will be left to bear their own sin (God's strange act, the outpouring of His wrath, His execution of justice), and they will be crushed. As DA 764 puts it:





I agree with this. The penalty for sin is death. Christ died, as the result of taking our sin upon Him.



Accepting Christ is enough. When we accept Christ, His merits, His death in our place, His resurrection, and many other things, come with that.



Which means what? It doesn't mean He's taking His literal blood in a pot or something, right? The blood is symbolic. So the question we need to ask is what the blood is symbolic of. It seems clear from Scripture that the blood of Christ represents His life.

No I don't. I've affirmed this. For example, I've quoted the following several times:





I've gone into a great deal of detail regarding how Christ's death makes forgiveness possible, so you're asserting I'm ignoring this is hardly fair or accurate. I haven't commented on Christ's resurrection, but I'll by way as a brief statement that I think it's a big mistake to separate Christ's death from His life and resurrection, as if it could be considered separately. Christ's death only has meaning when connected to His life, and similarly with His resurrection. They all go together, and were all necessary for our forgiveness and justification.

The whole purpose of Christ's earthly ministry was the revelation of God, which sets men right with Him.

I don't know if you had a chance to look at the post regarding "Christus Victor," but it does a really nice job of tying things altogether, demonstrating how Christ obtained the victory over the powers of darkness by his "outrageous love," as the author puts it.

Whoa! I call "foul"! I didn't claim this! Not at all!

Please be more careful in your reading of things. I've noticed quite a number of cases now where you're misstating what I've said. It's safer if you cite direct quotes. It's not nice to make false claims about what people have said.

No, it's not false claims, Tom: it's talking past each other, repetitively. You philosophise "shedding of blood" to try to understand it better, when everyone is clear Christ died for sin for us. Philosophy is helpful, but is a very minor detail, since faith is theological...

You have countered wording expressing believers dying to sin by faith in the death of Christ, and it's left us with little idea of your view of how we should die to sin other than admiring God's agape...! You have virtually no statement, your own or quoted, which speaks to death to self, etc. That the rest of us take it for granted, while not forgetting the importance that God has revealed his love in Christ, leaves you behind the flow, it appears.

You counter Dedication's clear, general statements with minor issues while not taking time to agree with her - philosophical points should not defeat theological, soteriological truths.

This is too long an article to comment on the whole thing, but I'd be happy to discuss any portion of it that is quoted.

I'll make a couple of general comments:



I don't know anybody of whom this would be true. That is, this statement is a straw man, as those who hold an anti-Anselmian view of the atonement (this is more accurate than the phrase "Moral Influence scholar," which I'll get to in a moment) are quick to point out that God's holiness demands that He hate sin, for the very reason that it destroys His creatures, whom He loves.

I've found that in discussing alternatives to Anselm/Calvin that many (actually, almost all) seem unaware that there are actually quite a few models of the atonement. They seem to think there are two, what they believe, and "the Moral Influence Theory." So any view of the atonement which denies Anselm is characterized as "the Moral Influence theory." I've repeatedly explained that this view is not what I've been advocating, and explained why, yet I keep seeing references to it in the context of things I've said. This is despite that fact that I've posted regarding "Christus Victor."

A second point is that the author didn't quote anybody, a shortcoming I find here as well. Instead of arguing against what people actually believe, a straw man is created, and that is argued against. This happens on both sides of issues like this, so I'm not wishing to single him out, but suggesting the best way of dealing with issues like this is to actually quote what someone has said, and do so with enough context so the essential points can be understood, and *then* make some sort of argument.

I know next to nothing about Dodd's theology, but from a brief perusal of the internet, it seems to me to have more in common with "Christus Victor" than the Moral Influence theory. For example, Dodd emphasizes the use of Ps. 110 in understanding Jesus' mission, which point the author of the Christus Victor article I posted also made. So this looks like it may be an example of "if the guy doesn't believe what I do, then it's 'The Moral Influence theory.'"

I've seen this same error made in regards to A. Graham Maxwell's ideas. A. Graham Maxwell wrote the Commentary for Romans in the 50's I think. He was certainly aware of atonement theories, and never claimed to believe in the Moral Influence theory. In spite of this, people continue to ignorantly label him that way.

Yes, the legal points are indeed critical..., hence other disagreements.

Your question about the highlighted bit...: not all redeemed come to a knowledge of the Bible, is what you're emphasising? Out of context her words themselves mean we don't die to sin when it is an experience of faith, indeed? The whole sentence says that we die to sin by faith, not having to do so physically ourselves - as Rom 7:4 says. You do agree with my last sentence, here?

You turned a general principle as generally understood into a minor discussion of those who don't get to hear the Bible, ever..., yet are saved by God in his judgement of them. That's not a disagreement with the general principle, so why make it sound like one?? Unless I haven't followed your separate train of thought?!

The legal issue is of concern, too.

The legal issues you see as Christ overcoming the deception of the Devil and so revealing the truth of God which truth sets us free of the tyranny of deception: God is revealed and the fear of death due to sin and the law is dealt with? Also there is no pitting of Father against Son in this redemption model - would that involve no separation between them, at Calvary, or only not in the moment of death?

What other ones are you thinking of? Actually, I can think of another area we differ on. I see death as the natural result of sin, whereas it appears you see it as the result of an arbitrary action on God's part ("arbitrary" meaning "due to individual discretion" not "capricious"), or, perhaps, as a combination of natural and not-natural.

I'm wondering if the legal difference and this difference are actually just two side of the same coin. Intuitively I think they are, as I can't imagine that if one believed that death is the result of sin, without an extra act of God required, that one would have the Anselm idea of the atonement. Conversely, if one holds the Anselm idea, that death is not simply the natural result of sin would seem to follow as well.

So given these go together, does one come before the other? Iow, do you perceive as most important that sin does not result in death, but that God need to take extra action, and then deduce from that that the legal issues must follow (as you perceive them), or do you start with the legal framework, and then deduce that death doesn't naturally result from sin?

Maybe you haven't thought about this, I don't know (in which case you would just see them as two different issues).

If I didn't explain this well enough for you to comment, I'll try again, as I'm very interested in this.



I didn't follow this.



I just pointed out something which was affirmed which is not true. It's not true that to experience newness of life that one must have a certain point of view of the atonement. She expressed things in an Anselmian way (regardless of whether or not she was aware of this) and I'm saying that there are many Christians who do not agree with Anselm's formulation, who, nevertheless experience newness of life.

Experiencing newness of life depends upon responding the Holy Spirit as He leads us to repentance -- not upon our accepting that something is counted in some way.

Not quite sure what you're asking here, but I take it you're, in general, asking for clarification regarding what I think the legal issues are.

First of all, I stated that I don't believe there are any new issues created by the law, meaning, to state it another way, that the legal issues that there are can be expressed in non-legal terms.

Some of the legal issues which exist are there because of Satan. That is, Satan has expressed arguments against God and His government in legal terms, so they need to be addressed as such. So if Satan makes the claim that it's not possible for man to keep the law in fallen flesh, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. God did this by sending His son in flesh such as ours, and in that flesh condemning sin in the flesh, so that we not need to walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, against which there is no law.

Another legal issue that comes to mind is one of status. Our status is effected when we accept Christ. We are no longer condemned by the law, but become children of the household.

One could also argue that corporately the whole human race changed its status due to the work of Christ (e.g. 1SM 343 -- Christ "restored the entire race of men to favor with God.")



This is a good question. God did not abandon Christ in His worst hour of need, but was actually never closer. He left heaven to be close to His Son. Psalm 18 poetically describes the scene. He made darkness His secret pavilion. The Desire of Ages goes into detail regarding this.

However, although God did not forsake Christ, Christ did feel forsaken, which fact is made clear in Psalm 22. A battle was going on between faith and feelings. His feelings were telling Him He was forsaken, but faith won out (the Psalm describes the battle; it ends in a victorious tone) and Christ, in faith, commended His spirit to the Father.

Sin causes us to believe things about God which aren't true, and this effect of sin is apparent in Christ's experience (as seen in Psalm 22; Psalm 69, 88 are a couple of many others that deal with this as well). Christ, because of His faith, deep knowledge of the Scriptures, and knowing (like "conocer" not "saber," if you know some Spanish) the Father enabled Him to triumph. The wicked won't be able to do so, and their unbelief will result in their suffering and death, all very sad, since so unnecessary.

MR No. 747 - Christ Our Righteousness

I have attended the closing meeting of the ministerial Bible school--a school composed of conference delegates and those who have been attending the ministerial institute. At this meeting several were called upon to say something. Remarks appropriate for the occasion were made by Elders Olsen, Waggoner, Prescott, and Smith; also by Elder Haskell, who has been mercifully preserved during his tour around the world. {9MR 293.1}
I spoke in regard to matters that were deeply impressing my mind. I referred to the fear that had been expressed by some who were not members of the ministerial institute, and who had not been present at all the Bible classes of the school--a fear that there was danger of carrying the subject of justification by faith altogether too far, and of not dwelling enough on the law. {9MR 293.2}
Judging from the meetings that I had been privileged to attend, I could see no cause for alarm; and so I felt called upon to say that this fear was cherished by those who had not heard all the precious lessons given, and that therefore they were not warranted in coming to such a conclusion. None of the members of the class who had been studying the Word to learn "What saith the Scriptures?" entertained any such fear. The Bible, and the Bible alone, has been the subject of investigation in this school. Every lesson has been based, not on the ideas and the opinions of men, but on a plain "Thus saith the Lord." {9MR 293.3}
Many remarks have been made to the effect that in our camp meetings the speakers have dwelt upon the law, the law, and not on Jesus. This statement is not strictly true, but have not the people had some reason for making these remarks? Have not there stood in the desk, as mouthpieces for God, men who had not a genuine experience in heavenly things, men who had not received the righteousness of Christ Jesus? Many of our ministers have merely sermonized, presenting subjects in an argumentative way and scarcely mentioning the saving power of the Redeemer. Not having themselves partaken of the living bread from heaven, their testimony was destitute of nourishment, destitute of the saving blood of Jesus Christ, which cleanseth from all sin. Their offering resembled the offering of Cain. He brought to the Lord the fruit of the ground, which, in itself, was acceptable in God's sight. Very good, indeed, was the fruit, but the virtue of the offering, the blood of Christ, represented by the blood of the slain lamb, was lacking. So it is in Christless sermons. Men are not pricked in the heart; they do not inquire, "What shall I do to be saved?" {9MR 293.4}
In His sacrificial character, Christ reveals Himself as the Bread of Life. "Whoso eateth My flesh," He declared to His disciples, "and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life" (John 6:54). Why is not He presented to the people as the Living Bread? Because He is not abiding in the hearts of many of those who think it their duty to preach the law. Christ is left out of their sermonizing, and from east to west, from north to south, the church has been starving for the bread of life. {9MR 294.1}
Of all professed Christians, Seventh-day Adventists should be foremost in uplifting Christ before the world. Our ministers should ever be able to direct men and women to Christ, to the One who Himself declared, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35). Let those who minister to the spiritual necessities of the people read to them the words of Christ: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51). {9MR 294.2}
The Jews, unable to understand this declaration, "strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you" (Verses 52, 53). {9MR 295.1}
Often there are delivered to the people discourses destitute of the bread of life, the food essential for spiritual growth. Those who have been appropriating for themselves the bread of life, will be able to break it to others. {9MR 295.2}
Christ further declares: "Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him" (Verses 54-56). These words are very similar to those He used in representing Himself as the Vine, and His followers as the branches: "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing" (John 15:4, 5). {9MR 295.3}
How can our people be better helped than by being given the bread of life? And this bread is God's Word; for Christ has said: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). {9MR 295.4}
The law and the gospel, revealed in the Word, are to be preached to the people; for the law and the gospel, blended, will convict of sin. God's law, while condemning sin, points to the gospel, revealing Jesus Christ, in whom "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The glory of the gospel reflects light upon the Jewish age, giving significance to the whole Jewish economy of types and shadows. Thus both the law and the gospel are blended. In no discourse are they to be divorced. {9MR 295.5}
Over the spiritual eyes of altogether too many there has been hanging a veil. Many have been teaching the binding claims of God's law, but have not been able to see to the end of that which was abolished. They have not seen that Jesus Christ is the glory of the law. The bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness are to be reflected from His messengers upon the minds of sinners, in order that they may be led to say, with one of old, "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalm 119:18). {9MR 296.1}
Many of our brethren and sisters do not discern the wondrous things that are to be seen in God's law. They have not beheld that which was revealed to Moses when he prayed, "I beseech Thee, show me Thy glory" (Exodus 33:18). To Moses was revealed God's character. "The Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty" (Exodus 34:5-7). {9MR 296.2}
The apostle John, in his first Epistle, gives the definition of sin. He declares: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). {9MR 296.3}
To Moses, the character of God was revealed as His glory. In like manner, we behold the glory of Christ by beholding His character. Paul says: "We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory [from character to character] even as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:18). {9MR 296.4}
Why, then, is there manifested in the church so great a lack of love, of true, elevated, sanctified, ennobling sympathy, of tender pity and loving forbearance? It is because Christ is not constantly brought before the people. His attributes of character are not brought into the practical life. Men and women are not eating of the Bread that cometh down from heaven. {9MR 297.1}
I have felt very sad as I have seen ministers walking and working in the light of the sparks of their own kindling; ministers who were not obtaining spiritual nourishment from Christ, the Bread of Life. Their own souls were as destitute of the heavenly manna as the hills of Gilboa were destitute of dew and rain. In their hearts Christ was not an abiding presence. How could they speak intelligently of Him whom they had never known by experimental knowledge? {9MR 297.2}
We must see Christ as He is. By the eye of faith we must discern the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. By failing to cherish the Spirit of Christ, by taking wrong positions in the controversy over the law in Galatians --a question that many have not fully understood before taking a wrong position --the church has sustained a sad loss. The spiritual condition of the church, generally, is represented by the words of the True Witness: "Nevertheless," saith the One who loves the souls for whom He has died, "I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love." The position taken by many during the Minneapolis General Conference testifies to their Christless condition. The admonition to every such an one is: "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." {9MR 297.3}
Have not many in this ministerial school seen their mistake of not abiding in Christ? Cannot they have the privilege of repenting, and of doing their first works? Who shall condemn this work of repentance, of confession, of baptism? If some conscientiously feel that their first duty is to repent of their sins, confess them, and be baptized, is not this the first work that they must do? {9MR 297.4}
When precious rays of light from the Sun of Righteousness have shone upon our pathway, some have opened wide the door of the heart, welcoming the Heaven-sent light into the chambers of the soul. They receive the words of Christ Jesus gladly. Others have needed the divine anointing to improve their spiritual eyesight, in order that they may distinguish the light of truth from the darkness of error. Because of their blindness, they have lost an experience that would have been more precious to them than silver and gold. Some, I fear, will never recover that which they have lost. {9MR 298.1}
When strong-minded men once set their will against God's will, it is not easy for them to admit that they have erred in judgment. It is very difficult for such men to come fully into the light by honestly confessing their sins; for Satan has great power over the minds of many to whom God has granted evidence sufficient to encourage faith and inspire confidence. Many will not be convinced, because they are not inclined to confess. To resist and reject even one ray of light from Heaven because of pride and stubbornness of heart, makes it easier to refuse light the second time. Thus men form the habit of rejecting light. {9MR 298.2}
So long had the Jews refused to walk in the light of truth, that they rejected their Saviour. Jesus said of the Jews: "Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). He, the Light of life, came to enlighten every man that comes into the world, so that no man need walk in darkness. The light of truth is constantly shining, but many men and women comprehend it not. And why?--Because selfishness, egotism, pride, blinds their spiritual eyesight. Standing between them and the true light, is the idol of their own opinion. They can see very readily that which they wish to see. Saith the True Witness: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7). "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him" (Psalm 25:14). {9MR 298.3}
My brethren in the ministry, we need Jesus every moment. To lose His love from our hearts means much. Yet He Himself says: "I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" (Revelation 2:4). There is danger of presenting the truth in such a way that the intellect is exalted, leaving the souls of the hearers unsatisfied. A correct theory of the truth may be presented, and yet there may not be manifested the warmth of affection that the God of truth requires every one of His messengers to cherish and manifest. {9MR 299.1}
The religion of many is very much like an icicle--freezingly cold. The hearts of not a few are still unmelted, unsubdued. They cannot touch the hearts of others, because their own hearts are not surcharged with the blessed love that flows from the heart of Christ. There are others who speak of religion as a matter of the will. They dwell upon stern duty as if it were a master ruling with a scepter of iron--a master, stern, inflexible, all powerful--devoid of the sweet, melting love and tender compassion of Christ. Still others go to the opposite extreme, making religious emotions prominent, and on special occasions manifesting intense zeal. Their religion seems to be more of the nature of a stimulus rather than an abiding faith in Christ. {9MR 299.2}
....
Many commit the error of trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. Into the definitions of these two terms they often bring their own ideas and speculations. Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital question of righteousness by faith? Why try to work out every minute point, as if the salvation of the soul depended upon all having exactly your understanding of this matter? All cannot see in the same line of vision. You are in danger of making a world of an atom, and an atom of a world. {9MR 300.4} As the penitent sinner, contrite before God, discerns Christ's atonement in his behalf, and accepts this atonement as his only hope in this life and the future life, his sins are pardoned. This is justification by faith. Every believing soul is to conform his will entirely to God's will, and keep in a state of repentance and contrition, exercising faith in the atoning merits of the Redeemer, and advancing from strength to strength, from glory to glory. {9MR 301.1}
Pardon and justification are one and the same thing. Through faith, the believer passes from the position of a rebel, a child of sin and Satan, to the position of a loyal subject of Christ Jesus, not because of an inherent goodness, but because Christ receives him as His child by adoption. The sinner receives the forgiveness of his sins, because these sins are borne by his Substitute and Surety. The Lord speaks to His heavenly Father, saying: "This is My child. I reprieve him from the condemnation of death, giving him My life-insurance policy--eternal life--because I have taken his place and have suffered for his sins. He is even My beloved son." Thus man, pardoned, and clothed with the beautiful garments of Christ's righteousness, stands faultless before God. {9MR 301.2}
The sinner may err, but he is not cast off without mercy. His only hope, however, is repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the Father's prerogative to forgive our transgressions and sins, because Christ has taken upon Himself our guilt and reprieved us, imputing to us His own righteousness. His sacrifice satisfies fully the demands of justice. {9MR 301.3}
Justification is the opposite of condemnation. God's boundless mercy is exercised toward those who are wholly undeserving. He forgives transgressions and sins for the sake of Jesus, who has become the propitiation for our sins. Through faith in Christ, the guilty transgressor is brought into favor with God and into the strong hope of life eternal. {9MR 302.1}
David was pardoned of his transgression because he humbled his heart before God in repentance and contrition of soul, and believed that God's promise to forgive would be fulfilled. He confessed his sin, repented, and was reconverted. In the rapture of the assurance of forgiveness, he exclaimed, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." The blessing comes because of pardon; pardon comes through faith that the sin, confessed and repented of, is borne by the great Sin-bearer. Thus from Christ cometh all our blessings. His death is an atoning sacrifice for our sins. He is the great medium through whom we receive the mercy and favor of God. He, then, is indeed the Originator, the Author, as well as the Finisher, of our faith.--Manuscript 21, 1891, pp. 1-11. ("Christ our Righteousness," February 27, 1891.)

Doesn't faze me, thanks: obedience to the law is taught explicitly throughout the Bible, and the curse of the law is our problem expressed in the sacrificial, Levitical system - not some pagan, similar, alternative system: that fear of death Christ took away. He substituted himself for our death for sin and for God's judgement over sin. What kind of judgement by God over sin do you see him meting out?



No wonder you picked it out to question it!!!

Why did you at all question that highlighted bit?...........



Here I think I may advise you that you are a theological friend of the SDA church - membership notwithstanding, differing with it on its view of the atonement as you do, and you rubbished its view of salvation, though unintentionally, I think, in dealing with her Bible study.

Dedication was affirming the church's view of the atonement as you so firmly point out, but she wasn't discussing the atonement!! She was rather establishing Christian reality for us - as the SDA church views it, legally and graceously, saying that Christ, by grace, can only relate to us at all if we accept his death as our death - 2 Cor 5:14b; Rom 6:4, from her study, pages ago. That is the spiritual reality, legally, in which the Holy Spirit can then, graceously recreate us with Christ's presence in our lives - a reality, dying and being reborn, you yourself later affirmed, too, as a purely graceous matter!

You appeared to attack the very basis of her understanding of Christian experience, the church's understanding, which I also share, as untrue - "it cannot be", in your quest to harmonise all the atonement thoeries. Your "atonement" debate wasn't understood, was as good as out of context, in the way you presented it.

You introducted atonement theory issues when we were all discussing dying to sin, by grace of Christ through faith in him, so we can be justified at the same time (the rebirth we all thankfully agree on, it seems, by the by!) - the symbolism and experience of adult baptism, and your point was completely, badly, missed. You appeared directly to be attacking the root of Christian renewal - dying daily to self & sin by faith in Christ's death for us. You actually agree with this point itself, in the end, though you hold an alternative atonement teaching.

Let's leave atonement to your own thread on that?!

well, the church also believes, and teaches, the trinity doctrine is biblical!!

One thing at a time, Teresa, please?! In the same vein, Tom's atonement crusade shouldn't sound, here, like a generally agreed belief in dying to sin by faith in Christ's death is "untrue": that shocks, doesn't it? May that argument on atonement options continue on Tom's own thread, for it.

The nature of God, and the church's stance on it, has its own thread, too!

i was just making the point that not everyone agrees with everything the church teaches, or do we individually pick and choose who is right and who is wrong by whether they agree with us or not?

No indeed, it's not picking favourites..., or opponents.

Tom dragged atonement theory clashes, top priority in his own mind, into this thread, without saying so...: in the process he said that Dedication's "dying to sin is not something we do,...we accept Christ's death as ours" was "untrue" and "cannot be". That was most unfortunate..., if not out of line, since he didn't disagree with her point, but the atonement theory he perceived she was using - but she wasn't concerned about atonement arguments!

I mentioned church issues, though, cause this forum has rules about supporting and discussing, if not challenging, but not trashing church positions. Arguing over atonement theories is fine, on his own thread, but not attacking, or appearing to attack, the heart of faith's spiritual death to sin preceding our rebirth, as expressed by another.

I know we tread a fine line, on this forum, but Tom went over the top there - unitentionally, as I said before.

doesnt the title of the thread and atonement theories go together?

Colin, I don't see that this in any way responds to my question. Here's my question. You see the following two things to be true:

a.Christ had to die to satisfy a legal requirement in order for God to be able to pardon sin.

b.The wicked do not die as the consequence of sin (not only, at any rate) -- an "extra" action on the part of God causes their death.

It seems to me these two things logically go together. If the second death involves an arbitrary action on the part of God, and Christ death is the payment for our sin, then it should involve an arbitrary action on the part of God as well.

I was wondering if you had thought of the connection between these two things, and, if so, which is the chicken and which the egg (if you've considered this).



I've got no idea what you're talking about. I told you I didn't follow what you are saying. Do you think the statement "No wonder you picked it out to question it!" is somehow helpful in describing something I said I didn't follow?



Colin, this is too cryptic. I see nothing in this whole page that's highlighted, except for some comments by teresa. Please copy and paste a quote of something if you want to ask me about it.



I've asserted on a number of occasions that my theology on the atonement, as far as I'm aware, is the same as Waggoner's. You've never disagreed with me on this. Ellen White said Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. So if I'm in agreement with Waggoner on this subject, then I'm on better ground than those who disagree with Waggoner, it seems to me.

Furthermore, the official SDA position is the following:



Notice that the official position of the SDA church is that Christ provided the only means of atonement for sin. Didn't you say this is unBiblical? So aren't *you* in disagreement with this?

Otoh, I looked at the official statement carefully, and didn't see a single thing I disagree with.



This is confusing. I firmly pointed out that D was affirming the church's view of the atonement? Where? How?



I don't recall commenting on this. Would you please quote something I said? Again, regarding how the SDA church views, I agree with the statement in our fundamental beliefs.



I assume you are talking about where I said that her assertion that we have to accept that something is counted. It seems to me you have this exactly backward! *She* is the one who said that unless a person did this, they couldn't walk in newness of life. I said nothing speaking against *her* experience. I don't see how you could possible conclude this.

If you would quote something I said when making accusations like this, it would be a lot easier to know what you have in mind.



Don't you say that the saying that Christ is an atonement for sin is unBiblical? So you're not sharing the church's position, it seems to me. On the other hand, as I stated, I agree with the official church statement.

Thankfully the church has not set as a condition upon a person's experiencing newness of life accepting that something is counted.

Regarding the rest of what you wrote, please provide some evidence to support allegations like this. Specifically quote something I said. I think you've being very unfair here. In my remarks regarding things I've disagreed with, I've quoted the exact words said, and have tried my best to direct my comments to the theories being presented, and not to personalities. I ask you to extend the same courtesy.

Colin, I didn't say anything remotely resembling this. This is very unfair. Please quit doing this!

If you want to comment on something I said, quote it! As far as I can tell, you're just making stuff out of your head, and randomly accusing me of things. Simply repeating something I've never said doesn't change reality.

I already pointed out to you I didn't say this. Please, Colin, be fair in your comments. Quote, then comment.

Colin, are you purposely misquoting me? I don't see how you can think it's OK to do this. I already corrected you on this.



What I said cannot be true is, "We need to accept the fact that Christ credits His death to our sin as our death to sin, or we will never experience 'living in newness of life' with Him."

I did not say "we accept Christ's death as ours was 'untrue' and 'cannot be'".

I already pointed this out to you. I cannot at all understand why you would misquote me like this. I can understand the first time, as an oversight, but after you've already been corrected on it, to repeat the same misquote again -- I don't know understand why you would do this. Perhaps you just aren't paying attention. I don't think this is something you would do intentionally.

Regardless, please stop!



When you don't quote things, it's hard to know what you're talking about. I disagreed with her point that "We need to accept the fact that Christ credits His death to our sin as our death to sin, or we will never experience 'living in newness of life' with Him." It seems obvious to me that this is a statement involving the atonement.



Colin, I've been affirming that I support the church's position. On not one occasion have I on this forum (nor anywhere else) said that the church's official position on the atonement (or any any other doctrine) is wrong, nor have I, in any way, challenged, let alone "trashed," an officially stated position.

You shouldn't make accusations like this without any supporting evidence. Also, if you're going to make specific accusations about things that were said, you should quote directly the thing that was said.

It boggles my mind that there are people who do not understand this. This is common sense and common decency.



Again, I never said anything remotely resembling this. I've got no clue what you're talking about, and will continue having no clue unless or until you quote something I said.



How? In saying what?

Do you think you've gone over the line?

i am a devout believer in the investigative judgment. i firmly believe that every thought, word and deed is faithfully recorded and if not faced here and now and repented of it will be faced in the wrong resurrection.

i realize we can get caught up in the moment, but it seems to me there is far too little meditating on the law to see how deep it goes and how easy it is to break its spirit.

certain readings of ellen whites really helps in this area.

But that is exactly the point you challenged me on at the very start of this thread.

In my study of Romans 6 where our baptism symbolizing our dying to sin through Christ BECAUSE Christ took our sins upon Himself and died OUR death in our place, and by coming to cross we veiw what OUR sin has done, and we unite ourselves to Christ, thus we RECKON, consider, count ourselves dead to sin, because of Christ's death. It's not us who did the dying but Christ in our place. And THUS WE RECKON, consider, live as, surrender ourselves, as dead to sin. We arise in newness of life, we LIVE in Christ and count ourselves dead to sin.
Yet sin will still harass us. Thus we are admonished, not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies, for we are to count ourselves dead to sin.

You challenged that REPEATEDLY.
Now all of a suddent you call "foul"
You are NOT being fair!
YOU have taken phrases of what I've said and given them different meanings.

A case in point is the discussion of the serpent in the wilderness where I pointed out that the symbol of the serpent MEANT sin -- it represented Christ becoming sin for us, taking the curse for us.
Christ Himself IS NOT THE SERPENT.
Satan is the serpent.

By Christ taking the serpentine poison upon Himself, taking OUR SINS our sinful nature and dying the death that belonged to us, --as scripture says "became the curse for us" -- HE GIVES US HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS and His LIFE -- a new life in Him!
It was by believing this that we can be healed and rised to newness of life, etc.

You then come on with a big discussion that that's wrong, we need to look to Jesus for healing -- making it sound like I wasn't talking about looking to Jesus for forgiveness and healing. What was WRONG was the impression you created that I'm just talking about inconsequential details and not looking to Christ.
You also went on and on that we don't have to understand the atonement in order to have newness of life.
What -- we don't have to understand that Christ took OUR SINS, AND DIED our death to understand about His character and how to have newness of life?

I'm sorry Tom -- but you are very hard to discuss anything with.

First you say that "sacrificial blood" was not needed for God to forgive sins, you challenge the concept that Christ died our death to sin and we now consider ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ.
Now all of sudden you cry foul because I ask:

"Are you agreeing with Tom who disagrees that we account ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ, because Christ died our death, and rose again to give us that new life.
What does it mean to "look to Jesus our Savior" if all there is at the cross is a "demonstration" of love, IF it really wasn't needed to forgive sin?"


Your statement:


You cry FOUL -- yet that statement you made above is foul-- you weren't "just pointing out something" --
You have been challenging the whole concept of the SUBSTITUTIONARY death of Christ all along.

Please don't think saying
"I believe it as so-and so says it"
answers anything --
Because what I read in many of those passages is often very different from points you are making when you use your own words. (I'm talking particularly about passages by EGW)

And by the way --
Did you know there are also many "new age" "Christians" --people who experience "newness of life" who don't believe in Christ's substitutionary death. They think of the cross as a quantum leap for humanity into a "higher consciousness" of the "divine". They are VERY LOVING and gentle and kind (I know because I know people who are very involved in New age concepts and spirit related healing) But does that mean it is the true "newness of life in Christ"?

Does it matter that we understand these things?

So are you saying we can "rise to newness of life in CHRIST" without accepting Christ's death to our sins?

I'm not talking about merely living a decent life. I'm talking about being JUSTIFIED (forgiven and credited with Christ's merits and righteousness, being counted as Sons and daughters of God) thus we know we are set apart for a life of sanctification (a life of holy living in Christ) This changes our whole outlook on sin and our status with God.

do you know that if you started out letting everyone know what your concerns are that we could all start off on the same page?

you did the same thing on the "grace" thread.

but when you seem to be addressing the same point that others are and then make assumptions based on their responses to what they believe the discussion is about how can there be any understanding or agreement?

i dont know what the moral influence theory is, and if i wanted to know i would do my own research, thank you very much, but accusing someone of it did not make me believe the accusation was true. i know the game. rb plays it very well. it comes from the enemy and not our holy God.

so, please, please, when you come across something that concerns you please let others know what your concern is first before starting in with the "sermonettes".

this is probably not a good example but something like, "the new age yada, yada, how is that different from what you are believing?"

i know people who claim to be christian, in the sda church, who also behave that way. until they go after a person. then they break every commandment in the book.

aside from that, i dont know how well you know "your" people, but the new-agers i know really do want to be good people, but underneath there is an emptiness. that is where we can present Jesus who will fill that emptiness.

Now the "moral influence theory" is a broad term, and not all who follow its premise believe everything the same on all points. Thus anyone can find a point and say they "disagree" while in reality still following the basic premise.

What is the "moral influence theory"?

The bottom line of the "moral influence theory" is the denial of the Substitutional death and life of Christ.
It's main thought is that Jesus' death had nothing to do with the proper demands of a righteous God for judgements on sin.

Though they will use Biblical phrases such as "justified by His blood for the forgiveness of sins" they take away the obvious meaning and interprete it in a human subjective manner that the cross moves us to respond to God's love and move away from sin. In a sense this makes our response the ground of justification and the grounds for "forgiveness" ALONE. The covering of sin by the blood of Christ is not necessary.

The "atonement" is not equated with the "atoning sacrifice" as in the sacrificial system. (i.e. the sinner confessing his sins upon the head of the victim and then taking its life, symbolic of it absorbing the penalty of the sins so the sinner can go home justified) but is limited to only the human response once again of setting aside his misinformed hostility toward God and being on friendly more submissive terms with God. Reconciliation is limited to mankind having a change of mind.

"Moral influence denies that Jesus sacrifice was substitutionary, necessitated by God's holy wrath against evil." It places the legal atonement in opposition to a knowledgable relationship with God, when in fact both are essential.

No it's not. I never said this. You're just repeating the very thing I asked you not to do!

I'm asking you to quote what I said and then comment on that. This is exasperating! Instead of quoting what I said, and commenting on that, you repeat the very falsehood I am denying, and do so without quoting anything!

Please stop that!

Actually Teressa, I started this thread.
Certain people challenged me.
Do I not have the right here to present my beliefs?

im sorry that you misunderstood, apparently, everything i said.
i honestly have no idea of how i could have said anything so that you would hear what i said and not something else.

Yes, Tom VERY EXASPERATING.

Very exasperating indeed.

If it's not true then what in the world are you arguing about and posting long long posts about?

You are denying the SUBSITUTIONAL DEATH OF CHRIST as NECESSARY for our death to sin and resurrection to newness of life.
You are denying the that this death was NECESSARY in the reckoning of heaven's justice to forgive sins and restore mankind into justice.

i dont think any of us will be able to respond this way when we are hauled into court for breaking the sunday law.

“If you have a strong case, stick to the facts.
If you have a weak case, try to confuse the issue.
If you have no case, rail on the opposition.”

And that's exactly what happened to the presentation I tried to make on this thread.
I gave Biblical Bible study.
A certain person came on to confuse the issues.
And now people are railing against me because they don't like the study.

Why does it have to come to this?

LET'S TRY AGAIN.



Romans 5:6,8-9
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly....God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being NOW JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH of His Son, much more, BEING RECONCILED, we shall be saved by His life.


The genitive absolute: "we still being sinners"
"we" without strength being lost and helpless in our sins.
Christ died in our behalf, in our stead.

Verse 6 shows this was done for all.
The door of salvation was opened for all.
All were hopelessly lost without this hope and assurance that Christ would die in their place.
But not all will be saved.

Verse 8 focuses in on the believers, who were ALSO lost sinners, lost and helpless in their sins. Christ's voluntary sacrificial death for us while we were in our ungodly sinfulness is the height of God's love. The supreme result and effect of this sacrifice is the justification and reconciliation of believers to God.

So important is this truth that Paul states it over and over.
In verse 10 he states it more fully.

"We being enemies"
this shows the rebellious nature of sin, and
echoes Paul's former phrase. "while we were yet sinners"
Our natural enmity toward God's law and righteousness, our sin, our ungodliness placed us in a position where we deserved nothing but wrath -- God owed us nothing.
But Christ taking our sins upon Himself, and dying in our place changed our status.

Prior we were OUTSIDERS, with only the death penalty awaiting us. There are no alternatives but death for all entrapped in sin.


BUT GOD --
This, Paul writes, is the active transitive point in our reconciliation to God.

Now, God has always loved the world -- He sent His son (as per John 3:16) God didn't need to be pacified in order to love us. He loved the human race. The trouble was with us -- we being the "enemies", our treason demanding our death. We were wrong, we alone, God wasn't wrong, but we could do NOTHING about either about our alienation or escaping from sins end.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH of His Son"

Notice the progress:
Christ's sacrificial death brings
Our reconciliation to God
and then
"BEING RECONCILED, we shall be saved by His life."

This is an important point.

FIRST WE ARE RECONCILED
then we live and are saved by His life!

ulicia, this is a discussion forum. people agree and disagree and have different, VALID, perspectives of the same thing. (caps for emphasis only since it is understood as shouting at the other person in netiquette.)

again i am so sorry you are not able to read what is said but hear something else entirely. i am also sorry that you feel beat up on. i have no idea why you feel that way since colin has been "on your side". elle threw out some comments, that if i remember correctly, were completely ignored.

my comments have more to do with the unChristlike behavior exhibited. i think about that investigative judgment and how we have to repent of every wrong trait in ourselves and that is the gist of my comments.

im just willing to find out where tom is coming from before i pass judgment.

Let's look again at Romans 6:3-11
the key as to how this fits together and also answers how Christ's sacrificial death and blood reconciles us to God.

ROMANS 6:3 Don't you know, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

What do we see here?
We see the believer accepting the substitutional death and resurrection in their behalf.
That's what baptism is.
Accepting the substitutional death and resurrection of Christ in their behalf.



This isn't speaking of baptism as an end in itself, but showing its much deeper meaning?

Baptism connects us with Christ our Savior, and this means being connected with His death. To be buried, or entombed with Christ involves that in our baptism we died with Christ.

Let's look at a text from 1 Peter 2:24 [Christ] Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

What does all this mean?

Yes, of course it brings us to Christ. And what do we see in Christ?

Christ took OUR SIN, OUR SINFUL NATURE, upon Himself, upon His sinless nature, and died. What does that mean to us?

Brothers and sisters - it means because HE died to our sin, we died to sin. Therefore it is apparent that our dying to sin is not something we do in actuality, but something Christ has done, and is something that is accounted to all who are united with Him!

For example -- when we rise up out of the watery grave, is sin dead in us? Have we no more struggles with sin? No more falling into sin?
No -- sin is deeply engrained and the battles continue and may even intensive!

But Paul continues --

6:11 Likewise reckon (or account) you also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We are indeed to reckon-- consider -- ourselves dead to sin.

This is a whole NEW IDEA --
We are NOT to think that once we've overcome all sin then we can finally count ourself dead to sin. NO! When we accept Christ and His DEATH in our behalf, we, by uniting ourselves with Him, count ourselves dead to sin.

We ARE to count or consider ourselves DEAD to sin, the minute we unite our lives to Christ.
This is a major shift for many people -- from the negative, to the positive.

We are released from the bondage of sin and accounted righteous in the eyes of God. We have accepted the death of Christ to OUR sin as OUR DEATH and and now count ourselve as dead to sin.


Verse 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. means because we are dead to sin through our union with Christ, we are not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies.




6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

Freed from sin!
This is what Christ's sacrificial death has done -- FREED US FROM SIN!
Clothed us with HIS righteousness.
JUSTIFIED--

Of course the next step follows' as we died with Christ so we shall rise and live with him.
Thus this is not only applying Christ's death and its benefits to us, but equally giving us a whole new outlook on life! It's a SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION!

But how do we understand this in a more practical sense?

Going back to the beginning -- we were born into a kingdom of sin, slavery and death. We were SLAVES to sin, bound by sin.

But by uniting our lives with Christ Who took our sins and died to this realm of sin, we have been set free from sin (Romans 6:18). We have been rescued from the dominion of darkness (see Col. 1:13) Even if we were pretty good people, we lived in the kingdom of sin, or as Paul Bunyon's Pilgrim depicts it -- we lived in the "city of destruction".

When we accept Christ and join Him in baptism, we die inwardly to this sinful kingdom. Yet that death depends entirely on Christ's sacrificial death upon the cross as Christ takes upon Himself our "old man of sin" and it is nailed on the cross with Him.


Our connection to Christ and His sacrifice is so real that it carries "our old man" to the very cross of Christ in a spiritual crucifixion that kills our old selfish self and we are BORN AGAIN, raised to newness of life WITH CHRIST!


No longer members of the kingdom of sin,
BUT CITIZENS OF THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM!
Sons and daughters of God.

This is JUSTIFICATION!


Now, we walk the life of sanctification.
There will still be a struggle with sin -- but OUR WHOLE OUTLOOK HAS BEEN CHANGED. The renewing of the mind.




6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.



Now, we walk the life of sanctification.
There will still be a struggle with sin -- but OUR WHOLE OUTLOOK HAS BEEN CHANGED. The renewing of the mind.

GRACE

What was the reformation's theological basis?

Luther's great discovery as he was crawling up the steps in Rome upon his knees came as a flash -- The just shall live by faith!

Part of understanding the character of God is to understand "grace". God is gracious to the human race but for centuries the papal church kept God's grace hidden from the people. People actually physically whipped themselves and did all manner of strange things to "kill the old nature" and bring out the "new" and thus earn their justification and sanctification in Christ.

The truth needed to be brought out that
God permitted His Son, "Who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" 2 Cor. 5:21

Does the cross draw people to Christ?
Yes, of course it draws, through the Holy Spirit!

Does the cross bring to us the awareness of the awfulness of sin?
Yes, to all who truly understand what it's about it brings a keen sense of the awfulnes of sin.

It does all this, but it also does more.
When we come to the cross, drawn there by the Holy Spirit, and accept Christ's death to sin as are own death to sin, we are justified, accounted righteous. We can count ourselves as dead to sin.

That is grace! We certianly didn't deserve this! We didn't actually die. We haven't even overcome all sin. But the Bible says "reckon yourselves dead to sin".
You are justified! A new creature in Christ!

There's a world of difference between keeping the Sabbath because we know it is God that sanctifies us, then to keep it hoping that by doing so we can die to sin enough not to be consumed in sin.

There's a world of difference between shutting out evil thoughts from our mind because we know God has cleansed us and such thoughts have no business in a cleansed mind, then to fight with evil thoughts in the disparing battle of trying to "kill the old man".

Reckon therefore yourselves dead to sin and don't let sin have dominion in your mortal body. That is the Biblical admonition found in Romans 6.

i see "dying to self" more along these lines:

In his great love, Christ surrendered himself for us. He gave himself for us to meet the necessities of the striving, struggling soul. We are to surrender ourselves to him. When this surrender is entire, Christ can finish the work he began for us by the surrender of himself. Then he can bring to us complete restoration. {RH, May 30, 1907 par. 4}

Unless men possess the love of Christ, the qualifications that otherwise would be of value in God's work will be controlled by the natural selfishness of the human heart. Christ desires every man's character to be a harmonious whole. If it is not this, deformity exists. God and man must cooperate to make the character beautiful and symmetrical. {18MR 205.2}
Self must be wholly surrendered to Christ. "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." You are to surrender your ownership of self to God's ownership. {18MR 205.3}
Sanctification is a progressive work. It is a continuous work, leading human beings higher and still higher. It brings perfection. It does not leave love behind, but brings it constantly into the life as the very essence of Christlikeness. {18MR 205.4}


MR No. 1552 - A Solemn Appeal to Surrender to Christ

(Written March 3, 1858, from Green Springs, Ohio, to Mary Loughborough.)

We are now at Brother Sharp's. They have recently embraced the truth. Seem to be first-rate people. We have suffered in mind considerably since we have been here. I have felt deep agony of soul. I have looked back at a few past months, and as I realize how little I have imitated Jesus' self-sacrificing, devoted life, I am led almost to despair. As I examine the life of our Saviour, the great sacrifice He has made for us, and then be led through His sufferings and anguish, my heart melts within me. Oh, what suffering and agony [He] endured to save lost and fallen man! And this salvation is extended to us freely if we will accept it, if we will suffer with Christ, denying ourselves for His sake. {21MR 252.1}
Dear Mary, last Monday I was shown in vision some things that bear with weight upon my mind. I was led through the life of Christ to see His meek, self-denying life. This great sacrifice was to obtain for us a great salvation. And if we obtain this great salvation it must be by our making a sacrifice on our part. As Jesus sacrificed for us, we must sacrifice for Jesus. As He denied Himself for us, we must deny ourselves for Jesus. As he endured privation and suffering for us, so we must endure privation and suffering for Jesus. As He was tempted of Satan, as He was buffeted by Satan forty days then left for a season and angels ministered unto Him, so we shall be buffeted by Satan for a season; and if we resist him these seasons will be followed by grace and strength from God imparted unto us by His angels. {21MR 252.2}
As Jesus endured agony and often was in lonely prayer and in agony of spirit pleading with His Father, so we, if we are truly Christ's followers, will often feel agony of soul, and will pour out our earnest prayer to our Father. We shall groan in spirit after God. But these seasons when the soul is enshrouded in darkness will not drive the true Christian from God. I was shown that the disciples of Christ, without an exception, are not their own. Jesus has bought them with a dear sacrifice, His own blood. He claims them. Their time, their strength, are His. Their will, their mind, are subject to His will. Their will is yielded, given up. They wait and watch for the will and counsel of God to be manifested concerning them. {21MR 252.3}
I saw that the will is either submitted to Jesus for Him to govern and lead, or the person retains or sets up his or her own will, not willing to submit to Jesus against his own peculiar desires or will. Then Satan steps in and he molds this will to his own pleasure. {21MR 252.4}
Christ or Satan has the government of the will, and we are the subjects of one or the other. I was pointed to Christ. Although He was tempted of the devil forty days, yet His will was submitted to the will of His Father and He yielded not, although He was tempted stronger in every way by Satan than any of His disciples have ever been tempted. His will was not yielded to the will of the enemy for a moment. {21MR 253.1}

To have the religion of Christ means that you have absolutely surrendered your all to God, and consented to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit moral power will be given you, and not only will you have your former intrusted talents for the service of God, but their efficiency will be greatly multiplied. The surrender of all our powers to God greatly simplifies the problem of life. It weakens and cuts short a thousand struggles with the passions of the natural heart. Religion is as a golden cord that binds the souls of both youth and aged to Christ. Through it the willing and obedient are brought safely through dark and intricate paths to the city of God. {MYP 30.2}

Before the bit below..., your earlier question, here.

Our natural sinfulness alienates us from God: Christ nailed that alienation to the cross in the person of his assumed humanity, as justice requires of God to suffer his justice: Rom 3:25. Propitiation means suffering God's wrath: any atonement theory issues there belong on your own thread for that.

The mercy side of the cross, reconciling us to God, is Christ's righteous character, qualifying him as the Lamb of God: hence his blood is meritorious, is witnessed by the law (Rom 3:21). This isn't just the facts of Christ's righteousness displaying God's character: this is substitution!! - shan't attempt to patronise you by identifying who is substituted..., unless you have no humour?

Christ reconciled the world to God by tasting death for everyman, which death we experience by faith of baptism - numerous exceptions, like the thief on the cross, are famous..., and by imputing to us newness of life by his Spirit dwelling in us.

Which leads I think to your question below.


Now, your difficulty is understanding how Dedication says that we experience death to sin, or just the very words, in isolation "dying to sin is not something we do"...?

Her full statement says how we experience that death to sin & self without personally ourselves being crucified - a necessary crucifixion you implied with your question to her...! I've summed it up at the top of this post. So..., was it her whole reasoning of Christ's substitutionary death becoming ours by faith in him, or just those words of hers you quoted but didn't understand?

I'm not going to go into your addition of "need" to her statement in quoting her. We can handle that separately, as it appears you do not yet see the whole sale change it makes to her statement.

But Ellen White includes the greater part I was referring to, thus Justification is more than forgiveness:

"To be pardoned in the way that Christ pardons is not only to be forgiven, but to be renewed in the spirit of our mind. The Lord says, "A new heart will I give unto thee." The image of Christ is to be stamped upon the very mind, and heart, and soul. The apostle says, "And we have the mind of Christ."



Covered by what?

What is it that covers those sins?

It is Christ's blood.


Now, please don't go extremely literalistic, no, Christ does not have "a pot of His blood" as you mentioned earlier when countering me. But it is still the blood of Christ that is necessary to cover those sins. It is with His blood that Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary in order to "cover" our sins.

You quote
Waggoner "Christ and His Righteousness"

Waggoner does not take away the legal aspect in that quote --
For him it is not an either/or
but a fuller understanding.

The legal aspect is very much there,
and it leads into the fuller understanding.

He is saying what I've been trying to say --
It is Christ's death that clears us from sin.
Christ Who covers us with His robe of righteousness.
"It is something tangible, something that vitally affects the individual"

"It actually clears him from guilt, and if he is cleared from guilt, is justified, made righteous, he has certainly undergone a radical change."






Thus indeed it is Christ's death to our sins and sinful nature that clears us and renews us. It's not our death that we impose upon ourselves. If we struggle "trying to die" we lose, we must accept Christ's death to our sins, His cleansing, to be renewed in mind and spirit and walk in newness of life with Him.

This sounds, Teresa,...


...like you agree, with your own wording: Dedication is saying we submit to God's cleansing action when faced with evil thoughts, which is what these EGW quotes say, too, not so?

Exactly, we are to consider ourselves dead to the sinful ways, our lives hid with Christ, and surrender to God's will.

We can only consider ourselves dead with Christ, if we accept Christ's death to our old sinful nature, and arise in newness of life in Christ. Knowing we are now HIS!

We are never DEAD as far as our own powers go.
Believe that Christ's death is credited to you, you are forgiven, justified, accepted in the Beloved. And yes, think of yourselve as DEAD, but living in Christ. Thus when the old nature tugs at you, you tell that old nature -- "sorry, you are dead, I will live for Christ."

Great studies, again, Dedication: good to reiterate the points and hope Tom understands this time!...

Teresa, I see what Dedication is bringing here. That's an important emphasis that got me thinking all week.

Thanks Dedication for sharing this emphasis "that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." That hit hard with me and gaved a deeper meaning to my connection with Christ. I find this quite profound to what level Christ already took all my sin, and nailed it to the cross.

Frankly, I would like to hear some more and how it correlates with the DOA.

no, my brother. i see "works" in both instances of the way dedication stated it. maybe that wasnt how she meant it.

but in the way ellen white states it, in her various ways, i see a "Power outside of ourselves" keeping us when and if we surrender fully to God.. i see surrendering to God as dying to self. that is the battle.

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.


Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Yes, is sanctification - another element of Dedication's thread, on my behalf! - all God's work in us or do we work with God on it? I know that justification is all God's work in us, but sanctification must essentially involve us choosing to allow God to change us, and selecting what to change in us..., not so?

YES, Elle, the essence of renewal is that "our old man is crucified with Christ" before we are born again, else we are not dead to sin and in a position to be born again, daily. This truth of the cross of Christ isn't mentioned much today...

Your point about God's power working in us, and the issue of "works" you made..., brings a different, related, question to mind.

You're a "diehard" supporter of the IJ: SO AM I! Amen! How do you see us at all participating in that judgement with Jesus? Do we work with him, do we let him, alone, work on us, do we have a time limit? I like Herb Douglass book "Why Jesus Waits", on this issue, but how do you understanding it?

I ask also because "works" have their place when we obey God, don't they - so they are then not self-righteousness, not so? Sanctification has us being very busy changing into Christlikeness, doesn't it, but it turns on whether we're using God's power to do so and not our own best efforts, right?

perhaps a thread should be started on that so we dont hijack this one?

No it's not. You are once again just asserting things without producing any evidence for your statements.



Where's the evidence for this assertion?



"Obvious meaning" means "as I see things" I guess? Where is there any evidence to support your assertion here?



Why do you think this? Where's the evidence for what you are asserting?



Where's the evidence for this assertion?



Where's the evidence for this assertion?



Where's the evidence for this assertion? Is the "legal atonement" something that happens to the individual when he believes, or is it a corporate justification?

Why don't you read them and see? If you have any questions about something, why don't you do what I'm asking, and quote something I said, and we could discuss it? Until you do so, there's not much I can do except deny I said what you're claiming.

If "you" is me, this would be clearer if you said "Tom" somewhere. Why do you think this, ded? Is there some reason you refuse to quote something I've said? Is there any way that you might be persuaded to do so?

She already addressed this Colin. She said something, and I asked a question about it. She explained her meaning, and I asked for further clarification. She explained further, and that was the end of it, except for you (and perhaps some extent she) thinking that I was attacking her, or attacking the fundamental beliefs of the church or Christianity, or I don't know what all.

I asked a question (this is not an attack!), and then made a comment (also not an attack) which could have been avoided, in my opinion, by her having been more accurate in her writing. That's my opinion. Perhaps I was at fault for not reading her better. What does it matter? I asked a question, she answered. I made a comment, and she responded. This is just normal discussion. I don't understand what you're making a bit deal about, and really don't understand where these baseless accusations about me "trashing" the teachings of the church come from, nor the idea that I'm denying Christ's death to sin for us. I made no comment on that.

What I asked about was this comment:



So I asked her about this, and made a comment, and that's all I said about this.



You're right. I don't see much difference between "dying to sin is not something we do" and "dying to sin is not something we need to do." I certainly don't see how one could think this changes completely her whole point. If it's not something we do,(what she said) it's certainly not something we need to do(my restatement, with the word "need to" inserted).

Anyway, I already commented on this. If you wish to discuss this further, please go back to my previous comment, quote it, and then make your comments.

here is a site that has the different atonement theories. how accurate it is i dont know, but it might give us an idea what they are and help us get on the same page and know what each other is talking about.

http://newprotestants.com/ATONHIST1.htm
two of them below:

Satisfaction Theory 1100

This theory was first produced in a clear coherent manner by Anselm in his treatise, Cur Deus Homo, which translated means Why a Godman? Anselm finds no reason in justice why God was under any obligation to Satan. Anselm maintains that Christ’s Atonement concerns God and not the devil. Man by his sin has violated the honor of God and defiled His handiwork. It is not consistent with the Divine self-respect that He should permit His purpose to be thwarted. Yet this purpose requires the fulfillment by man of the perfect law of God, which by sin man has transgressed. For this transgression, repentance is no remedy. Since penitence, however sincere, cannot atone for the guilt of past sin. Nor can any finite substitute, whether man or angel make reparation. Sin being against the infinite God, is infinitely guilty, and can be atoned for only by an infinite satisfaction. Thus either man must be punished and God’s purpose fail or else man must make an infinite satisfaction, which is impossible. There is only one way of escape, and that is that someone should be found who can unite in his own person the attributes both of humanity and of infinity. This is brought about by the incarnation of Christ. In Christ we have one who is very man, and can therefore make satisfaction to God on behalf of humanity, but who is at the same time very God, and whose person therefore gives infinite worth to the satisfaction which He makes. Christ death which is voluntarily given when it is not due since He was without sin, is the infinite satisfaction which secures the salvation of man.

Substitution Theory 1500’s (AKA Penal Theory)

The Protestant view held many of Anselm's presuppositions regarding Christ’s Atonement. However it was modified in one very substantial way. The central position of the Atonement was interpreted not as satisfaction, but as punishment, and hence given a substitutionary significance. The infinite guilt of man’s sin which has so utterly alienated mankind from the Kingdom of Heaven that none but a person reaching to God can be the medium of restoring peace. Such an efficient mediator is found in Christ alone. Through whose atoning death the price of man’s forgiveness is paid and a way of salvation made open. Calvin considers the Atonement not as a meritorious satisfaction accepted as a substitute for punishment, but as the vicarious endurance by Christ of that punishment itself. Calvin denies that God was ever hostile to Christ or angry with Him, yet in His Divine providence He suffered His Son to go through the experience of those against whom God is thus hostile. In His own consciousness, Christ bore the weight of the Divine anger, was smitten and afflicted, and experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God.

The Penal Theory was severally criticized by the Socinians, who attacked the entire concept of substitutionary punishment. They held that punishment and forgiveness are inconsistent ideas. If a man is punished he cannot be forgiven, and vice versa. Under the theory of distributive justice, punishment, being a matter of the relation between individual guilt and its consequences, is strictly untransferable. The Socinians held to the Moral Influence Theory as mentioned by the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the second century church.

Ok, so you're saying (or would agree) with the following?:

a.Justification and pardon are one and the same.
b.Pardon is more than forgiveness.
c.Therefore justification is more than forgiveness.



Which means what?



Which means what?



Which means what? You just keep repeating a phrase which you admit should not be taken literally, without explaining what you mean by the phrase. That doesn't communicate anything.



I've said all along that I agree with what Waggoner wrote. So if you are in agreement with him, then we're all in agreement.

The specific idea that I disagree with is the idea that the inability to pardon sin is on God's part, and that God's inability to do this is fixed by Christ's death. I see that that Christ's death is the necessity for Christ's death is 100% on our account, and 0% on God's account. If you can find something in Waggoner's writings which disagrees with this concept, I'd certainly like to see it, because I've never read anything where he presents an idea like this.

To me, everything falls logically from the premise that death is the result of sin. Once we accept this premise, then we see that God as doing all that He can to rescue us from sin, and reconcile us to Himself, where we are safe.

On the other hand, if we see death as an arbitrary punishment, a not the direct result of sin, then penal substitution makes sense. Everything I've read in Waggoner indicates that he saw things as I do, that death is the result of sin, and that Christ saves us by rescuing us from sin. Again, I'm not aware of a single statement of Waggoner's communicating the idea that God needed the sacrifice of Christ in order to be able to pardon. He said the following:



It seems obvious to me that Waggoner here is agreeing with my point of view here (or, I should say, I'm agreeing with his.)

If you make baseless assertions, I suppose I am difficult, because I'll keep asking for evidence and quotes.



You just keep doing over and over and over again the very thing I'm asking you not to do, which is to make accusations with no evidence. Where I have challeneged the whole concept of the subsituationary death of Christ?

I've affirmed several times that I agree with the substitutionary death of Christ. I quoted Fundamental Belief #9, which affirms this, and said I agree with it. I quoted the following from "The Desire of Ages."



I don't understand why you think it's OK to assert I'm saying things that are the exact opposite of what I myself am asserting. Can you please explain that to me?

I also don't understand why, when I keep asking you not to make baseless accusations, but to actually quote things that I've said, that you continue to do the very thing I'm asking you not to do. Don't you think asking someone to provide evidence for what they are asserting is reasonable? Would you like it if I did to you what you're doing to me?

i have come to understand ellen white to use "forgive", in these cases, the same as cleanse.

In Scripture, "forgiveness" has the idea of bearing away. The concept appears here in the SOP:

A long post --
To meet Tom's demands why I believe he denies the substitutionary death and blood of Christ.

My earlier posts explained:

Upon Christ as our substitute and surety was laid the iniquity of us all. He was counted a transgressor, that He might redeem us from the condemnation of the law.
The law -- God's moral law -- demands the death of the transgressor.
Without the shed blood of Christ, the law is only an instrument declaring that we deserve death, for we have transgressed that law.

Jesus' blood is the central theme of the entire Word of God, from the blood of Abel's slain lamb to the blood of the Lamb (Jesus) in Revelation 7:14. Hebrews 9:22 declares that there is NO remission of sins without the shedding of Christ's blood. The blood of Jesus is the ONLY way for our sins to be forgiven...
"When we accept Christ and join Him in baptism, we die inwardly to this sinful kingdom. Yet that death depends entirely on Christ's sacrificial death upon the cross as Christ takes upon Himself our "old man of sin" and it is nailed on the cross with Him.

Our connection to Christ and His sacrifice is so real that it carries "our old man" to the very cross of Christ in a spiritual crucifixion that kills our old selfish self and we are BORN AGAIN, raised to newness of life WITH CHRIST!
Let's look at a text from 1 Peter 2:24 [Christ] Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

What does all this mean?

Christ took OUR SIN, OUR SINFUL NATURE, upon Himself, upon His sinless nature, and died. What does that mean to us?
Brothers and sisters - it means because HE died to our sin, we died to sin. Therefore it is apparent that our dying to sin is not something we do, but something Christ has done, and is something that is accounted to all who are united with Him!

6:11 Likewise reckon (or account) ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We are indeed to reckon-- consider -- ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ.”

"We being enemies"
this shows the rebellious nature of sin, and
echoes Paul's former phrase. "while we were yet sinners"
Our natural enmity toward God's law and righteousness, our sin, our ungodliness placed us in a position where we deserved nothing but wrath -- God owed us nothing.
But Christ taking our sins upon Himself, and dying in our place changed our status.



God didn’t need reconciliation as in CHANGING His status He loved mankind.
But without the cross we were lost, out of favor with God, deserving only death.
His “loving us” is not the same as us “being in favor” or “being justified”.
He had to do something in the legal sense to effect the legal justification.

By constantly lifting this portion out of it's context gave it the wrong meaning.

But --
Are you dead to sin?
If we must wait till there is absolutely no pull of sin in our lives before we can "reckon ourselves dead to sin" we will drown in the mire of despondancy of Romans 7.

Obviously you are having trouble understanding the substitutionary death of Christ that enables us to “reckon or count ourselves as dead to sin” and as cleansed and justified and renewed to live a new life in Christ. Reread the first part as see HOW it is we die to sin – for yes, we die to sin THROUGH Christ.


See, you are simply NOT reading what I wrote, yet you complain that I misunderstand you???

What kind of answer was that – definitely not agreeing that Christ took the penalty for our sins and died in our place. It’s greatly muddying the waters with evasion on what “substituting death” means.

Because you don’t see Christ’s death to our sins as our death to sin which enables us to be alive in Christ, you don’t see the two points Colin made.
1. Justification for our sin (as in taking our penalty for sin—the legal aspect)
2. Justification to our sin (as in dying our death TO sin, which is the cleansing and renewal we experience in Him by faith and allows us to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ to live for Him)

Still no acknowledgement that Christ took our sins, our sinful human nature upon His sinless nature and died in our place, taking our punishment that we might be freed from the penalty of death, which no amount of following the law could save us from.
The Ty Gibson quote (which I won’t reproduce here) does say Christ is our substitute but only in that he suffered the results of sin, -- (i.e sin naturally leads to death) not the penalty of sin. Which again, in my understanding places even the “substitution” concept into the realm of “a demonstration” rather than an actual taking our penalty so His blood could cover our sins.

This is a clear denial that Christ’s blood is needed to cover our sins.
Christ was delivered for OUR TRANSGRESSIONS. They are not called merely sins, but transgressions. This puts it into the "legal" realm -- we transgress against God's law -- a law that demands death if transgressed. Transgression cannot be forgiven without setting aside the law.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:
All sins forgiven prior to the cross rested totally upon the promise of Christ's sacrificial death in the future.
Then came several posts in which Tom tried to demonstrate that Lucifer, if he repented and submitted to God, won’t need any atonement made for him but would merely be “forgiven”. I pointed out that was building an argument on silence.
And that is another assumption. The sacrificial system clearly portrayed the need of a perfect substitute to take the sins and be killed. I quoted several texts to show this.
I didn’t say they did. I said the sacrificial system clearly portrayed the need of a perfect substitute to take the sins of the sinner and be killed.
Also your constant referral to Anselm is doing what you get very upset about when people do to you. Why should I show anything as Anselm understood it?

God’s wrath against sin does need to be understood. But as I said earlier, His wrath is not like human wrath – yet people who disagree with the substitutional death of Christ (as in taking our sins and suffering the punishment -- not just natural results) tend to attribute HUMAN type of wrath to God and then dismiss it as not warranted.

one of the problems is our ignorance of just how the penal-substitute view is seen by churches that believe in an eternally burning hell. to some degree, depending on the person, it is also in the adventist church. i know because ive heard them talk about it. at one time i also saw God as a pretty hateful Person, just waiting to punish for whatever reason.



when we really understand this, that people do see God as angry with them, that people feel far from God, then we can understand better the writings of some of our brethern that we are now finding issue with.

I didn't say it was not to be taken literally, I said don't go to extreme literal interpretations.

Christ's blood covers our sins. It is the blood of Christ that stands between the wrath against sin and the contrite sinner.

What? I don't understand you.

You said that dying to sin is not something we do. The SOP says:



So dying to sin is something we do.

We've been through all this.

I think you said basically you weren't denying this (what the SOP says above, that we must die to sin), that you were talking about something else. I dropped this a long time ago. I don't know why it keeps coming back up.

If you wish to insist that dying to sin is not something that we do, I'll disagree with that, as clearly it is something we do. If you explain that you weren't talking about this in the sense that the SOP is here is this quote, then fine, that ends the discussion of this issue.

Colin was taking me to task because I inserted the words "need to" in quoting you, a slip on my part, but one which I don't see that changes anything an iota. If you wish to assert that dying to sin is not something we do, or dying to sin is not something we need to do, I'll disagree to both these statements, and for the same reason. It is both something we do, and something we need to do.

Now it should be obvious that my asserting this is not denying Christ's substitutionary death, as Ellen White asserts the same thing.

I'm not understanding the difficulty here.



Did you notice the underlined part? You see that all along I have been affirming Christ's substitutionary death. You've going to have a real hard time "proving" I don't believe in something I believe in, and which I've been asserting all along.

Regarding what kind of question it is, there were some things I had questions about, which I pointed out, and which questions were not addressed. Asking questions about something that is not understood shouldn't be twisted into making some sort of pronouncement. If you'll look at what I said, it was that certain things didn't make sense to me.



I don't think you understand Colin's position on this, and if you did, I don't think you would agree with it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Ask him to explain how he understands Romans 5:12-18, and see if you agree. Let's settle this first before you start taking me to task for questioning something you don't even agree with.

If I'm wrong about this, I'll be the first to admit it. Even so, this is in no way me denying Christ's substitutionary death, but is me simply trying to clarify a sentence by Colin that didn't make sense to me.

It seems like you're trying to be a mind-reader. Trying to guess why I'm asking questions is no way to prove a point.

If you want to demonstrate that I don't believe in the substitutionary death of Christ, find some direct statement I've written saying that. So far all you've presented is me asking clarifying questions regarding statements that I wasn't understanding.



You're trying to show I don't believe in the substitutionary death of Christ. To do so, you need to show some statement I made to that effect. The fact that I didn't say something doesn't demonstrate anything. I could just as easily claim you believe the moon is made of green cheese because you didn't say it wasn't.

I've said a couple of times now that I agree completely with Fundamental Belief #9, which I quoted. Is this not sufficient?



Nothing of what you're saying in the least bit demonstrates that I don't believe in the substitutionary death of Christ. I've asserted I do, I've quoted Fundamental Beliefs #9, which speaks to the subsitutionary death of Christ, and said I agree with it, and I've quoted from "The Desire of Ages" which speaks to this theme, and said I agree with that too. I don't understand why you don't think this is sufficient.



This has me completely baffled. It is in no way a denial that Christ's blood is needed to cover our sins. The only way you could jump to a conclusion like this is to make the assumption that "Christ blood is needed to cover our sins" means "God needs blood to be able to pardon." But the fact that you make such an assumption does not mean *I'm* making that assumption. The fact that the phrase "Christ blood is need to cover our sins" means something specific to you does not mean it must mean that thing for every other person on Planet Earth. It certainly doesn't mean that to me.

That I disagree with you as to the meaning of a phrase doesn't mean I disagree with the phrase. If you wish to assert, "This is a clear denial of what Dedication understands 'Christ's blood is needed to cover our sins,' to mean " I could be convinced of that, but what you're asserting, as I understand that phrase, is 100% false.

I believe, absolutely, that Christ's blood is needed to cover our sins. If you will recall, *Colin* claimed it was unBiblical to assert that Christ (or Christ's blood, I don't remember the exact wording) is an atonement for sin. I was arguing against Colin on this point, and quoted the SOP to support my position that "atonement for sin" was Biblical, and pointed out that Fundamental Beliefs #5 uses the same language.

I've also suggested "covering" as the meaning for the word "hilasmos" in 1 John 2:2.

So, to be clear, I believe that Christ's blood is needed to cover our sins, and, far from denying this, I affirm it.

Regarding your understanding of Galatians 3:13, I think you're off base. I agree with Waggoner's interpretation. In reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, it appears, on a quick reading, that I agree with him as well. Actually, what Luther wrote on this (Gal. 3:13) seems very similar to what Waggoner wrote.

What Waggoner wrote can be seen here: http://www.crcbermuda.com/bible/righteou...sing-of-abraham



First of all, this isn't the point I was disputing. The point I'm disputing is the idea that the sacrifice was necessary in order for God to be able to pardon sin.

Secondly, it's not an assumption. It's historical fact. This is what scholars have ascertained who have studied Paul's time and culture (see, for example, "In Search of Paul"). If you wish to dispute this historical finding, you can do so by producing some statement by someone in some culture at the time of Paul who has the understanding of sacrifice that it was necessary in order for God to be able to pardon. Quoting scripture and reading into it your own understanding of sacrifice doesn't count. Any contemporary statement (contemporary to Paul) by a Jew, or anyone else in the world, will do, however.



Because this is the point of disagreement! What I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that God cannot pardon sin without a sacrifice. Anselm developed this idea. That this is the case can be seen in the fact that the Eastern Orthodox church does not have this point of view. They don't have this point of view because they split from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm developed it.

They (the Eastern Orthodox church) have argued this point for centuries. They argue that if if the church fathers had had this understanding regarding the death of Christ, that they would have had it too. But they don't have it because it was developed by Anselm.



This is another example of an accusation with no evidence. Actually, there's two accusations here with no evidence. First of all, you speak of those who "disagree with the substitutional death of Christ." Please provide some evidence that that those you are referring to actually disagree with what you're claiming to disagree.

Secondly you claim these people tend to attribute human type of wrath to God, and then dismiss it. Please provide some evidence that this is the case.


In your whole entire post there is not one shred of evidence that I deny the substitutionary death and blood of Christ. Indeed, you presented evidence that I *don't* deny it by quoting me affirming I believe it.

So, once again, please stop making this accusation.

Either a thing is literal or it's not. "Literal" means "adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression."

I take it you disagree with the idea that Christ's blood literally covers our sins.



Which means what? Since you don't mean this literally, an explanation should be provided. I keep asking for one, but you just keep repeating the same thing with no explanation.



Which means what? This statement makes no more sense taken literally than the others you've been asserting.

Please say something which has meaning that doesn't have to be divined.

I agree that grave misunderstandings are in popular circulation. Especially the doctrine of eternal hell is a devilish slander against God.

I also agree that this picture of God just waiting to condemn is totally wrong -- He is long-suffering and patient "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 All heaven is interested in our salvation.

But too often we, in our humanness, tend to swing too far the other way when combating error.

God is just, and fair,
This is seen in who is actually to be our judge?

John 5:22 For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:
5:27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus goes on to explain that He and the Father are in perfect agreement on this judgment. and He states, " my judgment is just;" 5:30

So the "Lamb that was slain" and Who is declared "worthy" to take the scroll because He was slain and redeemed us to God by His blood in Rev. 5, is also the One to execute judgment.

Romans 14:10 we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

The same one Who died to save mankind, will execute judgment.

It's true that misconcepts have caused a lot of people to think that justice and love are opposites, but God's love perfectly combines justice and love.

Tom, I'm going to refrain from discussing anything with you.
It is totally counterproductive.

All you did above was reiterate what you said before. Which to me is denying what you say you don't deny by changing the meaning of the terms, then saying you believe them, even though in the next key stroke you deny them, but still maintain you believe them.

Sure you say you believe "in the substitutionary death" but your comments show you don't really. If you did you won't be making such strange remarks like "Jesus with a pot of blood" which to me is a mockery of Christ's substitutionary death and the blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins.

If you really believed in the substitutional death of Christ you would understand what Romans 6 has to say about Christ dying to sin for us that we might reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ. But no...



While being extremely demanding for your own honor, you continually misrepresent what I was trying to share. While demanding that you not be linked with any "theory" etc. you continually accuse me of following some Anselm or hellenistic thought. Then turn around and say Paul didn't mean what he said because some historians said such and such. And then ask questions that don't even make sense, because you won't accept Christ's substitutionary death and blood that was shed to cover our sins so we won't have to die because of them. Telling me the mere concept is "not communicating" anything. And then turn around and insist you do believe when everything you said before shows you don't.





Anyway -- I won't address you again.
The Bible tells us not to get involved with this type of contention. It does not edify anyone.

I started this thread hoping for a meaningful discussion on justification and how we can live a victorious Christian life in Christ by grace, but that was not to be.

if i can be tolerated to play "mediator" here, por please. i believe dedications point is that "accusing" her of following anselm, i dont remember exactly how you stated it, is the same as the accusations she is throwing at you.

it does rather throw one off guard who doesnt know what anselm taught, not to mention doesnt even know who he was. you have given tiny bits of pieces here and there about this issue but it really doesnt help because you are the one with all the pieces, if that makes sense.

i get that you are rather well studied in these different atonement theories and persons involving them. i dont mind admitting im completely ignorant in this area and am definitely not on a level playing field here with you.

so, perhaps some history about this particular theory and when it came to be? or pointed in a direction that spells it out....well i dont know how this particular problem could be worked out but hopefully that it is a problem will be recognized.

Yes, Elle, it's a beautiful truth!
That's what I wanted to share.
It's an integral part of justification and the springboard for a life of sanctification.

I would love to discuss it more fully, but feel it's impossible here.

Thanks! God bless.

Of all places, here should be the place to be able to share these beautiful truths which would help each other grow. But I know what you mean. It's so very sad that it is hard and quite impossible to progress.

Tom, unless you respond to this post of mine with some semblance of understanding it, I shan't be speaking with you on this thread anymore, either.



Nevermind that she wasn't quoting Ellen White for support, such support as you find you can't live without, and that she was simply commenting on her own Bible study, after spending time reading her own Bible, the clause of hers that you pulled out and queried has the answer to your confusion in its very own sentence.

Her point that confused you is so obvious a point, and is understood using common sense in understanding the English language in ordinary usage, that your "problem" with it automatically raises questions of how you understand Christ's substitutionary death for us, if you don't discard - but you don't discard it - "substitution" completely. Thus, that you pick out that clause, and questioned repeatedly also its sentence, raised eye brows for Dedication and me.

Your understanding of substitution of Christ for us differs with us and the church on the penal judgement of sin issue, doesn't it? That fundamental belief on atonement, substitution, and salvation you quoted isn't accurate enough, being the voted statement - the detail is in the chapter that goes with it! You tried to get away with quoting the flexibly interpretable voted statement, while you disagree fundamentally with the chapter itself! That we each have problems with some detail in some chapters, if not select voted statements too - like the trinity, is well known to some who come here frequently, but you haven't disclosed your disagreement with penal substitution here, and that's wrong for this discussion.





I won't waste space here on the bits about the ransom Christ paid in God's judgement on sin, and his purchase of the church with his own blood: don't think you agree with the ransom, but you may agree with the purchase; either way, that belongs on your atonement thread, and not here.

The penal substitution of Christ for us in the judgement by God due us, is covered very well in the legal matters raised in these EGW quotes Dedication was kind enough to provide.

Before I leave you with these EGW quotes, I hope I've made clear, for you and Dedication, that I know you believe Christ died for you, but not that he suffered the penalty of sin for you, since you don't believe there is a penalty for sin - just its natural end. To the best of my knowledge, this makes you a theological friend of the SDA church, since Adventism supports, with EGW, penal substitution, despite "The Great Controversy".

Oh, yes, also: you agree then that our old man is crucified with Christ, so we can and do reckon and experience by faith our death to sin in Christ's death? How did you miss this point in what Dedication has posted in her Bible study, such that you found it difficult to understand?.....This does return to the question at the top of this post, but it's where your difference with the SDA soteriology, specifically atonement, first surfaced, and is now in full colour.

Ellen White, here, makes very clear the legal requirement for Christ's death, so that God could forgive his wayward childred. Since you don't like Jesus being separated from his Father at Calvary, she also writes that "the powers of heaven were sundered" by and at the cross: I just thought I'd throw at in as we may not be discussing this here anymore, depending...

Hang on, ladies! I believe it's soon going to be possible...

I believe that if we are in a discussion forum and think that nobody will/should disagree with us, we are in the wrong place. If, after discussing a point, you can't agree with the other person, agree to disagree on that point and go ahead!
I also think it's always a good idea to quote what the other person has actually said.

This whole thread you've been making baseless accusations against me, and others. I've repeatedly begged you, over and over again, to quote things I've said, and base your comments on that, but you refuse to do so, instead just repeating the same falsehoods.

I quoted the following from Fundamental Beliefs #9.



I've affirmed that I agree with this several times. Not only do I agree with this, I think it's well written.

I've quoted the following from the SOP several times:



I agree with this, and believe it is well written as well. It seems to me to express the concept of Christ's sustitutionary death in a way that even a child could understand.

I also started a thread on "Christus Victor" which discusses the same theme.

It seems to me you are being exceedingly unfair. I claim to believe in the substitutionary death of Christ, but you claim I "don't really." Why? Because I disagree with you.

There are millions of Christians who also don't see the substitutionary death of Christ as you do, and your comments would cast them all aside as "not really" believing in the substitutionary death of Christ, despite their claims that they do. This is the same sort of thing that certain groups do against us as Seventh-day Adventists in saying that we claim to be Christians, but we "aren't really."



What I said before is that I believe that in Christ's subsitutionary death. Why should I need to do anything more than this? If I make an accusation against you that you don't believe that Christ is divine, for example, and you say you do, shouldn't I produce some evidence based on what you wrote that you don't? Isn't a sufficient defense for you to simply reiterate that you believe that Christ is divine? Wouldn't quoting a Fundamental Belief and quoting from the SOP be sufficient?



This isn't true at all. I said I believe in Christ's substitutionary death. I take it you'll grant that we understand the terms "Christ's" and "death" the same, so the only term that could be in question is "substitutionary." Clear what this means is that Christ died instead of us. As the SOP put it, "He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His." I believe this is true, and, in believing this, I believe in the substitutionary death of Christ, and I'm doing so without changing the meaning of any terms.

If you take a dictionary, and look up the meanings of each of the words "Christ's substitutionary death," I agree with each word, according to their normal usage, and according to their dictionary definition.

In fact, Tom, you agree with the definition of the words like I agree with some statements of Prescott's sermon. You agree with the form, but not with the idea behind it. It's to this that Dedication is referring.

Colin, you have been misrepresenting my position, and consistently refusing to quote directly things I've said, despite my repeated requests that you do so. You haven't responded to posts 113803, 113804 or 113805. I've responded to every one of your posts. Every time I do so I quote you word for word.

Now, in addition to misrepresenting my position, and refusing to quote me directly, and not responding to my posts, you throw an ultimatum at me as if I were the one who has been acting poorly here. Nevertheless, I will gladly respond to your ultimatum, as I would like to continue our discussions. While there are things we disagree on, your questions and comments I find very helpful in trying to understand things better, and hopefully you will see the light in direct quotations so that so much time wouldn't be wasted in my denying things you're wrongly claiming that I said.



Boy this is a long sentence. Let's split it up.



From this it appears that you are complaining that of my use of the SOP to discuss the issues we are dealing with. I don't know why you think this is a good thing to do. However, if you wish to start a thread where no SOP is used, I'll be happy to join in. I can establish the positions I believe in from Scripture.

However, it's a common thing to quote from the Spirit of Prophecy on this forum, so I did so. I don't know why you would single me out on this. There are certainly people in this forum who quote from the Spirit of Prophecy more than I do.

You'll also notice that, in addition to the Spirit of Prophecy, I've quoted from a whole host of other resources as well, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, and scholars, in addition to other SDA's who were contemporaries of Ellen White. I quote from these sources both to clarify the points I'm making and to support them, as, for example, when discussing the meaning of a word or what the historic position of something was.

This backhand comment of yours in reference to the SOP seems out of place. What do you think? Was it a good comment?



If so, an adequate response would simply be to quote the sentence and point that out. If I was in error on this, so be it. I think Teresa would be a judge of this. If she says I was obtuse, I'll live with that.

I've tried on a number of occasions to drop this. I don't know why it keeps being brought up. Dedication wrote something, which I asked a question on. She responded, and I made a further comment of clarification, and said no more. I didn't attack her position or her Bible Study, but limited my comments to one single point, that point being that dying to sin is not something we do (or need to do, in my first comment). I think both you and she went way overboard in responding to this.

Again, if I was obtuse in my reading of what Dedication wrote, I'll let Theresa be the judge, and apologize if that was the case.



This seems like an odd conclusion to jump to. Why not simply conclude that I missed something that was obvious? That sort of thing happens all the time. People misread things. Why not assume I did that?



This is a cleverly phrased question. You are grouping "us" altogether as if you all believed the same thing, you being Dedication, the church, and yourself. But you don't. In particularly, *your* own beliefs are different from the church's, and different from Dedication's in two significant ways.

First of all, your understanding of Romans 5:12-18, which virtually all Bible scholars recognize as being one of the two key passages in regards to this topic (the other being Romans 3:21-26) is, it seems very likely to me, very different than D's. I would assume you would agree that the corporate aspect of justification is vital to the understanding of righteousness by faith and the atonement. So if you disagree on this vital area, you can hardly fairly group yourselves together, pitted against me. The irony is that my position on this subject is (likely) much closer to yours than yours is to D's.

I can't be 100% sure on this as D has not written at length on this subject, but I have gleaned this from certain of her responses. If I'm wrong on this, I would be delighted, but I believe if she wrote out her understanding of Romans 5:12-18, what you and I believe would be much closer than what you and she believe.

Secondly, your view of Christ is different. You don't see Christ as being fully God the way that Dedication and I do, and according to the official position of the church. Furthermore many would argue (and I'm guessing Dedication would as well) that if one does not hold to the idea that Christ is fully God (including His eternal pre-existence) that one is bound to reach wrong conclusions in regards to the atonement.

So you and she agree in regards to the aspects of the atonement Anselm and Calvin brought to the forefront (i.e. satisfaction and penal), you and I agree in regards to the corporate aspect of the atonement, and she and I agree in terms of Christ's needing to be fully God in order for the atonement to be effected. So we have a bit of a triangle here, with your position (specifically in regards to Christ's divinity) being the strongest outlier. There are many who work in our denomination as fully credentialed ministers who hold the views on the atonement that I hold. The same cannot be said regarding your positions.

I wouldn't bring this up at all if you didn't, as what the church organization does or does not do doesn't change truth, (which you yourself much recognize, or you wouldn't hold the positions on Christ's pre-existence that you do) but you keep bringing this up, which seems very odd, given that your positions are so out of step with the church's official position.

Finally, in regards to your assertion that my position differs with the penal judgment of sin issue of the church, the only official statement I'm aware of that the church has is Fundamental Belief #9, and I'm in agreement with that. Again, there are many fully credentialed ministers who hold the same view of the atonement that I hold.



I've been arguing all along that I disagree with penal substitution. To assert I haven't disclosed this is ridiculous. I've been arguing against the concept the whole time.

An important point in this discussion to note is that it is not necessary to believe in penal substitution to believe in Christ's substitutionary death, and, indeed, there are millions of Christians who, along with me, do this very thing.

Regarding my statement that I believe with the official position of the church, what I did was to go to the official church website, and look at the fundamental beliefs statement, and see if I agreed with that. I do. Wasn't this the appropriate thing to do?



Ok, then I won't waste space by commenting that I started a topic on "Christus Victor" which explains views with which I agree on these things.



Do you want me to comment on these?



This is wrong. I do believe there is a penalty for sin, and that the penalty is death. I believe that Christ, in dying for me, suffered the penalty for sin so that I need not. Once again, I believe that my understanding on this question is the same as Waggoner's, who was strongly endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy regarding righteousness by faith. As far as I'm aware, my understanding and beliefs regarding righteousness by faith, including this specific question as to what the penalty for sin is, and Christ's suffering that penalty, are the same as his.



I don't exactly what you mean by this. Also you don't provide any evidence for your claim, which, unfortunately, is all to frequent on this forum. When no evidence is provided, there is no evidence to respond to. The conversation becomes reduced to "Did so!" "Did not!" because there is nothing else to say.

So if you wish for some sort of response upon which we can have a dialog, please present some evidence for your contention. Baring that, I will once again affirm that there are many fully credentialed ministers who hold the position of the atonement that I hold, and I agree with the official position of the church on this question.



What does this mean? Please state the meaning in non-theological jargon, but simple language that anyone can understand.



I don't understand what you're saying here.



I think she is misunderstood on this point, and as evidence of this I point to her statements regarding God's pardoning Lucifer. If she understood the issues the way you do, she could not have treated Lucifer's fall the way she did. The legal issues would have been as valid for him as they are for man. In the chapter "It Is Finished" she explains the difference between Lucifer's situation and ours:



Given your understanding of things, it seems to me that what she wrote here, and in the fall of Lucifer, doesn't fit. Hence I don't think she saw things the way you do.

Furthermore she strongly endorsed Waggoner's teachings on righteousness by faith. I don't see how she could do this either if she understood things the way you do, because Waggoner's explanation of things is very different from yours.

It is my opinion that I see things similarly to how Waggoner did, and she did as well.

I could agree with this if she were quoting someone's use of these terms. For example, if she quoted from some known advocate of penal substitution, and I took that phrase in the context of a sermon the person gave, then we would have a similar situation (to you and Prescott) and your point would be well taken. But without this context, the phrase "Christ's substitutionary death" is understood in different ways. As I've pointed out out, there are literally millions of Christians who do not understand this phrase according to the penal substitution idea, yet they affirm Christ's substitutionary death.

Regarding Fundamental Beliefs #9, it uses the word "expiatory" which is frequently, if not routinely, understood as not being penal.

What of the excerpts from the chapter on salvation that I quoted? It's very easy to put various meanings into the key words of the official belief statements, giving it another meaning than the detail which is in the chapter. What of the detail I drew from chapter 9 of the fundamental beliefs?

Yes, indeed! Thanks for that point, Rosangela.

As I pointed out in my response to Rosangela, her point doesn't apply in my case, because there is no context for D's phrase "Christ's substitutionary death" as there is in the case for Prescott's sermon. If Dedication meant by saying that I don't really believe in Christ's substitutionary death that I don't knew really believe in what she means by it, I would agree, and, similarly, had I been quoting from a sermon by someone who is avowed proponent of penal substitution, I would agree with the point that I would be as out of line in doing so as Rosagela was in claiming to agree with Prescott's sermon.

But I didn't do this.

I don't know of anyone who doesn't affirm Christ's substitutionary death. I'm sure there are people like this, I just don't know of any (within SDAism, I speaking of).

Again, I hasten to point out, that it's not necessary to believe in penal substitution to believe in Christ's substitutionary point. The author of the Christus Victor article also affirms his belief in Christ's substitutionary death.

The principle here is really simple. To affirm Christ's substitutionary death means simply that Christ died in my place. Or, to say it another way, had Christ not suffered my death, I would have had to.

I believe this 100%. Therefore I believe in Christ's substitutionary death.

i dont believe i would be considered an impartial judge, here.



i had already responded to this before it was deleted,#113830.

Which post?



Which post? I can't see where you did this.

Regardless, what's in the chapter is not a part of our official beliefs. The fundamental beliefs statements represent the official position of the church.

Here's an explanation as to why this is important, in a manner I think you'll agree with. Consider the fundamental belief on the nature of Christ.



Now it could be that the author of this FB is prelapsarian (I'm not saying he is; this is just for illustration purposes) and his explanation of the chapter in the book might have a prelapsarian flavor to it. That doesn't mean that postlapsarianism is the official position of the church. The statement of belief is purposely vague, allowing for both postlapsarian and prelapsarian interpretations (since prelapsarianism has entered our church).

Similarly there are different positions regarding the atonement. As I've repeatedly pointed out, there are many credentialed ministers who share the view of the atonement that I hold. If there were an official church position to which these were contrary, they wouldn't be allowed to present their positions from the pulpit.

No, Tom, no need for sermon scripts for Rosangela to be right! Just the words and meanings of Dedication's Bible study, here!! It isn't news to you that your separate thread on atonement expresses a meaning of substitution quite different to the meaning presented by Dedication on her thread here, is it?! I think it's news to her.

"Expiation" is in the voted statement and is indeed confusing without an accurate definition. The chapter itself notes all three words used in English Bibles: "atonement", "propitiation", "expiation". I think only the Handbook of SDA Theology actually attempts to try to sort them out - expiation and propitiation, but am not sure even that book fully succeeds.

Essentially - for Bible study, God's holy wrath against sin is in one word but not in the other. Also, both were viewed in Bible times as man appeasing his gods with bigger and bigger sacrifices, especially children - to the distate of many. Rom 3:25 says that God appeased his own wrath against sin by the sacrifice of his own Son - whom he raised up again from the dead, too!!! That would have rocked the known world! - if anyone was open to God's truth...Nowadays it's proportionally huge material sacrifices we compare God's gift to.

There's nothing in your reply to me today that I could take as an answer to any of my questions, but I'll be polite and put down a few comments here.

My comment about SOP was that you weren't letting Dedication operate without it or without reference to it. This thread is a matter of Bible study, at her discretion, and you didn't notice that.

We keep returning to your difficulty with her sentence, because that sentence pervades her study. She didn't think you could possibly miss her point, so your "difficulty" understanding her, set off alarm bells. This issue can hopefully now be sorted out and clarified on the atonement thread you've started. Her study here is how we experience living faith, not the nature of the atonement.

The study here is Rom 3,6,7 I think, not Rom 5. Differences in other areas, Tom, are of course for another thread: your position on Rom 6:4 is not well spelled out, to my recollection.

Remember this? It expresses Rom 6:4.


Oh dear! You're not familiar with this concept? You still having difficulty with this truth...Remember the Apostle Paul's mention of our "old man", our sinful nature, and that "we" are crucified in Christ's humanity? By faith we participate in that crucifixion..., remember? Christ's cross is where and how we die to sin, since he died for us, for sin and to sin, culminating a lifetime of obedience in rejection of sinfulness, which he'd assumed to be made flesh.

That's the only way to switch our minds from sin to agape, by our own choice and God's Spirit. Rom 4:25 says that justification follows dying for & to sin: they are separate worlds, sin and righteousness, and they are separated by spiritual death of the sinful nature by baptism into Christ's death, and the rest of what's in Rom 6:4.

You may have mentioned once or twice in these 18 pages that you believe we die to sin but you haven't been saying much at all about it. It would appear not to be a favourite topic of yours.

Penalty of sin...: so you think sin has its own penalty? You just don't think God has his own for it, too? What is a holy God to do with justice then on judgement day?

I don't really care about Lucifer!!! That's God's own history, and your favourite quotes merely say that God is fair - we aren't told, and we don't need to know, about what sacrifice would have been offered for Lucifer had he chosen to repent: What of my question a little while ago, on this thread, of what Michael is and why? We know who he is...: the pre-incarnate Son of God, but what is he, etc?

You may not rely purely on officially voted statements for your church beliefs, Tom, as that is completely vague. These are the excerpts I quoted.





A church and Bible belief isn't defined till it is spelled out, in the chapter itself: it is a little inadequate to agree with the voted statement but not dare open the chapter to examine the rest, as you have done consistently, on this thread! While we each differ with some details here and there, on belief No.9 you depart from the detail quite significantly, don't you? It doesn't matter how many theologians of the church, looking after a church or lecturing or both, share your view, the church is uncomfortable about them, last I heard.

I roped in "the church" at all, because, even without church approval, this forum prides itself in defending and upholding Adventist conservative theology. That does put you in a grey area, on this forum, and, in the meaning of the substitution of Christ, a theological visitor: Rodriguez' Bible answers in the Adventist World a little while ago on the meaning of Christ's death contrasted sharply, if only one or two critical points, with your preferred view.

I appreciate you're seeking to find support for your alternative round here, indeed now on your own thread - thank you! - but not everyone is aware of that. Also, MM couldn't get you to agree with the Rodriguez study mentioned above, so, on this forum you are a friend of Adventism on the atonement issue.

Oh, I've pasted those EGW quotes about legal requirements of Christ's death on to your atonement thread.

from the Christus Victor thread.


why dont we take this as a legitimate question. it is only exaperating if we dont know how to answer it. but questions like this should drive us to prayer and study. if our position is right then we can only come to a deeper understanding of that position.

in the earthly sanctuary a victim was slain and the blood sprinkled.....obviously, as tom points out, our Messiah did not collect His own blood and take it to heaven....

does that mean that God has the same kind of wrath as those invented gods? was God angry and ready to fly off in different directions, so-to-speak? what picture of God do we have in this particular picture?

This just agrees with what I said. If she wishes to assert that I don't agree with Christ's substitutionary death as she understands it, I'm the first to agree that I don't, nor did I claim to. This is very different than Rosagela's case, who did claim to agree with Prescott, which establishes my point.

Let's try putting the shoe on the other foot. Suppose I ask you, on the CV thread, I made the statement that you don't really believe in Christ's substitutionary death, because you disagree with the author. Would you agree to that?



No it doesn't. I'll treat this in a separate post, but asserting this is doing some serious eisegesis.

I'll once again point out that the Eastern Orthodox church has never held this view. Why not? Because it severed from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm developed it. This isn't evidence, necessarily, that the idea isn't true, as God could have revealed a truth to Anslem that hadn't been seen before, but it is evidence that the idea was not believed at the time the Eastern Orthodox church split, which was in the eleventh century. The Eastern Orthodox church has argued that the church father's didn't teach this idea, because if they had, it would have been a part of their (the Eastern Orthodox church) beliefs.



There's no evidence whatsoever that this verse was understood in this way, nor that this concept even existed at that time.



! Really? Let's take a look. You asked:



to this I wrote:



Now how can you assert that this does not answer your question?

I'll continue later.

if im understanding you correctly i have to so disagree!! and strongly. we dont take some bible verses and say we have died to sin!! we get the whole thought of the bible and the thought behind those verses and the verses that were left out, like this one:

that doesnt mean stating a fact, "Jesus was crucified for you", but "getting into it", going into detail about what Jesus suffered and how He responded. that shows us our lack!!

here is another one with the same points mentioned above:



my personal observation is that whether a person believes in that or not is more evident in their behavior, their fruit, than what their mouth says or claims to believe.

Yes, I expect we all agree that Christ's blood, symbolicly charged as it is, is personified in his person. He pleads his own risen self for us, presenting his scared hands. That is I think the end of it, as I've heard nothing more substantial than that in my reading of our leading, conservative scholars.

Wasn't meaning a complete match between Jehovah and all those pieces of stone and other things: simply that sacrifice was understood by heathen religions as gods being appeased by man...

God's holy wrath is different to heathen gods: he acts graceously & mercifully, giving this whole world his only begotten Son as the atoning sacrifice for all men, to reconcile us to himself by Christ's death. God died for us, and his wrath against sin but not sinners doesn't change that.

How do you understand God's wrath against sin, or aren't you quite sure?

Yes, I agree, Teresa, that surrendering to Christ is the response God seeks from us, having studied his Gospel and the Bible story altogether, too. Intellectual assent and "magic" pronouncements are off the menu!

Obedience to God is usually a visible thing, indeed, but preaching and teaching and sharing the truth of dying sin by faith in Christ's death supports that visible witness, doens't it?

Where did you think I was living off one verse of the Bible and a phrase here and there? I agree with all your texts, there, but was myself only dealing with our "old man" crucified in Christ, so we can be reborn of the Spirit, not so?

If she said somewhere that she didn't want the SOP used here, then I missed that, and apologize. Otherwise, quoting from the SOP is routine in this forum -- nearly everybody does it -- so I don't know why you would single me out.



I think my previous comment applies. You wrote:



to which I applied:



I repeat this question.



I didn't discuss Romans 6:4. You seem to be asserting that our understanding of Romans 5 isn't important to our understanding of Romans 3, 6, or 7. I don't see how that's possible. Is this really your position?



You haven't done what I asked. I don't think what you're saying is clear at all. So I'll just set out what I believe.

I believe that Christ revealed the love and character of the Father, above all, on the cross. I believe that the Holy Spirit uses this revelation of Christ to draw us to God, and that if we do not resist this drawing that we will be led to foot of the cross in repentance for our sins, and the Holy Spirit creates a new life in our soul. The law is written in our hearts and mind, meaning that we have been drawn into harmony with God and the principles of His government. Every thought is brought into captivity to Christ, meaning that we are dead to sin. Along with Christ we say, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God."



I don't perceive their to be a difference between our dying to sin and our repenting of sin and accepting Christ. I've said quite a lot about that. To my mind, I have been dealing with this subject.

As far as I know, you haven't said what Christ's dying to sin means, despite my having asked you this question many times. I've said what I think it means, which is that He said no to temptation in all its forms, most clearly seen on the cross.



I believe the penalty for sin is death.



I think you're idea doesn't make any sense. It unnecessarily redundant.



If the glory of God, which is His character, destroys the wicked, and this is what is entailed in their receiving the results of their own choice, how can it possibly make sense to say that their punishment is something in addition to this? Once they've been destroyed, that's the end of the story.



Just what DA 764 says.



Yes we are. There wouldn't have been any. There would have been no need for any. DA 762, which I've quoted repeatedly, explains this. The condition for Lucifer's being pardon is exactly what she says it was; repentance and submission.

This isn't something unique to him, but is the same condition for us. The difference between Lucifer and ourselves is that he understood the character and love of God, while man did not. This is explained in DA 762. For convenience, I'll requote it:



What post? You keep referring to things without providing a post #. I'm asking for the references, but you don't give them. If you'll provide them, I'll be glad to comment.

Why would He have to plead anything to the Father? Does the Father need to be convinced of something? Is His memory faulty? I don't see how it could possibly make sense to take this literally.

you mean that God hates sin, hates it with a passion? that He hates all the pain and suffering we cause each other? that He hates, for one thing among many others, those babies dying every few minutes of every day from slow, painful starvation? that every fiber in His Being wants to end it, but His people arent ready for Him to come?

and so Jesus says, wait, Father........

my point is that we can not do that. we can not deal with the "old man" dying without presenting the story of Christ first, otherwise who knows what the "old man" is or that it needs to die?

Your answer was anything and everything but an explanation of a difference with the penal substitution teaching held by our church behind its statement of belief. Accepting a loose, voted statement of belief is nothing without its supplied detail. On this specific belief you differ in the detail, and you didn't offer anything.

The detail in the chapter is recognised as church teaching, as the publication of beliefs was designed to be from the start.

Therefore, you didn't answer any of my questions; however, that topic is the heart of your own thread, so I'll it up with you there.

This brings up an interesting point. There's a book called "The Faith of Jesus" by Richard B. Hayes (which investigates how "tou pistou iesou" should be understood, whether "faith of Jesus" -- i.e. "Jesus' faith", or "faith in Jesus") where the author presents the point of view that the essential thing in Christian faith to Paul, and the other writers, was not certain theological points (the way Paul is usually discussed) but the story of Christ (the "faith of Jesus").

Yes, Sister! Amen.

Evangelism and preaching must cover that whole line of truth first, of course. Dedication has covered enough of that whole line of truth in her study here to make our "old man" known, hasn't she? It's just that Tom appears not to understand our "old man" dying in Christ, but why not is not yet clear, despite his great amount of study and research of Christian teachings.

I don't know what that is. I've repeatedly asked you to quote something. You referred to a post, but I couldn't find it. You didn't give a number. I don't think you have posted at the time I wrote this anyway.

I did the best I could with what I had to work with. I went to the official church web site, read our Fundamental Belief carefully, and found things in it with which you don't agree (name, Christ's being an "atonement for sin") but nothing with which I disagreed.

Certainly I answered your question, and did so to the best of my ability.



I would say, on the contrary, the officially voted statement is *all* we can quote as the *official* position of the church. To go beyond that would be unwarranted, and I feel virtually positive that if you asked a church official about this, this is precisely the response you would get.



I did. I explained why your question was faulty (assuming you, Dedication and the church are all on the same page) and explained where you differ from Dedication, and where you differ from the church, as well as where you and Dedication agree.



I looked for some support of your assertion here, but couldn't find it. You really should heed my advice, Colin, and present some sort of evidence for the claims you make.



This makes me laugh out loud. I could see how you could think I didn't answer your questions to your satisfaction, but to assert that I didn't answer them at all is absurd. On the other hand, there are a number of posts on this thread that I've written that you haven't responded to in any way. This actually happens routinely. I normally just let this go, but it would be considerate on your part, given I've taken the time to respond to you, that you would do the same.