HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina, Nelson
1323 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,189
Posts195,525
Members1,323
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
Rick H 16
kland 15
Daryl 4
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Member Spotlight
Kevin H
Kevin H
New York
Posts: 625
Joined: November 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
3 registered members (Karen Y, 2 invisible), 2,795 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 12 of 22 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 21 22
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Rosangela] #104216
11/05/08 01:41 PM
11/05/08 01:41 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
So you think that the self-righteous Pharisees thought that they were perfect at present but that their past had flaws? I don’t think this is realistic at all but, anyway, you have the right to believe it.


You think the idea that a person would not think their past had any flaws is not realistic? Really?

Quote:
As to the early rabbis, I don’t think you have how to contradict what the article shows clearly, that is, that many of them thought that the biblical heroes had never sinned.


What does this have to do with the concept of righteous not meaning "perfectly kept the law one's whole life?" "Righteous" means "morally upright," "just," "obedient," "observant."

Quote:
Besides, Paul, a first-century Jew, presents a simple argument, perfectly understandable both then and now: anyone who transgresses the law is under a curse. Obviously the curse must be borne in order to be removed. That’s why we had to be redeemed from the curse of the law, which Christ did by becoming a curse for us.


Where does Paul say, "Obviously the curse must be borne in order to be removed."? I'm not commenting on whether this is true or not, but on your assertion that this is part of Paul's simple argument.

Clearly vs. 13 says that Christ redeemed us from the curse be becoming a curse for us. However, it doesn't explain how this happens; this needn't be understood forensically. Indeed, for centuries, it wasn't.

Quote:
And last but not least, either what Ellen White says agrees with the Bible or it doesn’t, and if the latter is the case, then she can by no means be called a genuine prophet.


The concepts she presents should be Biblical. She doesn't need to use words the same way. What "righteous" meant to a 1st century Jew isn't what it meant to a 19th century American. She used the word "righteous" as an American would use the term.

Quote:
T:I counted by saying that this was not Paul's argument, but it was what Waggoner presented, which is that those who are of the works of the law are condemned by the law because they do not keep it, because it can only be kept by faith. Those who are of faith are not condemned by the law, because they keep it by faith.

R:This is not the only problem involved. What you are saying is that the curse simply vanishes when one becomes obedient, that there is no problem in relation to past transgressions. This is not what the Bible says and this is not what Ellen White says.


Sin vanishes when it is forgiven:

Quote:
"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins" (Isaiah 43:25)


Quote:
He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:19)


Quote:
Notwithstanding our unworthiness, we are ever to bear in mind that there is One that can take away sin and save the sinner. Every sin acknowledged before God with a contrite heart, He will remove. (TM 92)


Quote:
T:Lucifer fell when he made his final decision no to accept God's offer of pardon. Adam and Eve fell when they ate of the forbidden fruit.

R:Which means that Lucifer was in the same situation of Adam and Eve only after his final decision.


Why would it mean this? It's easy to see this isn't the case. When Lucifer fell, he could no longer be pardoned. When Adam and Eve fell, they could be. Clearly they weren't in the same situation.

Quote:
In the great controversy, God has to do everything in such a way as to demonstrate that none of Satan’s accusations are true.


If an accusation is based on a false premise, all that needs to be shown is that the premise is false.

Quote:
Satan had said that, since he himself hadn’t been pardoned after defying God’s will, if God pardoned Adam and Eve, He would demonstrate that 1) He had double standards, and 2) the violation of His law was not so grave a thing as it had been made to appear at the beginning. That’s why Ellen White says that, by dying in the sinner’s place, Christ removed from God all charge of lessening the guilt of sin.


This is a false premise. Satan wasn't pardoned after defying God's will simply for the reason that he refused God's offer of pardon. It had nothing to do with Christ's dying or not dying. Big red herring here. Satan is trying to cloud the issue by having God be responsible for something he himself brought upon himself.

Quote:
God is not angry - God hates sin. And yes, God needed the atonement in order to forgive us, for the reasons explained above.


There's no problem in saying that God is angry at sin. The problem is in thinking that God's being angry at sin is the problem. The problem is with sin, not God's anger of it.

No, God does not need the atonement. The atonement is "at-one-ment," as God was never against us. God so loved us, He gave us His Son. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. God is not reconciled to us, be we are reconciled to God. As Peter put it, Christ suffered for us, to bring us to God. This is what the atonement is about - "at-one-ment," bringing us to God.

I'll include a quote from Fifield separately which discusses this.

Quote:
T: The actions of the Jews and the Romans are *our* actions.
R: No, they aren’t.
T: Oh yes they are!

We simply differ here. To me there is a difference between the cross as a physical instrument of death and the cross in its spiritual significance. We crucified Christ by our sins. Those who, besides crucifying Him by their sins, also crucified Him physically, will even be raised at a special resurrection.


I'm not understanding what we you say we are differing on. My point is that what Peter preached is for our benefit, not just for the Jews he spoke to, which is why it's a part of Scripture. I also pointed out that all aspects of Christ's death relate to our salvation. Consider the following:

Quote:
(M)an was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762)


Surely being drawn back to God has to do with our salvation, and surely the events of the cross have to do with beholding His character.

Regarding the specific point of disagreement, that their actions are our actions but for the grace of God, that we are no better than they, and that the books of heaven record the deeds we would have committed had we had the opportunity, I don't see how you could agree with any of these assertions.

What you state here is odd:

Quote:
To me there is a difference between the cross as a physical instrument of death and the cross in its spiritual significance.


since, of course, we have no disagreement on this point.

Quote:
T:This (restorative) is how the Jews thought of it. The capital punishment was a restorative action, to bring the Covenant community back into a state of shalom.

R:Sure, it was restorative to others, but not to the person who was being the object of punishment. In the same way, the destruction of the wicked will be restorative to the universe, but it will be retributive to them, who are incorrigible offenders.


The purpose of the judgment was restorative, not redemptive. Retributive:

Quote:
Crime is a violation of the state and its laws.

Justice establishes blame and administers pain through a contest between offender and state.


Restorative:

Quote:
Crime is a violation of people and their relationships.

Justice identifies needs and obligations so that things can be made right... ((http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0499/049910.htm))


From "Evil and the Justice of God" by N. T. Wright.

Quote:
God’s justice is a saving, healing, restorative justice because the God to whom justice belongs is the Creator God who has yet to complete his original plan for creation and whose justice is designed not simply to restore balance to a world out of kilter but to bring to glorious completion and fruition the creation, teeming with life and possibility,
that he made in the first place. (p. 64)


There are different paradigms involved. One needs to consider not just what happened, but how these events would be understood, and the paradigms of the people. The whole concept of justice as used in Scripture is little understood by Westerners. The whole way we look at it is different.

For example:

Quote:
‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
The alien or the poor.
Let none of you plan evil in his heart
Against his brother.’ (Zech. 7:9)


This isn't how we think of justice, but this is the Scriptural idea of it. Justice has to do with setting things right, with returning the Covenant community to shalom.

Quote:
T:The judicial idea you have in mind falls apart when applied to Lucifer's case. The framework I'm presenting works perfectly. Lucifer was rebelling, and God offered him pardon if he would repent. God did the same thing for man.

R:Works perfectly? I beg to differ. When God offered pardon to Lucifer, he wasn’t subjected to death, he would have been restated to his position, and everything would have been just fine. In Adam and Eve’s case, however, even though they were offered pardon, they were subjected to death, were expelled from the garden, and the human race has had to struggle with suffering, disease, death and misery for 6,000 years. You may think this is perfectly fair. I don’t. This isn’t fair either here or in China, as we would say in Brazil. No matter what you say, such a God as your view presents is not at all a fair God. So, saying that the sin for which Lucifer was offered pardon was greater than the sin of Adam and Eve is something that will never make the least sense to me.


I don't understand your reasoning here at all. Are you saying that Adam and Eve were treated more severely than Lucifer? What's your point here? What wasn't fair?

And your conclusion I don't get at all. To determined whose sin was greater, Lucifer's or Adam's, all we have to do is look at what they did. I guess your argument is this:

1.Adam and Eve's punishment was greater than Lucifer's.
2.Therefore there sin was greater.

Is this what you're thinking? So when I say that Lucifer's sin was greater than Adam and Eve's, you say my view is unfair because Lucifer's punishment was less than Adam and Eve's. Is this what you're thinking?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Rosangela] #104229
11/05/08 06:26 PM
11/05/08 06:26 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
So, yes, I believe the born again people described in the Bible, people who are abiding in Jesus, do not sin. Their obedience is perfect.

But what then do you make of passages such as these, for instance, which I quoted to Tom in my post #104174?

“Works will never save us; it is the merit of Christ that will avail in our behalf. Through faith in Him, Christ will make all our imperfect efforts acceptable to God.” {TMK 229.2}

“The nearer the Christian lives to God, the more he advances in divine illumination of mind. He has more distinct sense of his own littleness, discerns his defects of character, and sees his duty in the light in which God presents it. The more closely he draws to Jesus, the more he has a near and clear sense of his own defects which had before escaped his notice, and he sees the necessity of humbling himself under the mighty hand of God. If lifted up it will not be because he lifts and exalts himself, but because the Lord exalts him. Having his eye fixed upon the purity and perfection of Christ Jesus, and acknowledging and obeying God in all his ways, he is not blinded to his own failures and imperfections. When his deportment in the eyes of men is unblamable and irreprovable, God reads the intents and purposes of the heart.” {TDG 16.2}

She is not talking about sinning; instead, she is talking about past mistakes and present defects and imperfections. Even the most mature Christian possesses defects and imperfections, but this isn't saying they are sinning. Possessing defects and imperfections is not the same thing as sinning. While abiding in Jesus, all defects and imperfections are keep under the control of a sanctified will and mind.

“Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” Mark 14:38. Watch against the stealthy approach of the enemy, watch against old habits and natural inclinations, lest they assert themselves; force them back, and watch. Watch the thoughts, watch the plans, lest they become self-centered. (6T 410)

The words, "I keep under my body," literally mean to beat back by severe discipline the desires, impulses, and passions. {AA 314.1}

He who has determined to enter the spiritual kingdom will find that all the powers and passions of unregenerate nature, backed by the forces of the kingdom of darkness, are arrayed against him. Each day he must renew his consecration, each day do battle with evil. Old habits, hereditary tendencies to wrong, will strive for the mastery, and against these he is to be ever on guard, striving in Christ's strength for victory. {AA 476.3}

Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Tom] #104245
11/06/08 01:09 AM
11/06/08 01:09 AM
Rosangela  Offline OP
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
You think the idea that a person would not think their past had any flaws is not realistic? Really?

Speaking of the Pharisees, no, this is not realistic at all. I hope you have read the quote of COL 391.4.

Quote:
R: As to the early rabbis, I don’t think you have how to contradict what the article shows clearly, that is, that many of them thought that the biblical heroes had never sinned.
T: What does this have to do with the concept of righteous not meaning "perfectly kept the law one's whole life?"

To them, the righteousness of the biblical heroes was equivalent to having never sinned (perfectly keeping the law their whole lives).

Quote:
Where does Paul say, "Obviously the curse must be borne in order to be removed."?

When he says that Christ removed it from us by bearing it for us.

Quote:
Clearly vs. 13 says that Christ redeemed us from the curse be becoming a curse for us. However, it doesn't explain how this happens; this needn't be understood forensically. Indeed, for centuries, it wasn't.

This may be apparently unrelated, but how do you explain the verse “One has died for all; therefore all have died” (2 Cor 5:14)?

Quote:
R: And last but not least, either what Ellen White says agrees with the Bible or it doesn’t, and if the latter is the case, then she can by no means be called a genuine prophet.
T: The concepts she presents should be Biblical.

When she says that the law cannot forgive, for instance, is she expressing a biblical concept?

Quote:
R: This is not the only problem involved. What you are saying is that the curse simply vanishes when one becomes obedient, that there is no problem in relation to past transgressions. This is not what the Bible says and this is not what Ellen White says.
T: Sin vanishes when it is forgiven:

First, how do you reconcile what you said with an investigative judgment?
Second, how do you reconcile what you said with this passage:

“Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial.” {RH, March 8, 1881 par. 4}

Quote:
When Lucifer fell, he could no longer be pardoned. When Adam and Eve fell, they could be. Clearly they weren't in the same situation.

They were in the same situation of having defied God’s will, and of having fallen from their allegiance to God. The light they had had before their fall determined if they still could be saved or not.

Quote:
If an accusation is based on a false premise, all that needs to be shown is that the premise is false.

If that was the case, God didn’t need to refute any of Satan’s accusations, because all of them are based on false premises.

Quote:
Satan wasn't pardoned after defying God's will simply for the reason that he refused God's offer of pardon.

After his rebellion he wasn’t offered pardon and wasn’t allowed pardon. The opposite occurred in man’s case. The inhabitants of the universe didn’t know why.

Quote:
I'm not understanding what we you say we are differing on.

I said that the fact that the Jews physically crucified Christ has nothing to do with our salvation, but it had to do with theirs, because they needed to repent. You disagree.

Quote:
The purpose of the judgment was restorative, not redemptive

I suppose you mean retributive, not redemptive. But could you be clearer as to what your point is in relation to what we are discussing?

Quote:
This isn't how we think of justice, but this is the Scriptural idea of it. Justice has to do with setting things right, with returning the Covenant community to shalom.

I don’t see any difference between the word “justice” as used in the Scriptures and as used by us. The word just has several facets, that’s all.

Quote:
Is this what you're thinking? So when I say that Lucifer's sin was greater than Adam and Eve's, you say my view is unfair because Lucifer's punishment was less than Adam and Eve's. Is this what you're thinking?

Lucifer’s punishment was less? It would have been none. So, according to your view, there is no punishment for a greater sin while there is a severe punishment for a smaller sin.
According to my view, Lucifer’s punishment and Adam and Eve’s punishment was the same: After their fall, Lucifer was expelled from heaven, and Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise.

Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Mountain Man] #104247
11/06/08 01:15 AM
11/06/08 01:15 AM
Rosangela  Offline OP
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
She is not talking about sinning; instead, she is talking about past mistakes and present defects and imperfections.

Mike, do you consider it's impossible to sin without knowing it? For instance, is it impossible that you have traces of selfishness in your motivations of which you are unaware?

Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Rosangela] #104253
11/06/08 03:24 AM
11/06/08 03:24 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
T:You think the idea that a person would not think their past had any flaws is not realistic? Really?

R:Speaking of the Pharisees, no, this is not realistic at all. I hope you have read the quote of COL 391.4.


This says, "To a great degree his outward life had been free from guilt." This means that to some degree it wasn't.

How many people have you met in your lifetime? Has even one of the believed they never sinned?



Quote:
To them, the righteousness of the biblical heroes was equivalent to having never sinned (perfectly keeping the law their whole lives).


Even if this were true, it wouldn't mean that the definition of righteousness means keeping the law perfectly one's whole life! This should be easy to see. It would simply mean *their* righteousness was like that. Not that "righteousness" means that.

Quote:
T:Where does Paul say, "Obviously the curse must be borne in order to be removed."?

R:When he says that Christ removed it from us by bearing it for us.


I understand Paul to be saying here that Christ redeemed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us. How do you get from that that Paul is saying "obviously the curse must be born in order for it to be removed?" Especially the obviously part. I can see how you could assert, "Obviously the curse must be born to be removes since Paul said Christ redeemed us from the curse, having born it for us," but I don't see how you could assert that *Paul* was saying "obviously the curse must be born to be removed."

Quote:
R:This may be apparently unrelated, but how do you explain the verse “One has died for all; therefore all have died” (2 Cor 5:14)?


I see it as expressing the same thought as this:

Quote:
To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life. (DA 660)


Quote:
R: And last but not least, either what Ellen White says agrees with the Bible or it doesn’t, and if the latter is the case, then she can by no means be called a genuine prophet.

T: The concepts she presents should be Biblical.

R:When she says that the law cannot forgive, for instance, is she expressing a biblical concept?


Yes, just as her saying that God offered Lucifer pardon (although Christ had not died) is expressing a Biblical concept.

Quote:
R: This is not the only problem involved. What you are saying is that the curse simply vanishes when one becomes obedient, that there is no problem in relation to past transgressions. This is not what the Bible says and this is not what Ellen White says.

T: Sin vanishes when it is forgiven:

First, how do you reconcile what you said with an investigative judgment?


As the quote I presented stated, every sin confessed with a contrite heart, God removes. The investigative judgment reveals the sins which are in the character. If the sins have been removed from the character, they won't be in the books of heaven either, as the books of heaven reflect what's in the character.

Quote:
Second, how do you reconcile what you said with this passage:

“Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial.” {RH, March 8, 1881 par. 4}


I said that sin vanishes when it is forgiven, and quoted "every sin which is confessed with a contrite heart, he will remove." If it is removed, it has vanished. What is it that needs reconciling between what you quoted and that sin is vanishes when forgiven (or is removed when confessed, to put it another way)?

Quote:
T:When Lucifer fell, he could no longer be pardoned. When Adam and Eve fell, they could be. Clearly they weren't in the same situation.

R:They were in the same situation of having defied God’s will, and of having fallen from their allegiance to God. The light they had had before their fall determined if they still could be saved or not.


Because Lucifer had had tremendous light, and knew, His character, and his love, his defiance reached a point to where he could no longer be healed. But before this time he had despicably sought to exalt himself by misrepresenting God's character. But God, not being like Lucifer presented Him as being, long bore with him, and offered him pardon over and over again.

Lucifer indulged a spirit of discontent to overcome him, allowed envy and hatred of Christ to enter his heart, became enamored of himself, and sought to exalt himself by any means possible, even lying about God to do so. This is incomparably worse that what Adam did, which was simply to eat of a forbidden fruit because he didn't want to see his wife die alone (this isn't to defend Adam's action, which represented a lack of faith in God, but to make clear that his actions were in no way comparable to Lucifer's).

In spite of all Lucifer did, God *still* offered him pardon, even *after* the lying misrepresentations. And all this without Christ's dying! Now if *God* required an atonement in order to be able to offer pardon, He would have needed it for Lucifer as well as for Adam. Why the death of Christ for one but not the other?

Quote:
But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 761)


Quote:
T:If an accusation is based on a false premise, all that needs to be shown is that the premise is false.

R:If that was the case, God didn’t need to refute any of Satan’s accusations, because all of them are based on false premises.


You are arguing that if an accusation of Satan if based on a false promise, then God didn't need to refute any of his accusations because all of them are based on false premises. That's absurd. The fact that one may make an argument with a false premise does not mean that every argument that one makes is!

Quote:
T:Satan wasn't pardoned after defying God's will simply for the reason that he refused God's offer of pardon.

R:After his rebellion he wasn’t offered pardon and wasn’t allowed pardon.


Not allowed pardon? Of course not! God is not willing that any should perish. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The issue was never, and never can be, that a being is not "allowed" pardon. It is always whether the person wants to repent. God's not ever going to prevent a person from repenting!

Quote:
The opposite occurred in man’s case. The inhabitants of the universe didn’t know why.


The same thing happened. God offered Lucifer pardon (again and again) and God offered man pardon. The difference is that Lucifer rejected that pardon.

Quote:
I said that the fact that the Jews physically crucified Christ has nothing to do with our salvation, but it had to do with theirs, because they needed to repent. You disagree.


This is because you see the only thing about the cross that has to do with our salvation is that Christ's death paid a debt for our sins?

Quote:
The purpose of the judgment was restorative, not redemptive

I suppose you mean retributive, not redemptive. But could you be clearer as to what your point is in relation to what we are discussing?


Yes, sorry, that's what I meant.

You said:

Quote:
R:The text is speaking of legal covenant regulations concerning capital offense. And obviously all Jews were aware that the capital punishment was a judicial punishment.


I responded:

Quote:
Their whole concept of justice was different than that of a Westerner. We think of justice as retributive. They thought of it as restorative.


I had said (which led to your response)

Quote:
T: There were cultural connotations to the manner of one's death, which this manner of death was dealing with. It wasn't communicating the forensic idea of penalty you are speaking of (which wasn't a part of their thinking), but the idea of dying in a certain manner, indicative of being an outcast of the Covenant community.


The death of Christ satisfies justice because it restores those who believe to shalom, which is to say being justified by faith we have peace with God.

Quote:
I don’t see any difference between the word “justice” as used in the Scriptures and as used by us.


I've never heard anyone say this:

Quote:
Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother. (Zech. 7:9)


The idea that justice is executed by showing mercy and compassion is not a common thought to Westerners. However, it sounds from your comment that you agree that this is a facet of justice, so I'm glad to hear you say that.

Quote:
T:Is this what you're thinking? So when I say that Lucifer's sin was greater than Adam and Eve's, you say my view is unfair because Lucifer's punishment was less than Adam and Eve's. Is this what you're thinking?

R:Lucifer’s punishment was less? It would have been none.


If it was none, and Adam's was some, then it would have to be less, wouldn't it? I was asking these questions to ascertain what you were wanting to say. I was accurate, wasn't I?

Quote:
So, according to your view, there is no punishment for a greater sin while there is a severe punishment for a smaller sin.


You're asserting that I don't think Satan will be punished?

The punishment for sin is death. If God had allowed Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have died, but it would not have appeared to onlooking angels that his death would have been the inevitable result of sin. Instead it would have appeared that God was killing him. This would have created an evil seed of doubt. So God had to allow Satan time to develop his principles so that his true character could be made manifest, as well as God's true character, since Satan had made accusations against it.

Quote:
According to my view, Lucifer’s punishment and Adam and Eve’s punishment was the same: After their fall, Lucifer was expelled from heaven, and Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise.


This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I've said nothing about this one way or the other. What I said was that both sinned, and God offered both pardon on the condition of repentance. For man, Christ died, because that was necessary to bring him to repentance.

Quote:
O, but you say, Christ paid the debt, and set us free. That is true, and every one of those texts in the Bible is true. When God tells us how he forgives sin, what does he say? Well, a certain man owed another man five hundred pence, and when he had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave him. That is the way God forgives sin. Christ is the price of our pardon; that is true. But let me state it: Jesus Christ is not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but he is the price which the Father paid to bring us to a repentant attitude of mind, so that he could pardon us freely. O, that is God, brethren. That is the Father that I love so much. I have not words to tell you how I love Him. That is how God forgives sin - passes by the iniquity of His people. Christ was the free gift of God, to bring us to the place where He could pardon us freely. (Fifield, GCB 1897)


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Tom] #104261
11/06/08 01:47 PM
11/06/08 01:47 PM
Rosangela  Offline OP
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
T: You think the idea that a person would not think their past had any flaws is not realistic? Really?
R: Speaking of the Pharisees, no, this is not realistic at all. I hope you have read the quote of COL 391.4.
T: This says, "To a great degree his outward life had been free from guilt." This means that to some degree it wasn't.

Have you read what he thought? “He verily thought that his obedience had been without a flaw.”

Quote:
R: To them, the righteousness of the biblical heroes was equivalent to having never sinned (perfectly keeping the law their whole lives).
T: Even if this were true, it wouldn't mean that the definition of righteousness means keeping the law perfectly one's whole life! This should be easy to see.

Your argument had been that a first-century Jew would never had thought of righteousness as perfectly keeping the law one’s whole life. I’ve showed that, in fact, this was a very common concept.
As I’ve also said, righteousness is compliance with the law. Does the law require partial obedience or perfect obedience to declare someone righteous?

Quote:
R:This may be apparently unrelated, but how do you explain the verse “One has died for all; therefore all have died” (2 Cor 5:14)?
T: I see it as expressing the same thought as this: “To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life.” (DA 660)

Sorry, I didn’t get it. In which sense have all died?

Quote:
R:When she says that the law cannot forgive, for instance, is she expressing a biblical concept?
T: Yes, just as her saying that God offered Lucifer pardon (although Christ had not died) is expressing a Biblical concept.

At this point Lucifer hadn't yet broken the law in defiance of God's will, as man did.

"Evil originated with the rebellion of Lucifer. It was brought into heaven when he refused allegiance to God's law. Satan was the first lawbreaker." {RH, June 4, 1901 par. 3}

Quote:
As the quote I presented stated, every sin confessed with a contrite heart, God removes. The investigative judgment reveals the sins which are in the character. If the sins have been removed from the character, they won't be in the books of heaven either, as the books of heaven reflect what's in the character.

How is it that a sin I confessed ten years ago is still in my character (since it is registered in heaven)? Did God remove it or not?

Quote:
What is it that needs reconciling between what you quoted and that sin is vanishes when forgiven (or is removed when confessed, to put it another way)?

If sin vanishes when confessed, Christ paid no debt and there was no debt which was impossible for the sinner to pay for himself. If I understand you correctly, it is the sinner who pays the debt when he confesses his sin.

Quote:
In spite of all Lucifer did, God *still* offered him pardon, even *after* the lying misrepresentations. And all this without Christ's dying! Now if *God* required an atonement in order to be able to offer pardon, He would have needed it for Lucifer as well as for Adam. Why the death of Christ for one but not the other?

What we are discussing is pardon after fall. Had Lucifer already fallen when he was offered pardon? If not, he wasn’t in the same situation as Adam and Eve.

Quote:
You are arguing that if an accusation of Satan if based on a false promise, then God didn't need to refute any of his accusations because all of them are based on false premises. That's absurd. The fact that one may make an argument with a false premise does not mean that every argument that one makes is!

Which of Satan’s accusations were based on true premises? That God’s law was arbitrary and should be altered or abolished? That God was unjust? That He was self-centered? Which one?

Quote:
The same thing happened. God offered Lucifer pardon (again and again) and God offered man pardon. The difference is that Lucifer rejected that pardon.

The difference is that God offered pardon to Lucifer before his fall, and to man, after his fall.

Quote:
R: I said that the fact that the Jews physically crucified Christ has nothing to do with our salvation, but it had to do with theirs, because they needed to repent. You disagree.
T: This is because you see the only thing about the cross that has to do with our salvation is that Christ's death paid a debt for our sins?

Tom, you are insisting that the sin of the Jews in physically crucifying Christ is the sin of every human being. I simply disagree with this. This was a national sin, distinct from the fact that the sins of all human beings crucified Christ.

Quote:
The idea that justice is executed by showing mercy and compassion is not a common thought to Westerners.

Neither was it a common thought to Easterners, including Jews. This is God’s justice, and every person who reads the Bible understand what God’s justice is. However God’s justice also involves the retributive aspect, which is simply giving to each his due:

Rom 2:5-11 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "will render to each one according to his deeds": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness——indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

Revelation 22:12 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

Quote:
You're asserting that I don't think Satan will be punished?

No, I’m asserting that when Lucifer was offered pardon (before his fall), he wouldn’t have been punished at all, while when man was offered pardon (after his fall), he was severely punished. According to you, man was much more severely punished for a lesser sin. This position doesn’t make any sense at all.

Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Rosangela] #104270
11/07/08 01:25 AM
11/07/08 01:25 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
T: You think the idea that a person would not think their past had any flaws is not realistic? Really?
R: Speaking of the Pharisees, no, this is not realistic at all. I hope you have read the quote of COL 391.4.
T: This says, "To a great degree his outward life had been free from guilt." This means that to some degree it wasn't.

R:Have you read what he thought? “He verily thought that his obedience had been without a flaw.”


As I stated, "To a great degree his outward life had been free from guilt." means that to some degree it wasn't. Since this is dealing with his outward life, he should have been aware of it. He may have thought his obedience was flawless because it was good enough, paying small moment to the areas where his outward life was not free from guilt. You'd probably assert that he wasn't aware of these shortcomings, but that might not have been the case.

I asked you if you have ever in your life met a person who wasn't aware that he had done something wrong in his lifetime. I doubt such a person has ever existed in the history of the world who didn't have mental problems. (excepting Christ, of course).

And even if he thought his obedience to be without fault, that still doesn't deal with the question of what "righteous" would mean to a 1st century Jew. It would simply treat a specific case of what one that about one's own righteousness.

If you wish to contend that "righteous" means "keeping the law perfectly one's whole life," I've offered suggestions on how to show this. Either find something by a 1st century Jew which explains "righteous" in this way, or cite an authority of ancient Judiasm. What I see you doing is to take you view things, and superimpose that on the things you're reading. I'm asking you to disassociate yourself what you already believe, and consider what the term would have meant to someone living at that time. Don't try to prove you're right, but look for the truth.

I don't claim to be an expert on ancient Judaism by any means. I've done some investigating, and share what I've found. If you can find some Jewish evidence that a Jew thought of "righteous" in terms of "perfectly keeping the law one's who life," I'd be interested in seeing that. From everything I've seen until now, it appears to me that how they thought of things is as John stated: "he who does righteousness is righteous."

Quote:
Your argument had been that a first-century Jew would never had thought of righteousness as perfectly keeping the law one’s whole life. I’ve showed that, in fact, this was a very common concept.


A common concept? I haven't seen evidence that the concept existed at all, let alone was common. What's your evidence that any Jew thought that way? Can you cite something where the word "righteous" is used by a first century Jew?

Quote:
As I’ve also said, righteousness is compliance with the law. Does the law require partial obedience or perfect obedience to declare someone righteous?


This is again looking at things the way you look at them. I don't believe a Jew looked at things in this light. That is, to a Jew, the assertion that the law requires perfect obedience would mean simply that the whole law needs to be kept.

Quote:
R:This may be apparently unrelated, but how do you explain the verse “One has died for all; therefore all have died” (2 Cor 5:14)?
T: I see it as expressing the same thought as this: “To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life.” (DA 660)

Sorry, I didn’t get it. In which sense have all died?


The KJV has "then all were dead." Iow, all would be dead if Christ had not died. Or, to use EGW's language, to the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life.

Quote:
At this point Lucifer hadn't yet broken the law in defiance of God's will, as man did.


I don't see how it's possible to assert this. Lucifer:

1.Allowed his heart to be filled with envy and hatred of Christ.
2.Indulged in a spirit of discontent.
3.Sought to exalt himself.
4.Sought to steal creatures to pay homage to himself.
5.Presented false claims in order to do so.

How can one think these things are not contrary to God's will? Lucifer has grievances, and God, in the person of His Son, met personally with him and explained why he was wrong to be upset. *After* this, Lucifer continued to do the things listed above. This is acting defiantly against God's will. Of course it is. God's will would have been to agree when it was shown to him that his grievances were without cause.

Quote:
The Son of God presented before him the greatness, the goodness, and the justice of the Creator, and the sacred, unchanging nature of His law. God Himself had established the order of heaven; and in departing from it, Lucifer would dishonor his Maker, and bring ruin upon himself. But the warning, given in infinite love and mercy, only aroused a spirit of resistance. Lucifer allowed jealousy of Christ to prevail, and he became the more determined. (GC 494)


This looks to me to be clearly acting in defiance of God's will.

(More later)


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Tom] #104285
11/07/08 03:57 AM
11/07/08 03:57 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
How is it that a sin I confessed ten years ago is still in my character (since it is registered in heaven)? Did God remove it or not?


If you confessed it with a contrite heart, then, according to TM 92, God removed it. That doesn't mean you could choose again to do the sin you had confessed. You have free will to do so. If you do, then it returns to be a part of your character.

Quote:
If sin vanishes when confessed, Christ paid no debt


Why?

Quote:
and there was no debt which was impossible for the sinner to pay for himself. If I understand you correctly, it is the sinner who pays the debt when he confesses his sin.


No, Christ paid the debt. When the sin is confessed with a contrite heart, God will remove it (TM 92). I don't see why you would construe this as the sinner paying a debt.

Quote:
What we are discussing is pardon after fall.


I wasn't. My point had to do with the forgiveness of sin. I pointed out that God offered Lucifer pardon, again and again, without Christ's having to die. I said nothing about God's offering Lucifer pardon after he fell. That would have been pointless.

Quote:
Had Lucifer already fallen when he was offered pardon? If not, he wasn’t in the same situation as Adam and Eve.


I didn't say his situation was the same. I said if it is necessary for God to have death in order to be able to pardon someone for sin, He couldn't have offered Lucifer pardon, since no one had died.

Quote:
You are arguing that if an accusation of Satan if based on a false promise, then God didn't need to refute any of his accusations because all of them are based on false premises. That's absurd. The fact that one may make an argument with a false premise does not mean that every argument that one makes is!

Which of Satan’s accusations were based on true premises? That God’s law was arbitrary and should be altered or abolished? That God was unjust? That He was self-centered? Which one?


You're missing the point. Your questions are moot. You made an argument which is totally invalid. Here's what you said:

Quote:
R:If that was the case, God didn’t need to refute any of Satan’s accusations, because all of them are based on false premises.


This argument is totally invalid. Do you not see this? Even if all of Lucifer's accusations had false premises, this argument would still be invalid. The fact that some argument of Satan is based on a false premise does not mean that all of them are. Even if all of them were based on false premises, it still wouldn't be the case that because some argument was based on a false premise that all the others were too.

Do you understand the point here?

Quote:
T:The same thing happened. God offered Lucifer pardon (again and again) and God offered man pardon. The difference is that Lucifer rejected that pardon.

R:The difference is that God offered pardon to Lucifer before his fall, and to man, after his fall.


I wasn't discussing their respective falls, but that they would be restored to harmony with God after sinning by repentance. If they would repent, God would forgive their sin, both for Lucifer and man. Man needed blood, and Lucifer didn't, in order to repent, for the reason brought out here:

Quote:
But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 761)


Or, as Fifield put it:

Quote:
Christ is the price of our pardon; that is true. But let me state it: Jesus Christ is not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but he is the price which the Father paid to bring us to a repentant attitude of mind, so that he could pardon us freely.


Quote:
R: I said that the fact that the Jews physically crucified Christ has nothing to do with our salvation, but it had to do with theirs, because they needed to repent. You disagree.
T: This is because you see the only thing about the cross that has to do with our salvation is that Christ's death paid a debt for our sins?

Tom, you are insisting that the sin of the Jews in physically crucifying Christ is the sin of every human being. I simply disagree with this. This was a national sin, distinct from the fact that the sins of all human beings crucified Christ.


You said, "the fact that the Jews physically crucified Christ has nothing to do with our salvation."

So I asked you, "This is because you see the only thing about the cross that has to do with our salvation is that Christ's death paid a debt for our sins?" What's your answer please.

Quote:
T:The idea that justice is executed by showing mercy and compassion is not a common thought to Westerners.

R:Neither was it a common thought to Easterners, including Jews.


Sure it was. Their whole culture was based on this. Shalom is the well-being of the Covenant community. Justice was restoring the Covenant community back to shalom. Every Jew understood this. It was as much a part of their culture as retribution is to ours.

Quote:
T:You're asserting that I don't think Satan will be punished?

R:No, I’m asserting that when Lucifer was offered pardon (before his fall), he wouldn’t have been punished at all, while when man was offered pardon (after his fall), he was severely punished. According to you, man was much more severely punished for a lesser sin. This position doesn’t make any sense at all.


I don't see the punishment of either Lucifer or man as something arbitrarily inflicted upon them by God (which appears to me to be how you are looking at this) but rather being the consequence of their respective actions.

Quote:
The brazen serpent, lifted upon a pole, illustrates the Son of God, who was to die upon the cross. The people who are suffering from the effects of sin can find hope and salvation alone in the provision God has made. As the Israelites saved their lives by looking upon the brazen serpent, so sinners can look to Christ and live.

Unlike the brazen serpent, he has virtue and power in himself to heal the suffering, repenting, believing sinner. (1SP 318)


Sin separates the one sinning from God. Such a one requires healing. The healing for Lucifer would have different than the healing for man, because of the difference in their circumstances (Lucifer knew God's character and love; man didn't. Man was deceived; Lucifer knew what he was doing, etc.)

What one suffers depends on how sin impacts them.

Our big difference here, it appears to me, is that you see their respective punishment as unrelated to their sin, except in that God did something to them because of what they had done, whereas I see their punishment as being caused by their sin.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Rosangela] #104289
11/07/08 04:14 AM
11/07/08 04:14 AM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
She is not talking about sinning; instead, she is talking about past mistakes and present defects and imperfections. Even the most mature Christian possesses defects and imperfections, but this isn't saying they are sinning. Possessing defects and imperfections is not the same thing as sinning. While abiding in Jesus, all defects and imperfections are keep under the control of a sanctified will and mind.

“Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” Mark 14:38. Watch against the stealthy approach of the enemy, watch against old habits and natural inclinations, lest they assert themselves; force them back, and watch. Watch the thoughts, watch the plans, lest they become self-centered. (6T 410)

The words, "I keep under my body," literally mean to beat back by severe discipline the desires, impulses, and passions. {AA 314.1}

He who has determined to enter the spiritual kingdom will find that all the powers and passions of unregenerate nature, backed by the forces of the kingdom of darkness, are arrayed against him. Each day he must renew his consecration, each day do battle with evil. Old habits, hereditary tendencies to wrong, will strive for the mastery, and against these he is to be ever on guard, striving in Christ's strength for victory. {AA 476.3}

Mike, do you consider it's impossible to sin without knowing it? For instance, is it impossible that you have traces of selfishness in your motivations of which you are unaware?

Where in the Bible or the SOP is this idea expressed? That is, where does it say the righteousness of believers who are abiding in Jesus is tainted with traces of selfishness?

Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model? [Re: Mountain Man] #104299
11/07/08 04:56 AM
11/07/08 04:56 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
How do you understand this quote, MM?

Quote:
He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in
which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness.


This is speaking of believers. I know you wouldn't call the earthly corruption a sinful nature, because you are a post-lapsarian. So what is it?

You seem to think that you don't have any trace of selfishness. I think that's an exceedingly dangerous position to take.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Page 12 of 22 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 21 22

Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 03/27/24 09:35 AM
Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?
by Kevin H. 03/24/24 09:02 PM
The Story of David and Goliath
by ProdigalOne. 03/23/24 08:06 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 03/22/24 10:17 AM
Carbon Dioxide What's so Bad about It?
by kland. 03/21/24 12:34 PM
The Value of Bible Types
by TruthinTypes. 03/17/24 06:22 PM
Orion Which Every One on the Globe Can See
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:26 PM
'Prophet' Summons UFOs
by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 02:19 AM
Will You Take The Wuhan Virus Vaccine?
by dedication. 03/11/24 06:31 PM
Get That Razor Wire Up!
by kland. 03/05/24 12:49 PM
Messages for This Time
by ProdigalOne. 03/04/24 05:54 AM
The Lake of Fire is Hell
by Rick H. 03/02/24 05:01 PM
Adventist Agriculture
by kland. 02/29/24 12:33 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
The Wound Is Healed! The Mark Is Forming!
by Rick H. 03/27/24 10:36 PM
Are we seeing a outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:50 PM
Time Is Short!
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:45 PM
Climate Change and the Sunday Law
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:42 PM
WHAT IS THE VERY END-TIME PROPHECY?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 06:03 PM
Digital Identity Control
by Rick H. 03/23/24 02:08 PM
A.I. - The New God?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 01:59 PM
Christian Nationalism/Sunday/C
limate Change

by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 08:38 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:30 PM
Is There A Connection Between WO & LGBTQ?
by Kevin H. 03/12/24 09:20 PM
A Second American Civil War?
by Daryl. 03/04/24 06:14 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1