ive always thought of "substitution" as Christ dying in my place, so that i dont have to, but here the substitution is Christs righteousness in place of my filthy rags.

if we are going to be studying for eternity the plan of redemption what do we really know now?

The Lord Jesus Christ has prepared a covering--the robe of His own righteousness--that He will put on every repenting, believing soul who by faith will receive it. Said John, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Sin is the transgression of the law. Christ died to make it possible for every man to have his sins taken away. {UL 378.2}

A fig-leaf apron will never cover our nakedness. Sin must be taken away, and the garment of Christ's righteousness must cover the transgressor of God's law. Then when the Lord looks upon the believing sinner, He sees, not the fig leaves covering him, but Christ's own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah. Man has hidden his nakedness, not under a covering of fig leaves, but under the robe of Christ's righteousness. {UL 378.3}

Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice. What a price for Heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. In the place of the law being abolished to meet sinful man in his fallen condition, it has been maintained in all its sacred dignity. In His Son, God gave Himself to save from eternal ruin all who would believe in Him. {UL 378.4}

Sin is disloyalty to God, and [is] deserving of punishment. Fig leaves sewed together have been employed since the days of Adam, yet the nakedness of the soul of the sinner is not covered. All the arguments pieced together by all who have interested themselves in this flimsy robe will come to nought. Sin is the transgression of the law. Christ was manifest in our world to take away transgression and sin, and to substitute for the covering of fig leaves the pure robes of His righteousness. The law of God stands vindicated by the suffering and death of the only begotten Son of the infinite God. {UL 378.5}

The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen.--Manuscript 145, Dec. 30, 1897, "Notes of Work." {UL 378.6}

But then there are these...



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"Subsitution" is just a word, of course, and can be used in different contexts. It means "in the place of," but what is taking the place of what (or who taking the place of whom) isn't always going to be the same thing.

In the context of the atonement, I think the following captures the thought very well:



However, that Christ substitutes His righteousness for our self-righteousness and sin is certainly an important point. Here's one of my favorite quotes in regards to His righteousness viz a viz our fig-leaves:

i assumed the quote in my post referred to both the imparted righteousness of Christ as well as the imputed, based on her other writings.

both the imputed and imparted have to be our substitute, one covers while the other is inside. something like that anyway.

i dont think we dwell enough on the substitute of His righteousness, His imparted righteousness for us. He takes our sins-out of us- and gives us holiness inside of us, substitutes the one for the other.

i also think ive been studying too much and am becoming brain-dead.

lol. The 1888 message emphasizes what you're talking about a great deal. Since there's some threads on the 1888 message that have been bumped, perhaps this will be discussed.

The quotes in your post, Teresa, cover both experiences of righteousness plus sin, substitution for justice and the penalty for sin which vindicates God's law. Everything is there!

While it is poetically and figuratively rightly said the Christ's robe covers us with his righteousness, both imputed and imparted righteousness are internal, so "inside", us. Imputed is "the mind of Christ", not just pardon; imparted is the character of Christ. Change of heart first, then change of life.

That imparted righteousness is part of our gospel experience, without which we are not practically or actually saved from sin in our lives of faith, was summed up beautifully by the General Conference at Palmdale, CA, 1976, in discussing what is righteousness by faith. Basically leading voices in Australia at the time were teaching that justification is all there is to the gospel for us, that we are saved by it and not by sanctification at all. The "consensus statement", published afterward in the Review and Herald (as it was till end of that decade, then the Adventist Review), was:


"Experience of justification" includes a change of heart with the "mind of Christ", so being born again and other analogies the Bible uses, and JBF isn't just a paper record in heaven of our forgiveness once we confess our sins to Jesus. That's the start of the new life, and it's recreated within: therefrom comes the very ability to live wth more and more imparted righteousness, day by day.

You're right that substitution by Christ sets us up for salvation but also involves us in living righteously: Christ's robe of righteousness, the start of our life of faith, isn't on the outside, but on the inside - from which character gets its life, that's all. Sorry if you knew all this already: it's just something few are vey clear on in my experience within the church.

What, Tom, of the red and blue bolded sentences in those EGW quotes? That God is just and justifier of believers (Rom 3:26) is expressed in the blue text, isn't it, by the penalty of the law against the sinner being applied, in Christ - as the other quotes state, and the red text says the same thing, in the context of meeting the law's demands.

Why do you think that these quotes do not spell out "penal substitution" for us by Christ, and why do you think EGW isn't, in these quotes, saying God had to have his Son to die so our sins could be taken away? These paragraphs are unambiguous of God needing a sacrifice for justice to forgive us, wouldn't you say?



I've highlighted the justice purpose and meanig of Christ's substitution sentences. The whole paragraphs make clear that God had to give his Son to uphold his law, not just prove Satan a liar - which no-one here ever disputed or forgot, within the great controversy theme: that theme includes God punishing transgressors for their sins, as she says quite clearly here; why do you not bring out quotes like these?? Christ's death saves us from the penalty of the law, not so: "the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would a crime [that is, a consitutional cisis & disaster] in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of his throne."

Justice is at the heart of God's character, kingdom and law. And God didn't neeed the pure life of the Lamb of God, as our Substitute for the law's penalty and our justification, too, to keep both his law and his children of Adam,and not lose one or t'other?! Sister White clearly says he does need Christ's sacrifice to forgive!! It's a matter of justice and the rule of law, together with mercy and grace. That's the full meaning of Christ's substitution, not so.

Don't you agree with my statement? If you quote something like this, and then ask, "What of the read and blue bolded sentences in those EGW quotes" that makes it sound like you think the EGW quotes disagree with my statement that the 1888 message emphasize what Teresa's talking about. Was that your intent?

That the law is upheld by Christ's sacrifice, I've commented on in quoting from Fifield's "Christ Sacifice Honors God's Law." As to why I don't think they spell out penal substitution is if they did, I wouldn't have expected her to say that the condition for Lucifer's being pardoned was simply repentance and submission. I would have expected her to have mentioned that Christ's death was necessary, and that there would have had to have been substitution for Lucifer, in order for him to be pardoned. Instead of that she wrote the following:



It's not that God needed Christ's death, but human beings did, as their hope was "in a knowledge of God's love." As Fifield put it:



This looks to me to be in harmony with Ellen White's outlook, as does the following by Waggoner:

im not quite sure how you see this. what i mean is, do you believe that Christ needed to die so i could live? Christ died my death? not to appease a "punishing" god, or anything like that. just a matter-of-fact im going to die even if i do "turn around" and become "righteous" for the rest of my life.

i have my own understanding of how this works and am only asking because such opposition is expressed against your view, so thought i should clarify for myself what is being opposed.