|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,633
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
4 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, 1 invisible),
3,491
guests, and 13
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Why wouldn't Christ have died for Satan?
#6980
03/11/05 01:55 AM
03/11/05 01:55 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Senior Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 628
New York
|
|
Tom, as you know I agree with you in seeing the atonement as not based upon legal adjustment. Lately I've been doing some more research and have learned a little more information about the historical context of the popular views of atonment, but sadly don't have time to write now.
I also believe that the Spirit of God has been active from time to time (most of us do not realize that modern historisism, from which came the Protestant Reformation and the basic framework of our Seventh-day Adventist interpetations of Daniel and Revelation come from a man who had visions and the Roman Catholic church proclaimed that he had the authentic gift of prophecy) and that while I'm not sure, I am open to the possiblity of Milton having had the Great Controversy vision.
However, as I understand the issues of the Great Controversy, even if Lucifer had NEVER sined, he, the other angels and beings on the other planets needed to grow in their understanding of who God was and his character and the nature of self-sacrificing love, and that this required a point in history where God would have to teach the universe about what sin does, which would have required the death of Jesus.
One idea I've recently heard, but have not decided on (although I had been thinking this idea, had a few proof texts that kept me away from believing it, but the lecture also dealt with and answered the same prooftexts that I've thought about that stifiled this idea, so it's spining in my mind but not yet accepted) is that it is Milton that has Lucifer and the demons cast out from heaven prior to the creation of the earth, and that per-Revelation 12, that God allowed Lucifer to be in heaven until the resurection, and at the assension was when Satan was cast to the earth, and we see other Biblical texts that support this idea. While Mrs. White did not openly oppose Milton's idea, that her ideas hint in the direction that this was the time that Satan was cast to the earth.
Again, this is an idea I'm thinking of, but not yet convinced of. But either way I have come to understand that the universe, all the angels and unfallen worlds, except for humans, closed their probation at the cross, and that Jesus did indeed die for Lucifer, but he refused to accept it.
|
|
|
Re: Why wouldn't Christ have died for Satan?
#6981
03/11/05 02:57 AM
03/11/05 02:57 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I don't agree with the idea that Christ would have died had sin not occurred. I do agree with the thought behind that idea though, which is that potential issues would exist which required action on God's part. However we should minimize the fact that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. It was not merely a matter of Christ experiencing some pain, but there was the chance that He would be lost forever. At least, that was the case in Christ's death as we know it. I think God could have dealt with things in a different manner, which would have answered the questions. Of course this is speculation, but that's what I think. Regarding Satan's falling from heaven, here is what I think. Satan and his hosts left their habitation before man's fall, but still had access to the loyal angels. When Christ was crucified, Satan lost his audience. It was in this sense that he was cast down as EGW talks about in the chapter "It Is Finished." Finally regarding the history of the satisfaction view of the atonement, it appears that this idea was invented by St Anselm of Canterbury around the year 1000 AD. Two factors which led to its acceptance appear to have been: 1) It emphasized reason over emotion, which was an important idea at the time. 2) It encouraged adherents to keep to the establishment. The ideas are expressed at length here: http://www.sharktacos.com/God/cross1.htmlThe ideas are kind of a mixed bag. Some are very good, and some, let's just say, not so good. Here's one of the better thoughts: quote:
Ironically, as we will see in this section, even in its attempt to champion justice, Satisfaction-Doctrine does not present a biblical picture of what justice is about, but a legalistic medieval one. Biblically to "bring justice" does not mean to bring punishment, but to bring healing and reconciliation. Justice means to make things right. All through the Prophets justice is associated with caring for others, as something that is not in conflict with mercy, but rather an expression of it. Biblically, justice is God's saving action at work for all that are oppressed:
"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isaiah 1:17)
"This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed" (Jeremiah 21:12)
The way that we "administer justice", the Prophets tell us, is by encouraging and helping the oppressed. In contrast to what the Satisfaction-Doctrine says, God's justice is not in conflict with his mercy, they are inseparable. True justice can only come though mercy
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another. (Zechariah 7:9)
"Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice".( Isaiah 30:18)
If we want to understand the concept of justice as the writers of the Old Testament did, then we must see it as a "setting things right again". Thus when Christ comes, the way that he brings about justice is through mercy and compassion. Notice how in this next verse Christ does not bring justice with a hammer, but with a tenderness that cares for the broken and the abused.
" I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations… A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory" (Matthew 12:18-21
The way that God brings about justice and "leads it to victory" is through acts of compassion - sheltering the "smoldering wick", and the "bruised reed". And what does Christ "proclaim to the nations" to bring about this justice?
|
|
|
Re: Why wouldn't Christ have died for Satan?
#6982
03/11/05 02:24 PM
03/11/05 02:24 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Senior Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 628
New York
|
|
I just got off from work, about to take a 4-5 hour nap then return to work this evening (Ah the joys of nursing) so I have to try to be quick.
The Bible taught the fact of the atonment, but did not give the theories as to how it worked. Apperently the oldest theory of the atonement was by Tertullian. He was also a student of nature, and he said that when food is short and pellican chicks were going to starve to death, pellican mothers would poke a hole in her stomach so that her chicks will not starve by eating her food, and he compaired this to what Jesus did in his death. That humans were dieing and Jesus gave us his life in our place so that we would not end up dieing for what we did not have.
This view was replaced by what was called the "Bate Theory" or "The Ransom theory" where because man sinned he belonged to Satan. God offered Satan a trade, humankind for Jesus. Since Jesus was a much better prize Satan accepted the trade, nor forseeing that due to who he was and his obedience that the resurection would happen and Satan not only looses humans but Jesus as well.
This was the major view of the atonment for nearly 1,000 years, until about 1100 when Abalard and Anselm presented their views. Both based on the belief of the eternal torment in a litteral fire hell, and asking how do we get God to let us into heaven and not send us to hell, and both were based on the model of fudalism and popery.
In Anselm's view people are serfs who owe a debt to their lord that is too big for them to pay, so the lord pays it for them.
Abalards view has God as a good loving lord who shows his love in doing anything for his serfs, who in responce to this love completely devotes themselves to doing works for their lord. I dislike Abalard's Moral Influence Theory as it ultamately ends up being righteousness by works (granted the works are awakended by God's love) but except influenceing us in the right direction, we end up doing the works that save ourselves. The cross is turned into a coach encouraging righteousness by works.
Until I recently learned the fudal setting I was amazed that the Catholic church accepted Amselms view and not the works centered Abalard view. But learning the fudal context, in Abalard's view the lord starts out by being very kind and loving and giving, which awakens the responce in the people. A beautiful discription of Abalard's view is the song "When I Survey the Wonderous Cross"
Anselm had the lord intrinsicly worthy of all that the surfs could give simply because they were the nobleman, king or pope, not conditioned upon whether they were kind or loving or not. and that no matter how much the surfs gave, it was never enough to meet what the lord deserved, and these fudal lords did feel that they were deserving just because, and that no matter how much they got from the surfs it was never enough. Thus just because it appealed to the greed of these noblemen, we have our view of the atonment.
Now Abalard's view did leave things out which we have in the Biblical facts. Today many conservatives side with Anselm, and many liberals side with Abalard. Sadly many conservatives feel that there are only the two views and that if you do not hold Anselm's view, then you automatically hold Abalard's view. There are things I like and VERY MUCH DISLIKE about both of these two views, and I do not consider myself a follower of either Abalard or Anselm. My understanding of Mrs. White appears, to me to be closer to Tertullian's pelican theory than either of the other three theories.
|
|
|
Re: Why wouldn't Christ have died for Satan?
#6983
03/11/05 10:18 PM
03/11/05 10:18 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
Biblically to "bring justice" does not mean to bring punishment, but to bring healing and reconciliation. Justice means to make things right. All through the Prophets justice is associated with caring for others, as something that is not in conflict with mercy, but rather an expression of it. Biblically, justice is God's saving action at work for all that are oppressed:
This indeed is justice as is in Christ, the scriptures, and totally in harmony with the spirit of God.
Shalom
|
|
|
Re: Why wouldn't Christ have died for Satan?
#6984
03/12/05 03:50 AM
03/12/05 03:50 AM
|
|
|
I'm glad to see there are some fellow Maxwellites on Maritime.
|
|
|
Re: Why wouldn't Christ have died for Satan?
#6985
03/14/05 08:36 AM
03/14/05 08:36 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Senior Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 628
New York
|
|
Dr. Maxwell is one approach, and the best known, with in Adventism who have come to understand Ellen White to teach a certan understanding of hell, and thus trying to explain the atonement in light of this insight and the insights from her Great Controversy Philosophy. But we find these raising in different parts of the world through out the history of Seventh-day Adventism.
What is sad is that people don't understand what Dr. Maxwell or others are teaching, and jump to false conclusions.
|
|
|
Re: Why wouldn't Christ have died for Satan?
#6986
03/14/05 02:48 PM
03/14/05 02:48 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
It's not just within Seventh-day Adventism! There's a fellow named Greg Boyd who has written some wonderful things. There's a pdf with his first two chapters of the book "Is God go Blame?" here: http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/title/exc/2394-I.pdfI wish I could copy and paste from it, but I can't. So I'll type a little bit. quote:
The foundation for Christianity is the claim that God looks like Jesus. Jesus spent His ministry freeing people from evil and misery. This is what God seeks to do. Jesus wars against spiritual forces that oppress people and resist God’s good purposes. That is what God does. Jesus loved people others rejected—even people who rejected Him. This is how God loves. Jesus had nothing but compassion for people who were afflicted by sin, disease and tragedy. This is how God feels. And Jesus died on the cross of Calvary, suffering in the place of sinful humanity, defeating sin and the devil, because He passionately loves people and wants to reconcile them to God. This is how God saves….
This is the foundation of all sin: the lie that God is untrustworthy, the lie that God is not altogether loving and that He doesn’t have our best interests in mind. Adam and Eve cam under the grip of this deceptive picture of God. At that moment they stopped trusting God as their source of life….
A faulty picture of God led to an ungodly evaluation that in turn brought about a rebellious action….A false concept of God, and therefore of herself, gave birth to sinful behavior, which in turn brought about spiritual and physical death….
Just as the foundation of all that separates us from God is a false picture of God, so too the foundation of all that restores our innocent communion with God is a true picture of God. So everything hands on the question, Where do we find the true picture of God? The answer that the Bible unequivocally and emphatically gives is Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the truth that dispels the serpent’s lie. The root of the word “truth” in Greek means “not covered.” The serpent covered the true God from our minds and hearts, but Jesus removes the covering and revels to us the real God….
The wholeness and vibrancy of our relationship with God depends on letting God define Himself for us in Christ; we should not try to define God outside of or along side of Jesus Christ. Christ is our center, and everything in life must be viewed in relation to Him. Our reading of Scripture must be carried out without looking even for a moment to the right or left of Jesus Christ. The Word incarnate is the fulfillment and complete expression of God’s revelation in Scripture….
Just as the lie about God is the foundation for all sin, so too the truth about God, revealed in Jesus Christ, is the foundation for all wholeness. Only the revelation of God in Christ completely dispels all forms of the lie we have been deceived into believing. When our picture of God is built on any foundation other than Jesus Christ—whether a foundation of experience, philosophy or Scripture interpreted apart from Christ—we will be vulnerable to believing a lie about God….We will embrace a god that is consistent with our jaded presuppositions and fallible expectations, which keep us in bondage to the serpent’s lie. Our understanding of God, ourselves, suffering and every other aspect of creation will be to some extent corrupted….
All we can and need to know about God is found in Christ, for God fully dwells in and is revealed in Christ. And the central purpose of this complete indwelling was to “reconcile to Himself all things”….
The most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of every false picture of God is that it qualifies and compromises the truth about God’s love. The most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of the God is that the love He is and the love He gives is unsurpassable. A greater love simply cannot be conceived.
I guess I wound up typing quite a bit. The observant reader will notice that many of the phrases are almost word for word from Ellen White, yet this fellow is not an SDA! It shows that God is not miserly when it comes to truth.
(By way of full disclosure, I slightly changed the first paragraph of what I quoted, as the context was specific to the intro of the book. I made it more general, but didn't change the meaning any.)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
