It's not just as good. God in human flesh was better. As John said:



or EGW



We didn't know what God was really like before Christ came.



One of my favorite passages. Actually the whole first chapter is incredible.

Question for Colin. Where does either Jones or Waggoner present the idea that it was necessary for Christ to die in order for God to be able to legal pardon us?

They didn't, Tom!

In fact they teach that Christ's sacrifice was not intended to change God's attitude towards us, but to change our attitude toward God. Christ reconciled us back to God, not God back to us. We were God’s enemies, but He was never our enemy.

God legally presented His case in Jesus and convinced the jury that He could be trusted with their eternal life. He earned the legal right to rule humanity by becoming a man and inheriting the earth through Adam's birthright. How's that for a little legal jargon?

scott

Er, Tom, I shan't really concede my point since you've rather missed the point, interpreting my comment according to your favourite theme...

Who wrote longest as well as the most memorised chapters in the Bible? - Ps 119 & 23.

Nuff said all round really.

I can't believe I didn't spot this post yesterday!! It deserves direct comment, not just coincidental references.

I know Jones & Waggoner emphasised the "in Christ" concept of the objective gospel of efficacious grace, but they were just clarifying the doctrine of the Two Adams in the context of Christ's assumed, sinful humanity - a link not yet widely taught. Both truths were already held, though. Ford's objective gospel stance is different to either SDA positions above - as I recall..., aside from his "Christ's humanity"(!!)

Is that your only point close to Ford - and you view it as just agape being persuasively portrayed to draw all men, but not also all men being "in Christ" by his corporate/actual sinful humanity legally & graceously to die their death due them under the law, in his death?

On justification & sanctification between Reformation and historic Adventist theology, do you hold to the former, like you do on Christology and the objective Fordian gospel? I agree with the contrast on J&S you drew, and the Australian clash till the 70's (Ford of course omitting sanctification as a gospel requirement) was resolved with the GC in the consensus statement at Palmdale (California), in 1976, in favour of historic Adventism! - remember?:-)

Back home it appeared that Ford never lived down that dispute defeat, but the GC is strangely shy today, it seems, for rightly asserting historic Adventism over Reformation theology in the crunch with its foremost proponent in our midst.

We have the Palmdale concensus in writing, but it appears officially almost fully abandoned by now - and very soon after, too, leaving mild but definite confusion by holding to Fordianism (OH, NO!) but yet not formery disowning the true Adventism of Palmdale...yes well: division, eh:-(

QOD divisions are far reaching!

What did you make of the 50th anniversary get together?

Off the top of my head, the Two Covenants truth. Also, it is an implied term - ie. a necessity - of blood needing to be shed for the remission of sins.

If, nay since you can't see that since last time I mentioned it, there's very little left to discuss.

Incidentally, implied terms don't get mentioned normally, so that may be why you're missing a reference to it that will settle your curiosity...;-)

What do you mean by saying, "implied terms don't get mentioned normally?" It seems like you are stating that implied truths aren't normally explicitly stated. But this isn't really true, is it? Let's consider a few.

Here's one. "God is love." This in an implied truth throughout Sctipure, yet John explicitly states it.

Here's another one. God loves us. Similar to the first. It's implied all over the place in Scripture, but it's also explicitly stated.

Let's try one more. Sin will result in death. That's implied in many ways, but also explicitly stated.

To support your assertion that implied truth, or "terms," to use your word, what are some examples of that?

Regarding the two covenants, I'm well acquainted with Jone's and Waggoner's teaching on this. I don't recall reading anything that even implies, let alone actually teaches, that God could not legally pardon us unless Christ died for us. Here's a good summary of Waggoner's teaching on the covenants:



Is there something here which teaches that God could not legally pardon sin unless Christ died? Or is there some other quote you could produce which suggests this?

Here's something Waggoner wrote which supports my assertion that he did not hold this idea:



Regarding that blood was necessary in order for there to be remission of sins, the whole question is what this means. Everyone agrees that blood is necessary. The question is why. To assert that blood being necessary is an argument as to why blood is necessary is completely circular. To my knowledge, before Calvin gave voice to the idea, it had not been stated.

Since I missed your point, what was it?

"God did it all", as the favourite quote goes: righteousness is beyond us (without his help), and under the law we have to die, but God supplied the propitiatory substitute which the law recognised. You recognise the terminology of Romans here...?

That Glad Tidings quote, familiar as it is to both of us, states that God fulfils what we have to do (but we can't do and live, and can't live without doing), which the Bible says the law demands of us - the moral and the sacrificial laws (we are under condemnation, so we can't live without a substitute): our legal obligations for sin and righteousness: death and obedience, the former allowing forgiveness for rebirth, thus enabling righteousness by faith.

That means a legal requirement for forgiveness which God himself supplies, staying true to his own law, which is himself. Of course the law reflects his character, and his justice involves wrath against sin. The Waggoner of Romans quote confuses itself with that popular contradiction: Christ is our propitiation (Bible says so), but propitiation of wrath against sin isn't true here because God himself propitiates for us. That doesn't follow at all, for propitiation involves wrath against sin - that's the way it is. God doing it himself is streets ahead (putting it ultra mildly) of heathen expiation, where the worshipper supplies the appeasing sacrifice. (Biblical) propitiation is to the glory of God, not to the exclusion of divine wrath against sin. That God provides the propitiation by Jesus' blood is to his glory, and highlights the legal necessity of sacrifice for grace to bring forgiveness.

As for your last paragraph, you are unfair: you never make known that you agree blood is necessary - you only say showing agape was necessary, until we insist on it and then you turn round and say but of course while asking why. That's intellectually deceptive if not dishonest, I'm sorry: you cannot refrain from supporting it while arguing no legal requirements for pardon (a LEGAL ACTION) and then suddenly blightly say, when confronted by it, "but of course," only to challenge the reason for it when the reason is clear in Scripture: to meet the just demands of the law.

As for your last post, which is easier to understand, Ps 119 or the Book of Hebrews? The two are equally good but Jesus fulfilling prophecy is always more theologically detailed. You won't win your argument on the NT being better than the OT as regards telling the truth.

Yes this forgiveness is the foundation of our Christian experience and the heart of the gospel, so this debate rages on and on while you don't recognise the legal basis and certainty of God's truth and his salvation.