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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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





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

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

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

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

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

But also very important in this is the JUSTIFICATION.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Rom 4:25 says it very well


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

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

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

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

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



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



Probably?



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

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

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

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



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