Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,619
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
|
|
5 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Nadi, 2 invisible),
3,500
guests, and 16
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model?
[Re: Tom]
#105688
12/07/08 01:03 AM
12/07/08 01:03 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, please address 105641 and 105642 (above). Thank you.
|
|
|
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model?
[Re: Tom]
#105689
12/07/08 01:04 AM
12/07/08 01:04 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, please address 105641 and 105642 (above). Thank you.
|
|
|
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model?
[Re: Tom]
#105690
12/07/08 01:27 AM
12/07/08 01:27 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, please address 105641 and 105642 above. Thank you.
|
|
|
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#105717
12/07/08 07:19 AM
12/07/08 07:19 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Regarding 105641, God offered Lucifer pardon under the conditions of repentance and submission. It wasn't necessary for Christ to die in order for God to do so. This establishes the point I wanted to make. It looks like your wanting to argue that God didn't actually pardon Lucifer (which is true, since Lucifer didn't accept the offer), so one cannot reason that God can pardon sin without the death of Christ. This is a very weak argument. The offer was made, under the conditions stated, and would have been granted on the spot had it been accepted, and Lucifer would have been restored to his position. This disproves the idea that God needs the death of Christ. There was never anything lacking in God that He should need the death of Christ for anything whatsoever. T:In the specific case of the angels, there was no way they could return if they rebelled. Indeed, they tried to return later, but weren't accepted back, because they weren't able to repent.
M:Somewhere you said sin and rebellion are the same thing. Not exactly. I think I spoke of willful sin. Of course ignorant sin would not be rebellion. So, how could they sin and not rebel? That is, how could they have repented if rebelling rendered them incapable of repenting? They could have stopped rebelling at the time EGW indicated, which is the time she identified as too late for Satan to go back, but not too late for his sympathizers.
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]
#105765
12/08/08 05:23 AM
12/08/08 05:23 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
This disproves the idea that God needs the death of Christ. It doesn't disprove it. You can surmise it, but you can't prove it. God offered to pardon A&E before Jesus died. This doesn't prove His death was not needed. In the specific case of the angels, there was no way they could return if they rebelled. . . Of course ignorant sin would not be rebellion. Do you think they were initially ignorant, that they didn't know they were sinning and rebelling?
|
|
|
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#105766
12/08/08 05:24 AM
12/08/08 05:24 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: Also, do you agree God has never pardoned a FMA without requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus?
T: No. Are you sure? Can you name someone God has pardoned without blood? M: God has never actually granted pardon without requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus, submission, and repentance.
T: This is a moot point. He offered the pardon, and it would have been granted had Lucifer accepted it. It would be a moot point if God actually pardoned Lucifer without blood. But the fact is it didn’t happen. You have no way of knowing if God would have pardoned him without blood. There is no inspired passage which says so. M: Consequently, we can confidently surmise God would not have actually pardoned Lucifer without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus.
T: If your logic were true, that God cannot legally offer pardon without someone being killed, He couldn't have offered Lucifer pardon. This logic is false. On the contrary, it is true. God offered to pardon A&E 4,000 years before Jesus died. M: In truth, though, there was no provision to save him should he choose to sin.
T: It looks like your thinking of an EGW statement and trying to apply it to something it doesn't belong to. No one can sin with impunity. No one can be saved in transgression. However, anyone can be pardoned if they will repent. Here’s the statement – “But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law.” {SR 18.2} She is clearly saying nothing could be done to save them should they chose to sin. You seem to be saying provision did indeed exist to save them if they repented. But she didn’t say anything about repentance being a provision. She simply says “no provision” existed. Neither can her statement be construed to mean no provision existed to save them in or with their sin. The construction of the sentence totally disallows it. M: I agree God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer. It's just that I do not believe God counted him guilty of sinning when it was offered. The offer was no longer available the instant he was guilty of sinning, which happened when he chose to continue pursuing his course when he realized it would be sinful to do so.
T: This is totally illogical. First of all, it doesn't fit the facts, which are that Lucifer sinned, and God offered him pardon. The fact that God offered him pardon is of itself sufficient to demonstrate that Lucifer sinned (why else would he be offered pardon?) Also we are told that Lucifer would have been pardoned had he "confessed his sin." Obviously he would have no sin to confess if he had not sinned. Please post the passages you believe conclusively support what you believe to be facts. Thank you.
|
|
|
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model?
[Re: Tom]
#105767
12/08/08 05:40 AM
12/08/08 05:40 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Where I differ with you is you see that one can be lost forever because of one sin. A&E would have died because of one sin if Jesus hadn't pleaded with the Father three times to implement the plan of salvation. In heaven right now, the commission of one sin would be unpardonable. In the New Earth, the commission of one sin would be unpardonable. I couldn't find any statements from the SOP which support your idea. Are you aware of any? Also I can think of no example of any person who was lost in the manner you are suggesting. Can you think of anyone? Jesus could not have sinned and repented. His first sin would have been unpardonable. Can you explain why? This is at the very beginning of Lucifer's fall. Note the word "iniquity" is used to describe Lucifer's activity. Please point it out to me. I couldn't find it in the quotes you posted.
|
|
|
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#105768
12/08/08 05:46 AM
12/08/08 05:46 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
PS - God knows who will and who will not accept His offer of pardon. Someone might ask, "Why does God bother offering to pardon people He knows will refuse to meet the conditions?" Is He somehow hoping He's wrong about them? Or, is there a different, more logical, more loving reason? For example, Jesus knew Judas was going to betray Him. Yet Jesus labored long and hard with Judas. Why? To what end? In the case of Lucifer, God foresaw his sin and rebellion. He also foresaw him deceiving A&E and causing their fall. Given these facts, why did God offer to pardon him? Was He hoping He was somehow wrong? Or, was it so that he "might be left without excuse"? That's what I think. "Art Thou the Christ?" they said, "tell us." But Christ remained silent. They continued to ply Him with questions. At last in tones of mournful pathos He answered, "If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go." But that they might be left without excuse He added the solemn warning, "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God." {DA 714.2}
Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given and in His own chosen way brought them before the people to awaken and impress the mind with them, that all may be left without excuse. {2T 605.2}
God's design that the knowledge of the truth should come to all, that none may remain in darkness, ignorant of its principles; but that all should be tested upon it and decide for or against it, that all may be warned and left without excuse. {2T 633.2}
Jesus knew that Judas was defective in character, but notwithstanding this, He accepted him as one of the disciples, and gave him the same opportunities and privileges that He gave to the others whom He had chosen. Judas was left without excuse in the evil course he afterward pursued. Judas might have become a doer of the word, as were eventually Peter and James and John and the other disciples. Jesus gave precious lessons of instruction, so that those who were associated with Him might have been converted, and have no need of clinging to the defects that marred their characters. {TM 46.2} The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2}
|
|
|
Re: Does the legal aspect of imputed righteousness make sense under the Christus Victor model?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#105784
12/08/08 08:32 AM
12/08/08 08:32 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I skipped several things because I've already explained my position several times on these skipped things. I think you understand it. I'm not sure why you're just repeating things we've already said and discussed. I've picked out things which looked to be new items, and responded to them. If there's something I've omitted that I haven't recently explained my thoughts on several times that you'd like to have discussed, please bring it up. T:In the specific case of the angels, there was no way they could return if they rebelled. . . Of course ignorant sin would not be rebellion.
MM:Do you think they were initially ignorant, that they didn't know they were sinning and rebelling? I just wrote "of course ignorant sin would not be rebellion." The question, "Do you think they were initially ignorant, that they didn't know they were ... rebelling?" is asking an impossibility. If ignorance is not rebellion, then the could not be rebelling if ignorant, right? T:Where I differ with you is you see that one can be lost forever because of one sin.
MM:A&E would have died because of one sin if Jesus hadn't pleaded with the Father three times to implement the plan of salvation. This is true. If it were possible for God not to be merciful, then it would be possible for a single sin to cause one to be lost. In heaven right now, the commission of one sin would be unpardonable. Why do you think this to be the case? In the New Earth, the commission of one sin would be unpardonable. Same question. T:I couldn't find any statements from the SOP which support your idea. Are you aware of any? Also I can think of no example of any person who was lost in the manner you are suggesting. Can you think of anyone?
M:Jesus could not have sinned and repented. His first sin would have been unpardonable. Can you explain why? I think this is scratching where it doesn't itch. This seems way off field, but if you want to discuss it, we can. Why do you think Jesus could not have sinned and repented? Why do you think this first sin would have been unpardonable? This isn't really addressing my questions. That is, I said I wasn't aware of statements in the SOP which say that a person can be lost by committing one sin and asked if you were aware of any. Does the fact that you didn't produce any mean that you aren't aware of any? My other question was requesting a person who was lost in the manner you are suggesting is possible. You didn't cite anyone here, so may I assume you're not aware of anyone who was lost in this way? This is at the very beginning of Lucifer's fall. Note the word "iniquity" is used to describe Lucifer's activity.
Please point it out to me. I couldn't find it in the quotes you posted. Here's one place: Sin originated with him, who, next to Christ, stood highest in the favor of God, and highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of Heaven. Before his fall, Lucifer was the covering cherub, holy and undefiled. The prophet of God declares, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." [Ezekiel 28:15.](4SP 316) PS - God knows who will and who will not accept His offer of pardon. There's evidence this is not the case. Someone might ask, "Why does God bother offering to pardon people He knows will refuse to meet the conditions?" Is He somehow hoping He's wrong about them? Or, is there a different, more logical, more loving reason? Yes, the more logical, more loving reason is that your premise is false. For example, Jesus knew Judas was going to betray Him. Yet Jesus labored long and hard with Judas. Why? To what end? In the case of Lucifer, God foresaw his sin and rebellion. He also foresaw him deceiving A&E and causing their fall. Given these facts, why did God offer to pardon him? Was He hoping He was somehow wrong? Or, was it so that he "might be left without excuse"? That's what I think. I think you have faulty premises here. I don't see how this ties into the discussion either. I think God made the offers of pardon in good faith.
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]
#105836
12/09/08 01:02 AM
12/09/08 01:02 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
T: In the specific case of the angels, there was no way they could return if they rebelled. . . Of course ignorant sin would not be rebellion.
MM: Do you think they were initially ignorant, that they didn't know they were sinning and rebelling?
T: I just wrote "of course ignorant sin would not be rebellion." The question, "Do you think they were initially ignorant, that they didn't know they were ... rebelling?" is asking an impossibility. If ignorance is not rebellion, then the could not be rebelling if ignorant, right? So, tell me if I’m hearing you right. You believe the angels knew they were guilty of sinning while God was offering them pardon, but God stopped offering them pardon the moment they rebelled. Is that what you think? If so, what is the difference between sinning and rebelling? M: In heaven right now, the commission of one sin would be unpardonable. In the New Earth, the commission of one sin would be unpardonable.
T: Why do you think this to be the case? Because they know better. Also, they are dwelling in the direct, undiluted presence of God, and sin and sinners cannot exist in the direct, undiluted presence God. “To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. {DA 107.4} Do you agree that they cannot sin and repent in heaven or in the new earth? If not, why not? Please be thorough. Thank you. M: Jesus could not have sinned and repented. His first sin would have been unpardonable. Can you explain why?
T: I think this is scratching where it doesn't itch. This seems way off field, but if you want to discuss it, we can. Why do you think Jesus could not have sinned and repented? Why do you think this first sin would have been unpardonable?
This isn't really addressing my questions. That is, I said I wasn't aware of statements in the SOP which say that a person can be lost by committing one sin and asked if you were aware of any. Does the fact that you didn't produce any mean that you aren't aware of any?
My other question was requesting a person who was lost in the manner you are suggesting is possible. You didn't cite anyone here, so may I assume you're not aware of anyone who was lost in this way? “All have sinned.” Thus, your requests are impossible. However, the fact Jesus could not sin once without committing the unpardonable sin is more than sufficient to prove the point. I suspect you disagree. If so, why? T: This is at the very beginning of Lucifer's fall. Note the word "iniquity" is used to describe Lucifer's activity.
M: Please point it out to me. I couldn't find it in the quotes you posted.
T: Here's one place: Sin originated with him, who, next to Christ, stood highest in the favor of God, and highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of Heaven. Before his fall, Lucifer was the covering cherub, holy and undefiled. The prophet of God declares, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." [Ezekiel 28:15.](4SP 316) First, this wasn’t one of the quotes you posted and asked me to “note”. Second, the use of the word “iniquity” in the new quote you just posted implies God viewed Lucifer as a transgressor the instant he was guilty of iniquity. However, it fails to confirm your idea that God bore long with Lucifer in heaven after he was guilty of iniquity. Neither does it confirm your idea that God offered to pardon and reinstate him after he was guilty of iniquity. The tone and tense of Ezekiel 28 strongly implies Lucifer was cast down the moment he sinned. M: God knows who will and who will not accept His offer of pardon. Someone might ask, "Why does God bother offering to pardon people He knows will refuse to meet the conditions?" Is He somehow hoping He's wrong about them? Or, is there a different, more logical, more loving reason? For example, Jesus knew Judas was going to betray Him. Yet Jesus labored long and hard with Judas. Why? To what end? In the case of Lucifer, God foresaw his sin and rebellion. He also foresaw him deceiving A&E and causing their fall. Given these facts, why did God offer to pardon him? Was He hoping He was somehow wrong? Or, was it so that he "might be left without excuse"? That's what I think. Listen: "Art Thou the Christ?" they said, "tell us." But Christ remained silent. They continued to ply Him with questions. At last in tones of mournful pathos He answered, "If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go." But that they might be left without excuse He added the solemn warning, "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God." {DA 714.2}
Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given and in His own chosen way brought them before the people to awaken and impress the mind with them, that all may be left without excuse. {2T 605.2}
God's design that the knowledge of the truth should come to all, that none may remain in darkness, ignorant of its principles; but that all should be tested upon it and decide for or against it, that all may be warned and left without excuse. {2T 633.2}
Jesus knew that Judas was defective in character, but notwithstanding this, He accepted him as one of the disciples, and gave him the same opportunities and privileges that He gave to the others whom He had chosen. Judas was left without excuse in the evil course he afterward pursued. Judas might have become a doer of the word, as were eventually Peter and James and John and the other disciples. Jesus gave precious lessons of instruction, so that those who were associated with Him might have been converted, and have no need of clinging to the defects that marred their characters. {TM 46.2} The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2} T: There's evidence this is not the case. . . Yes, the more logical, more loving reason is that your premise is false. . . I think you have faulty premises here. I don't see how this ties into the discussion either. I think God made the offers of pardon in good faith. You have been unable to prove that God does not know who will be saved and lost. Neither have you been able to prove God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. People have labored to show you the truth about God’s foreknowledge but you have steadfastly rejected their testimony, which, of course, you are entitled to do. However, God’s word speaks for itself. Throughout the entire Bible God has accurately foretold the future. Knowing the future as precisely and accurately as does God requires knowing in advance the outcome of every decision everyone will make. Naturally, this is the case. Otherwise, none could rely on the “sure word of prophecy” as that which is not “cunningly devised fables”. In addition to the many testimonies in the Bible we also have the many new and clearer testimonies in the SOP. The SOP makes it abundantly clear God knew in advance Lucifer would sin and rebel and deceive A&E into sinning. Any theory that suggests God did not know these things with absolute certainty is an attempt to undermine the sure word of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say God offered to pardon and reinstate after he was guilty of iniquity. Given the fact the SOP does not contradict the Bible it is simple to conclude nothing Ellen wrote can be taken to mean otherwise. Also, given the fact God knew Lucifer would reject all efforts to restore him it is clear He did not offer to pardon him “in good faith” as if to say God was dispossessed of absolute foreknowledge. So, the question remains – Why did God offer to pardon and reinstate Lucifer given the fact He knew all efforts to restore him would be rejected and result in the great controversy involving men and angels? Again, I believe a partial answer is contained in the principles articulated in the following quote: “God's design that the knowledge of the truth should come to all, that none may remain in darkness, ignorant of its principles; but that all should be tested upon it and decide for or against it, that all may be warned and left without excuse. {2T 633.2} Namely, “That all may be warned and left without excuse.”
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|