|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,631
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
|
|
|
Without the Shedding of Blood
#48400
03/21/06 02:09 PM
03/21/06 02:09 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." This is often used as an argument for the penal substitution view of the atonement. Also those who hold to the penal substitution view often assume that any alternative must be the Moral Influence Theory. This is not the case, and will be treated on another topic. The purpose of this thread is to kill two birds with one stone. One is to discuss Hebrews 9:22, showing that it is not necessary to hold to the view that this verse is teaching that God's wrath was appeased by the sacrifice of Christ. The second is to present some more Fifield. quote:
You will find the text in the ninth chapter of Hebrews, and the twenty-second verse: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no remission." This text has in it the very soul and center and secret of all true Christian consecration.
The idea has obtained that God was angry with men because of sin, that God’s wrath must be satisfied; and so an arrangement must be made by which He could pour out His wrath upon His Son, and thus satisfy His justice. And while this wrath was waiting for full satisfaction when it should be poured out on His Son, a system of sacrifice was instituted which would appease His wrath temporarily, and hold it in abeyance.
But this idea of atonement, or reconciliation, separates entirely between the Father and the Son, making the Father so stern and hard that He demands his full “pound of flesh,” so to speak, and the Son so kind, so good, that He gives it out of His own heart that we may be set free. Thus instead of Christ revealing the Father, the two are opposite—entirely separated.
But no, “He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father.” And if you want to know how God feels toward sin, notice how Christ hated sin. If you want to know how God feels towards sin, notice how Christ hated sin. If you want to know how God feels toward the sinner, notice how Christ loved the sinner.
God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased; but it will consume the sinner in the end. His love is unending, unchanging, for the sinner. And just as we have learned that the moral law is not an arbitrary thing, but a statement of everlasting love and life, so, my brethren, may we learn that, although the ceremonies have passed away by limitation, yet the meaning of these ceremonies is just as true today as then. And it still is true that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” (1897 GCB, Sermon #2)
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48401
03/22/06 04:27 AM
03/22/06 04:27 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, once again, please quote someone who actually believes the view Fifield condemns above. If you cannot prove that this view exists then it is pointless to argue against it.
The reason why the wages of sin is death is because Jesus ordained it thus. The fact sinners continue to muliply is evidence sin is not the natural, immediate consequences of sinning.
The only way to eliminate sinning is to eliminate sinners, otherwise, they will go on sinning. That's one of the reasons why Jesus forbade them access to the tree of life.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48402
03/22/06 04:52 AM
03/22/06 04:52 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Thank you, MM, for that advice.
Tom, who believes that God's wrath against sin is also against sinners???!! Propitiation appeases God's wrath against sin - not sinners - and thereby reconciles the sinner. Fifield's objection is noted, but who's he objecting to??? Anyone in Adventism? Where does our church publish this view, which is clearly wrong, after all?
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48403
03/22/06 04:54 AM
03/22/06 04:54 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Tom, once again, please quote someone who actually believes the view Fifield condemns above. If you cannot prove that this view exists then it is pointless to argue against it.
Are you saying you agree with Fifield?
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48404
03/22/06 05:24 AM
03/22/06 05:24 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
The only way to eliminate sinning is to eliminate sinners, otherwise, they will go on sinning. That's one of the reasons why Jesus forbade them access to the tree of life.
The only way to eliminate sinning is to reveal truth. Sin originated in heaven where there were no sinners. Please take note of the following:
quote:
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}
It is the cross that makes the universe secure, not the destruction of Satan.
Colin, I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Is it this phrase, "The idea has obtained that God was angry with men because of sin"? If so, take out that one phrase. Fifield's argument doesn't depend on that one phrase one whit. A key point is here:
quote:
God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased.
It makes no sense to speak of God's wrath against sin being appeased, because it can't be.
Another key point is this:
quote:
But this idea of atonement, or reconciliation, separates entirely between the Father and the Son, making the Father so stern and hard that He demands his full “pound of flesh,” so to speak, and the Son so kind, so good, that He gives it out of His own heart that we may be set free. Thus instead of Christ revealing the Father, the two are opposite—entirely separated.
Here's what MM wrote in another post:
quote:
We know Jesus felt the woe and wrath of God, that He realized God’s hatred toward sin. Jesus had become sin for us and He felt the full brunt of God’s anger against sin – as if He were sin itself. We cannot know how much God hates sin, but we know He treated Jesus as if He were sin itself.
I cannot imagine God cutting sin any slack. I cannot imagine Him withholding one ounce of hatred and anger. I see, with limited perception, God unleashing all His pent up wrath and anger. To minimize how God treated Jesus on the cross is to undermine how much He hates sin.
And Jesus endured the combined wrath of God against sin as if He were sin itself. If we view things in this manner, rather than remembering how much the Father and Son love each other, I believe we can better understand just how much wrath Jesus really felt at the hands of an angry God.
It is easier for me to envision God taking out His hatred and vengeance upon sin than it is for me to imagine Him taking it out on Jesus. As such, I cannot begin to fathom the soul anguish Jesus suffered. Nor can I imagine God withholding His anger, or limiting His vengeance for any reason.
This seems to me to be the very thing Fifield is speaking of. God cannot withhold "one ounce of hatred and anger" "unleashing His pent up wrath and anger" "how much wrath Jesus really felt at the hands of an angry God" "God taking out His hatred and vengeance ... taking it out on Jesus."
Is this a positive portrait of God's character being described? Is this the picture we see in Jesus Christ? One filled with vengeance, anger, and hate? Looking for someone to take it out on?
quote:
Since the announcement to the serpent in Eden, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed" (Gen. 3:15), Satan had known that he did not hold absolute sway over the world. There was seen in men the working of a power that withstood his dominion. With intense interest he watched the sacrifices offered by Adam and his sons. In these ceremonies he discerned a symbol of communion between earth and heaven. He set himself to intercept this communion. He misrepresented God, and misinterpreted the rites that pointed to the Saviour. Men were led to fear God as one who delighted in their destruction. The sacrifices that should have revealed His love were offered only to appease His wrath. Satan excited the evil passions of men, in order to fasten his rule upon them. When God's written word was given, Satan studied the prophecies of the Saviour's advent. From generation to generation he worked to blind the people to these prophecies, that they might reject Christ at His coming. {DA 115.1}
Are there any who believe Satan's misrepresentations that God delights in man's destruction? Wouldn't it be naive of us to think that Satan is so incompetent that nobody believes his lies?
quote:
TE - When the wicked are resurrected, God will cast them into a lake of fire, something like molten lava, which He will keep them supernaturally alive to suffer by being scalded, or boiled, until they pay by physical suffering for each sin they have committed. The righteous who witness this will be rejoice to see this happen, even when it involves their children or other loved ones. Holy angels who witness the suffering of the wicked will rejoice. God will rejoice in the suffering of our loved ones.
MM - Correct.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48405
03/22/06 05:42 AM
03/22/06 05:42 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
More of the sermon: quote:
What is the blood? Gen. 9:4 “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” What is the blood?—The life. Another text. Lev. 7:26 “Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.” Again in Deut. 12:23: “Only be sure that thou eat not the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.” This is the Lord interpreting the law. Lev. 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the flood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood.”
The life is the blood. This is the Bible interpretation; and we will let it interpret itself. Then when we read that “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin,” it does not mean that by some magic-charm process or incantation, it enables him to count us as cleansed. The whole living gospel was brought forth there in the sanctuary as clearly as it is here in the New Testament, and it is just as clearly applied to human lives and human hearts; but the devil stole it away.
In this dispensation, the living gospel is revealed to us in the incarnate One, Jesus of Nazareth; and yet man loses the gospel out of Christ my making the sign of the cross; and they say, We are safe, we have made the sign of the cross. They say that by some magic process or charm word or name by which they believe on Him very hard, it will save them. They are using it precisely the same way as the ark was used back there; and the Lord has let them be taken captive from time to time, to show them that the Word in that way does not have power to save. It is not any charm process, it is a living fact. God gave us His life in His Son that we might have life, and that we might have that life to live on the earth.
I am told that it is a scientific fact that if someone will allow his blood to be taken and transfused into the veins of a poor anemic person, the first thing the blood does is to purge out the poison and sickness, and then to build him up with a new life. New blood has been transfused into that person, and new life is imparted. Do you get the figure? We are saved by transfusing blood. God has opened His mighty heart, and poured out His life in Christ, for our salvation. He has given His life that we might take it and be purified with it, and live on earth by faith. And the life of His Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Fifield GCB 1897 Sermon #2)
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48406
03/22/06 01:43 PM
03/22/06 01:43 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
quote:
God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased.
It makes no sense to speak of God's wrath against sin being appeased, because it can't be.
Not so quick: sinners shall suffer it in eternal death, but Rom 5:9 gives believers the good news of deliverance through the Saviour.
This objection to propitiation's appeasement of wrath isn't just that it misrepresents God's character, but that the misrepresentation is God's wrathful desire to destroy sinners along with sin. That "God was angry with men because of sin" comes straight from this false idea of wrath, and is the basic, false idea resulting in separating God's love for sinners from his wrath against sin - and applying that wrath to sinners too quote:
He misrepresented God, and misinterpreted the rites that pointed to the Saviour. Men were led to fear God as one who delighted in their destruction. The sacrifices that should have revealed His love were offered only to appease His wrath. DA 115
The operative clause in that deception is "offered only to appease His wrath". She includes both love and wrath in the sanctuary service - as God intended & designed it, while the Devil takes out the love.
I agree with MM on the Saviour substituting his suffering for us, but not on heaven and the saints rejoicing to see the wicked suffer it.
The extended sermon doesn't go to the point since it addresses sanctification and not justification, which is the corollary of propitiation - its other half to wrath's appeasement. Receiving Christ's life is sanctification, not justification, and there's obviously no dispute there.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48407
03/22/06 03:31 PM
03/22/06 03:31 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
This objection to propitiation's appeasement of wrath isn't just that it misrepresents God's character, but that the misrepresentation is God's wrathful desire to destroy sinners along with sin. That "God was angry with men because of sin" comes straight from this false idea of wrath, and is the basic, false idea resulting in separating God's love for sinners from his wrath against sin - and applying that wrath to sinners too. The problem is with the idea that God needs to be propitiated. God's wrath against sin cannot be appeased. God hates sin because He loves the sinner. God will always hate sin. As Wieland points out, it is not God who needed to be propitiated, but us. As Waggoner points out, the idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we might have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible. Ellen White never speaks of God's needing to be propitiated. Neither does Scripture. It says that Christ was a propitiation for our sins, and that God set Him forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, but it never says that God was propitiated by the sacrifice.
There's no problem with the idea that God loves the sinner and hates sin; just with the idea that God's hatred against sin can be appeased or that God needs to be propitiated.quote: He misrepresented God, and misinterpreted the rites that pointed to the Saviour. Men were led to fear God as one who delighted in their destruction. The sacrifices that should have revealed His love were offered only to appease His wrath. DA 115 The operative clause in that deception is "offered only to appease His wrath". She includes both love and wrath in the sanctuary service - as God intended & designed it, while the Devil takes out the love. Ellen White never speaks of God's wrath being appeased. The sense of the sacrifice is that it is given to demonstrate God's love for us, that we might be justified by faith, brought into harmony with God and His law. She never speaks of God's needing the sacrifice.
The "only" here is speaking of Satan, not EGW. Satan is the one who seeks "only" to present God as one who's wrath must be appeased. EGW never speaks of God's wrath being appeased at all.I agree with MM on the Saviour substituting his suffering for us, but not on heaven and the saints rejoicing to see the wicked suffer it. I agree that Christ substituted His suffering for us as well. What I disagree with is why it was necessary.
Do you agree with the portrayal of God as an "angry God" full of "vengeance and hatred and anger"? Somehow Christ's sacrifice allowed God to "take it out" on Him instead of us? Is this the Gospel? Is this an accurate portrayal of God's character? Is this idea that Jesus was conveying when He said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life?"The extended sermon doesn't go to the point since it addresses sanctification and not justification, which is the corollary of propitiation - its other half to wrath's appeasement. Receiving Christ's life is sanctification, not justification, and there's obviously no dispute there. The sermon *is* discussing justification by faith (as well as sanctification, you can't separate the two; as soon as one is justified by faith, one is sanctified, and that process continues as long as one lives). It's similar in thought to what Waggoner presents here: quote:
This endless, spotless life Christ gives to all who believe on Him. "As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." John 17:2, 3. Christ dwells in the hearts of all those who believe on Him. "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself for me." Gal. 2:20. See also Eph. 3:16, 17. (Bible Echo 10/15/92)
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48408
03/22/06 05:08 PM
03/22/06 05:08 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
C - I agree with MM on the Saviour substituting his suffering for us, but not on heaven and the saints rejoicing to see the wicked suffer it. MM - Colin, here´s how I responded to Tom's summary of the view I have adopted. quote:
MM - Correct. The lake of fire, though, is caused by Jesus raining down fire upon the unsaved sinners. They suffer in proportion to the sins they committed. The worse the sins the more severe the suffering. Some suffer fewer stripes, others more - depending on their sinfulness. I cannot understand how we will rejoice with the angels, but the Bible and the SOP make it clear we will.
MM - I suspect the reason we will rejoice with the angels when sin and sinners are punished and then forever eliminated in the lake of fire is due to the fact they are "worthy", which is how the angels put it. In Revelation 16 and 18 holy angels express these very sentiments in relation to the seven last plagues.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48409
03/22/06 06:31 PM
03/22/06 06:31 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Tom originally wrote quote:
The problem is with the idea that God needs to be propitiated. God's wrath against sin cannot be appeased.
That God showed us his love in his son is clear. God isn't propitiated by atonement - we are. God's wrath against sin isn't appeased in the sense of
it being switched off on giving an offering, but in our Substitute fully suffering it for us, who possess that which arouses his wrath.
You refuse the point that propitiation is both suffering wrath - appeasing it for us, and reconciling us to God by that very suffering and death. Your problem is defining God's propitiation as atonement: it's appeasement of wrath against sin - for us - alongside atonement for us....God's wrath against sin is eternal, hence sin leads to eternal death: Jesus suffered eternal death, didn't he? Which of these points for you do not combine, among Heb 2:9; 9:22 and Rom 3:25; 5:9? Second death, blood shed for remission, propitiation and saved from wrath...you do separate them one from the others, while they are all describing Christ's sacrifice for us.
quote:
The operative clause in that deception is "offered only to appease His wrath". She includes both love and wrath in the sanctuary service - as God intended & designed it, while the Devil takes out the love.
You missed my clear point: she's explaining the devil's deception, not hers!
You disagree that Jesus suffered God's wrath against sin for us, while you agree that God's wrath against sin exists and that Jesus suffered for us. Is the Saviour's second death experience for us the very suffering of God's wrath against sin or something else? IOW, what did Jesus suffer for us with his death???
Our differences here are monumental, and it'll take more thought to hope to solve this, as without Christ suffering wrath against sin for us, there is subsequently no atoning value to his death - and salvation is cancelled.
Those are the odds.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48410
03/22/06 07:29 PM
03/22/06 07:29 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote: The problem is with the idea that God needs to be propitiated. God's wrath against sin cannot be appeased.
That God showed us his love in his son is clear. God isn't propitiated by atonement - we are. God's wrath against sin isn't appeased in the sense of it being switched off on giving an offering, but in our Substitute fully suffering it for us, who possess that which arouses his wrath.
I agree with this. I would add that if this is what you think, which it must be since you said it, that you are misusing the word "appease." "Appease" (from Webster's) means "to bring to a state of peace or calm," "to cause to subside," "to buy off."
You refuse the point that propitiation is both suffering wrath - appeasing it for us, and reconciling us to God by that very suffering and death.
I'm going to have to ask what you mean by "appease" as you seem to not understand its meaning. Above you wrote "God's wrath isn't appease in the sense of it being switched off" but that's exactly what "appease" means. You seem to have the idea of "suffering" for "appease." If this is how you are understanding what "appease" means, then I am in agreement with you, because there's no doubt that Christ suffered the wrath of God because of our sins.
Your problem is defining God's propitiation as atonement: it's appeasement of wrath against sin - for us - alongside atonement for us.
I think the problem is not understanding what "appease" means.
...God's wrath against sin is eternal, hence sin leads to eternal death: Jesus suffered eternal death, didn't he? Which of these points for you do not combine, among Heb 2:9; 9:22 and Rom 3:25; 5:9? Second death, blood shed for remission, propitiation and saved from wrath...you do separate them one from the others, while they are all describing Christ's sacrifice for us.
Once again I think a big problem is not recognizing what "appease" means. Let's clear that up first, and we can get back to these other issues.
quote: The operative clause in that deception is "offered only to appease His wrath". She includes both love and wrath in the sanctuary service - as God intended & designed it, while the Devil takes out the love.
You missed my clear point: she's explaining the devil's deception, not hers!
Let's not be hasty. I didn't miss your point. I countered it.
You said the operative word was "only," as if she were saying that God's being appeased was a part of what was happeneing. In other words, you suggested the problem was understanding that Christ's sacrifice was "only" to appease God's wrath, as opposed to understanding that it was both an appeasement of God's wrath and a demonstration of God's love as well. I said the "only" did not apply to Ellen White's understanding of this, but to Satan's. Ellen White never suggested that God's wrath needed to be appeased.
You disagree that Jesus suffered God's wrath against sin for us.
No, I've never disagreed with this. I'm surprised you are still confused about this. You've misstated my position on this several times now, and each time I've corrected you.
I think the problem is that you misunderstand "appease" to mean "suffer," which it doesn't. It is true that Christ suffered God's wrath against sin, but it is not true that God's wrath was appeased.
, while you agree that God's wrath against sin exists and that Jesus suffered for us. Is the Saviour's second death experience for us the very suffering of God's wrath against sin or something else? IOW, what did Jesus suffer for us with his death???
Our differences here are monumental, and it'll take more thought to hope to solve this, as without Christ suffering wrath against sin for us, there is subsequently no atoning value to his death - and salvation is cancelled.
Those are the odds.
I think the first step is to agree on what "appease" means. I think a second step would to not be so polemic in tone.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48411
03/22/06 07:51 PM
03/22/06 07:51 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Colin, I'd like to summarize how I perceive where we are in terms of things we a agree on:
1)Christ was our substitute.
2)God's wrath is against sin, not sinners.
3)Christ suffered God's wrath against sin, which was necessary for our salvation.
4)It is we, not God, who was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice.
A couple of things Wieland says is:
1)Faith is a heart appreciation of God love (agape), especially as revealed at the cross.
2)Justification by faith involves our being brought into harmony with God and His law.
Can we agree on these points as well?
The three points I have been arguing against are:
1)God's wrath was appeased by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
2)God was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
3)God needed Christ's sacrifice to have the legal right to forgive us.
You've already agreed with me on 2). I think we may in agreement on 1) as well, as it seems to me that our differences are due to your thinking "appease" means "suffer." I say this because when you use the word "suffer" instead of "appease," I agree with you, and you wrote that God's wrath was not appeased in the sense that it was swiched off, which is exactly what "appease" means. So I think our disagreement on 1) has a lot to do with the meaning of the word "appease."
This leaves 3), which we haven't really discussed yet I don't think.
Since you agree with me regarding our being propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, and not God, I'd be very interested in what you understand this to mean.
Thanks for your response.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48412
03/23/06 03:11 AM
03/23/06 03:11 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
MM - I suspect the reason we will rejoice with the angels when sin and sinners are punished and then forever eliminated in the lake of fire is due to the fact they are "worthy", which is how the angels put it. In Revelation 16 and 18 holy angels express these very sentiments in relation to the seven last plagues.
Colin, how do you explain the word "worthy" as the angels use it (KJV) in connection with the suffering the unsaved experience during the seven last plague?
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48413
03/23/06 05:54 AM
03/23/06 05:54 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Colin, I'd like to summarize how I perceive where we are in terms of things we a agree on:
1)Christ was our substitute.
2)God's wrath is against sin, not sinners.
3)Christ suffered God's wrath against sin, which was necessary for our salvation.
4)It is we, not God, who was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice.
A couple of things Wieland says is:
1)Faith is a heart appreciation of God love (agape), especially as revealed at the cross.
2)Justification by faith involves our being brought into harmony with God and His law.
Can we agree on these points as well?
Ummm, yes, bearing in mind that Wieland also supports the legal events involved, which I join him in doing, but do you?
quote:
The three points I have been arguing against are:
1)God's wrath was appeased by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
2)God was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
3)God needed Christ's sacrifice to have the legal right to forgive us.
You've already agreed with me on 2). I think we may in agreement on 1) as well, as it seems to me that our differences are due to your thinking "appease" means "suffer." I say this because when you use the word "suffer" instead of "appease," I agree with you, and you wrote that God's wrath was not appeased in the sense that it was swiched off, which is exactly what "appease" means. So I think our disagreement on 1) has a lot to do with the meaning of the word "appease."
Sorry, all three still need work - hence also 4) 'at the top'.
Re 1) while Christ suffered God's wrath, that meant our anticipated suffering of it was appeased: we humans are physically due it, and that experience was appeased, by grace confirmed by faith.
Re 2) even with Christ suffering God's wrath, propitiation automatically involves God - both heart break over his only begotten and his eternal wrath against sin being fully expressed, in favour of fallen man.
Re 3) I'll come back to this later, since it involves the legal accomplishment of the cross which you don't recognise yet, as I remember. Don't have time right now to go into it.
quote:
This leaves 3), which we haven't really discussed yet I don't think.
Since you agree with me regarding our being propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, and not God, I'd be very interested in what you understand this to mean.
Thanks for your response.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48414
03/24/06 04:49 AM
03/24/06 04:49 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Colin, I'd like to summarize how I perceive where we are in terms of things we a agree on:
1)Christ was our substitute.
2)God's wrath is against sin, not sinners.
3)Christ suffered God's wrath against sin, which was necessary for our salvation.
4)It is we, not God, who was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice.
A couple of things Wieland says is:
1)Faith is a heart appreciation of God love (agape), especially as revealed at the cross.
2)Justification by faith involves our being brought into harmony with God and His law.
Can we agree on these points as well?
Ummm, yes, bearing in mind that Wieland also supports the legal events involved, which I join him in doing, but do you?
I've conversed with Wieland quite a bit on this, and he's pretty vague as to what he actually means when speaking of the legal aspects. I'm awaiting clarification from him. I can't really say whether I support him or not until I know what he thinks. I'm not sure he really knows. I've spoken to him quite awhile on this, and I just don't think the specific legal issues involved is something he's thought through at depth.
I've spoken to him at length about Maxwell, and he's not said anything at all against Maxwell's view. So regarding this particular issue, I think he's still thinking things through.
Regarding Wieland's overall presentation of the Gospel, I'm 100% in support of what he presents. As Wieland pointed out, he doesn't emphasize the legal aspect anyway. I think his approach is correct. It's the love of God revealed from the cross melting the heart of the sinner which reconciles him to God. Wieland's emphasis is on the presentation of agape, the revelation of God's character from the cross, and I completely agree with his emphasis.
I just wish I were as capable as he at presenting the Gospel.
quote: The three points I have been arguing against are:
1)God's wrath was appeased by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
2)God was propitiated by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
3)God needed Christ's sacrifice to have the legal right to forgive us.
You've already agreed with me on 2). I think we may in agreement on 1) as well, as it seems to me that our differences are due to your thinking "appease" means "suffer." I say this because when you use the word "suffer" instead of "appease," I agree with you, and you wrote that God's wrath was not appeased in the sense that it was swiched off, which is exactly what "appease" means. So I think our disagreement on 1) has a lot to do with the meaning of the word "appease."
Sorry, all three still need work - hence also 4) 'at the top'.
There's no need to be sorry. I'm just presenting what my perceptions are. If you disagree, you disagree.
Re 1) while Christ suffered God's wrath, that meant our anticipated suffering of it was appeased: we humans are physically due it, and that experience was appeased, by grace confirmed by faith.
It's not that we're due this suffering in any arbitrary or imposed sort of way. Suffering, misery and death are what sin brings about. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. God doesn't do anything special to make it happen. God is agape, and sin cannot bear that sight.
Re 2) even with Christ suffering God's wrath, propitiation automatically involves God - both heart break over his only begotten and his eternal wrath against sin being fully expressed, in favour of fallen man.
While we are the ones who are propitiated (you did say this, correct?), I agree with your statement that this propitiation involves God. Clearly it does. It was God who gave His Son.
Re 3) I'll come back to this later, since it involves the legal accomplishment of the cross which you don't recognise yet, as I remember. Don't have time right now to go into it.
I wouldn't put it this way. That is, I wouldn't say there's something I'm not yet recognizing. I would say I perceive what the issues that are involved to be different than what you perceive to be the relevant issues. Certainly all that God has done is in harmony with His law, which is the transcipt of His character.
quote: This leaves 3), which we haven't really discussed yet I don't think.
Since you agree with me regarding our being propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, and not God, I'd be very interested in what you understand this to mean.
Thanks for your response.
Ok, I'll wait for when you have more time. I'm still especially interested in what you understand it to mean that we, not God, are propitiated by Christ's sacrifice.
|
|
|
Re: Without the Shedding of Blood
#48415
04/13/06 06:29 PM
04/13/06 06:29 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Quote:
Since the announcement to the serpent in Eden, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed" (Gen. 3:15), Satan had known that he did not hold absolute sway over the world. There was seen in men the working of a power that withstood his dominion. With intense interest he watched the sacrifices offered by Adam and his sons. In these ceremonies he discerned a symbol of communion between earth and heaven. He set himself to intercept this communion. He misrepresented God, and misinterpreted the rites that pointed to the Saviour. Men were led to fear God as one who delighted in their destruction. The sacrifices that should have revealed His love were offered only to appease His wrath. Satan excited the evil passions of men, in order to fasten his rule upon them. (DA 115)
A lot of meat here. First we note that Satan started studying these things right from Eden. He knew there was something significant happening, and his great intellect worked it out. He knew God was seeking to reconcile man by revealing His character through the sacrifice. So he sought to misrepresent the true nature of the sacrifice; rather than being the means to make known the love of God to us, he reinterpreted as the means by which an angry God is appeased.
Also worth noting is that Satan's purpose in misrepresenting God's character is to intercept the communion between earth and heaven, in order to fasten his rule upon those whom he deceives.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
