|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
