TE: You know, I can hardly think of 3 people who have more *different* views of salvation than you, MM and Rosangela. I find it odd indeed you’re wanting to joint your theology with theirs. To illustrate the point, it would be really interesting to have you, MM and Rosangela write out what you understand Romans 5:12-18, and Romans 7:13-Romans 8:4 means. I trust you would agree that these passages are vital insofar as one's understanding of salvation is concerned, yet if you were to do as I suggested, you would see that your viewpoints vary greatly. You would also find that my point of view is closest to your own.

MM: Tom, did you address Colin's concerns and questions? It looks as if you are dodging them. I would be interested in reading your response to his posts.

PS - For the record, I believe Romans 5:12-18 is saying because of Adam we sin and are condemned to die, but because of Jesus we may be forgiven and inherit eternal life. And Romans 7:13 thru 8:4 is saying we are born again dead to sin, nevertheless our fallen flesh continues tempting us from within to be unlike Jesus, but like Jesus we may resist and reject our internal foes by abiding in Him, by partaking of the divine nature.

In the case of God's law, God Himself established the law, so the law is as much a matter of individual discretion and any other decision of His would. So in this particular case it would be better to think of arbitrary as involving individual discretion as opposed to not. Iow, if the punishment for sin is something which happens because God causes those who have sinned to die because He judges them worthy of death, this is arbitrary. Otoh, if the wicked die because of something sin does to them, that isn't.

Here's an example. Say smoking is against the law, and the penalty is death. This would be an arbitrary punishment. Otoh, if a person smokes, and because of that gets a disease and dies, that's not.

Note that "arbitrary" as being used in the sense of having to do with individual discretion, and not as being whimsical or capricious. For example, a judge, using individual discretion, could make a very good decision, using his wisdom and experience to guide him. Arbitrary is not necessarily bad. We tend to think of it as bad because it's often used in a pejorative sense, as in "capricious," but it not need have that implication. For example, if you look at DA 764, it's used in the sense I'm talking about.

I'm used "imposed" as a synonym to make clear I'm not using it in the sense of capricious.



Since God established the law, of course this isn't the issue. The issue is whether Christ's substitution for our death is something which works because God decided that's the way things had to be (individual discretion), or whether it's this way because this is the only way that could work. This is what I think (it's the only way it could work). That is, the only way we could be saved was by Jesus' death, not because God decreed that this should be so, but because "by His stripes we are healed." We could only be healed from the disease of sin by means of what Christ did for us.



I've written lots and lots and lots about this. Since I'm pressed for time, here's a short answer:



I see the issue in the same way Fifield did. Because sin leads to death, any pardon which did not deal with the pardon of sin (in the sense of healing the sinner from sin) would be unjust. When we are brought into harmony with God, the justice of the law is satisfied because we are brought into harmony with it, since it is a transcript of God's character.

Regarding the idea that EGW was teaching that Christ had to die in order for God to legally forgive us, I would again point out that she states that God offered Lucifer pardon time and time again, and offered him the opportunity to confess his sin before being banished from heaven. If there were an arbitrary requirement that Christ's death was necessary in order for one to be pardoned, that would have been the case for Lucifer as well. His sin was certainly far more egregious than Adam or Eve's.



I don't believe violence is a part of God's kingdom nor His character. Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Jesus in His life and teachings was completely against violence. He was non-violent to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Force is not a principle of God's government. The rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Force is the last resort of every false religion. I don't see how these principles could be upheld if God used violence to obtain His desires, since violence is an application of force.



This is a definition for violence (using the google "define" tag). I believe Jesus Christ demonstrated conclusively that God does not act aggressively against persons with the intent of causing them injury since Christ never did so. Given that Jesus Christ fully revealed God's character, if God were violent, one would have expected that Jesus would have been violent as well.

Don't distract from the point, Tom: you're a good debater, perhaps, but even the MSC agrees that Christ's death was necessary to give God a legal basis to forgive and justify us. It's called the legal justification of mankind "in Christ" - a position for which they're loved and loathed. On other points they are not actually in agreement, but they're not a group on other points.

I forgot last time: a debt and a penalty are generally legally synonymous, but you must consider the balance of Bible and SOP statements, as MM has just repeated for the fourth time in as many days. While you don't respond, there's an end to this discussion, since your argument has been countered but not responded to by you.

Bump for Tom.


She also wrote:

3SM 154
Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed, but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God. {3SM 154.1}

I wasn't distracting from the point, I was making the point. You are the one who is saying that I am different. I've never brought this up. I've never called you to task for being different in regards to your ideas regarding Christ's pre-existence or the Holy Spirit not being an individual. I'm pointing out that it seems odd that you would do so. I have no idea either why you would think this is worth mentioning, nor why one who has such different ideas as you have would think this is worth mentioning.



As I pointed out, many on the MSC see things the same way I do regarding this point, and also on regarding the final judgment of the wicked.



They're not in agreement on this point. Many see things eye to eye with me on this.



I've responded to 100% of the points you've made. Every point. You have responded to maybe a quarter or a half of the points I've made. So this is an odd statement for you to make as well.

Just go back over the thread, and see how many questions I've asked you, how many points I've made, which you haven't in any way acknowledged. Then see if you can find any at all that you have made that I haven't responded to.

One of the points I made, which I don't recall your responding to, is that one of the problems I see in many of those who take the perspective you are suggesting is that this one frame of reference is so emphasized that nothing else is talked about. And indeed, this is the case. Here we have a thread discussing the meaning of Christ's death, and no one (other than me, at least that I can recall) is discussing anything other than Christ died to meet a legal obligation.

Yet if you look at the chapter "It Is Finished," which has 7 pages devoted to this topic, you will find at best a fleeting reference to this topic, and 7 pages discussing other things.

If you look at Christ's teachings, you won't find anything at all, unless you make the stretch that the word "ransom" has this connotation, in which case you would have one reference amongst scores of His teachings which teach other meanings to His death.

You're raising all manner of periferal points of other differences rather than address evidence that EGW spoke of both sides of our discussion. You've been informed that both sides count, but you just dodge the point, relying on your "revelation of God's glory" sufficing.

We consider that no gospel at all...The doctrine of the Godhead is linked to the Gospel's efficacy, but whether & how Christ's cross did enough to achieve salvation is the definition of the Gospel, so very pertinent. I had to, MM and Rosangela had to, say something.

As Rom 5:12-18, yes, Tom, MM and I do differ: MM, I add to your comment that Adam sinned as mankind (representing us all), bringing condemnation to human nature (but no personal guilt!); equally, Christ lived righteously as mankind (the second representative), bringing righteousness and justification to our human nature in his own, assumed sinful humanity. Else we do more for bad or good than can be attributable to us, Biblically, even from this text. Adam & Christ each were the source and personification of sinfulness and righteousness of mankind, naturally and graceously.

Tom, the MSC is unanimous on Christ's legal accomplishment, but may differ on how the hell fires happen...

It seems to me you've been raising peripheral issues. I've just been responding to the points you've been bringing up.

For example, you accuse me of dodging issues, when I've addressed 100% of the points you've made, but you've skipped between 2/3 or 3/4 of the points I've made. This may be one of the peripheral issues you're talking about, but it's an issue you brought up!



I don't know what the "both sides" are you're talking about. I also don't know what quote "the revelation of God's glory" is referring to.

In regards to Ellen White, my chief argument has been in relation to God's pardoning Lucifer. If Christ's death were necessary in order for God to be able to legally pardon sin, then it should have been necessary for God to legally pardon Lucifer's sin. But it wasn't.

Why should we have required Christ's death, but not Lucifer? The distinguishing point has to be something other than a legal requirement insofar as God's being able to legally pardon is concerned, since this would attach to both Lucifer and man equally.



The Gospel is primarily the good news about God. It's not that God has met some legal requirement so that we can go to heaven.

Whether a legal requirement was involved or not, it would still be the case that:

a.God paid an awful price in giving us His Son.
b.Christ Himself paid an awful price in being obedient to death, even the death of the cross.
c.Through faith in Christ, by virtue of His death, we can be set free from sin, and thus saved from death.
d.Satan's warfare against God was given a death knell by Christ's death.

Just to mention a few things. There's plenty of Gospel here without the necessity of a legal requirement.

Again, in the chapter "It Is Finished" EGW speaks of the meaning of Christ's death, and a legal requirement is given at best a passing reference.



So how does it achieve salvation? My very short answer is by saving us from sin. I hope to write a post shortly that goes into detail regarding how the death of Christ can be understood by understanding the judgment, which will deal with the question of how we are saved by Christ's death.

There's certainly nothing wrong in saying something, as this is a topic that will be studied throughout eternity. There will be plenty of people on both sides of the legal/non-legal question there, so we might as well start the conversation now!



No, Colin, it's not unanimous. As I've stated several times, there are many who agree with my point of view on this (I can think of 5 right off the top of my head).

That's because we are discussing the fact that there is also a legal aspect. In case you just emphasized the legal aspect we would be emphasizing the relational aspect. The cross was the means God found to be able to forgive us, considering both the relational aspect and the legal aspect. Why do you think that the first is true but the latter is not?


No, in Lucifer's case Christ's death wouldn't have been necessary, either for the relational aspect or for the legal aspect, but in man's case it's necessary for both. Lucifer's charges against God were of a legal nature, therefore their refutation must have a legal aspect.

They're aren't just two aspects to discuss. Christ's death accomplished a whole host of things. Only one is being discussed.



I don't disagree with this. What I disagree with is the idea that Christ's death was necessary in order for God to be able to legally pardon us. Not that there isn't a legal aspect to the death of Christ.

To elaborate on this point a bit, I believe that the salvation accomplished by Christ and experienced by us through faith in Him is entirely legal.



I agree. Which proves that Christ's death was not necessary for God to be able to legally pardon Christ. The legal aspect is to be found elsewhere.

What I've been saying is that Christ's death was not necessarily in order for God to be able to legally forgive. If it were, then it would have been necessary in Lucifer's case. But as you correctly point out, it wasn't necessary, either for the legal or the relational aspect.



I agree, although I'll clarify my agreement. *Some* of Lucifer's charges against God were of a legal nature. The refutation of these must have a legal aspect.

However, even the legal charges were a smokescreen. His real purpose was to misrepresent God's character in order to deceive angels first, then man.

God purchasing the right to pardon us is the central theme of this lesson study, so your commentary, Tom, is periferal, but not excluded...

Legal issues undergird experience and relationships, so revealing God is the last part of the Gospel, not the first. Before we discuss the two death penalties we are naturally under but saved from by grace, we still await and will await your response to MM's posted quotes from Sister White.