Forums118
Topics9,217
Posts195,975
Members1,324
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: Tom]
#104278
11/07/08 03:13 AM
11/07/08 03:13 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Just a few thoughts for now. Paul brings up the common meaning of sacrifice here: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Romans 12:1) No, Tom, that's not the "common meaning" of sacrifice: that's the spiritual definition of daily conversion - nothing related to propitiation for sin, which is the heart of this week's lesson. As for the meaning of sacrifice, substitution has been enunciated by MM's quotes as the replacement of the life of God's Lamb for the life of the sinner. Ezek 18:20a states it plainly: "The soul that sins shall die." This is the negative, justice element of Christ's death for sin. His merits are the positive, righteousness element, gifting eternal life to the world. What do you have to say about any of MM's quotes? Your silence about the issues of justice expose you to a contradiction with Bible & SOP until you speak to the point...(!) When shall we hear from you, eh.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: Colin]
#104291
11/07/08 04:31 AM
11/07/08 04:31 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Paul brings up the common meaning of sacrifice here:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Romans 12:1)
No, Tom, that's not the "common meaning" of sacrifice: I was talking about the common meaning of sacrifice for the contemporaries of Paul. This *was* the common idea: a sacrifice expressed a dedication of oneself to one's deity. that's the spiritual definition of daily conversion - nothing related to propitiation for sin, which is the heart of this week's lesson. The idea of propitiation popularized by Hodge wasn't an idea they had. As for the meaning of sacrifice, substitution has been enunciated by MM's quotes as the replacement of the life of God's Lamb for the life of the sinner. Ezek 18:20a states it plainly: "The soul that sins shall die." This is the negative, justice element of Christ's death for sin. His merits are the positive, righteousness element, gifting eternal life to the world. This soul that sins shall die is simply pointing to the effects of sin: it kills. It's the same as what James points out: Lust gets pregnant, and has a baby: sin! Sin grows up to adulthood, and becomes a real killer. (The Message) Nice paraphrase! Here's a more literal translation: Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. (James 2:15) Or, as the SOP puts it, death is the inevitable result of sin. What do you have to say about any of MM's quotes? Your silence about the issues of justice expose you to a contradiction with Bible & SOP until you speak to the point...(!) When shall we hear from you, eh. Every point a person makes I respond to, except redundant ones, or points missed inadvertently. So, please, no need for accusations! If I missed something, just bring it to my attention, and I'll respond. But please leave off the accusations! You're talking about the 7 quotes he made? I addressed the first one, and showed that EGW made the point I had been making. He asked about the 7th one, so I did that there too. If you have a specific one in mind, I'll comment on that too, but I don't see why I should have to go through every one. It's a moot point anyway. Why should she have to make a specific point every time she speaks on a subject? She presented the principle very clearly here: Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.(ST 1/20/90) If the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, this certainly includes the cross. We have the principle expressed here as well: (M)an was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762) The context here is the cross. This makes the point that we are drawn back to God by the cross because it reveals God's character and the height and depth of His love. So the point is established. She doesn't have to speak about it every single time she discusses the cross.
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.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: Tom]
#104303
11/07/08 01:51 PM
11/07/08 01:51 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Every point a person makes I respond to, except redundant ones, or points missed inadvertently. MM's points 1 & 7 sound like your singular point of demonstrating God's love to change our minds about God's character; all his other quotes challenge you to agree with them, with their points on substitution and justice, which you don't support, or do you: what do you say to them? that's the spiritual definition of daily conversion - nothing related to propitiation for sin, which is the heart of this week's lesson. The idea of propitiation popularized by Hodge wasn't an idea they had. It's known you differ with us on the meaning of Christ's sacrifice - this week's lesson on sacrificial symbolism for Israel till the Messiah should come, but the greek dictionary definition of propitiation for Rom 3:25 for example gives the meaning presented in the lesson. Even the NIV makes clear in the margin that propitiation means "one [Christ] who would turn aside his [God's] wrath". Divine wrath propitiation is also well known among heathen religions, but you don't like Biblical wrath against sin do you. God's version can't be true?
Last edited by Colin; 11/07/08 02:14 PM.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: asygo]
#104308
11/07/08 09:48 PM
11/07/08 09:48 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,607
California, USA
|
|
I just started a thread on this at The Serpent and the Seed (sermon by Arnold Sy Go) for comments, concerns, or whatever.
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: Tom]
#104352
11/08/08 10:17 PM
11/08/08 10:17 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
7. Jesus died to demonstrate the immutability of God’s law. “But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die. He came to "magnify the law" and to 'make it honorable.' Not alone that the inhabitants of this world might regard the law as it should be regarded; but it was to demonstrate to all the worlds of the universe that God's law is unchangeable. Could its claims have been set aside, then the Son of God need not have yielded up His life to atone for its transgression. The death of Christ proves it immutable. And the sacrifice to which infinite love impelled the Father and the Son, that sinners might be redeemed, demonstrates to all the universe--what nothing less than this plan of atonement could have sufficed to do--that justice and mercy are the foundation of the law and government of God. {GC 503.1} “The cross of Calvary, while it declares the law immutable, proclaims to the universe that the wages of sin is death. {GC 503.3} You mentioned 7, not 1. My quote above was from 1. Here are some quotes related to 7, the first one a paragraph (maybe two) before yours, the second one a little earlier in the chapter. Satan's lying charges against the divine character and government appeared in their true light. He had accused God of seeking merely the exaltation of Himself in requiring submission and obedience from His creatures, and had declared that, while the Creator exacted self-denial from all others, He Himself practiced no self-denial and made no sacrifice. Now it was seen that for the salvation of a fallen and sinful race, the Ruler of the universe had made the greatest sacrifice which love could make; for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Corinthians 5:19 (GC 502) In the atonement the character of God is revealed. The mighty argument of the cross demonstrates to the whole universe that the course of sin which Lucifer had chosen was in no wise chargeable upon the government of God.(GC 501) Tom, what is your point? Do you agree Jesus' death was necessary to prove the law is immutable? If so, why was His death necessary to prove it? And, how did His death prove it? Also, what did dying to prove it have to do with motivating sinners to love and obey God? "But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die." The way she puts this implies different reasons.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: Mountain Man]
#104372
11/09/08 12:36 AM
11/09/08 12:36 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM's points 1 & 7 sound like your singular point of demonstrating God's love to change our minds about God's character; all his other quotes challenge you to agree with them, with their points on substitution and justice, which you don't support, or do you: what do you say to them? I chose 1 arbitrarily because it was first. MM chose 7, so I addressed that one too. I've responded to the points of substitution and justice many times. I like what Fifield says on this point, and have quoted him many times. For example: Sin is secession from the government of God. Satan seceded, and sought to exalt his throne above that of God. Sinners are those who have joined themselves to Satan’s forces in the secession. God, in infinite love, sens his own and only Son to put down the rebellion. He cannot pardon those who are still in rebellion, for this would but justify the rebellion and dishonor the law, and so perpetuate and multiply the misery. But through Jesus this rebellion is finally to be put down entirely. “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” O’er every hilltop of earth and heaven, where for a short time there has waved the black standard of the man of sin, there shall forever float the white pennon of the Prince of Peace. Every one who lays down his arms and surrenders his opposing will to God has the promise of pardon. This pardon God can grant, and not dishonor his law. Yea, more, it is through this pardon that the mercy and love of God’s law and government are revealed, -- a love that only commanded the right way, not to be arbitrary and domineering, but that men might be happy, -- a love what when men repent of the wrong, and turn back their hearts toward the broken law, is ever willing to forgive the past and give power for future obedience. It is thus that God can be just, and still the justifier of those who believe on Jesus. It is thus that faith in Jesus exalts the law of God to the highest heavens, and established it forever. (God is Love) It's known you differ with us on the meaning of Christ's sacrifice - this week's lesson on sacrificial symbolism for Israel till the Messiah should come, but the greek dictionary definition of propitiation for Rom 3:25 for example gives the meaning presented in the lesson. I don't agree with all of "us." I can think of at least three people of the top of my head who agree with me who are, or have been, Maritime regulars. However, I don't see why you bring things like this up. It's irrelevant. Proof isn't determined by numbers. Otherwise, we might as well be Catholics. What are you referring to here? Are you thinking of "hilasterion" or "hilasmos"? Even the NIV makes clear in the margin that propitiation means "one [Christ] who would turn aside his [God's] wrath". Since you didn't cite the reference, I have to guess what you are referring to. I'm guessing it's either Romans 3:25 or 1 John 2:2, probably the former. If this is so, I note that NAB has the following comment in its margin: 8 [25] Expiation: this rendering is preferable to "propitiation," which suggests hostility on the part of God toward sinners. As Paul will be at pains to point out (Romans 5:8-10), it is humanity that is hostile to God. Divine wrath propitiation is also well known among heathen religions, but you don't like Biblical wrath against sin do you. God's version can't be true? The construction "but you don't like .... do you." is unpleasant. Please don't use this. Also your question "God's version can't be true" sounds arrogant. You and I are having a difference of opinion. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we're both wrong. That I disagree with you does not necessarily mean I've disagreeing with God. To deal with your question if I'm aware that "divine wrath propitiation is also well known among heathen religions" the following quote comes to mind: While God has desired to teach men that from His own love comes the Gift which reconciles them to Himself, the archenemy of mankind has endeavored to represent God as one who delights in their destruction. Thus the sacrifices and the ordinances designed of Heaven to reveal divine love have been perverted to serve as means whereby sinners have vainly hoped to propitiate, with gifts and good works, the wrath of an offended God. (PP 685) This quote seems to be arguing against the idea you are referring to.
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.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: Tom]
#104373
11/09/08 12:51 AM
11/09/08 12:51 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
This question is vague. Point about what? Do you agree Jesus' death was necessary to prove the law is immutable? Yes. If so, why was His death necessary to prove it? The Fifield quote which I cited for Colin, in the post immediately preceding this one, explains why. And, how did His death prove it? It also explains how. Also, what did dying to prove it have to do with motivating sinners to love and obey God? It explains this as well. "But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die." The way she puts this implies different reasons. Not to disagree with the idea that there are other reasons, it's certainly not the case that this particular quote is making this point. The reason for why she puts things as she did here is made clear immediately following where she explains that the "not merely" is in reference to what Christ did being for the good of other creatures besides man. "Not alone that the inhabitants of this world ..."
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.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: Tom]
#104377
11/09/08 01:23 AM
11/09/08 01:23 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
To deal with your question if I'm aware that "divine wrath propitiation is also well known among heathen religions" the following quote comes to mind:
Quote: While God has desired to teach men that from His own love comes the Gift which reconciles them to Himself, the archenemy of mankind has endeavored to represent God as one who delights in their destruction. Thus the sacrifices and the ordinances designed of Heaven to reveal divine love have been perverted to serve as means whereby sinners have vainly hoped to propitiate, with gifts and good works, the wrath of an offended God. (PP 685)
This quote seems to be arguing against the idea you are referring to. Fraid not, no: she writes that Satan perverted God's propitiatory sacrifices into heathen propitiation in the hands of the Israelites- iow. not God's will & worthless, not that God didn't provide Jesus as propitiation for our sins and taught that through the sanctuary service. Yes I did refer to Rom 3:25, and I don't accept "expiation" as an interpretational translation. The RSV shares that word with the NASB, but the NIV acknowledges that "propitiation" is in its original text, and that's the way the Bible is. I'll find a series of texts about wrath against sin...What's wrong with God propitiating his own wrath????
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1
[Re: Colin]
#104390
11/09/08 02:37 AM
11/09/08 02:37 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Fraid not, no: she writes that Satan perverted God's propitiatory sacrifices into heathen propitiation in the hands of the Israelites- iow. not God's will & worthless, not that God didn't provide Jesus as propitiation for our sins and taught that through the sanctuary service. I didn't really follow you here. You wrote: Divine wrath propitiation is also well known among heathen religions so I presented a quote which is dealing with this. Yes I did refer to Rom 3:25, and I don't accept "expiation" as an interpretational translation. But you accept "propitiation" as an interpretational translation. The RSV shares that word with the NASB, but the NIV acknowledges that "propitiation" is in its original text It's unlikely the NIV acknowledges this, since "hilasterion" does not mean "propitiaton" in the original. It means "mercy seat," which I'm sure the NIV translaters were aware of. You still haven't provided the note from the margin. Young's Literal Translation has: whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God , and that's the way the Bible is. I'll find a series of texts about wrath against sin...What's wrong with God propitiating his own wrath???? The Bible says that Christ is a propitiation (assuming we use this word, instead of the word "expiation") for our sins, not for God's wrath. Waggoner comments: A propitiation is a sacrifice. The statement then is simply that Christ is set forth to be a sacrifice for the remission of our sins. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. Of course the idea of a propitiation or sacrifice is that there is wrath to be appeased. But take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God. He provides the sacrifice. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible.
It is the height of absurdity to say that God is so angry with men that he will not forgive them unless something is provided to appease his wrath, and that therefore he himself offers the gift to himself, by which he is appeased. "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death." Col. 1:21, 22. A point to especially note: But take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God. I think this is key. Just as a side note, I don't have a problem with God's propitiating His own wrath, but I would understand this mechanism much differently than you do. I understand it how Fifield has explained it. Was there ever a being in this world that hated sin as Christ hates it? - No. Was there ever a being who loved the sinner as Christ loved him? - No. Suppose I hate a man, and somebody is trying to do that man an injury, and I see it, and do not try to prevent it. Do I care whether that man is injured or not? - No; I am rather glad of it. But suppose I love that man, and here is a man that is trying to thrust a dagger into him and kill him. Now the measure of my hatred for that deed is the measure of my love for that man. I am liable to hate the man that is doing the deed, too. But I hate the deed, anyway. Now, brethren, the measure of God's hatred for sin, is the measure of his love for the sinner.
Sin has been lurking with murderous intent to take the life of every soul. God's wrath is kindled against the sin. Is that wrath going to be appeased in any way? O if it were, it would be a bad thing for us. That wrath of God against sin is to burn on until it consumes every bit of sin in this universe. Just as long as God loves the sinner, he will hate the sin, and his wrath against the sin will burn; and, thank God! that wrath against sin is going to burn, unchanged, until the universe is clean.
But look: the plan of redemption is God's effort to separate the sin from the sinner, so that he can destroy the sin, and save the sinner alive forevermore. And only when the sinner inseparably connects himself with sin, does he have to take the wrath of God. And does the Lord take delight in that? - No. When you and I have wrath, we have wrath against the man. But how about God? "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked," but rather that he turn and repent. Turn ye, turn ye; for why will ye die. The wrath of God is not against the wicked, even in their extermination; but because the wicked have inseparably connected themselves with sin, they have to break it; and the Lord says he does not take any pleasure in that.(1897 GCB)
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.
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|