Do you agree that "the Son of God...die[d] in the sinner's STEAD"??? - substitutionary death?! What do you understand by Christ "saving fallen man from [the] curse" of the law?? You agree that God's justice demands the punishment of sinners?

Your "legal issues" with the cross bring these questions to mind, but, while you reject the legal arguments I at least believe also the philosophical issues of clarifying God's character by Jesus' demonstration of agape. Atonement still has a legal basis for me...

Yes. I've quoted the following many times:



I agree with substitutionary death, just not the penal substitution idea, such as Hodges presented.



What I quoted in the thread about "Christ Victor" deals with this. Also what Waggoner says in "The Glad Tidings" is very good. I agree with what Waggoner said.

Regarding God's justice demanding the punishment of sinners, I agree, but I understand it along the lines of what I've quoted from Fifield.



It has a legal basis for me to, but I see the legal basis as recognizing reality, not creating it. Iow, I believe what Ellen White wrote here is true:



This revelation of God has a legal basis, but the "whole purpose" is not something having to do with the law, but with God's character.

Also I don't reject all legal arguments. For example, Fifield has much to say about the law. His book "God is Love" has a chapter dealing with how the death of Christ honors God's law. I agree with what he wrote.

Ah yes, does the law create order or acknowledge order?...: BOTH. Custom is law recognising reality, legislation is law creating order: the Ten Commandments would fit better with custom, defining righteousness and sin as our reality.

The everlasting covenant is not customary, but creates a legal process for the Son of God to re-establish the order of holiness and right that he also created. This also distinguishes the true, Biblical deal in salvation from the true promise of salvation without a deal being allowed in fulfilling it: while the Son of God chose to give himself for us - rending both his and his Father's heart..."rending the powers of heaven" - as the promise to Adam & Abraham fulfilled, the deal which preceded this promise to us was God promising to reward his Son with saving his brethern from sin should his Son be incarnate as Jesus and produce the righteous merits necessary for both our eternal life as well as suffering our due execution, assuming, living and dying with our nature due that execution.

God isn't just love, he is also law: before Lucifer fell God's law was implied, since it being stated merely openly contrasted the opposites of God and Satan. Law and character are complimentary and mutually inclusive, the two acting in concert and harmony - producing harmony out of disorder.

That you avoid the legal basis of salvation brings in also a different view of the covenants such that Christ didn't achieve anything of the covenant by his death: what covenant terms did Jesus fulfil and put into effect with his death??? Sorry if you've mentioned such things elsewhere...

1.From what you wrote, it sounds like you agree with me in regards to the law recognizing reality as opposed to creating it. That's correct?

2.It looks like our disagreement is more in regards to the Covenant then, since you say that the Covenant is not customary, to use your word, but rather creates something (specifically a legal process).

I see the Covenant along the terms Waggoner laid out.

3.You write "God isn't just love, He is also law." This is an interesting statement. I *really* disagree with this. This might be something we could discuss further.

I believe the law is simply a description of God's love. Or, to state it another way, God is righteous *because* He is love, and His acts of righteousness are simply acts of love. The law describes His righteousness.

4.I'm not avoiding the legal basis of salvation. I'm disagreeing with you in regards to how this legal basis functions.

Do you agree with Waggoner's view of the Covenants? I see things as he does in regards to the Covenants, so if my theology means Christ didn't achieve anything of the covenant by His death, then neither does his. AFAIK I don't differ with Waggoner on his view of the covenant.

I'm bringing him for two reasons. One is you've expressed in the past an appreciation for the 1888 message. Two is Waggoner has written a lot regarding the Covenants, so there is a lot of material to draw from.

Unfortunately, I just moved, and don't have my "Everlasting Covenant" book of his, and it's not online to the best of my knowledge. There's still quite a bit about it in "The Glad Tidings" which is on line though.

I think I have some other material which touches on this. I'll see if I can find it. Specifically I'm thinking of the remark by Christ



Anyway, this is a very good question you're asking, Colin. One of the things I like about forums like this is when people ask questions that trigger thinking about things from a different angle.

A couple of thoughts come to mind, but not clearly enough to express right now, so I'll respond later.

No, given your second point, you don't think so either: both ordering reality and creating reality, in different forms and ways, like the Commandments and the covenant, respectively.

The covenants are truly the making or breaking of the gospel: whether we relate to and rely on Jesus alone or try to deal with him...

The everlasting covenant changes sinful man's customary legal standing of condemnation, under the curse of law: that creates a new reality - a new creation, literally a new, meritorious righteousness, and the covenant creates the heirs of that righteousness. The testator of the covenant, alluded to in Hebrews, did achieve a legal breakthrough, called salvation, by validating the covenant with his death. That is the law personified.

I recall agreeing with EGW, EJW & ATJ on Christ's accomplishment of grace for all men, and the cross thus is a legal event of salvation. The other, actual contract of salvation, made by Christ's death was for the Father to reconcile and restore man to himself should his Son produce righteousness and offer himself to suffer the penalty for our sin. EGW speaks of this penalty, as others here have quoted - but somehow you don't agree with or that that is penal substitution?

Regarding the first point, I don't understand what you're saying.



I don't really understand this either.



Can you quote something from Waggoner?



You're saying that Christ made a contract with the Father in which the Father agreed to do certain things if Christ held up his end of the bargain?



I don't see the penalty as something arbitrarily imposed by God, but as being the "inevitable result of sin." So when Christ took upon Him our sin, He suffered that penalty. Not because God arbitrarily imposed a penalty against Him, but because sin kills. By Christ's death, we can be delivered from sin. Being delivered from sin, we are delivered from death (the penalty for sin) since death comes from sin.

I think our basic difference stems from what we perceive is the problem which needs to be fixed. I see the problem as being related to a misunderstanding of God's character, and living contrary to His principles.

For example:



The short version of this is that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, to set man right with Him.

The two covenants are "1 right; 1 wrong": making a deal with God, even if merely promising to obey...is the wrong idea, and destroys the Gospel. God's promise to Adam & Abraham to save us from sin & death to righteous living, needing a mere belief in the truth that Jesus is the world's Saviour and therefore my Saviour too, is the right idea. God fills that belief with his love & power for our good works prepared by Jesus.

So you do think Christ achieved something with his death - a revelation of God's love costing his life, but nothing of legal import? How do you think the true covenant was connected to the cross if there's no legal event involved? Did Jesus achieve nothing of a legal nature by his death - if not, why not? Iow, what do you think the covenant has to do with Christ's death? Clarifying these issues helps strengthen the faith

I agree with your first paragraph.

Regarding the second, I think the "revelation of God's love costing his life" is of legal import. In regards to what the Covenant has to do with Christ's death, it seems to me that Covenant is a means of communication, one of several which God uses, to communicate the truths of the Gospel. I think the basis problem is that man was separated from God, and needed to be reconciled. In order to be reconciled, it was necessary for Christ to come to this earth and reveal the truth, and, in particular, the truth about God. Part of that revelation involved His death on the cross.

The New Covenant is the promise of God to forgive our sins and write the law on our hearts, if we believe in Christ. An SOP quote:



This looks to tie how the Covenant and Christ's death fit together. As the sinner believes in Christ, the New Covenant becomes effective.

The problem is twofold: 1) the broken law of God, and 2) the absence of love and obedience. In other words, God must first deal with past sins and then He must motivate and empower sinners to love and obey Him. Dealing with past sins means satisfying the just and loving demands of law and justice by paying our sin debt of death. Death must come in consequence of sin because the integrity of the law must be served and upheld.

Motivating and empowering sinners 1) to cease sinning, 2) to love God, and 3) to obey the law from now on - does not satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice so far as past sins are concerned. Our love and obedience does not atone for past sins. Ceasing from sin does not atone for past sins. Only the substitutionary death of Jesus satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice thereby granting God the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners.

I think this is the wrong way of looking at things. It makes it seem like there's nothing really wrong with keeping the law, but only arbitrarily wrong. You say that death must come in consequence of sin because "the integrity of the law must be served and upheld." This means you see death as something imposed arbitrarily, in order to impose a penalty, in order to obtain a given result (specifically, in order to maintain the integrity of the law).

I see that death is the inevitable result of sin. Put simply, when people sin, they die. Not as an arbitrarily imposed penalty, as if sin were innocuous, but as a result of the fatal effects of sin.

Sin is likened to the fatal bite of a serpent. The poison was healed when the sinner looked to the lifted up serpent, which presented the truth that the fatal bite of the other serpent Satan, which is sin, is healed by looking to Christ.

It looks like our basic difference, or a basic difference, is that you see sin as innocuous, whereas I see sin as deadly.



Are you thinking of "the wages of sin is death"? That's the only thing I can of that you are referencing.

Past sins are an issue only if one is trying to work one's way into heaven. If one wishes to earn heaven by one's own righteousness, then the fact that one has sinned makes that impossible. Actually, even aside from that it's impossible, because only an unconverted person would think this way anyway. But once one is converted, past sins are not an issue, because God forgives our sins if we repent. The death of Christ is necessary not for God to be able to forgive us (that God offered Lucifer pardon for his sin proves this) but to bring us to a repentant attitude so that we can repent and accept the pardon which God freely gives us:



But this all stems from understanding what it is that causes death. Is death an arbitrarily imposed penalty by God upon those who disobey Him? Or is death the inevitable result of sin, something of which God warns us? Does God urge us to invite Christ so that we will be saved from His wrath? Or does He warn us of the fatal effects of sin, from which He wishes to save us?