Here's a text from EGW which goes along with your point here, if you haven't seen it:

Excellent response, Rosangela!

She only responded to one point. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the other points as well.

Also, in regards to the idea that God was reconciled to us, I'd be interested in knowing if you agree that there's nothing in the Bible that says this.

I'm going out on a limb here: I perceive Teresa's post to be rather more cynical than actually agreeing. She's applauding you for stating a point blindingly obvious to everyone else as if you thought everyone had missed it instead of us all taking it as an "of course" truth. With the punishment of wrath against sin taking prime place on stage, ie. first mention in the atonement, this sentence
rather says love was never abandoned nor forgotten as the be all and en all of the atonement

I hope you aren't offended by this possible cynicism, but your do appear to fail to gather all the applicable, salvific metaphors that do exist in our church beliefs, while fearing that the most obvious Gospel truth has been largely if not wholly forgotten.

They are not mutually exclusive - justice (wrath & penalty) and mercy (righteousness, agape & grace), as you regularly appear to portray them in your disagreement with penal substitution. How Biblically stable is your view of God's law and justice as purely agape confirmed, for divine justice never was arbitrary or whatever else you have as objection to Christ suffering our penalty - you do agree he bore the curse of tte law for us?...I can never seem to get my head round your full alternative to the SDA position...

That was rather concise, yes: spiritual rebirth, renewal of the mind, experience of righteousness is typically timed by church teaching to be part of sanctification, leaving justification to be purely legal, forensic - a judicial (legally recognised) declaration of righteousness, but no inner renewal, since that is for sanctification...Such a teaching is not Adventist but a Sunday church belief basis, totally frustrating obedience of the Gospel in practical Godliness: correct teaching is renewal of mind, rebirth is "the experience of justification", the Palmdale Conference consensus statement on RBF between The GC and Ford's Australasian Division, in 1976 (published in the Review). Such an "experience" is the rebirth of RBF! - Ford swore blind he never actually agreed to that truth on justification - holding to his defeated line: "The Gospel is justification only!" - "the experience of justification" is the graceous powerbase of obedience.

Last week the lesson was within a hair's breadth of reiterating the truth of Palmdale. The Adventist church has been grossly silent on that truth since Kenneth Wood retired in'83...pushing neo-Fordian k]legal justification and rebirth in sanctification - which isn't Biblical, whatever Ford says.

NO IT DOESN'T...As I just clarified for Tom, justification is "participation" in Christ's death, resurrection and life of righteousness, as quite possibly expressed toward the end of this daily page of the lesson. Pardon of sin is only half the story of justification by faith: the other half is renewal of the mind. Only thereby can sanctification actually happen each day - in which we work spiritually with God, so cannot, may not, assist in performing renewal of our own mind...which is verily the experience of justification.

On the "God reconciled with us" debate: surely, Daryl, that was a typo which didn't jump out as not sounding right because it doesn't sound wrong at a glance? - and is right in a sense...as Rosangela has suggested, despite no mention in Scripture - it's not of salvific urgency!

On the sacrifice of atonement, the lesson quietly & correctly identifies wrath as the punishment & suffering of Christ: "expiation" means wrath wasn't suffered because God isn't wrath against sin - the word defines God by what sort of sacrifice of atonement is required to atone for us, reconcile us to God, as Christ died for our sins. Propitiation, perhaps generally the least used word in the English language, is critical in understanding the atonement by Christ: it involves suffering the wrath of God against sin. Different Bible translations and theologians pick whichever of these two words expresses their view of "wrath or no wrath, that is the question".

While the Quarterly wasn't exactly clear on this difference between these words - googling them together brings several studies of the meanings, the truth of wrath was firmly stated and there was no space to sort out expiation & propitiation properly.

The pervasive love of God was quite clearly & rightly the conclusion of the week!

no, my brother, it certainly was not meant cynical, but honest. when people tried to tell me God was love, after the way they behaved, in addition to the emphasis on Gods wrath on sinners, etc, i did not have a good picture of God. i did not want to go to heaven. what on earth for?! God was just waiting to get me every time i did something wrong.

lest you think i am in a minority here, let me disabuse you of that!!

i run into many who see only a punishing, vindictive God-in the sda church. some who seem willing to kill to keep this picture of "god".

now, i have only recently heard the words "penal substitution" and am mostly watching, reading, learning, whats going on. my basic understanding now is that i was going to die, but Jesus came and lived and died so that i dont have to.

but that wrath-of-God thing was the main focus of many, and what i picked up and i cant say i particularly understood the atonement, except for bits and pieces. i understand it much better due to my personal studies, now.

as for finding the love of God in the church? never in life would have happened!! i see a lot of counterfeits, and believe me, people with my background spot it a mile away!! all superficiality and nothing underneath!

but God was/is good. it took Him decades to get through to me, but He did, through this person, that person, inspiring me to ask Him to cleanse me of all tradition i had picked up from the church-sda-and my parents, reading my bible over and over and over and over again until i had it pretty well down, besides i dont know how much else.

but if you have always known a God of love, caring and compassion in your understanding i am very happy for you, and others like you.

you understood what i said quite well, my brother!!

I'm glad to see teresaq responded. I read through her posts, and didn't see anything sarcastic in them. She seems to be a real straight shooter. (I'm assuming she's a she; not sure). At any rate, I'm glad to see my suspicions were correct.

You say "the SDA position," which seems like a strange thing to write. I'm only quoted from SDAs (with one exception, Greg Boyd) to establish the position I've been sharing! Waggoner, in particular, who has "heavenly credentials" presented a position which is identical, as far as I can tell, to what I've been presenting. Fifield and Gibson are also SDAs.

I really can't understand why you refer to authority on these points. If ever the expression "he who lives in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" applied, it is to you, given your views regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit, viz a viz the Trinity. I never have referred to authority in our conversations regarding your ideas on these points.

The only authority is truth. Truth is not established by SDAs in official positions. What was, and has been, the official SDA position regarding 1888? Or the Trinity? It seems disingenuous of you to bring this up, given how you view their positions in regards to these topics. It's OK for you to have an "unofficial" position in regards to the Trinity, or 1888, but it's not OK for me to have an "unofficial" position in regards to the atonement?

Regarding getting your head around my position, it's very simple. I can make a presentation from either Scripture, or the SOP. I'll use the SOP here, but a very similar argument can be made from Scripture:



The problem of man was being deceived by Satan in regards to God's character. This deception led man to distrust God, which in turn led him to sin, which led to guilt, and further misunderstanding of God's character, and further distrust of God, and further sin, etc. Here we have a vicious cycle of the worst sort. How should this be counteracted?

Since the root of the problem was believing lies regarding God's character, it follows that the root solution is believing the truth. So Christ came to reveal the truth. What's the truth? The truth is that God is non-violent, completely, and that He would rather permit His creatures to do whatever they wished than to save Himself.

The SOP says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission on earth was the "revelation of God" in order to "set men right." This isn't difficult to understand, once we correctly identify the problem.

Regarding 105373, I agree.

Regarding "propitiation," this again gets to what one sees the problem as being. Is the problem God's wrath? Or is the problem man's rebellion? (or perhaps both).

I don't see God's wrath as a problem that needed to be solved. As Fifield puts it:



Waggoner comments: