I am perhaps much blessed by God not to have faced superficial love from fellow Christians at parish level which put me off God himself, or that sort of thing.

You aren't hinting at legalists, are you? Determined to follow the rules and considering laxity on that regime treason to the cause. My past is traumatic, but flooded with grace: raised by my father, a former South African advocate (lawyer) and theology graduate (SDA's Helderberg College), in the midst of a wide family of relatives, while blessed with full health, etc. God clarified RBF for me before I got to analyse the main Adventist "alternatives", chiefly the "historic 'legalists'": they weren't bad, I found, as they are countering liberal theology which is the real danger.

"God's wrath against sinners" isn't Gospel, let alone Biblical, so someone spread bad news: God's wrath is against sin, since his love is for sinners, both expressed by God in Christ in his life and death - expressed also in last week's lesson. Yes the cross of Christ manifested both mercy and justice, grace and wrath, wrath against sin.

As for propitiation, Tom: it is a misrepresentation indeed of God's wrath to portray him as against sinners, but it is Biblical truth that he is wrath against sin, making the sacrifice of the atonement a propitiation nonetheless.

If he wants to refute the penal substitution theory, he should address what it says, not what it does not say.
John Stott, 22 years ago, already said that seeing the atonement as “a sacrifice to appease an angry God, or that the cross was a legal transaction in which an innocent victim was made to pay the penalty for the crimes of others” as being “neither the Christianity of the Bible in general nor of Paul in particular” and further that “it is doubtful if anybody has ever believed such a crude construction” (The Cross of Christ, p. 172) Even John Calvin himself says that "our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us”. (Institutes II 16:4).

As I have said innumerable times, God’s wrath is not against the sinner, but against sin. Sin is a crime, an offense against the constitution of God’s kingdom (His law). Offenses against the constitution of a kingdom affect the whole kingdom; they threaten the good order and happiness of the whole jurisdiction of the King. Therefore, sin cannot just be ignored - it must be judged. However, when it is judged by God, it must obviously be condemned. The problem is that the condemnation of sin causes in the sinner such a weight of guilt that it crushes him. That's why it is said that the penalty of the law is death. Sin must be judged and the law upholded, however this would lead the sinner to death. Thus, God judged sin in Christ, so that the sinner need not die.

"Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of Justice. What a price for heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. ...
"The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the non-execution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the avenger of justice, which is the habitation and foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law, He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude and justice and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen....
”The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute.
"Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him." {21MR 194, 195}

The truth on atonement may be disputed in Christiandom among several options, but the explanation I'm familiar with and hold to be the best is that held by the church generally, as expressed in this Quarter's lesson, thus my reference to "the SDA position" is to a general agreement, not an authoritarian line. I consider Adventist beliefs generally to be truth, with those few exceptions like Christ's humanity etc. - atonement not included.

So maybe as many disagreeing with the church's position on atonement as differ on eg. the humanity of Christ? - quoting church leaders of the past and the present: those quotes only cover some of the whole story, and don't deal with the rest of the picture properly, so I challenge that view on "the rest"...

Differences over controverted doctrine for me is about establishing Adventist clarity of message, as the remnant message movement, rather than simply having a collection of truths. Thus, my study focusses on our church pioneers, including EGW of course, following a Bible study - like on propitiation, which turns on the word wrath, not the word itself. Together this literary heritage teaches the position on the atonement I've read from many authors over the years, so that propitiation, as a case in point, holds sway, Bible first, SOP next, others, too.

Regarding the "historic Adventist" legalism, I'm not sure it's not worse than the liberal theology. It's really, really difficult to convince the legalist of his need for grace. Otoh, the liberal, oftentimes, is convinced of his need of it, and unless he actually refuses to overcome some specific sin (i.e., is resisting the Holy Spirit in some specific way) the fact that he thinks victory of sin is not theoretically possible may not be fatal.



There's no problem with the idea that God is angry at sin. Both Gibson and Fifield speak to this at length, which I've quoted. Regarding the Waggoner quote, if one simply exchanges "sin" for "sinner," his logic doesn't change any.

Rosangela, if there's something specific that I quoted from Ty Gibson that you disagreed with, you could quote that, and we could discuss it. Did you agree with his two-party concept as opposed to three-party?



I agree with this. So do the other parties I've quoted (most specifically Ty Gibson, since we're discussing his quote here).



Since sin causes such a weight of guilt that it crushes the sinner, what's needed is to separate him from the sin that leads to his death. This is exactly what Waggoner said in the quote I cited for Colin.

Regarding what happened, Ty writes:



Do you agree with this? This brings up the point of God's "holy hatred of sin," and that God was "not pounced upon with hostility," are were points you have been making.



This deals with the relationship between sin and death.



This brings up the need to be separated from sin, although not as explicitly here as in the Waggoner quote, although he deals with this in detail in other places. Basically the logic Ty is using is that sin leads to death (for the reason you pointed out, that's its guilt crushes us) so it is necessary for to be freed from sin, and the only way this can happen is for us to behold the truth regarding sin, ourselves, and God. I can quote other sections of what he has written which deal with this.

i would say, my brother, one extreme is just as deadly as the other. its that narrow path we need to be on and the one that would counter both errors.

again, i am glad you had a different experience!

On which Adventist path do we find all attributes of Jesus taught? The liberal left, the mainstream, or the conservative? The straight and narrow is the only way to go, but Herb Douglass among others has helped me to realise that the Bible and SOP teachings are best preserved by the conservatives in our midst, testing each and every proponent all the while.

The systematic theology chapter on Herb Douglass in "Cross- currents of Adventist Christology" on the At Issue link from www.sdanet.org explains that conservative narrow path, here: http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/webster/ccac05-IIa.htm Yes, the humanity of Christ part of the Gospel directly affects the Gospel goal, as the neighbouring chapters on Douglass show. Oh, that may not be of interest to you...

I was going to say just that. Since you already did, I'll just say, "Ditto."

On the cross, we see God's love for the sinner and His hatred for sin, all at once.

The drunkard may eventually see his need of salvation, but the proud feels no need.

I haven't read that. Maybe get to it one of these days.

But from what I have read, I like A. Leroy Moore's stance on the conservative/liberal divide.