On the cross, do we see Christ's love for the sinner and His hatred for sin all at once?

I still see problems with viewing the atonement in legal terms.
For example, if atoning means expiation, or paying our legal debt, and our legal debt is death, then wouldnt Christ have needed to stay dead in order to pay our debt? Since He didnt stay dead whose life has paid for our sins?

Rosangela, or anyone who disagrees with what Tom has been presenting here, what is Jesus doing now in heaven? In what way is he a mediator for us? Is He in heaven pleading with the Father to forgive us? The problem is God in this position. And we are just glad we have Jesus there to protect us from that wrath right?

I believe so. I don't think there's any difference.

lol, no, his book may be very good, but it is basically his opinion. as for preserving, yes, it would seem the conservatives would do that.

but Jesus was seen as a liberal by the conservatives, you know healing on the sabbath, his disciples eating the corn, or "reaping", etc. then he was seen as a conservative by the liberals. yet He was walking the straight and narrow. our best example. que no?

but it seems those who go deeper while not throwing away the core are the best.....

since you mentioned the man.........he is one person i have read parts of since i appreciate what i have seen of him on sdanet.

so to all:
he brings up the point, that im not going to say exactly right, but that the atonement is not based on the roman justice system, but the hebraic system.

so which system is the penal .... theory based on? i forgot what it is called. sorry. something to consider, anyway.

I agree! What did Christ do on the cross so that we can see His hatred of sin?

That He, the Author of life, would lay it down in order to eradicate sin. That's pretty extreme, I think.

Yes: no, that's as extreme as it gets! Purposes, purposes: that "the Author of life" (that's EGW's phrase, isn't it) lay down his eternal life is our source of eternal life,...the very point of where our eternally redemptive eternal life comes from that she wrote about in Signs of the Times, which was excerpted in DA 530.

The demonstration of hatred of sin was both the death of God's Son, and the separate suffering of actual & effectively eternal separation (he couldn't see the resurrection morning when he died) from his Father, for our sake: love was willing to suffer.

Actually, no: it's not his book - which you may have spotted by now, it's a doctoral thesis by Pastor Eric Webster of South Africa (now retired a while), on Ellen White, Ellet Waggoner, Edward Heppenstall and Herbert Douglass, showing Ted (that's Edward to everyone, I hope!) was the odd man out on Christology, the others all taking, NOT towing, the same line on Christ's humanity and salvation for us.

BTW, it was Moore, not Douglass, you'd spotted some of on sdanet, eh: Moore contributes, Herb doesn't; I don't anymore.

Those political wings were so out of kilter I don't know whether it's more funny or sad!

I personally try to avoid political terminology, since it can leave the impression (rightly perhaps) that all groups are true Adventism, which isn't necessarily true, at all. What is the teaching of Bible and SOP, and the church's position early on and later on?

Absolutely, HMS Richards described Adventism in a radio interview as "Jesus only", though, of course, who one takes him to be and what one does with him makes all the difference, as http://qod.andrews.edu shows - that's the Andrews University website, it it's at all in doubt.

I agree. The eradication of sin is something which takes place in the individual believer, isn't it?