Your argument, Bob, is that because so many denominations agree with a certain viewpoint, it must be the case that the Bible is clear on this point? You seem to recognize the fallacy of this reasoning as you bring up, and rightly so, the Sabbath as a counter example. Both the point of view you've been expressing in regards to the meaning of Christ's death (you've only mentioned one thing among many that Christ accomplished by His death, by the way) have more to do with tradition than with clarity in Scripture.

While I agree with your conclusion (that Scripture is clear as to why Christ died), I think a better way of reaching this conclusion is simply to consider the consequences of assuming the converse. That is, let's assume the Scriptures are not clear. What does that imply?

My argument is that those non-SDA denominations did not get their ideas about subtitutionary atonement from the dreams and visions of Ellen White, so when we look at the texts given here that point to that very conclusion - we can not assume that one really needs the visions of Ellen White to get there rather than just the Bible.

My argument with Sabbath is that no matter how clear a point is from the Bible - it does not mean that all will recognize it.

Certainly an interesting discussion could be had with Christians of all groups abouth whether their view of a given Bible doctrine is based more on tradition than an objective exegetical review of the text.

In any case - it is clear that Ellen White's visions are in agreement with this same substitutionary atonement concept I point to in these texts and that other non-SDA groups point to as well. If the argument is that all this agreement is being benefitted by long standing Christian tradition that just so happens to agree with what Ellen White saw in vision - then so be it. I suppose that too is possible. But in my own view - I think the texts point to it.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, it astounding that He didn't clearly explain why He had to die. It also astounding that Moses didn't clearly explain it, or any other Bible writer, for that matter.


1. The long history of debate over this very issue makes it clear to me that it wasn't clear to everyone prior to God explaining it "clearly" to His Remnant Church through means of His vessel chosen for this very purpose (i.e. to clearly explain the truth).

2. The debate still wages within Christendom to this day. There are some who are in agreement with the explanation God shared with His Remnant Church through the gift and calling of Ellen White.

PS - The key word here is "clearly". I agree it is implied or alluded to in the Bible, but it is not so clearly explained so as to circumvent centuries of debate and doubt.

The problem is they may have gotten it from some other source besides the Bible.



I agree, both with your point and your argument to establish that point.



This applies to our denomination as well.





I think it's clear that you think that Ellen White's visions are in agreement with the concept you presented, and I would also agree that other non-SDA groups have a similar concept to what you shared. However, your concept could be wrong, but it could still be the case that the Bible clearly teaches why Christ had to die. I think it's a mistake to formulate an argument which is dependent upon how you view things.

What I'm suggesting is that we can consider the proposition that the Bible is not clear regarding why Christ had to die (the converse of MM's assertion) as see what the implications of that are. If the implications are unacceptable, then we can reject MM's assertion, regardless of what our particular views on the subject are.

I've mentioned two things which would follow from MM's suggestion:

1.Before Ellen White, nobody understood, on the basis of something inspired, why Christ had to die.
2.Even now non-SDA's do not understand why Christ had to die, since they don't have her writings to rely upon, unless they got their understanding from some uninspired source.

I rewrote them slightly. I think the way I've put them here is clearer than how I wrote them before.

Another implication that comes to mind is that if Ellen White is clear on this vital topic, but Scripture is not, then she sort of becomes the greater light, and Scripture the lesser light, so when we speak of the lesser light pointing to the greater light we would have a totally different meaning.

Bob, are you saying you've heard of Christians who disagree that the fourth commandment commanded the Jews to observe the seventh-day Sabbath on Saturday? If so, please post the online links so I can see it for myself. Thank you.


The original underlying purpose behind the question that serves as the title for this thread (it was imported from a different thread) was to prove or to disprove the penal substitution view of why Jesus had to die. Tom is convinced neither the Bible nor the SOP endorse it. I agree with you that both do, but I'm not as sure as you are that it is "clearly" explained in the Bible.

Ellen wrote:


These are the clearest inspired statements there are in support of the penal substitution view. Tom, however, believes they clearly disprove it.

Tom, I slipped in a response to your post while you were busy responding to Bobryan.

PS - I should add that dullness on the part of the disciples probably accounts for why Jesus did not clearly explain why He had to die.

This is wrong, MM, and it is because of carelessness in these sorts of assertions that I ask you to quote things. The thread which spawned this question was the one about whether or not understanding is necessary to obey God. The post I got it from is #108453.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss your assertion that Scripture does not clearly teach why Jesus Christ had to die. I see no need to discuss Ellen White quotes to do so.

It is not the purpose of this thread to discuss any of my assertions or views. Please don't derail this thread. It's purpose is to discuss your idea that Scripture does not clearly teach why Christ had to die. There are other threads, several in fact, which deal with the Penal Substitution view. I don't think we need to go into detail about that here.

Thanks.

This is assuming, of course, that Jesus did not clearly explain why He had to die. It's pretty amazing to me the one could think that Jesus would neglect to explain such a vital topic. We have pages upon pages of teachings from Jesus. None of these teachings deal with His death?

I am saying that we have everything under the sun being proposed for Ex 20 including "they were told to worship one day in seven and they just so happened to pick Saturday" - to "the seven days of creation week are not the same as what the 4th commandment says" to "the commandments remain valid -- but not the 4th one" to "nine of the commandments are moral - the 4th commandment is ceremonial"...

Etc.

in Christ,

Bob

I agree that she does a nice job of grouping the points together - but they are all in scripture.

BTW -- please post the link where your quote of Ellen White above was the text used to argue against substitutionary atoning sacrifice.

Heb 10:4-5 -- no value in animal blood
Heb 9 - without the shedding of blood no forgiveness of sins
1Cor 5 -- Christ our passover has been slain
Col 2:14-15 -- Christ nailed our "certificate of DEBT to the cross" NASB
Is 53 He took the stroke of punishment for US to whom the "stroke was due"
1 John 2:2 "His is the Atoning Sacrifice for Our SINS and not for our SINS only but for the SINS of the whole world"
And of course as Ellen White notes "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6 and in Rev 20 we see that "second death" punishment that is "the wages of sin". Because it is the one where the wicked are tormented in "fire and brimstone".

1. We get no doctrine at all from Ellen White -- we get it all Sola Scriptura according to FB#1.

2. Ellen White's statements above are very concise paraphrased versions of what we find in scripture on these key points.

3. Because it is so clearly stated in scripture -- it is to be expected that many other Christian denominations would also get this point -- without any need to read Ellen White.

In Christ,

Bob