Well - there is that John 6 thing...

in Christ,

Bob

This sounds like there may be some confusion here. First of all, I'm the one arguing against the penal view, not MM. Secondly, I agree that Christ was a substitutionary atoning sacrifice, just not with the typical penal explanation as to why (or perhaps, more accurately, what this means). I agree with what Waggoner wrote when he said:



I added "(or sin)".

I'm not really wanting to use this thread to discuss this, however, but I'm quite happy to discuss this further with you if you'd like. Just let me know, and I'll bump a thread discussing this. Or could do it yourself by doing a search on the word "penal."

In the quote of Waggoner we see one glaring error simply "inserted" and we see one stellar point of insight regarding the term "propitiation" and "appeasement".

1. Waggoner apparently inserts that man decided to have the sacrifice of Christ... as innexplicable as that logic is...

2. But Waggoner is correct to complain about the "propitiation" translation -- it really should be exactly as the NIV has it "Atoning Sacrifice" because in the model of Atonment "God so LOVED that HE GAVE..." but in propitiation-appeasement "Christ so suffered that the angry deity finally relented".

Waggoner is correct to notice the mistranslation -- but is wrong to simply insert the idea that humans came up with this solution.

As Ellen White points out - Adam and Eve found the solution to be horrific.

in Christ,

Bob

Waggoner was arguing against a viewpoint he felt was false. Where to you think he was asserting man decided to have the sacrifice of Christ? Please quote where you think he was doing this.



I agree completely with the idea that God so love that He gave. Here's a nice EGW quote that touches on the distinction that you're raising:





It's not really so much a mistranslation as a wrong idea as to what the issue is. The correct translation is actually "mercy seat." The only translation I'm aware of that has it right is Young's Literal Translation:



The word is actually "hilasterion," which means "mercy seat," just as Young's has it. Although I'm not aware of any other translations that have it right, I haven't checked all of them, so perhaps some other one does.



Again, Waggoner was arguing against an idea he thought was false. He didn't assert that humans came up with the solution. Not at all. I don't understand why you think this is the case.

Again, the operative word here is "clearly". And, yes, Jesus did not clearly explain to His disciples why He had to die. Long years of debate and disagreement is proof Jesus did not clearly explain it. Nor did any other Bible writer. Yes, it is implied, but it is not so clear as to prevent any debate or disagreement.

PS - Tom, it is difficult to discuss why Jesus had to die without including the penal substitution aspect of it. Law and justice requires God to execute the death penalty the instant people sin. The law does not provide pardon. It either condones or condemns sinners. Only God can pardon and save sinners. In this regard the law is not a transcript of God's character.

"For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The death penalty would have been executed in the day they sinned had Jesus not implemented the plan of salvation. Listen:

Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the son of God (Ibid., March 14, 1878). {1BC 1104.5}

Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case?--Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made. {1BC 1082.6}

Bob, I am reposting this post for your convenience:


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.

We're not discussing what Jesus explained to His disciples, only what we see in Scripture. Of course, Jesus explained many things to them which are not recorded in Scripture, so we can't really comment on that.



No it's not. Bob's argument regarding the Sabbath refutes this idea.



Again, you're suffering under a false assumption here, which is that the understanding of spiritual things which is that if something is clearly written it will be understood. As Bob pointed out, the Scripture is clear regarding the Sabbath, yet there has been much debate and disagreement regarding this.

I know you think that the SOP was clear about this, as opposed to Scripture, which you think wasn't, but you're criteria, applied to her writings would have her categorized as not clear as well. There have been long years of debate and disagreement regarding why Christ had to die viz a viz her writings, for over 50 years I think. So, again, if that's the criteria we use to determine whether or not an inspired writing is clear or not, we would be constrained to conclude that no inspired writing is clear on this subject.



I understand that for someone like yourself, operating from the paradigm you have, would have difficulty doing so, so I'm not objecting to the subject coming up here, just to the topic being derailed. Let's remember the topic is if Scripture is clear as to why Jesus Christ had to die. As long as we're discussing penal substitution in this context, that's fine. If you wish to discuss whether or not it is true, let's bring up another thread for that, which already discusses this, OK?

I was referring to this -



When Waggoner argues "we require the sacrifice not God" the conclusion I drew was that he was arguing that we in some way insisted on this as being the solution for sin -- when in fact it is God that insists that this substitutionary atoning sacrifice model is the only satisfactory solution for sin.

I suppose it is possible that Waggoner is simply saying that in God's providence the solution for sin needed to save mankind - was the substitutionary atonement process that He alone devised.

To which I would asy - that since it is a system of atonement and not appeasement - the term propitiation is not as accurate as "Atoning Sacrifice" NIV 1John 2:2.

in Christ,

Bob

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.



My reference to Exodus 20:8-11 and clarity was to point out that all the texts that speak to the subject of Sabbath are clear

Is 66 in the New Heaven and New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath... Shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship". Showing the eternal unnending nature of Sabbath with the "scope" being "all mankind"

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was Made for MANKIND not mankind Made for the Sabbath" speaking to the making of both -- in Gen 1-2:3 Showing the origin "making" of the Sabbath and the scope to be all "mankind".

Exo 20:8-11 showing the Sabbath memorial to be moral code in the heart of the 10 commandments - affirming both the summary of Creation week as a literal 7 day event and affirming the Sabbath as a pre-sin pre-salvation concept applicable at the level of moral law.

-----------------

My point stated in brief was that no matter how clear this is in scripture -- not all will agree to it (due to the flaws in human nature - not a flaw in the text).

In Christ,

Bob