That sin is a terrible thing that God wants to cleanse out of our lives is true.

That we are justified by grace outside of the works of the law is also true

It seems we are getting bogged down into the age old battle of pitting the justifying without works of the law, against the work of the Holy Spirit in cleansing our lives.

It's the age old battle of turning this into an either/or confrontation. When two truths are pitted against each other, error soon gains.

Right now, we are trying to establish the meaning of justification when a person first comes to Christ.

Personally I'm not totally comfortable in accepting what Waggonner or Fifield, said as the final word. Waggonner had precious truth in 1888, but Waggonner also had pantheistic concepts that were NOT TRUTH by the mid 1890's. This transition didn't occur suddenly but crept in gradually. If I remember correctly "Glad Tidings" came out in 1900, 12 years after 1888. When it was re-published more recently, the more obvious "pantheistic" concepts were edited out. So, while a lot of the "precious truth" may still be there, there is also NON-TRUTH in that book.
Fifield, I don't know about, according to EGW his preaching was blessed by God in 1890 -- his book was published in 1897 -- he could have been mislead by the subtle pantheistic ideas that flourished in Battle Creek in the late 1890's as well -- I DON'T KNOW.

But it appears to me that any teaching that denies the need of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins has moved from truth into something else.

We are not speaking of the PAGAN CONCEPT here, of a vengeful God that has to be appeased by spilt blood.

Again this is not an either/or situation,
It's not -- either it's the pagan view, or the "blood not needed for forgiveness" view.

We are talking about God Himself, for God the Father was suffering along with Christ, taking the penalty and making the sacrifice demanded by the transgressed law in man's behalf.



"Gen. 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Eph. 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the beloved.
1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Col. 1:13 Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

What do we see in these statements:

Christ has redeemed us through His blood.
That redemption through His blood gives us forgiveness.
Christ's death brings eternal life to those who lived under the first or old testament.

It is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Lev. 17:11.

Now if there was no heavenly need for the blood in order to forgive sins -- why this--

Heb. 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Yes, there is the part that deals with cleansing our conscience, but still -- WHY did Christ enter the HEAVENLY SANCTUARY with His blood? And considerable emphases is placed on the fact that He entered the sanctuary with the BETTER BLOOD.

QUOTES:

"He is our interceding High Priest, making an atoning sacrifice for us, pleading in our behalf the efficacy of his blood."

"It was the work of the priest in the daily ministration to present before God the blood of the sin offering, also the incense which ascended with the prayers of Israel. So did Christ plead His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners, and present before Him also, with the precious fragrance of His own righteousness, the prayers of penitent believers. GC421

The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, GC 421


Mercy and forgiveness are the reward of all who come to Christ trusting in His merits to take away their sins. We are cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ Jesus our Saviour. Letter 216, 1906,

Their sins will have been blotted out by the atoning blood of Christ, and they cannot bring them to remembrance. . . . {CC 69.2}

Then I saw Jesus lay off His priestly attire and clothe Himself with His most kingly robes....and now there was no atoning blood to cleanse the guilty, no compassionate Saviour to plead for them, EW 281

You have been redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb. Plead before God the efficacy of that blood.{FLB 100.4}

By faith he pleads the atoning blood of Christ, and grasps the promise of pardon.[FLB 148}

Let perishing souls come to Him just as they are, without one plea, and plead the atoning blood of Christ, and they will find acceptance with God, who dwelleth in glory between the cherubim above the mercy seat. The blood of Jesus is a never-failing passport, by which all your petitions may find access to the throne of God. --"Christian Education" (Supplement), 1893. {FE 251.2}

Thank God that He who spilled His blood for us, lives to plead it, lives to make intercession for every soul who receives Him. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. It speaketh better things than the blood of Abel, for Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us. We need to keep ever before us the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. That life-cleansing, life-sustaining blood, appropriated by living faith, is our hope. We need to grow in appreciation of its inestimable value, for it speaks for us only as we by faith claim its virtue, keeping the conscience clean and at peace with God. {OHC 47.4}
This is represented as the pardoning blood, inseparably connected with the resurrection and life of our Redeemer, illustrated by the ever-flowing stream that proceeds from the throne of God, the water of the river of life. {OHC 47.5}

Colin was right -- it did change my whole position.

Actually I don't think Tom even understood what I was saying, he just reacted to one phrase that he also misunderstood.

Here is the context:



What Tom seems to see in this is the opposite of what I'm saying -- He seems to see it saying that since Christ died to our sins we can go on being alive to sin.

But it's saying the opposite.
In baptism, we unite ourselves with Christ, as we are buried in the waters of baptism it is symbolic of dying with Christ to sin. But it isn't we who literally die, Christ literally died bearing our sins and our sinful nature into the tomb. It was He Who took our sinful natures upon His sinless nature and died the death.

As He was raised to life so we are raised to newness of life through Him.

There is absolutely no way that we can do this ourselves, Christ does it for us. You'll find it all through Paul's writings. BUT OUR PART IS TO RECKON OR CONSIDER OURSELVES DEAD TO SIN.

We must have faith in the fact. The wonderful truth of what Christ did on the cross must be embraced by us by faith.

We are to live a life that considers self dead to sin. Something that is dead is no longer fed. Now obviously sin will still be pulling at us. Sinful habits don't just drop away. Paul continues to admonish the believer --
"Let not sin reign in your mortal body so as to obey the lusts thereof, neither present your members as instruments of unrighteouness to sin. On the contrary, present yourselves to God as alive from the dead and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."
So now, because we RECKON or account ourselve dead to sin, and alive in Christ we make the choice not to let the sin reign anymore. Our will is motivated by the fact that we are "dead to sin" through Christ Who took those sins and died in our place.
Our will is motivated because we know Christ has raised us up with Himself to newness of life.

Christ has picked us up out of the mirey pit of sin, washed us clean with His sin pardoning blood, given us spiritual life.

We have changed masters. We have changed our citizenship.
Before we were servants to sin, but now being freed from sin we become servants of righteousness.



But even though freed from sin, yet sin is constantly trying to get at us and cause us to lose our way. Those who are justified are delivered from the domination of sin and are no longer sin's slaves, but the tyrant still harasses them.

To illustrate --
A tyrant is in control of a castle.
A strong man comes and casts him out of the castle, but the tyrant still attacks the castle from the outside.

When we accept Christ's death to OUR sins, as our own death to sin, and are alive in Christ, renewed in our minds to spiritual life, we have by the power of Christ's death ousted sin from our control center. But the mortal body still clamors to indulge. Thus the command, don't let sin reign in your mortal body.

We must remember, we are DEAD to sin through Christ, and ALIVE in Christ. Thus we must not let sin reign in our mortal bodies.

I don't think it's quite that bad, as far as I can make out. Whatever appearances are at the moment - in this thread, it could be that Tom means we turn from sinfulness to righteousness by a conscious choice agreeing that God in Christ is love, but without actually dying to sin spiritually by faith. That's how he appears to interpret his favourite quotes, which though they say pretty much the same thing, are, at least in EGW's case, only half the story she herself tells - as Dedication has just proved.

It could be he supports Christ's substitution for us including our death to sin, since he managed to say he believes in that substitution: just not clear what he believes that substitution does.

Yes, I know sinners cannot turn from sin to God and be made righteous by justification by faith without dying to sin by grace through faith in Christ's death. Tom just doesn't argue that at all, offering the alternative of being convinced of God's love in Christ and being reconciled, that is justified, by that conviction. This lacks all the content of those miriad of texts Dedication supplied just now....

We remain somewhat confused.

I'm also not sure how Tom's view differs from that of the moral influence theory. He says it does, but I'm not sure how. Perhaps, Tom, you can spell it out. Thanx.

No -- I don't think Tom believes we can go on being alive to sin. What I was saying above is that is what it seems Tom was thinking I was saying, but which I was NOT saying.

However it does create concern, -- his misunderstanding that it is Christ taking our sins and our sinful nature upon His sinless nature and dying in our place; which when we accept and experience in its reality, allows us to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ, and frees us from the dominion of sin.

Colin, as I pointed out, I don't think there's any difference in what we believe regarding both what happens individually and corporately. Where we differ, as far as I can tell, has to do with the legal question. I don't see that God did anything He wouldn't have done anyway because of any legal issues.

I don't know why you should be confused, when I believe the same thing you do. That has me confused.

You've read "Christ Our Righteousness," haven't you? You agree with what Waggoner writes, don't you? So do I.

No, it was based on what was stated, which I quoted. I'll quote it again:





This is false twice. First of all, it's logically false. You're saying that because that Lucifer wasn't reinstated means no information is given as to how God would reinstate Lucifer. This is a logically false argument. There are plenty of counter-examples to disprove your argument. To name one, in Deuteronomy, God gives detail as to what would have happened had Israel had they been obedient. So there's an example of information being given regarding an event even though it didn't happen.

The other reason that it's false is that God did give information as to how Lucifer would have been reinstated. In 4SP, I think.



I think turning a deaf ear is pretty shaky ground.

The facts don't support this. Ellen White continued to endorse both Jones and Waggoner strongly throughout the mid-1890's.

For example, she speaks of "the messages sent from heaven" and "the truth of the heaven-sent message." in what looks to be 1898.

Regarding "The Glad Tidings," it's been alleged that there is pantheism in that book, but simply alleging something doesn't make it true. I haven't seen any evidence of it. If you want to produce some passage you think it pantheistic, we could discuss it.

In regards to the subject we were discussing, in Galatians 3, the same arguments were presented in the pamphlet Waggoner passed out to the 1888 delegates, "The Gospel in Galatians."



There's no reason not to know; just read what he wrote:





It's possible to see something in a different way than you do and not be denying truth. For example, neither Waggoner, nor Fifield, nor myself denies the need of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sin. I just don't think Anselm had the right understanding as to why. I think Fifield did.



The pagan concept extends beyond the narrow formation you're giving to it. Here's a comment from Waggoner:



I agree completely with Waggoner. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible. Take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God.

No, Tom, I don't swear by Waggoner's literature, to quote it instead of speaking for myelf. On any good, reliable scholarship, in our church, I learn from it and speak for myself.

When do you speak for yourself, instead of relying on select quotes from a select few authors, as especially EGW can be swisted if not quoted thoroughly.

Where's your Bible study, like Dedication has done, here, proving her case, which I fully support with MM..., but you can't seem to understand?!