No, it's not false claims, Tom: it's talking past each other, repetitively. You philosophise "shedding of blood" to try to understand it better, when everyone is clear Christ died for sin for us. Philosophy is helpful, but is a very minor detail, since faith is theological...

You have countered wording expressing believers dying to sin by faith in the death of Christ, and it's left us with little idea of your view of how we should die to sin other than admiring God's agape...! You have virtually no statement, your own or quoted, which speaks to death to self, etc. That the rest of us take it for granted, while not forgetting the importance that God has revealed his love in Christ, leaves you behind the flow, it appears.

You counter Dedication's clear, general statements with minor issues while not taking time to agree with her - philosophical points should not defeat theological, soteriological truths.

This is too long an article to comment on the whole thing, but I'd be happy to discuss any portion of it that is quoted.

I'll make a couple of general comments:



I don't know anybody of whom this would be true. That is, this statement is a straw man, as those who hold an anti-Anselmian view of the atonement (this is more accurate than the phrase "Moral Influence scholar," which I'll get to in a moment) are quick to point out that God's holiness demands that He hate sin, for the very reason that it destroys His creatures, whom He loves.

I've found that in discussing alternatives to Anselm/Calvin that many (actually, almost all) seem unaware that there are actually quite a few models of the atonement. They seem to think there are two, what they believe, and "the Moral Influence Theory." So any view of the atonement which denies Anselm is characterized as "the Moral Influence theory." I've repeatedly explained that this view is not what I've been advocating, and explained why, yet I keep seeing references to it in the context of things I've said. This is despite that fact that I've posted regarding "Christus Victor."

A second point is that the author didn't quote anybody, a shortcoming I find here as well. Instead of arguing against what people actually believe, a straw man is created, and that is argued against. This happens on both sides of issues like this, so I'm not wishing to single him out, but suggesting the best way of dealing with issues like this is to actually quote what someone has said, and do so with enough context so the essential points can be understood, and *then* make some sort of argument.

I know next to nothing about Dodd's theology, but from a brief perusal of the internet, it seems to me to have more in common with "Christus Victor" than the Moral Influence theory. For example, Dodd emphasizes the use of Ps. 110 in understanding Jesus' mission, which point the author of the Christus Victor article I posted also made. So this looks like it may be an example of "if the guy doesn't believe what I do, then it's 'The Moral Influence theory.'"

I've seen this same error made in regards to A. Graham Maxwell's ideas. A. Graham Maxwell wrote the Commentary for Romans in the 50's I think. He was certainly aware of atonement theories, and never claimed to believe in the Moral Influence theory. In spite of this, people continue to ignorantly label him that way.

Yes, the legal points are indeed critical..., hence other disagreements.

Your question about the highlighted bit...: not all redeemed come to a knowledge of the Bible, is what you're emphasising? Out of context her words themselves mean we don't die to sin when it is an experience of faith, indeed? The whole sentence says that we die to sin by faith, not having to do so physically ourselves - as Rom 7:4 says. You do agree with my last sentence, here?

You turned a general principle as generally understood into a minor discussion of those who don't get to hear the Bible, ever..., yet are saved by God in his judgement of them. That's not a disagreement with the general principle, so why make it sound like one?? Unless I haven't followed your separate train of thought?!

The legal issue is of concern, too.

The legal issues you see as Christ overcoming the deception of the Devil and so revealing the truth of God which truth sets us free of the tyranny of deception: God is revealed and the fear of death due to sin and the law is dealt with? Also there is no pitting of Father against Son in this redemption model - would that involve no separation between them, at Calvary, or only not in the moment of death?

What other ones are you thinking of? Actually, I can think of another area we differ on. I see death as the natural result of sin, whereas it appears you see it as the result of an arbitrary action on God's part ("arbitrary" meaning "due to individual discretion" not "capricious"), or, perhaps, as a combination of natural and not-natural.

I'm wondering if the legal difference and this difference are actually just two side of the same coin. Intuitively I think they are, as I can't imagine that if one believed that death is the result of sin, without an extra act of God required, that one would have the Anselm idea of the atonement. Conversely, if one holds the Anselm idea, that death is not simply the natural result of sin would seem to follow as well.

So given these go together, does one come before the other? Iow, do you perceive as most important that sin does not result in death, but that God need to take extra action, and then deduce from that that the legal issues must follow (as you perceive them), or do you start with the legal framework, and then deduce that death doesn't naturally result from sin?

Maybe you haven't thought about this, I don't know (in which case you would just see them as two different issues).

If I didn't explain this well enough for you to comment, I'll try again, as I'm very interested in this.



I didn't follow this.



I just pointed out something which was affirmed which is not true. It's not true that to experience newness of life that one must have a certain point of view of the atonement. She expressed things in an Anselmian way (regardless of whether or not she was aware of this) and I'm saying that there are many Christians who do not agree with Anselm's formulation, who, nevertheless experience newness of life.

Experiencing newness of life depends upon responding the Holy Spirit as He leads us to repentance -- not upon our accepting that something is counted in some way.

Not quite sure what you're asking here, but I take it you're, in general, asking for clarification regarding what I think the legal issues are.

First of all, I stated that I don't believe there are any new issues created by the law, meaning, to state it another way, that the legal issues that there are can be expressed in non-legal terms.

Some of the legal issues which exist are there because of Satan. That is, Satan has expressed arguments against God and His government in legal terms, so they need to be addressed as such. So if Satan makes the claim that it's not possible for man to keep the law in fallen flesh, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. God did this by sending His son in flesh such as ours, and in that flesh condemning sin in the flesh, so that we not need to walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, against which there is no law.

Another legal issue that comes to mind is one of status. Our status is effected when we accept Christ. We are no longer condemned by the law, but become children of the household.

One could also argue that corporately the whole human race changed its status due to the work of Christ (e.g. 1SM 343 -- Christ "restored the entire race of men to favor with God.")



This is a good question. God did not abandon Christ in His worst hour of need, but was actually never closer. He left heaven to be close to His Son. Psalm 18 poetically describes the scene. He made darkness His secret pavilion. The Desire of Ages goes into detail regarding this.

However, although God did not forsake Christ, Christ did feel forsaken, which fact is made clear in Psalm 22. A battle was going on between faith and feelings. His feelings were telling Him He was forsaken, but faith won out (the Psalm describes the battle; it ends in a victorious tone) and Christ, in faith, commended His spirit to the Father.

Sin causes us to believe things about God which aren't true, and this effect of sin is apparent in Christ's experience (as seen in Psalm 22; Psalm 69, 88 are a couple of many others that deal with this as well). Christ, because of His faith, deep knowledge of the Scriptures, and knowing (like "conocer" not "saber," if you know some Spanish) the Father enabled Him to triumph. The wicked won't be able to do so, and their unbelief will result in their suffering and death, all very sad, since so unnecessary.

MR No. 747 - Christ Our Righteousness

I have attended the closing meeting of the ministerial Bible school--a school composed of conference delegates and those who have been attending the ministerial institute. At this meeting several were called upon to say something. Remarks appropriate for the occasion were made by Elders Olsen, Waggoner, Prescott, and Smith; also by Elder Haskell, who has been mercifully preserved during his tour around the world. {9MR 293.1}
I spoke in regard to matters that were deeply impressing my mind. I referred to the fear that had been expressed by some who were not members of the ministerial institute, and who had not been present at all the Bible classes of the school--a fear that there was danger of carrying the subject of justification by faith altogether too far, and of not dwelling enough on the law. {9MR 293.2}
Judging from the meetings that I had been privileged to attend, I could see no cause for alarm; and so I felt called upon to say that this fear was cherished by those who had not heard all the precious lessons given, and that therefore they were not warranted in coming to such a conclusion. None of the members of the class who had been studying the Word to learn "What saith the Scriptures?" entertained any such fear. The Bible, and the Bible alone, has been the subject of investigation in this school. Every lesson has been based, not on the ideas and the opinions of men, but on a plain "Thus saith the Lord." {9MR 293.3}
Many remarks have been made to the effect that in our camp meetings the speakers have dwelt upon the law, the law, and not on Jesus. This statement is not strictly true, but have not the people had some reason for making these remarks? Have not there stood in the desk, as mouthpieces for God, men who had not a genuine experience in heavenly things, men who had not received the righteousness of Christ Jesus? Many of our ministers have merely sermonized, presenting subjects in an argumentative way and scarcely mentioning the saving power of the Redeemer. Not having themselves partaken of the living bread from heaven, their testimony was destitute of nourishment, destitute of the saving blood of Jesus Christ, which cleanseth from all sin. Their offering resembled the offering of Cain. He brought to the Lord the fruit of the ground, which, in itself, was acceptable in God's sight. Very good, indeed, was the fruit, but the virtue of the offering, the blood of Christ, represented by the blood of the slain lamb, was lacking. So it is in Christless sermons. Men are not pricked in the heart; they do not inquire, "What shall I do to be saved?" {9MR 293.4}
In His sacrificial character, Christ reveals Himself as the Bread of Life. "Whoso eateth My flesh," He declared to His disciples, "and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life" (John 6:54). Why is not He presented to the people as the Living Bread? Because He is not abiding in the hearts of many of those who think it their duty to preach the law. Christ is left out of their sermonizing, and from east to west, from north to south, the church has been starving for the bread of life. {9MR 294.1}
Of all professed Christians, Seventh-day Adventists should be foremost in uplifting Christ before the world. Our ministers should ever be able to direct men and women to Christ, to the One who Himself declared, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35). Let those who minister to the spiritual necessities of the people read to them the words of Christ: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51). {9MR 294.2}
The Jews, unable to understand this declaration, "strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you" (Verses 52, 53). {9MR 295.1}
Often there are delivered to the people discourses destitute of the bread of life, the food essential for spiritual growth. Those who have been appropriating for themselves the bread of life, will be able to break it to others. {9MR 295.2}
Christ further declares: "Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him" (Verses 54-56). These words are very similar to those He used in representing Himself as the Vine, and His followers as the branches: "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing" (John 15:4, 5). {9MR 295.3}
How can our people be better helped than by being given the bread of life? And this bread is God's Word; for Christ has said: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). {9MR 295.4}
The law and the gospel, revealed in the Word, are to be preached to the people; for the law and the gospel, blended, will convict of sin. God's law, while condemning sin, points to the gospel, revealing Jesus Christ, in whom "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The glory of the gospel reflects light upon the Jewish age, giving significance to the whole Jewish economy of types and shadows. Thus both the law and the gospel are blended. In no discourse are they to be divorced. {9MR 295.5}
Over the spiritual eyes of altogether too many there has been hanging a veil. Many have been teaching the binding claims of God's law, but have not been able to see to the end of that which was abolished. They have not seen that Jesus Christ is the glory of the law. The bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness are to be reflected from His messengers upon the minds of sinners, in order that they may be led to say, with one of old, "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalm 119:18). {9MR 296.1}
Many of our brethren and sisters do not discern the wondrous things that are to be seen in God's law. They have not beheld that which was revealed to Moses when he prayed, "I beseech Thee, show me Thy glory" (Exodus 33:18). To Moses was revealed God's character. "The Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty" (Exodus 34:5-7). {9MR 296.2}
The apostle John, in his first Epistle, gives the definition of sin. He declares: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). {9MR 296.3}
To Moses, the character of God was revealed as His glory. In like manner, we behold the glory of Christ by beholding His character. Paul says: "We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory [from character to character] even as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:18). {9MR 296.4}
Why, then, is there manifested in the church so great a lack of love, of true, elevated, sanctified, ennobling sympathy, of tender pity and loving forbearance? It is because Christ is not constantly brought before the people. His attributes of character are not brought into the practical life. Men and women are not eating of the Bread that cometh down from heaven. {9MR 297.1}
I have felt very sad as I have seen ministers walking and working in the light of the sparks of their own kindling; ministers who were not obtaining spiritual nourishment from Christ, the Bread of Life. Their own souls were as destitute of the heavenly manna as the hills of Gilboa were destitute of dew and rain. In their hearts Christ was not an abiding presence. How could they speak intelligently of Him whom they had never known by experimental knowledge? {9MR 297.2}
We must see Christ as He is. By the eye of faith we must discern the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. By failing to cherish the Spirit of Christ, by taking wrong positions in the controversy over the law in Galatians --a question that many have not fully understood before taking a wrong position --the church has sustained a sad loss. The spiritual condition of the church, generally, is represented by the words of the True Witness: "Nevertheless," saith the One who loves the souls for whom He has died, "I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love." The position taken by many during the Minneapolis General Conference testifies to their Christless condition. The admonition to every such an one is: "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." {9MR 297.3}
Have not many in this ministerial school seen their mistake of not abiding in Christ? Cannot they have the privilege of repenting, and of doing their first works? Who shall condemn this work of repentance, of confession, of baptism? If some conscientiously feel that their first duty is to repent of their sins, confess them, and be baptized, is not this the first work that they must do? {9MR 297.4}
When precious rays of light from the Sun of Righteousness have shone upon our pathway, some have opened wide the door of the heart, welcoming the Heaven-sent light into the chambers of the soul. They receive the words of Christ Jesus gladly. Others have needed the divine anointing to improve their spiritual eyesight, in order that they may distinguish the light of truth from the darkness of error. Because of their blindness, they have lost an experience that would have been more precious to them than silver and gold. Some, I fear, will never recover that which they have lost. {9MR 298.1}
When strong-minded men once set their will against God's will, it is not easy for them to admit that they have erred in judgment. It is very difficult for such men to come fully into the light by honestly confessing their sins; for Satan has great power over the minds of many to whom God has granted evidence sufficient to encourage faith and inspire confidence. Many will not be convinced, because they are not inclined to confess. To resist and reject even one ray of light from Heaven because of pride and stubbornness of heart, makes it easier to refuse light the second time. Thus men form the habit of rejecting light. {9MR 298.2}
So long had the Jews refused to walk in the light of truth, that they rejected their Saviour. Jesus said of the Jews: "Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). He, the Light of life, came to enlighten every man that comes into the world, so that no man need walk in darkness. The light of truth is constantly shining, but many men and women comprehend it not. And why?--Because selfishness, egotism, pride, blinds their spiritual eyesight. Standing between them and the true light, is the idol of their own opinion. They can see very readily that which they wish to see. Saith the True Witness: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7). "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him" (Psalm 25:14). {9MR 298.3}
My brethren in the ministry, we need Jesus every moment. To lose His love from our hearts means much. Yet He Himself says: "I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" (Revelation 2:4). There is danger of presenting the truth in such a way that the intellect is exalted, leaving the souls of the hearers unsatisfied. A correct theory of the truth may be presented, and yet there may not be manifested the warmth of affection that the God of truth requires every one of His messengers to cherish and manifest. {9MR 299.1}
The religion of many is very much like an icicle--freezingly cold. The hearts of not a few are still unmelted, unsubdued. They cannot touch the hearts of others, because their own hearts are not surcharged with the blessed love that flows from the heart of Christ. There are others who speak of religion as a matter of the will. They dwell upon stern duty as if it were a master ruling with a scepter of iron--a master, stern, inflexible, all powerful--devoid of the sweet, melting love and tender compassion of Christ. Still others go to the opposite extreme, making religious emotions prominent, and on special occasions manifesting intense zeal. Their religion seems to be more of the nature of a stimulus rather than an abiding faith in Christ. {9MR 299.2}
....
Many commit the error of trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. Into the definitions of these two terms they often bring their own ideas and speculations. Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital question of righteousness by faith? Why try to work out every minute point, as if the salvation of the soul depended upon all having exactly your understanding of this matter? All cannot see in the same line of vision. You are in danger of making a world of an atom, and an atom of a world. {9MR 300.4} As the penitent sinner, contrite before God, discerns Christ's atonement in his behalf, and accepts this atonement as his only hope in this life and the future life, his sins are pardoned. This is justification by faith. Every believing soul is to conform his will entirely to God's will, and keep in a state of repentance and contrition, exercising faith in the atoning merits of the Redeemer, and advancing from strength to strength, from glory to glory. {9MR 301.1}
Pardon and justification are one and the same thing. Through faith, the believer passes from the position of a rebel, a child of sin and Satan, to the position of a loyal subject of Christ Jesus, not because of an inherent goodness, but because Christ receives him as His child by adoption. The sinner receives the forgiveness of his sins, because these sins are borne by his Substitute and Surety. The Lord speaks to His heavenly Father, saying: "This is My child. I reprieve him from the condemnation of death, giving him My life-insurance policy--eternal life--because I have taken his place and have suffered for his sins. He is even My beloved son." Thus man, pardoned, and clothed with the beautiful garments of Christ's righteousness, stands faultless before God. {9MR 301.2}
The sinner may err, but he is not cast off without mercy. His only hope, however, is repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the Father's prerogative to forgive our transgressions and sins, because Christ has taken upon Himself our guilt and reprieved us, imputing to us His own righteousness. His sacrifice satisfies fully the demands of justice. {9MR 301.3}
Justification is the opposite of condemnation. God's boundless mercy is exercised toward those who are wholly undeserving. He forgives transgressions and sins for the sake of Jesus, who has become the propitiation for our sins. Through faith in Christ, the guilty transgressor is brought into favor with God and into the strong hope of life eternal. {9MR 302.1}
David was pardoned of his transgression because he humbled his heart before God in repentance and contrition of soul, and believed that God's promise to forgive would be fulfilled. He confessed his sin, repented, and was reconverted. In the rapture of the assurance of forgiveness, he exclaimed, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." The blessing comes because of pardon; pardon comes through faith that the sin, confessed and repented of, is borne by the great Sin-bearer. Thus from Christ cometh all our blessings. His death is an atoning sacrifice for our sins. He is the great medium through whom we receive the mercy and favor of God. He, then, is indeed the Originator, the Author, as well as the Finisher, of our faith.--Manuscript 21, 1891, pp. 1-11. ("Christ our Righteousness," February 27, 1891.)

Doesn't faze me, thanks: obedience to the law is taught explicitly throughout the Bible, and the curse of the law is our problem expressed in the sacrificial, Levitical system - not some pagan, similar, alternative system: that fear of death Christ took away. He substituted himself for our death for sin and for God's judgement over sin. What kind of judgement by God over sin do you see him meting out?



No wonder you picked it out to question it!!!

Why did you at all question that highlighted bit?...........



Here I think I may advise you that you are a theological friend of the SDA church - membership notwithstanding, differing with it on its view of the atonement as you do, and you rubbished its view of salvation, though unintentionally, I think, in dealing with her Bible study.

Dedication was affirming the church's view of the atonement as you so firmly point out, but she wasn't discussing the atonement!! She was rather establishing Christian reality for us - as the SDA church views it, legally and graceously, saying that Christ, by grace, can only relate to us at all if we accept his death as our death - 2 Cor 5:14b; Rom 6:4, from her study, pages ago. That is the spiritual reality, legally, in which the Holy Spirit can then, graceously recreate us with Christ's presence in our lives - a reality, dying and being reborn, you yourself later affirmed, too, as a purely graceous matter!

You appeared to attack the very basis of her understanding of Christian experience, the church's understanding, which I also share, as untrue - "it cannot be", in your quest to harmonise all the atonement thoeries. Your "atonement" debate wasn't understood, was as good as out of context, in the way you presented it.

You introducted atonement theory issues when we were all discussing dying to sin, by grace of Christ through faith in him, so we can be justified at the same time (the rebirth we all thankfully agree on, it seems, by the by!) - the symbolism and experience of adult baptism, and your point was completely, badly, missed. You appeared directly to be attacking the root of Christian renewal - dying daily to self & sin by faith in Christ's death for us. You actually agree with this point itself, in the end, though you hold an alternative atonement teaching.

Let's leave atonement to your own thread on that?!

well, the church also believes, and teaches, the trinity doctrine is biblical!!

One thing at a time, Teresa, please?! In the same vein, Tom's atonement crusade shouldn't sound, here, like a generally agreed belief in dying to sin by faith in Christ's death is "untrue": that shocks, doesn't it? May that argument on atonement options continue on Tom's own thread, for it.

The nature of God, and the church's stance on it, has its own thread, too!